Absurdity in Waiting for Godot / Waiting for Godot as an Absurd Play

Absurdity is in the core of Waiting for Godot. Both thematically and structurally it is a specimen of Theatre of the Absurd which refers both to its content — a bleak vision of the human condition — and to the style that expresses that vision. Beckett, like existentialist writers and philosophers Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, shows in the play that human existence in the universe is absurd and meaningless. But unlike them, his style is not an arbitrarily traditional choice but rather a necessary complement to the vision itself.

The speech of the play begins with ESTRAGON’s disgust at his work, though here his work is very absurd, “to take off his boot”:

 “Nothing to be done.

These words symbolically shows the absurdity and meaninglessness of life which the characters will elaborate later.

          In his play, Beckett presents before us a highly absurd situation of two tramps – Vladimir and Estragon – waiting for their appointment with the never defined Godot,  who doesn’t come. Both the tramps follow the same routine everyday. They can not but wait:

Valdimir: Let’s go

Estragon: Let’s go

(They both don’t move.)

Martin Esslin comments,

“The subject of the play is not Godot but waiting, the act of waiting is an essential aspect of human condition.”(p.44)

Therefore, in order to only pass time, they indulge themselves in some senseless activities, talk on and on, argue, joke, imagine themselves in different characters, rebuke, protest and question each other.

ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's contradict each another.

…………..

ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's ask each other questions.

But again they keep on waiting the whole day and find that

“Nothing happens, nobody comes … nobody goes, it’s awful!”

Estragon’s putzing about with his boot is a central iteration of absurdity in the play. Lok at their absurd activities

(Estragon with a supreme effort succeeds in pulling off his boot. He peers inside it, feels about inside it, turns it upside down, shakes it, looks on the ground to see if anything has fallen out, finds nothing, feels inside it again, staring sightlessly before him.) Well?

ESTRAGON: Nothing.

The unreliability of memory is one of the reasons that Waiting for Godot lacks rationale and establishes a world of absurdity and purposelessness.

ESTRAGON                   : What did we do yesterday?

VLADIMIR           : What did we do yesterday?

ESTRAGON                   : Yes.

VLADIMIR           : Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you're about.

ESTRAGON                   : In my opinion we were here.

VLADIMIR           : (looking round) You recognize the place?

ESTRAGON                   : I didn't say that.

Estragon can’t recall his original question: the questions of the past have no meaning in the present.

Vladimir and Estragon switch rapidly from serious subject matter to absurdly inane details. This is part of the play’s attempt at "tragicomedy," but this is also the reason why Vladimir and Estragon can’t take part in anything meaningful: they are too distracted by the petty habits of everyday life.

VLADIMIR           : I thought it was he.

ESTRAGON                   : Who?

VLADIMIR           : Godot.

ESTRAGON         : Pah! The wind in the reeds.

VLADIMIR           : I could have sworn I heard shouts.

………….

ESTRAGON                   : (violently) I'm hungry!

VLADIMIR           : Do you want a carrot?

Lack of communication:

Vladimir asks his question five times without response

VLADIMIR

You want to get rid of him?

         

          The characters of the play recognize like Macbeth, though there is fundamental difference between them in their action, that life “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing”:

VLADIMIR           : (sententious). To every man his little cross. (He sighs.) Till he dies. (Afterthought.) And is forgotten.

ESTRAGON                   : In the meantime let us try and converse calmly, since we are incapable of keeping silent.

          The theme of absurdity is also characterized by the structure of the play. There is no important development in its plot and action, no change in setting. It has no such beginning, middle and end, as in other plays. Rather, it is flat—the only thing that happens is waiting and waiting. Follow the structure of the first act:

·  Two tramps are waiting

·  Two active ones pass by

·  The messenger brings news

·  Two passive tramps are again waiting

Thus there is no development of action in the play. It signifies the purposelessness and meaninglessness in the play. The second act also repeats the first act. Thus the repetitive pattern of the play shows that the absurdity in man’s life makes him incapable of performing something new.

           It may however, be safely concluded that although the actions, event and dialogues and the form of the play are absurd, and convey the essential absurdity of man’s life, the play contains certain meaning. If we attempt to analyze the identity of Godot, it may be as follows: Godot = God+Water which suggests regeneration, that is, the tramps are waiting for regeneration. But the structure and the ending of the play suggest it is almost impossible to attain “Godot” in modern life. Therefore, as Lyman comments,

“To realize the totality of their absurdity would be too horrible to contemplate.  

Works Cited:

 

Esslin, Martin. Quoted in sociology of the absurd by Lyman, Stanford M. and Marvin B. Scott A., Rowman Altamira, 1989

Lyman, Stanford M.  Marvin B. Scott A sociology of the absurd. Rowman Altamira, 1989