Themes in Samuel Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot

Theatre is a complex art that attempts to weave stories of varying degrees of intricacies with the hope that feelings will be elicited from the audience. Samuel Beckett’s most famous work in the theatre world, however, is Waiting for Godot, the play in which, according to well-known Irish critic Vivian Mercier, “nothing happens, twice.” Beckett pioneered many different levels of groundbreaking and avant-garde theatre and had a large influence on the section of the modern idea of presentational theatre as opposed to the representational. His career seemingly marks the end of modernism in theatre and the creation of what is known as the “Theatre of the Absurd.”

the Theatre of the Absurd strives to express its sense of the senselessness of the human

The Theatre of the Absurd is the name for particular plays of absurdist fiction written by a number of primarily European playwrights in the late 1950s, as well as one for the style of theatre which has evolved from their work. Their work expressed what happens when human existence has no meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down, alerting their audiences to pursue the opposite. The Absurd in these plays takes the form of man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning, and/or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by invisible outside forces. Theatre of the Absurd consisted of horrific or tragic images; characters caught in

Harold Pinter and Samuel Beckett are two of the biggest exponents of The Theatre of the Absurd. Both of their works present a world which cannot be logically explained, where the scenery, the language and the actions of the characters are almost incomprehensible and do not comply with the previously accepted norms of theatre.

Oxford dictionary defines absurdity as "the state or quality of being ridiculous or widely unreasonable” and this can be strongly felt in Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot”. Actually, this play is well known as the Theater of Absurd due to its totally different genre of drama. The difference in genre is mainly due to the plot, the characters, the incoherence and repetitiveness in the conversations and actions which bring the audience to view this play as a complete change from the traditional type of drama.

     Samuel Beckett was forty-two years old and living in post-war Paris when he wrote Waiting for Godot as an exercise to help rid himself of the writer's block which was hindering his work in fiction. Once he started, he became increasingly absorbed in the play, and scribbled it almost without hesitation into a soft-cover notebook in a creative burst that lasted from October 9, 1948, until he completed the typed manuscript on January 29, 1949. After some revision, he offered the script to several producers, but it was refused. Although Beckett himself gave up hope with the script, his wife was more persistent, and, acting as his agent, she continued to approach

One thing is for certain: Waiting for Godot illustrates the inanity of everyday life. Inanity is defined as “silly and dumb”, but absurdism takes that to mean that life’s futility is funny. In the first act of Waiting for Godot, one can almost imagine the audience laughing and then thinking of the lines:

Stock and flat characters are essential in writing novels. They either help the main character or they harm them in some way. In terms of Waiting for Godot, most of the characters all tie in with each other in good and bad ways.

Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett's existential masterpiece, for some odd reason has captured the minds of millions of readers, artists, and critics worldwide, joining them all in an attempt to interpret the play. Beckett has told them not to read anything into his work, yet he does not stop them. Perhaps he recognizes the human quality of bringing personal experiences and such to the piece of art, and interpreting it through such colored lenses. Hundreds of theories are expounded, all of them right and none of them wrong. A play is only what you bring to it, in a subconscious connection between you and the playwright.

For example, in The Visit, there is an emphasis on justice, but it is very extreme. Claire desires to attain justice “for the wrong that was done to [her] in Güllen [by] Mr Ill” by having him killed (32). I thought this was a very radical method of achieving justice, but I better understood it after this presentation because it relates to taking justice to logical extremes and also to theater of the absurd. Also, I noticed that Dürrenmatt’s description of Güllen was very accurate in regard to the town being poverty stricken. This relates to his belief that the hardships of life should be accurately represented and should not be pacified. I also noticed various characteristics of theatre of the absurd, including existentialism, which is a philosophical principle that stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's action. This is seen in The Visit, as the citizens of Güllen have complete freedom to choose to accept Claire’s offer and kill

Modernist fiction is incredibly dense and abstract. Writers from the twentieth century also seem to carry with them the weight of the world, and thus their fiction has been filled with realistic misery and pain. Still, these writers often add to this element with existentialist thematic structures, which construct a very unique and experimental viewpoint on a modern existence. This is what is occurring in both Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as well as Albert Camus' The Stranger. The two a very different in format, yet both play upon the modernist idea of abandonment by God and the idea that there is an underlying sense of nothingness that guides modern life. Each focuses on the notion of free will and how it determines our lives in a world devoid of God. Together, these great works of contemporary fiction are a telling testament to the changing nature of sentiments regarding both religion and the meaning of life in a tumultuous twentieth century paradigm.

Beckett draws the structure of the play in a way that suits his unconventional themes and characterization. Though Waiting for Godot is criticized as being a formless play, its circular structure adds to the meaning of the play and its absurdity. The plot is circular with hardly any development of action; no beginning, climax or end. This view of structure is held in John Fletcher and John Spurling’s book, Beckett, A Study of His Plays

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

Waiting for Godot, written by Samuel Beckett, is a tragicomedy about two men waiting for a person or thing named Godot. The play entitles two contrasting pairs of characters, Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky. These sets of characters differ greatly and they create effect of humanity. The main difference between the pair’s relationships would be their dependency on each other, their level of compatibility, and their development throughout the play. Furthermore, both

The play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett is famous for its cyclic storyline and non-existing plot. In the lines, Beckett incorporates themes of existentialism and the loss of hope. Throughout the two acts of the play, the main protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, spend their days waiting aimlessly for a mysterious figure named Godot. While central in the play, Godot never makes an appearance in any act, and merely exists as a name. While Pozzo and Lucky, two other characters make their appearance in each act of the play, the boy is perhaps the most mysterious and intriguing. The boy, whom appears towards the end of each act, exemplifies the never-ending cycle of the search for hope that remains unfulfilled through the use of symbolism,