Flattened Man: The Modern Pursuit of Significance Essay

In life, there are many decisions that everyone must make. And with decision-making comes consequences, some that we are ready for , and some that we may not be ready for. The author of ' The Man Who Was Almost a Man,' Richard Wright, portrays a young man who wants to be a man, but shows that he is clearly unprepared for manhood and the consequences that come with that responsibility. Through decision making based on self interest, wanting to gain respect from his family, and wanting to prove his dignity, Richard Wright brings forth the main character, Dave, a seventeen year old boy, whose actions show that he is only 'almost a man.'

A deeper level is achieved in the mind of the narrator when she acknowledges her own mental state and that she is eager to leave her sad mood. While the man is described as animal-like and savage, she stands “In moody sadness, on the giddy brink” (9) full of contemplation and reflection on her own worldview. The poet is quite self-aware while the lunatic is not, and through her intelligent banter, the reader can see the extreme difference in personality. The poet’s own self-conception, however, is ironic in that she is wishing for ignorance that can only be achieved by lack of a self-concept. The catch-22 she experiences is perplexing, both to her and the reader.

Antonin Artaud was an artist who was cursed physically, tormented emotionally, and was constantly walking in the shadow of his childhood ailments. Though his illnesses set him back in many ways, Artaud was ever persistent and dedicated to expressing himself artistically, even if it meant he had to work twice as hard as anyone else to be heard and understood. As such, Artaud’s work in the theater gives us a sense that anything is possible. His writing, directing and conceptualizing are evidence of his inability to be bound or limited in any sort of artistic way. Artaud’s theater is one full of possibilities and unexplored territories. As Artaud himself said, “If there is still one hellish, truly accursed thing in our time, it is our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt at the stake, signaling through the flames.”1

Interpersonal relationships in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot are extremely important, because the interaction of the dynamic characters, as they try to satiate one another's boredom, is the basis for the play. Vladimir's and Estragon's interactions with Godot, which should also be seen as an interpersonal relationship among dynamic characters, forms the basis for the tale's major themes. Interpersonal relationships, including those involving Godot, are generally couched in rope images, specifically as nooses and leashes. These metaphors at times are visible and invisible, involve people as well as inanimate objects, and connect the dead with the living. Only an

There’s no question Samuel Beckett was deeply influenced by the avant-garde style of fellow Irish novelist James Joyce when writing Molloy. Both Beckett and Joyce allude to the classics (Dante’s Purgatorio and Homer’s Odyssey, respectively) and both extensively employ interior monologue to often similar effect. Even so, Beckett, ever aware of the shadow cast by his former mentor, also attempted to eschew Joycean tendencies in his works, as demonstrated in Molloy. Here, not only does Beckett entirely deny readers the luxury of context, he deconstructs the very fundamentals of novel and narrative. Distinctly metafictional in form, Molloy self-consciously underlines its own artificiality and, on a universal level, that intrinsic to fiction itself.

Tolstoy arguably sees something as art, if and only if the artist is able to purvey a feeling or emotion to the spectator, that the artist has felt prior, and then infects them (the audience) with that desired feeling or emotion. This is connected to Duchamp’s idea of art, but contrasts greatly in that the relationship with the artist to the art is diminished.

In Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot, it is essential that the play is characterized by time and hopelessness. That the purpose of life is unanswerable; there is no apparent meaning to it. When first analyzing the play, there is an uncertainty if anything happens within the play or the title character’s significance because of the constant repetition without achieving answers throughout the story. Waiting for Godot captures the feeling that a situation is hopelessly unfathomable. The play characterizes hopelessness with forms that symbolize humanity and its behavior with all the characters. It emphasizes that because a human’s life is dependant on chance and that time is meaningless, reassuring that a human’s life is meaningless. The reality of this makes humans ambiguous, looking for outside forces, which may or may not be imaginary, for direction. Just as Vladimir and Estragon cling onto Godot, without knowing whether or not he or it is real.

Life is a complicated mess of circumstances that nobody will ever fully understand, the closest tangible object we may have in order to even begin to understand our environment would be through our own literature, expression, and art. Through these things, dried ink can clear the path to enlightenment, and this is increasingly evident in Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations. Through very complicated, conflicted characters, he demonstrates an artful story about guilt, fear, expectations, and love. All of these topics which are present in the novel are so present in life, we might not even notice them in our own. Other writers and even musicians, use these themes to grasp at their own realities, trying to reach for the imaginary straws hanging above their faces, and the stories that they tell are a direct reflection of this behavior in their life, the results are stunning at times. Most of us might not even realize the amount of figurative weight we carry on our shoulders, it’s all just extra baggage. The baggage that we wear would be all of our combined emotions and expectations. No matter what you do, you will never escape the judgement of others (their expectations), your emotions, and your inner-judgement (and expectations).

In 1953, Samuel Beckett opened in Paris the French version of “Waiting for Godot.” This tragic comedy depicts the vigil of two characters (Vladimir and Estragon). By a dismal roadside, the two await the momentous coming of Godot. This character, however, never appears. This brings both Vladimir and Estragon to the point of a comedic suicide. It is comic because in ends with a broken belt and falling pants. No one dies. The two friends give Godot another day. If he fails to show, the two will try again more seriously. At this point, the play ends. The puzzled audience leaves with unanswered questions. Some critics say that the plays conclusion is the point. It parallels, as well as parodies, human life.

In Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, one of the most prominent dramatic styles Beckett uses is the tragicomedy. This blend of the two classic forms of drama adds a sense of dark humor to the play. When it is performed, the play’s seemingly random acts of comedy are dispersed through the tragedy. which provides a physical act to be performed on stage, as well as expanding the depth of the ideas presented. Beckett uses the tragicomedy style to demonstrate how tragedy and comedy are two of the most important parts of life, and to provide a shocking and stark contrast between ideas presented in the play.

There is little dramatic action as compared to the conventional plays, for example, in Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ a timeless circular plot emerges in which two lost creatures Vladimir and Estragon spend their days waiting for someone without any certainty as to who they are waiting for and whether he or it will come or not.

The very starting point of ‘yesterday’ is not clearly indicated. This ‘indefiniteness’ echoes an unspecified sign of past experiences of Beckett’s characters. The characters are portrayed to have an unknown past; there is no clear background information related to their former identity. The only timeframe to question their previous identity is ‘yesterday’. Beckett constantly uses this time image to portray backs and forths between yesterday and now to represent the (un)limited period of time. There seems a flux of time, and as expressed by Anthony Uhlmann “The time-image, […], presents the flow of time (which is not simply monodirectional from past to present but involves flux)” (2006: 12). Yesterday as a time image is noticeably revealed in Waiting for Godot as well. Estragon’s unconsciously-uttered statements have a close connection with their previous social life and

For example, one of the main characters, Vladimir, says, “We can’t… We’re waiting for Godot” (Beckett 8). Everything in life is about priorities. Because we can’t have all the things we desire in life, we must make sacrifices. All of the choices we make reflect what we care about most. In Vladimir’s case, he chooses to spend his time waiting for Godot rather than engaging in other activities that may be more entertaining. However, he states that he and Estragon can’t leave, which is false. Had Vladimir taken some time to think through his decisions, he would’ve realized that he had no reason to wait for Godot and therefore wasted his time. All throughout the play, “Nothing to be done” (Beckett 2), is constantly repeated. They’re completely bored due to waiting for a person they don’t know truly exists. There is no purpose in waiting for something to take place when there’s a low chance for the event to happen. Trying to break the cycle. Estragon appeals to Vladimir by telling him, “I can’t go on like this” (Beckett 109). In response, Vladimir replies, “That’s what you think” (Beckett 109). Vladimir’s reply to Estragon

There is a vast literature on interpretations of Godot, encompassing Christian and anti-Christian religion, Freudian and Jungian psychology, and a kitchen sinkful of esoteric and obscure “isms.” The undeniable fact is that no one really knows what Godot is about, and the playwright himself clearly believed that the core of his art lay in the ambiguities resulting from the absence of information, saying that everything he knew about the characters was in the text and if he knew anything more about the characters then he would have put it in the text. That Godot is more hole than doughnut has made it an easy target of parody if not outright ridicule. Beckett evolved his unique literary voice by distinguishing his style from that of his mentor James Joyce, whom he assisted during the writing of Finnegans Wake. In almost exactly the opposite way, Joyce grounded his art in fanatically perfectionist control of his work, leaving no missing pieces or rough edges in stuffing his characters full to overflowing so that we the readers know more about them than they could possibly know about themselves.

One peril from bringing a wide-ranging scope into this argument, is the need to then reassert how this would assert itself, with comparisons from which we’ve analyzed, and understood the sublime better. The “where” and “when” would at least improve, by habits exhibited today. Reserving it and “beauty” as synonymous terms might have once been serviceable, but after what Burke and Shaw went about to put in place, this acceptance of the darker, more drastic sides of our world is almost, itself, compelled to this new era. Ways of thinking correspond, blossom, and flourish with these new dimensions, but if also figuring in logical reasoning, little room is left to speak of any emotional responses, or the asserted faithfulness wherever the