Samuel Beckett's

“Waiting for Godot”

A Study Guide by Maggie Johnsen

Contents

Preface

On Samuel Beckett

◦ “Samuel Beckett – Biography” from the European Graduate School

◦ Quotes

“History of 'Waiting For Godot'” from the Rick on Theater blog

Literary Analysis

◦ Who is Godot?

◦ Waiting

◦ An Excerpt on Balance and Repetition from Ruby Cohn's “Waiting”

◦ Other Things to Note

Discussion Questions

Places for Further Reading

Bibliography

Samuel Beckett 16

Preface

Whether you have already seen Samuel Beckett's “Waiting for Godot” or you are about to see it

for the first time, I implore you to keep an open mind. This play is a tragicomedy, a modernist piece,

and Theatre of the Absurd – quite an intriguing, albeit imposing, combination for critical analysis. It

cannot be judged by the same standards that we may use for plays with more common story structure,

themes, and language use. This is not to say “Waiting for Godot” has less to offer than other plays. It

just might take a bit more thought to reach the deep fountain of insight Beckett has contained in just

two acts.

Due to the unique nature of “Waiting for Godot”, literary analysis on it is convoluted, lacking

consensus. In this study guide, I will present some of the more popular interpretations of the play, and

invite you to reach you own conclusions on what “Waiting for Godot” means to you.

Samuel Beckett – Biography from the European Graduate School

1

Samuel Beckett (April 13, 1906 – December 22, 1989) was an Irish avant-garde playwright, poet and

novelist best known for his play Waiting for Godot. Strongly influenced by fellow Irish writer, James

Joyce, Beckett is sometimes considered the last of the Modernists, however, as his body of work

influenced many subsequent writers, he is also considered one of the fathers of the Postmodernist

movement. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969, "for his writing, which—in new

forms for the novel and drama—in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation."

Born in the Dublin suburb of Foxrock on Good Friday, 1906, Samuel Barclay Beckett was the younger

of two sons born to William Frank Beckett and May Barclay. The area surrounding his family home

featured in his prose and poetry later in life. Irish poet and Beckett biographer Anthony Cronin said of

Samuel Beckett’s childhood, “if anything, an outdoor type rather than an indoor one. He enjoyed games

and was good at them. He roamed by himself as well as with his cousin and brother; and though he

often retreated to his tower with a book and was already noticeable in the family circle for a certain

moodiness and taciturnity, he could on the whole have passed for an athletic, extrovert little Protestant

middle-class boy with excellent manners when forced to be sociable.”

He attended Trinity College from 1923 to 1927, earning a Bachelor’s degree in French and Italian and

developing a love for Romance languages and poetry from such esteemed tutors as Thomas Rudmose-

Brown, A.A. Luce and Bianca Esposito. He took a teaching position at Campbell College in Belfast

before moving to Paris to become a lecteur d’anglais at the École Normale Supérieure. In Paris, Beckett

was introduced to Irish novelist James Joyce that had a profound effect on Beckett’s life. Samuel

Beckett biographer James Knowlson writes, of the relationship between James Joyce and Samuel

Beckett, “They both had degrees in French and Italian, although from different universities in Dublin.

Joyce's exceptional linguistic abilities and the wide range of his reading in Italian, German, French, and

English impressed the linguist and scholar in Beckett, whose earlier studies allowed him to share with

Joyce his passionate love of Dante. They both adored words -- their sounds, rhythms, shapes,

etymologies, and histories -- and Joyce had a formidable vocabulary derived from many languages and

a keen interest in the contemporary slang of several languages that Samuel Beckett admired and tried to

emulate.” Around this time Samuel Beckett aided Joyce in his research for what would one day become

Finnegan’s Wake, he also wrote a critical essay entitled, “Dante…Bruno. Vico.. Joyce,” in which

Samuel Beckett defended James Joyce’s work and method.

Samuel Beckett’s first published work, a short story entitled, “Assumption,” appeared in transition, a

highly influential avant-garde serial edited by Franco-American writer Eugene Jolas. He won his first

literary prize the following year with the poem, “Whoroscope,” which imagined Réné Déscartes

meditating on the nature of time while waiting to be served an egg at a restaurant. Following his first

two published works, Beckett returned to Dublin from Paris to accept a lecturing position at Trinity

College. He became disillusioned with academia shortly thereafter and resigned from his position by

playing a practical joke on the college. Samuel Beckett invented a French author named Jean du Chas

who had founded a literary movement called “concentrism” and presented a lecture on Chas and

Concentrism to mock pedantry in the academic world.

Resigning from his position at Trinity College, he traveled through Europe and Britain, stopping in

London to publish Proust, a critical study of Marcel Proust’s work and Beckett’s only published, long-

form work of criticism. During his travels, Beckett met many vagabonds and wanderers, which he

would use as the bases for several of his most memorable characters. Throughout his European

wanderings, Samuel Beckett also became interested in the works of Arthur Schopenhauer and decided

to devote himself entirely to writing, beginning to work on his first novel Dream of Fair to Middling

Women, which he subsequently abandoned after little interest from publishers.

William Beckett, Samuel Beckett’s father, to whom he was very close, died in 1933. Samuel was

devastated by the loss of his father and sought treatment at Tavistock Clinic in London where he was

treated by and studied under influential British psychoanalyst Dr. Wilfred Brion. While at the Tavistock

Clinic, Beckett witnessed a lecture given by Dr. Carl Jung on the “never properly born” which affected

much of his subsequent work including Watt, Waiting for Godot and All that Fall which ends with an

almost word for word recitation of the end of Jung’s lecture.

Beginning what would become his first published novel, Murphy, in 1935, Samuel Beckett traveled

once again to Europe, this time to Germany where he documented with distaste the rise of the Nazi

party. Returning to Ireland in 1937 to oversee the publication of Murphy, he had a major falling-out

with his mother, which contributed to his desire to leave Ireland and settle permanently in Paris. At the

outset of 1938, Beckett had installed himself on the Left Bank of Paris where he renewed his friendship

with James Joyce and became friends with artists like Alberto Giacometti and Marcel Duchamp.

January of that year brought tragedy, he was accosted and stabbed in the chest by a pimp who went by

the name “Prudent.” When asked by Samuel Beckett why he did this, Prudent replied, “I don’t know,

sir. I’m sorry.”

The dawn of World War II found Samuel Beckett aiding the French Resistance as a courier. In August

1942 his unit was found out and he was forced to move with his lifelong companion, Suzanne

Dechevaux-Dumesnil, to the town of Rousillon. There he continued to aid the Resistance while

working on his novel Watt.

As the war drew to a close, Samuel Beckett returned to Ireland where he had a critical epiphany.

Fearing he would forever toil in the shadow of James Joyce, a new path showed itself to him. “I

realized that James Joyce had gone as far as one could in the direction of knowing more, [being] in

control of one’s material. He was always adding to it; you only have to look at his proofs to see that. I

realized that my own way was in impoverishment, in lack of knowledge and in taking away, in

subtracting rather than in adding,” he wrote. He also began writing in French instead of his native

English because he found it easier to write, “without style.” His first novel in French was entitled

Mercier et Camier which was written in 1946 but not published until 1970. Immediately after Mercier

et Camier, he wrote what many believe to be his best prose in the trilogy of Molloy, Malone Dies and

The Unnamable.

Following this new path to full fruition, Samuel Beckett released his most famous work in 1953, the

minimalist play, Waiting for Godot. Godot was very successful albeit controversial in the theaters of

Paris but was not as well received in London and in the US. As time progressed, however, Godot

garnered critical acclaim, which ultimately saw Samuel Beckett awarded the International Publisher’

Formentor Prize in 1961. During this period Samuel Beckett also wrote the plays Endgame, Krapp’s

Last Tape, Endgame and Play.

This period also saw changes in Samuel Beckett’s personal life. His mother, with whom he had many

difficulties, died in 1950 and his brother, Frank, died in 1954, both of these deaths affected Beckett’s

later meditations on life and death in his work. He also married Suzanne in a private ceremony in

England in 1961. The success of his plays not only offered him the ability to experiment with his

writing but also enabled him to begin a career as a theater director as well as to branch out into other

mediums. In 1956 he was commissioned by the BBC to write the radio play All that Fall and continued

to expand his scope into television and cinema.

Suzanne, Samuel Beckett’s wife, received the news while they were on holiday in Tunis in 1969, that

Samuel Beckett had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, an event she described as a

“catastrophe” for her intensely private husband. Despite the accolades and fame, however, Samuel

Beckett remained a private man whose literary works continued to explore the outer reaches of

minimalism and experimentalism.

His later work, which focused on themes of entrapment and frequently featured characters who were

literally trapped from the neck down, went through many phases, culminating in three “closed space

stories” in which he interrogates the nature of memory and its effect on the confined and observed self.

His final work, written in 1988, was a poem entitled “Comment Dire (What is the Word),” which dealt

with the inability to find the words to express oneself.

Samuel Beckett died on the 22nd of December, 1989, just five months after his wife, Suzanne. They

are interred together at the Cimitiére de Montparnasse in Paris in a tomb of simple granite, following

Samuel Beckett’s instruction that it should be, “any colour, so long as it’s gray.”

Quotes

It is a widely held belief that an author's comments on his own work hold more weight than the

interpretations of readers. Beckett, not a proponent of this view, has purposely been very closed-mouth

about his work. Here are some things he has said:

“I feel the only line is to refuse to be involved in exegesis of any kind . . . . We have no elucidations

to offer of mysteries that are all of their own making”. 10

-Beckett

“I began to write Godot as a relaxation, to get away from the awful prose I was writing at that time.” 6

(43)

-Beckett to Colin Duckworth

“That's the value of theater to me. You can place on stage a little world with its own laws.” 6 (43)

-Beckett to Michael Haerdter

“I just felt like it. It was a different experience from writing in English.” “you could help writing poetry

in English” 7 (68)

-Beckett on writing in French instead of English

“If I had known who Godot is, I would have said” 7 (74)

-Beckett

“and besides, there is a rue Godot, a cycling racer named Godot, so you see, the possibilities are rather

endless” 11 (7)

-Beckett

"I am interested in the shape of ideas even if I do not believe in them. There is a wonderful

sentence in Augustine. I wish I could remember the Latin. It is even finer in Latin than in

English. `Do not despair; one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume; one of the thieves was

damned.' That sentence has a wonderful shape. It is the shape that matters." 8 (79)

-Beckett

“You must be tired.” 9

-Beckett's reply to a fan who said he had been reading Beckett's work for years

“There is no escape from the hours and the days, neither from tomorrow nor from yesterday,

because yesterday has deformed us or has been deformed by us...Yesterday is not a milestone that

has passed but a daystone on the beaten track of the years and irremediably part of us, within us,

heavy and dangerous. We are not merely more weary because of yesterday, we are other, no

longer what we were before the calamity of yesterday.” 5 (31)

-Beckett in Proust

“Habit is the ballast that chains the dog to his vomit. Breathing is habit. Life is habit. Or rather life is a

succession of habits, since the individual is a succession of individuals....Habit then is the generic term

for the countless treaties concluded between the countless subjects that constitute the individual and

their countless correlative objects. The periods of transition that separate consecutive adaptations

...represent the perilous zones in the life of the individual, dangerous, precarious, painful, mysterious

and fertile, when for a moment the boredom of living is replaced by the suffering of being.” 5 (38)

-Beckett in Proust

“I suppose he is Lucky to have no more expectations” 15 (144)

-Beckett when asked “ if Lucky was named so because he does not have to wait for Godot like

Vladimir and Estragon do, but that he has his own Godot in Pozzo”

History of 'Waiting For Godot' from the Rick on Theater blog2

En attendant Godot was composed between 1947 and 1949 when Beckett was experiencing the first of

two sustained creative bursts. The French version, whose title actually means “while waiting for

Godot,” was published in 1952 and opened in Paris on 5 January 1953, for a run of more than 300

performances. The English version was published in New York in 1954, played at the Arts Theatre in

London the following year, and had its American première at Coconut Grove Playhouse in Miami on 3

January 1956. Bert Lahr, star of the Florida presentation, played Gogo again when the show moved to

New York on 19 April, with E. G. Marshall as Didi, Kurt Kasznar as Pozzo, and Alvin Epstein as

Lucky--all of whom repeated their roles for the Columbia Masterworks recording produced the same

year. The play ran only 60 performances at the John Golden Theatre, but since then has been performed

in twenty tongues--in such scattered parts of the world as Japan, Sweden, Yugoslavia, and Israel--and in

all types of theaters: on campuses, in summer stock, in “little theaters,” and in prisons.

But almost every opening night of Godot has been marked by extreme reactions. The Paris production

was hailed by many critics as a major dramatic breakthrough. No less a literary figure than Jean

Anouilh declared in Arts-Spectacle on 27 January 1953:

Godot is a masterpiece that will cause despair for men in general and playwrights in particular. I think

the opening night at the Théâtre de Babylone is as important as the opening of Pirandello in Paris in

1923 . . . .

En attendant Godot was first performed in the small auditorium of the Théâtre de Babylone in Paris

after a workshop presentation, broadcast on French radio, in February 1952. It was directed by Roger

Blin, a respected French director in the years after World War II, who also played Pozzo. Typical of the

enthusiastic response--and most prophetic of all--was the opinion of Sylvain Zegel, who wrote in La

Libération:

Theater-lovers rarely have the pleasure of discovering a new author worthy of the name; an author who

can give his dialogue true poetic force, who can animate his characters so vividly that the audience

identifies with them; who, having meditated, does not amuse himself with mere word juggling; who

deserves comparison with the greatest . . . . In my opinion Samuel Beckett’s first play Waiting for

Godot, at the Théâtre de Babylone, will be spoken of for a long time.

English-speaking audiences, which had not seen as much avant-garde drama as had the Parisians,

reacted with mixed feelings. (The British première was heavily expurgated, as censorship in England

was strict. Not until the end of 1964 did an unabridged version of the script get a British staging.) Peter

Bull, who played Pozzo in the original British production directed by a young Peter Hall in 1955,

witnessed a daunting occurrence. In his memoirs, I Know the Face, But . . ., he wrote:

I have a habit of comforting myself on first nights by trying to think of appalling experiences during the

war, when terror struck from all sides, but the windiness felt on the Italian beachheads . . . was nothing

to compare with one’s panic on that evening of August 3, 1955 . . . . Waves of hostility came whirling

over the footlights, and the mass exodus . . . started quite soon after the curtain had risen. The audible

groans were also fairly disconcerting.

Harold Hobson concluded his review in the London Times by saying: “Go and see Waiting for Godot.

At the worst you will discover a curiosity, a four-leaved clover, a black tulip; at the best something that

will surely lodge in a corner of your mind for as long as you live.” In The Observer, Kenneth Tynan,

Hobson’s fellow doyen of London criticism, asserted, “It is vividly new, and hence I declare myself, as

the Spanish would say, Godotista.” But the American critic Marya Mannes wrote acidly in New York’s

The Reporter about the same London production:

The play concerns two tramps who inform each other and the audience at the outset that they smell. It

takes place in what appears to be the town dump, with a blasted tree rising out of a welter of rusting

junk including plumbing parts. They talk gibberish to each other and to two ‘symbolic’ maniacs for

several hours, their dialogue punctuated every few minutes by such remarks as ‘What are we waiting

for?’ ‘Nothing is happening,’ and ‘Let’s hang ourselves.’ The last was a good suggestion, unhappily

discarded.

And surveying the London theater in 1957 for The Sewanee Review, Bonamy Dobreé said flatly about

Godot:

. . . it is time to affirm that anything that can be called art must ultimately be in praise of life, or must at

least promote acceptance of life, thus indicating some values.

Dobreé thus epitomized the widely-accepted view of the time that Beckett’s work, because of its

“nihilism,” could not “be called art.”

In Miami, a large segment of the audience left in disgust before the curtain rose for act two. As director

Alan Schneider put it in the Chelsea Review two years after the production closed:

Doing Godot in Miami was, as Bert Lahr [the original Gogo] himself said, like doing Giselle in

Roseland. Even though Bert and Tommy [Ewell, who played Didi in Miami] each contributed

brilliantly comic and extremely touching performances, . . . it was--in the words of the trade--a

spectacular flop. The opening night audience in Miami, at best not too sophisticated or attuned to this

type of material and at worst totally misled by advertising billing the play as “the laugh sensation of

two continents,” walked out in droves. And the so-called reviewers not only could not make heads or

tails of the play but accused us of pulling some sort of hoax on them.

The New York production of 1956 garnered a mixture of critical response. In the Herald Tribune,

Walter Kerr wrote, “. . . Mr. Lahr has . . . been in touch with what goes on in the minds and hearts of

the folk out front. I wish that Mr. Beckett were as intimately in touch with the texture of things.” In the

New Republic, Eric Bentley dubbed Godot “like all modern plays . . . undramatic but highly

theatrical.” He declared that “what has brought the play before audiences in so many countries--aside

from snobberies and phony publicity--is its theatricality.” (Eleven years later, Bentley revised his

estimation upwards.) On the other hand, for The New Yorker, Kenneth Tynan, already on record in

London as praising the play, described the audience reaction: “And when the curtain fell, the house

stood up to cheer a man [Bert Lahr] who had never before appeared in a legitimate play . . . . Without

him, the Broadway production . . . would be admirable; with him, it is transfigured.” And the dean of

New York critics, Brooks Atkinson of The New York Times, calling the play “a mystery wrapped in an

enigma,” wrote:

Although “Waiting for Godot” is a “puzzlement,” as the King of Siam would express it, Mr. Beckett is

no charlatan. He has strong feelings about the denigration of mankind, and he has given vent to them

copiously. “Waiting for Godot” is all feeling. Perhaps that is why it is puzzling and convincing at the

same time. Theatregoers can rail at it, but they cannot ignore it. For Mr. Beckett is a valid writer.

At San Quentin Prison, on 19 November 1957, the inmates gathered in the converted gallows room

responded as never before to a theatrical piece. The anonymous reviewer for the San Quentin News

described this scene:

The trio of muscle-men, biceps overflowing . . . parked all 642 lbs. on the aisle and waited for the girls

and funny stuff. When this didn’t appear they audibly fumed and audibly decided to wait until the

house lights dimmed before escaping. They made one error. They listened and looked two minutes too

long--and stayed. Left at the end. All shook . . . .

This presentation marked a link in the chain of productions of Beckett’s plays in prisons, something in

which the writer took special interest. A few years earlier, a prisoner in Lüttringhausen Prison in

Germany had staged a translation he had made from the original French edition. After the 1953

performances, the prisoner wrote Beckett:

You will be surprised to be receiving a letter about your play Waiting for Godot, from a prison where so

many thieves, forgers, toughs, homos, crazy men and killers spend this bitch of a life waiting . . . and

waiting . . . and waiting. Waiting for what? Godot? Perhaps.

The Irish première at the Pike Theatre in Beckett’s native Dublin, directed by Alan Simpson, was on 28

October 1955. The BBC having aired the play on radio in 1960, NET (the precursor to PBS) broadcast

a TV version in 1961 directed by Alan Schneider from his Miami production script. The stars of the

telecast, also shown in the U.K., were Zero Mostel as Gogo and Burgess Meredith as Didi with

Kasznar and Epstein repeating their stage roles. Becket pronounced himself displeased with the

television staging, principally because of the confinement of the small screen.

In more recent years, the play, still controversial, has continued to be produced all over the world. In

1984, Israeli director Ilan Ronen and the Haifa Municipal Theatre presented a bi-lingual production of

Godot in Hebrew and Arabic (with Arab actors as Didi and Gogo and Jewish actors as Lucky and

Pozzo). Mike Nichols directed a much-publicized staging of the play in New York at Lincoln Center in

1988; it starred Robin Williams as Gogo, Steve Martin as Didi, F. Murray Abraham as Pozzo and Bill

Irwin, in what I believe was his first dramatic stage role, as Lucky. In 2001, British director Michael

Lindsay-Hogg made a film version--despite Beckett’s own admonition in 1967 that he did not “want

any film of Godot.” “An adaptation would destroy it,” the playwright insisted. British director Sean

Mathias is directing Ian McKellen as Gogo and Patrick Stewart as Didi as his first production as artistic

director of the Theatre Royal Haymarket Company. Dubbed the X-Men Godot (because both stars

appeared in that film), it is touring Britain prior to opening in London on 30 April 2009.

Just as Sylvain Zegel predicted over half a century ago, Godot is still being “spoken of.” Regardless of

the direction of the response--for or against--no one seems to be able to leave it alone. It stirs

something in all audiences--be it anger or praise, but it stirs. Somehow that seems appropriately

Beckettian--and, as the French say, godotesque.

Who is Godot?

This is probably the first question audience members will have upon seeing “Waiting for

Godot”. It is the question Beckett refused to answer. Decades of literary analysis by scores of critics

has not resulted in any consensus. There are, however, a few views that seem to have wide support.

Do not make the mistake of immediately dissecting the word “Godot” to produce “God”,

thereby narrowing your vision to see everything in the play as a biblical reference. Note that the

original title of the play was “En attendant Godot” and the French word for god, dieu, bears no

resemblance to “Godot”. 14

Keep an open mind throughout the play, and only afterward take the side of

the many critics who believe Godot to be a deity. The biblical story of the two thieves is a central to the

play. Ruby Cohn writes, 6 (43-44)

“Even the fifth character, the nameless boy, has a brother, and he says that Godot beats

the one but not the other. Godot is as arbitrary as the God of Matthew 25:32-33: 'And

before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them from one another, as

a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right

hand but the goats on the left.' Sheep and goat become saved thief and damned thief of

St. Augustine's symmetry.”

Godot may be seen as a divine being because of his absence. Eric Gans writes,

“the action takes place 'en attendant'. Now this is precisely the role of the sacred in

Judeo-Christian society: God never makes himself present, but belief in his presence

offstage allows for worldly activity to go on while waiting for his return.” 12 (99)

Dissection of Lucky's speech also unveils possible religious overtones:

“given the existence...of a personal God...with a white beard...outside time...who from

the heights of divine...aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons

unknown...and suffers those who...are plunged in torment...it is established beyond all

doubt...that man...fades away.”

Edith Kern writes that a “number of critics more or less agree on such a reading.” 13 (117)

In act II,

Vladimir and Estragon mistake Pozzo and Lucky for Cain and Abel. There are multiple other instances

in which religious subjects, such as prayer, are suddenly brought up to be dropped just as quickly. The

possibility of salvation or damnation and the absence of God in the mundane lives of humans is a

common theme in literature. The god in this play would be more unique in that he is an uncertain,

seemingly uncaring, and maybe even cruel god. Godot as a god is a fair conjecture, though Beckett

himself said to Ralph Richardson that if by Godot he had meant God, he would have written God and

not Godot. 14

Another possible identity for “Godot” is actually Pozzo, though Beckett has stated, "No. It is just

implied in the text, but it's not true." 14

Estragon and Vladimir both mistake Pozzo's arrival as that of

Godot.

During my research for this study guide, I have read about Godot as: God, Pozzo, a bicycle racer,

communism, the slang word for “boot” in French, liberation, a goal, death, hope, recognition of

Beckett's work, among other things. My conclusion – and advice to you – is that it's better to not label

Godot. To do so effectively limits the scope of the play and possibly leads to far-fetched interpretations.

It is Godot's anonymity which makes this play timeless, universal. The identity of Godot is

inconsequential to the play compared to his absence. Godot, who or what ever he may be, is a vehicle

for the real subject matter of this play – waiting.

Waiting

The day after “Waiting for Godot” was successfully performed at San Quentin penitentiary in

1957 the prison newspaper released this article:

“It was an expression, symbolic in order to avoid all personal error, by an author who

expected each member of his audience to draw his own conclusions, make his own

errors. It asked nothing in point, it forced no dramatized moral on the viewer, it held out

no specific hope... We're still waiting for Godot, and shall continue to wait. When the

scenery gets too drab and the action too slow, we'll call each other names and swear to

part forever - but then, there's no place to go!” 5 (23 -24)

Who would know better what it feels like to be trapped in a monotonous cycle – just waiting for

release, or excitement, or even death – better than a prison inmate? “Waiting for Godot” paints a picture

of the human condition as incomplete or unfulfilled in some way. It is sad to think human lives, habits,

and hopes may be as trite and asinine as the antics of Estragon and Vladimir. Estrogen and Vladimir

find their wait to be so unbearable that they contemplate suicide as an escape. Richard Gilman writes:

“the validation the tramps seek for their lives is never forthcoming; there is no

transcendent being or realm from which human justification proceeds, or rather...we

cannot be sure whether there is not not. In this space this doubt create, Didi and Gogo

exist...held there by an unbearable tension which it is their task...to make bearable.” 7 (70)

It is a dreary state, in which habit and boredom seem to overcome all else.

One aspect of waiting which everyone has experienced, whether it be at the bus stop or in the

doctor's office, in the slowing of time. Estragon and Vladimir experience this on a daily basis, trying to

pass the time with jokes and inane conversation until the moon swiftly rises at the end of each act. The

following passages by Theater of the Absurd expert Martin Esslin skillfully describe the interaction of

time, waiting, and – surprisingly – hope:

“Waiting is to experience the action of time, which is constant change. And yet,

as nothing real ever happens, that change is in itself an illusion. The ceaseless activity of

time is self-defeating, purposeless, and therefore null and void. The more things change,

the more they are the same. That is the terrible stability of the world. 'The tears of the

world are are a constant quantity. For each one who began to weep, somewhere else

another stops.' One day is like another, and when we die, we might never have existed....

Still Vladimir and Estragon live in hope: they wait for Godot, whose coming will

bring the flow of time to a stop. 'Tonight perphaps we shall sleep in his place, in warmth,

dry, our bellies full, on the straw. It is worth waiting for that, is it not?' This passage,

omitted in the English version, clearly suggests the peace, the rest form waiting, the

sense of having arrived in haven, that Godot represents to the two tramps. They are

hoping to be saved from the evanescence and instability of the illusion of time, and to

find peace and permanence outside it.” 5 (32-33)

An Excerpt on Balance and Repetition

from Ruby Cohn's “Waiting” 6 (43-47)

“Even before the curtain rises, the program informs us that there will be two acts, though we do

not know how the second will reflect the first. The set pits the horizontal road on the stage board

against the vertical tree. The action will balance four characters falling down against their looking up at

the sky. The very names of the four main characters indicate their pairing: Pozzo and Lucky contain

two syllables and five letters each; Estragon and Vladimir contain three syllables and eight letter each,

but they address one another only by nicknames – Gogo and Didi, childish four-letter words composed

of repeating monosyllables. Even the fifth character, the nameless boy, has a brother, and he says that

Godot beats one but not the other. Godot is as arbitrary as the God of Matthew 25:32-33: 'And before

him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them from one another, as a shepherd divideth

his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand but the goats on the left.' Sheep

and goat become saved thief and damned thief of St. Augustine's symmetry.

Didi broods about the two thieves early in the play, as we are getting acquainted with what

looks like two thieves on stage. Though it is not specified in the text, Beckett's two thieves wear similar

clothes in the production – the black suit and derby of music hall or silent film, and we laugh at their

antics much of the time that they are constantly before us....Pozzo and Lucky have no nicknames, and

we view them formally....Impersonal Pozzo and Lucky confront personal Gogo and Didi, and for all the

many pages that have now been written about the play, Godot's theatricality rests squarely on this

confrontation of the two couples. To twist what Beckett said about the two-act structure of Godot: one

couple would have been too few, and three would have been too many. Pozzo and Lucky alone would

have been a caricature of human master-slave tendencies, a caricature of human obsession with moving

“On”. Caricatures summon no sympathy. Without these contrasting characters, however, we would

respond less immediately to the concreteness of Didi and Gogo. We appreciate their friendship in the

contrapuntal context of Pozzo and Lucky. In the shadow of these compulsive wanderers, who wander

into obvious deterioration, Didi and Gogo scintillate with variety. Each couple is more meaningful

because of the other, replacing the protagonist and antagonist of dramatic tradition.

None of these symmetries is exact, of course. Act 2 does not repeat act 1 precisely. Each

member of each couple is distinctive and individual. And looming asymmetrically offstage is Godot....

From the beginning of the play Didi and Gogo emphasize the repetitive nature of their

activities. Were Beckett to direct the play, he would now begin with their attitude of waiting, which

would be periodically repeated throughout the play. In the printed test the play begins when Estragon

tries again to take of his boots. We read the first example of a frequently repeated scenic direction: “As

before”....In Vladimir's first speech he talks about resuming the struggle. He notes that Estragon is back

– wherever “back” may be. Vladimir wants to celebrate his reunion with Estragon.

Immediately after the first utterance of the most frequently repeated line in the play – “We're

waiting for Godot” – the friends turn their attention to the stage tree. Estragon says: “Looks to me more

like a bush.” Vladimir counters: “A shrub.” But Estragon insists: “A bush.” This exchange sets a pattern

of poetic variants and refrains, with Estragon always speaking the refrain lines. Throughout the play,

phrasal repetition, most naked in Lucky's manic monologue, is reinforced by gestural repetition: Lucky

with his luggage, Pozzo with his possessions, Gogo with his shoes, Didi with his hat, and the music-

hall routine in which Gogo and Didi juggle three hats (suggested to Beckett by the Marx Brothers'

Duck Soup). All the characters repeatedly stumble and fall, but in act 1 Didi and Gogo set Lucky on his

feet, and in act 2 they do the same for Pozzo. Repetition is theme and technique of Didi's round-song

which reduces man's like to a dog's life – and cruel death.

In the printed text of En attendant Godot the most frequent repetitions are the two scenic

directions: Silence and Pause. In the theater repeated stillness can reach a point of no return, but

Beckett avoids this danger by adroit deployment of his pauses and silences. They act like theatrical

punctuation, a pause often marking hesitation or qualification, whereas silence is a brush with despair

before making a fresh start. The play never quite negates the fresh start after stillness claims the stage

in sudden night. All stage action has to be wrested from the background stillness, the ever-threatening

void. Gogo realizes: “There's no lack of void.” And he recalls talking about “nothing in particular.”

(The italics are mine; Beckett changes the French “boots” to “nothing” in the English version.) Each of

the two acts end with the stillness after the same lines: “Well? Shall we go?” asks on of the friends, and

the other replies: “Yes, let's go.” In neither act do they move as the curtain falls.

The opening “Nothing to be done” is repeated three times. What distinguishes drama from

fiction is that the Nothing has to be done, acted, preformed. The body of Beckett's play therefore

contains much doing, constantly threatened by Nothing. To open each act, Gogo and Didi enter

separately, each in turn first on stage. At least one of them eats, excretes, sleeps, dreams, remembers,

plans, refers to sex or suicide. In both acts they comment on their reunion, they complain of their

misery, they seek escape into games, they are frightened by offstage menace, they try to remember a

past, they stammer a hope for a future, they utter doubts about time, place, and language, they wait for

Godot. Beckett's scenic directions show the range of their emotions: irritably, coldly, admiringly,

decisively, gloomily, cheerfully, feebly, angrily, musingly, despairingly, very insidiously, looking

wilding about, wheedling, voluptuously, gently, highly excited, grotesquely rigid, violently,

meditatively, vacuously, timidly, conciliating, hastily, grudgingly, stutteringly, resolute, vehemently,

forcibly, tenderly, blankly, indignantly, attentively, sadly, shocked, joyous, indifferent, vexed, suddenly

furious, exasperated, sententious, in anguish, sure of himself, controlling himself, triumphantly,

stupefied, softly, recoiling, alarmed, laughing noisily, sagging, painfully, feverishly – with violently and

despairingly most frequent.

In each act the two friends are diverted by an interlude – the play within the play of Pozzo and

Lucky, who enter and exit tied together. Reciting rhetorically and loaded with props, Pozzo and Lucky

are cut down to size when they are “done” by Gogo and Didi in act 2. Alone again in each act, the

friends are greeted by Godot's messenger, they hear the monotonous message, and the moon rises

swiftly. Refrains, repetitions, and pauses camouflage how much is happening on stage. Only in

retrospect, after viewing it all, do we realize how much is at stake in these hapless happenings.”

Other Things to Note The following brief descriptions are other things to note while view, reading, or analyzing “Waiting for

Godot”.

Bondage

There is a continued theme of bondage between: Estragon and Vladimir, them and Godot, them and the

setting, and Pozzo and Lucky.

Friendship

One lighthearted aspect of this play is the strong bond between Estragon and Vladimir. I personally

believe that their love for each other keeps them at the tree day after day just as much as Godot does.

Man as a Dog or Other Animal

Many critics comment on the repeated references of Beckett's characters as animal like, especially that

of a dog. This is meant to be a degrading comparison.

The Deterioration of Intelligence

From Pozzo's pedantic speech in act one to his eventual blindness in act two, there is a literal and

symbolic deterioration of intelligence. An even better example of this is Lucky's monologue.

Boots and Hats

Estragon – being the more practical, grounded of the tramps – looks to his boots while Vladimir –

being the more philosophical one – looks to his hat. There is range of critical explanations behind the

symbolism of these objects. Beckett has also recognized the importance of boots in the play. 7 (70)

Music-hall and Circus Influence

The bowler hats, physical comedy, “cross-talk” speech patterns, and comedic misunderstandings all

have roots in the music-hall and circus. 18

“They give birth astride of a grave,...”

“...the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more” “Astride of a grave and a difficult birth. Down

in the hole, lingeringly, the gravedigger puts on the forceps.” This is one of the most famous quotes

from “Waiting for Godot”. It is attributed to the influenced of a speech given by Carl Jung while

Beckett was receiving psychiatric help. Beckett was greatly influenced by a particular story in Jung's

speech, and references to “never being properly born” are seen throughout his work:

“Recently I saw a case of a little girl who had some of the most amazing mythological

dreams. Her father consulted me about these dreams. I could not tell him what I thought

because because they contained an uncanny prognosis. The girl had died later of an

infectious disease. She had never been born entirely.” 17 (127)

Loss of Train of Thought

Through the entire book, all characters experience losses in their train of thought. This may have been

added as support for the deterioration of intelligence motif.

Discussion Questions

On the play itself:

1. Do you agree with Vivian Mercer's infamous quote – Beckett “has written a play in which

nothing happens, twice”?

2. Who do think thing Godot is?

3. What role do Pozzo and Lucky play? How does their relationship compare to that of Vladimir

and Estragon?

4. Have you ever experienced the sort of stasis Estragon and Vladimir are in, just waiting?

5. How would this play be more or less effective if it was only one act?

6. What does this play say about humanity?

7. Is this play timeless? If so, what factors keep it from becoming outdated?

8. How does the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon compare with the relationship

between Pozzo and Lucky?

9. Do Vladimir and Estragon develop as characters over the course of the play?

10. This play has been met with wide range of reactions, as described in the production history in

this study guide. Why do you think people react so differently?

On this production:

1. What did you feel while watching the play? Did you feel any differently during each act?

2. What did you make of Lucky's speech? The other characters were greatly disturbed by it; were

you?

3. Did you ever feel that the actors/characters were conscious of the audience?

4. Beckett had on multiple occasions stopped or denounced productions of “Waiting for Godot”

with female cast members.3 (93)

In what ways does having an almost all female cast change the

dynamics of the play? Does it at all?

5. “Waiting for Godot” has a very particular type of comedy, which can only be portrayed with

great skill from the actors. The dialogue is constantly wavering between hilarity, absurdity, and

seriousness. How did the actors use body language, voice inflection, and silence to make this

production funny?

6. How did the set and lighting contribute to this production?

7. If given the chance, would you see “Waiting for Godot” again?

Places for Further Reading

Samuel Beckett has written a lifetime worth of plays, novels, poems, short stories, films, radio plays,

critical analysis, and essays. Here is a brief list of Beckett's most famous works:4

1932 DREAM OF FAIR TO MIDDLING WOMEN (novel -- unpublished until 1992)

1938 MURPHY (novel -- French translation 1947)

1951 MOLLOY (novel in French -- English translation 1955)

1951 MALONE MEURT (novel -- English translation, MALONE DIES, 1956)

1952 EN ATTENDANT GODOT

1953 L'INNOMMABLE (novel -- English translation, THE UNNAMABLE, 1958).

1953 WATT (novel in English -- written 1942-45; French translation 1968)

1957 FIN DE PARTIE (one-act play -- English translation, ENDGAME, 1958)

1957 ACTE SANS PAROLE I (mime -- English translation, ACT WITHOUT WORDS I, 1958)

1958 KRAPP'S LAST TAPE (play for one character and tape recorder -- French translation, LA

DERNIÈRE BANDE,1959)

1961 COMMENT C'EST (novel -- English translation, HOW IT IS, 1964)

1961 HAPPY DAYS (play in two acts -- French translation, OH LES BEAUX JOURS, 1964)

1963 ACTE SANS PAROLE II (mime, written 1957 -- English translation, ACT WITHOUT

WORDS II, 1959)

1964 PLAY (one-act play -- French translation, COMÉDIE, 1964. Film adaptation, 1966)

1970 MERCIER ET CAMIER (novel, written 1945-46 -- English translation, MERCIER AND

CAMIER, 1974)

Looking for more Theater of the Absurd? Check

out:

Eugene Ionesco

◦ The Chairs

◦ Rhinoceros

Albert Camus

◦ The Stranger

◦ The Fall

Jean Genet

◦ The Maids

◦ The Balcony

◦ The Blacks

Martin Esslin

◦ The Theatre of the Absurd (nonfiction)

Want to know more about Beckett and “Waiting

for Godot”? Look for:

Samuel Beckett: A Biography by Deirdre

Bair

Damned to Fame: The Life of Samuel

Beckett by James Knowlson

The Letters of Samuel Beckett

Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations:

Waiting for Godot edited by Harold Bloom

The Theatrical Notebooks of Samuel

Beckett: Waiting for Godot

The Grove Companion to Samuel Beckett: A

Reader's Guide to His Works, Life, and

Thought by C. J. Ackerly and S. E.

Gontarski

http://www.samuel-beckett.net/

Bibliography

1. "Samuel Beckett - Biography." Samuel Beckett. European Graduate School EGS, 1997-2012.

Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

2. Rick. "Rick On Theater." : History of 'Waiting For Godot' N.p., 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 03 Feb.

2013.

3. Hutchings, William. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot: A Reference Guide. Westport, CT:

Praeger, 2005. Print.

4. Feterman, Raymond. "The Imagery Museum of Samuel Beckett by Raymond Federman." The

Imagery Museum of Samuel Beckett by Raymond Federman. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb.

2013.

5. Esslin, Martin. "The Search for the Self." 1961. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Ed.

Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 23-40. Print.

6. Ruby, Cohn. "Waiting." 1973. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Ed. Harold Bloom. New

York: Chelsea House, 1987. 41-51. Print.

7. Gilman, Richard. "The Waiting Since." 1972. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Ed. Harold

Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 67-78. Print.

8. States, Bert O. "The Language of Myth." 1978. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Ed. Harold

Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 79-94. Print.

9. Conley, Tim. "Beckett - Biography." Beckett - Biography. N.p., 15 Mar. 2001. Web. 03 Feb.

2013.

10. Orend, Karl. "How Beckett Was." Thesis. 2003. Weekly Book Reviews and Literary Analysis

from the Times Literary Supplement. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

11. Bloom, Harold. "Introduction." Introduction. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. New York:

Chelsea House, 1987. 1-10. Print.

12. Gans, Eric. "Beckett and the Problem of Modern Culture." 1982. Samuel Beckett's Waiting for

Godot. By Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 95-110. Print.

13. Kern, Edith. "Beckett's Modernity and Medieval Affinities." 1983. Samuel Beckett's Waiting

for Godot. By Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 111-18. Print.

14. Sarkar, : Kumaraditya. "The Disputed Identity of Godot." IndiaStudyChannel.com. N.p., 16

Apr. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

15. Ben-Zvi, Linda. Samuel Beckett. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1986.

16. Samuel Beckett. Digital image. Harry Ransom Center RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

17. Thurston, Luke. "Outselves: Beckett, Bion And Beyond." Journal Of Modern Literature 32.3

(2009): 121-143. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.

18. "Comic and Farcical Elements in Waiting for Godot | Learn English, IELTS, EFL,ESL Public

Speaking, Grammar, Literature, Linguistics by NEO." Comic and Farcical Elements in

Waiting for Godot | Learn English, IELTS, EFL,ESL Public Speaking, Grammar,

Literature, Linguistics by NEO. N.p., 4 Dec. 2010. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.