Waiting For Godot is surely a text of prominence in the timeline of Absurdist and early Post-Modern thought. The comedy is sharp and modern in both reference and style, but the obscurity of plot and events are arguably on the cusp of early Postmodernism, if not directly within such territory of nomenclature. The characters are introduced in a somewhat nondescript manner, as the audience is given no real mention of past or present circumstance. All that is known is that these men are waiting for another; Godot.
The characters are not neglected in the slightest, however, as Beckett carefully characterizes each man almost entirely separate from their situational context. We see in Gogo a distracted man with little means and a corresponding complex of sarcastic pessimism, who remains nonetheless involved intellectually in the spectacle of living.
Didi is more stern, somewhat commanding of Gogo and the direction of their conversations VIA a comical sense of grandiose reasoning towards life and history, as exhibited on page seven, lines 7-18, where his musings of "the struggle" (a humorous hark to existentialism) override Gogo's parallel and present struggle with his uncomfortable boots. Here Beckett makes an early and brilliant statement on the universality and combined relativity of human suffering, in the comic light of the absurd. This tone and theme will dominate the rest of the text.
Soon after some brief comparison of such discomfort in the characters' dialogue, Didi makes the statement that is the basis of Absurd philosophy in its answer to existentialism's pondering of life as meaningless: "Never neglect the little things"(Pg.8 lines 1-2), which is to say that one finds meaning in life on a personal level and not a pre-prepared one as society and indeed religion may have us believe.
This statement may be viewed as a sort of foreshadowed solution to the problem of the text; a solution that the characters arrive at in brief but never actually apply. The mission of the characters, in brief, is that they are waiting for a man named Godot.
In the context of the text, viewed as a microcosm of life examples poised in a specific and fictional world (as per the analytical philosophy proposed by Nabokov), this is the sole mission of these two, and thus the only provider of profound meaning besides that of reflection. That should be noted in the attitudes of each as the text progresses.
Godot is quite simply and entirely viewable as the figure of God, no doubt reenforced by the constant religious meandering of Vladimir's words and references, such as his recounting of the tale of the two thieves on page nine, an easy parallel to Gogo and Didi respectively. As Didi says, one was saved and another was damned, but only one of the four evangelists say that one of the two thieves were saved. Estragon offers much sarcasm during Vladmimir's biblical recounting, casting him as the damned thief perhaps.
Didi also notes, and ponders, that of the four evangelists' tales from the day of crucifixion, only the one which mentions the saving of the thief is common knowledge. While his pondering goes unanswered in dialogue, it can be assessed from the themes of the text that the reason for this is human endurance towards hope in the face of vast uncertainty of meaning, but that is to be revisited later.
As the the characters move from their biblical musings of hope and faith, they arrive in the territory of uncertainty. They begin to wonder if maybe they hadn't misinterpreted Godot's instructions; as easy to misinterpret as, say, the bible's instructions for salvation.
On page ten, for instance, the characters begin to doubt the place they have determined as the point of meeting. They note that perhaps the tree they are near is not the one Godot intended to use as a landmark. They look at the tree, and Didi states: "Do you see any others?"(Line 17).
After some time, Gogo inquires: "Where are the leaves?" To which Didi offers the obvious: "It must be dead". Estragon, in solemn jest, replies "No more weeping". This last statement could be viewed simply as a play on their deduction of the tree as a willow, but removed from that context it offers a pointed example of existentialism in that often such philosophy queries that if life is meaningless and painful, why should one not take one's life and skip to the point? It is also prompt foreshadowing to the characters' resultant actions.
After some further doubt pertaining to the date and time, the characters dissolve into a primal boredom. After trying sleep and humor as reprieves, the differences within the two hinder these approaches as solutions to such a void. At a certain point, the idea of hanging is presented in such a manner that we cannot quite tell if it is a serious consideration of the characters and the play simply providing such comic context as to make light of suicide, or if the characters themselves are making fun of the idea.
In either case, the text's earlier foreshadowing pertaining to death's providing a stop to life's weeping is given a greater example in action and dialogue than a simple passing pun. The characters are soon dissuaded from this approach by the logic that one or the other may survive while one or the other dies, insisting on the very human fear, inherent in all, of dying alone.
They resolve to wait for Godot.
---
The text reaches is peak of hilarity and conceptual thickness at the time that one Pozo and his enslaved companion Lucky make their entree to the stage (Pg. 15). Pozo is a man of impossible flair and egocentrism, speaking loud and grand as a ringmaster would, and all the while shouting vicious orders at the silent Lucky to do this and that . He is depicted as well dressed and well fed, exhibited in Estragon regarding Pozzo's food scraps as delicacy (Pg. 18).
Gogo finally reaches his point of tolerance and shamelessly asks the man for his chicken bones, only to shamefully discover that they are intended for the servant. He is still given the option, however, to ask Lucky for the privilege of the bones. Lucky remains silent as he is asked timidly by Gogo, and forcefully by Pozzo, who in turn offers the bones to him in disregard of the lack of response. Herein lies the dynamic found in modern labor.
After Vladimir, in his moral nature, is fed up with the unwarranted and indeed unexplained manner in which Lucky is treated, despite the fact that Pozzo regards him as an old friend, the question of why Lucky never puts down his bags or relieves himself of burden is put forth. After a long bout of diversion and lack of conversational concentration, Pozzo states: "Has he not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn't want to. There's reasoning for you. And why doesn't he want to? ... He wants to impress me so that I will keep him!" (Pg. 21-lines 9-11, 14).
This is an exaggerated symbol of the burden of labor and the corruption inherent in higher offices. If this concept were then viewed as a metaphor for life, one might conclude that we ourselves are the makers of our own misery VIA the ugly tool of misguided perception, and again, the fear of being alone.
After some deliberation concerning Pozzo's wish to be free of Lucky, reflecting guilt, the degradation of love, and the implication that such mortal flaws reside in all men, the characters arrive at a point reflective of similar flaws and depicting a change in perception regarding Lucky, who is less now to be pitied (after harming Gogo in mid attempt at consolation), and more regarded with cautious fascination. The men wish to see lucky dance, or to hear him think. After a halfhearted attempt at dance, the men provide Lucky with the hat that apparently facilitates Lucky's reported capacity for intellectual thought.
What follows is hard to analyze. There is little progressive sense to make of Lucky's strain of gibberish, though the small motifs within the monologue could, I suppose, be broken down and made subjective sense of. In an effort to preserve my endurance here, I will simply reflect that this moment in its generality symbolizes the irrelevance of specific logical order in making sense of life on a level of personal meaning.
All one has left, with that notion subtracted, is personal perception and how one chooses to interact within' that realm. In asking Lucky to think, the characters are presented with the regurgitated and orderless concepts that are assumedly commonplace within the constituents of the intended audience, but the historical specifics are irrelevant. As far as the general concept is concerned, such things as mass opinions are meaningful only to the extent that they bring meaning to the individual, a thought which works nicely with the themes of the text.
After a drawn out goodbye to the flustered Lucky and Pozzo (Pozzo: "I can't seem to depart"/Estragon: "Such is life"), the two ponder, for the umpteenth time, leaving the tree themselves. They decide that they cannot depart until they have met Godot, much as one cannot depart life comfortably without first finding profundity.
After a short time, a messenger boy approaches and informs the men that Godot will not be meeting them this eve, much to the anger of the two. The anger recedes, and the two are left alone again; night has suddenly fallen. Gogo questions whether or not their paths would be walked better separate, as many must wonder if the plight of life is best tackled alone. Absurdism, most people, and the text – in which neither leave and decide "It's not worth while now [to part]"(Pg. 35)– all seem to answer that life is a ride best enjoyed in company, despite inevitable differences in both character and perception. I tend to agree.
How goes Godot?
ReplyDelete