Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot

An analysis through examining the language of the play

Samuel Becketts well-known play, Waiting for Godot, is considered to be one of the most prominent works of the mid-20th century literary movement called The Theatre of the Absurd. This movement covers many themes and stylistic features that are the characteristics of these plays, for instance comedy combined with tragedy, people controlled by an invisible superior force and trapped in hopeless situations, having to do meaningless actions again and again. This philosophy of the meaninglesness of human existence was first articulated by Albert Camus, in his essay written in 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus, and it was adapted by many playwrights after on. Camus states that a satisfying rational explanation of the world is beyond humanitys reach, therefore it has to be seen as absurd. Starting to read Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot, the reader immediately can recgnise its extraordinary use of language, which is observable throughout the whole play. This kind of language perfectly fits what is called absurd, what is more, it is probably the most important tool with which the author represents the dramas absurd world. The most obvious absurdity derives from the fact that the aim of language is to express meanings, to give information to one another, in other words, to communicate. This is exactly what is distorted in the drama, because the characters conversate with each other but do not say anything. This could be an important message of the play, since we can frequently notice in real life that people are talking just because they do not want to be silent, and it often occurs that the real message gets lost among the numerous empty words. The absurdity of the language can be achieved by several means. In the text the the playwright uses a large range of peculiarities to break as many rules of conventional use of

language as possible, thus emphasising the ridiculousness and unreality of the characters behaviour. Probably the most conspicuous feature of the plays language is that many times the characters do not respond to each others utterances, but they continue the conversation with an unexpected reply. Sometimes it seems that they do not remember the sentence said before the last one and this way we get dialogues similar to the game in which the participants hand around a sheet of paper writing sentences on it, and they fold it so that the next person cannot read what the only visible sentence comments on. Likewise, it often occurs in the drama that Estragon does not understand the situation because of his disability to remember: ESTRAGON: POZZO: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: () Whatll we do, whatll we do! Help! What about helping him? What does he want? He wants to get up. Then why doesnt he? He wants us to help him to get up. Then why dont we? What are we waiting for?

Another example of this kind of situation, Estragons lack of memory, results in the almost ritualistic repetition of the microdialogue in which Vladimir reminds him why they cannot leave the tree: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: Lets go. We cant. Why not? Were waiting for Godot. Ah!

Rituals are determinative in human behaviour and mind, we need them to keep our lives organised and to have something secure which we can lean on; and they are even more necessary to us when we feel insecure. Beckett exaggerates this human property and it makes the characters of the drama more ridiculous and pathetic, thus showing a mirror to the reader or the audience, to mankind. Vladimir, Estragon, Lucky, and in the second act even Pozzo, are extremely defenceless and maybe that is why they need to repeat these pieces of

conversation. These few lines above occur in the play at least seven times, but it is not the only reoccurring pattern. As it has been mentioned before, repetition is significant in the language of Waiting for Godot. It often occurs that the characters repeat each others words, as if they were asking for reassurance or expressing their astonishment or indignation, as we can see in the following passage: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: (feebly). Help me! It hurts? Hurts! H wants to know if it hurts! (angrily). No one ever suffers but you. I dont count. Id like to hear what youd say if you had what I have. ESTRAGON: It hurts? VLADIMIR: Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts! One possible explanation of this kind of repetition might be that the characters of the play are so primitive and simple-minded that they cannot spend their time with useful activities, but they talk about one topic just to make time pass. Besides, they do not care if the other persons thought is incomprehensible, for example in Vladimirs utterance above, it is not clear what he means by what I have, but Estragon does not ask him to clarify, as it would be expected in the case of a normal person. At the beginning of the second act, the song that Vladimir sings is also a good example of doing something just to pass the time. The song itself is neverending, the lyrics has to be repeated again and again, just like in many childrens songs, and it gives us the imression that the characters of the drama are infantile, because it is hard for them to endure this life in which they are determined to wait for a perhaps non-existent person, and they cannot break out from this hopeless situation. However, the happiness of childhood is not present in this part, since Vladimirs song is fractured, he sometimes stops and has to start again. Vladimir and Estragon have a contradictory relationship, which can be detected in the text, the way they communicate with each other. They usually do not agree, but at the same

time they complete each other, which is recognisable in many of their dialogues in the form of anaphoric repetition: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: VLADIMIR: ESTRAGON: We could do our exercises. Our movements. Our elevations. Our relaxations. Our elongations. Our relaxations. To warm us up. To calm us down.

We can notice the contraversy in this exchange as well, since it contains pairs of opposites, like excercise and relaxation, warm up and calm down. It also occurs on the level of plot: Vladimir and Estragon sometimes discuss if they should part, but in the end they always decide not to do so. However, the readers or the audience suspects that they would not be able to separate even if they wanted to, because they are trapped in the scene of waiting, they do not have their free will, as it is shown at the end of both acts: VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go? ESTRAGON: Yes, lets go. They do not move. The fact that the play contains such a wide range and such a big number of reiterations can be interpreted as the symbol of Vladimirs and Estragons endless waiting. Just like the days of the protagonists are all the same, and each of the days seem to last forever, the patterns mentioned above also occur several times in the text, thus the waiting and its textual representation are reinforcing each other throught the whole drama. Another important passage from the aspect of language is the think of Lucky, which is the longest monologue in the text. None of the other characters have a speech as long as this one; Estragon seems to be unable to produce longer sentences and coherent texts, Vladimir and Pozzo have some utterances which are a few lines long but even these are rare in the play. Although Luckys think has a greater extent, it contains all the possible mistakes that one can think of. It is necessary to note that an average person would hardly be able to create

such a speech spontaneously, it would need a lot of practicing beforehand. Perhaps the authors aim with this stream of thoughts was to emphasise Luckys miserable condition, that he has to force himself to do anything beyond his capacity in order to convince his master not to get rid of him. The monologue does not consist of sentences, it is entirely inarticulate, therefore monotonous. The author accurately describes the reactions of the other characters: after a while they cannot listen to Lucky any more, they suffer and try to stop him. What is more, the readers reaction is very similar: it is difficult to read this passage, we need to force ourselves to concentrate on it, and probably some may skip this part while readning. The monotony appears in another way as well: when Lucky starts to repeat a syllable several times: LUCKY: Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaqua outside time () crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy Probably this phenomenon means that Lucky is like a machine, he can be swiched on and off whenever his owner pleases, but sometimes the machine goes wrong and strarts to repeat itself. We can project Luckys situation to all peoples, because in this world everyone is a part of a system and have to do their job, because if not, they risk their position in society and even their subsistence. However, the repetition of syllables can also be seen as stammering, which is usually the property of shy and insecure people, or anyone can stammer who otherwise has no defects of speech, when he or she is scared or nervous. In conclusion, Luckys think is similar to the whole text because at the first sight it seems to be nonsense but it comprises such a deep meaning in its meaninglessness that it becomes the centre of the play, showing its high importance in the interpretation of the drama.

Sources: www.theatredatabase.com - Jerome P. Crabb: Theatre of the Absurd Hugh Kenner: A Readers Guide to Samuel Beckett; 1973, Thames and Hudson