Relative and Relational Meanings in Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot

 

           Reading a Samuel Becket play for the first time will make a reader think about how to analyze it. What approach to literary criticism will they use? There would be a lot of ideas that will occur to them and make them confused and afraid that they’ll misread the material. One can see a lot of topics that can be covered, but on the other hand, the fear of not being able to give proof and justification for any of those will pop up. Primarily because the text seems so simple, yet a misleading piece of art. The text has many contradictions, but meanings are considered relative and relational.

 

 

Truth vs. Lie

 

           Two cases in the play confuse readers about its truthfulness. One is when Estragon tells Vladimir that he has spent the night in a ditch where he says he was beaten. Once again, in Act II, Estragon maintains he spent the night in a ditch and was beaten – by “ten of them” this time – though in these claims, the character shows no sign of injury or signs of being assaulted. Is this just one of the layers that must be brought to open, symbolism that must be thought about, or it’s just an element that should be present in any theater of the absurd?

           The second case is when the young boy appears and tells the two main characters that Godot can’t make it there and might come a day later. In Act II again, a boy returns, possibly the same boy, to inform them not to expect Godot, but he would arrive the next day. It is left unanswered because the play ends with the two characters contemplating the idea of suicide but still waiting for Godot.

 

 

Identity vs. Anonymity

 

           Here, the character that should be discussed is Godot, who does not appear in the play. The entire text mentions his name, and the story centers on two characters which await his arrival. Estragon and Vladimir seem to know him, but if one reads the text closely, they are ignorant of his identity. Vladimir asks what Godot does, and the boy tells him, “He does nothing, sir.”  

We also learn that Godot has a white beard – possibly, the boy is not certain. The entire play struggled to show us who Godot is. But in the end, it refuses to show us. Biblically, is he God? Is he a hero who will save the hapless characters or an evil one who will lead them to their doom?

 

 

Foolishness vs. Practicality

 

           Estragon and Vladimir waiting for Godot is a picture of undying patience and determination to achieve one goal. The problem is that what at first seemed to be a virtue leads to stupidity. Undoubtedly, one will immediately respond (under a skeletal tree) to someone anonymous who is a day late. But somehow, reading between the lines, the text implies that since they have waited for a day (which seems like a century), isn’t it practical to wait some more?

 

 

According to Jacques Derrida, words have multiple definitions, and these definitions require us to seek the meaning of other words. True enough, the word of the characters are dueling. Like when Vladimir asks his friend: "Well? Shall we go?" and Estragon answers: "Yes, let's go." But neither moves. Would it be different if Vladimir said, “Let’s go.”? 

Lines like this expose contradictions of discourse. When something is said, another is left out.