Samuel Beckett: Waiting For Godot(Existentialism)

Samuel Beckett: A 1957 play by Samuel Beckett, based on the term "The theatre of Absurd" coined by Martin Esslin.

Where he has written about how the play was staged on the stage in November, 1957 for 1400 convicts in penetiary.

The beginning and ending is similar in the play, concerning time and setting. The play is set in country side, on an isolated road, where there is a tree, a pile of debris, park, river.

The play is based on modern idea, it doesn't have anything like good and motivated characters, good plot, clever structure etc and so it is unsettling here.

As I have already discussed in "Existentialism part' that how the play is represented. We will only discuss here some of the essential things.

Both the characters; Vladimir and Estragon, representing Russia and France respectively. Vladimir seems to be representing ID, one of the psychoanalytical characteristics from Freud, Estragon ego and Godot superego.

Estragon's character seems to be trivial as always found to be obsessed in something, seems as thinking for something but actually he doesn't have any concern with. While connected with fascination rather than reality as when asked by Estragon for bible and gospels, he only talks about landscape and beauteous things, rather than  for reality.

He always craves for eating and so seeks from Vladimir to serve him with some food and also eats dangling carrot. If we see symbolically then carrot, from top is broad in shape, as the length increases, it narrows down/in another way it can be interpreted that the person who is eating resembles the structure and characteristics of carrot. Its upper part is sweet, while its inner portion is souring-bitter.

While we don't see anything as such in Estragon's character, for that further we have to read and try to make our understanding that much musive.

After the arrival of Posso and Lucky, when Posso orders Lucky to serve him with food and champagne, he is serving. Estragon stares only on food, while Vladimir casting glance once on Lucky and then on Posso and noticing there expressions. In literal manner, he is observing reality, while Estragon seems to be ignorant of or knowingly ignoring.

Thus they both live in hopefulness that the time will come, and we will have our own way from this absurdism. Where there is no purpose of life. Everywhere there is desert, barrenness, emptiness, shallowness, dryness, not a drop of water can be founded.

Can we regard this with lack of spirituality?
Result of perversive activities, where entire societal humanity is remaining in this way, when there is no way to get hope, then people turn to religion to get hope. Atleast people must have a purpose in life.

If we refer to Albert Camus: "the myth of Sisyphus" then it is one type of philosophy, where a man is bouldering the heavy stone upwards, it on and often roles down, but to find meaning and purpose in life, he has to do, though seems to be in futility.

If one is not doing this, then what he/she is suppose to do? Atleast it is giving satisfaction of doing something, rather than sitting idly and in that manner it fulfils the purpose.

Connecting Godot with Ubermensch as introduced by Freidrich Neitsche, then God is representing similar like character that how an overambitious man, when on the verge of achieving goal, perceive himself to be a God/superman/overman etc. Here the God is giving invisible hope to the two. As it is told by the boy that he is messenger of God, it can be assumed as such. It seems as a linear difference between illusion and realization. When one realizes that one is in illusion one can't live normally, but when the reality is wrapped with illusion at some extent one can live happily and hopefully.

If it is said that you have to only wait then one will get disappointed though wanted to make him survive, but he/she won't take much efforts for survival. But with realization, they will wait with when they would be dead.

Here God's elusive presence contributes in hopefulness and so they're able to thrive.

Deconstructive Reading of the novel-

By reading this movie deconstructively, it seems that it isn't following Aristotelian tradition for plot construction but written through modern lens. Where plot is developing on its own, where God seems to be a stimulation for furthering the plot but it just remains static as there is no arrival of God and God equalizes with hope only. But how long one can live in hope? So the God is exhibited as an illusion and thus it is justified lately that: "Noone comes and no one goes". Therefore the situation remains static as there is no stimulation  for doing activity. As it is described in 'the myth of Sisyphus' by "Albert Camus", the life is void of purpose because how long one can boulder up and down the huge stone meaninglessly as it isn't serving anything in return.

In brief it is breaking traditional philosophy, prescribed for creating drama and so it is open for interpretations(conclusions).

Conclusion

Hence it is already discussed in one of the tasks on existentialism but to elaborate further this topic, the analysis is written, relating with Freudian Psychoanalytical theories.

 My blog on "Flipped Learning: existentialism"(for reference)

Thus is the whole understanding for 'waiting for Godot' play by Samuel Beckett and also a bit of deconstruction in this.

Works Cited

"Absurdist Novel: Waiting for Godot", Samuel Beckett.

Camus, Albert., 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.

Derrida, Jacques., "Theory of Deconstruction".

Kagdi, Samiya., "Flipped Learning: Existentialism". 

www.samiyakagdi.blogspot.com