December 09, 2020

Assignment ( Season 3 )

 Welcome!


Assignment 

The Modernist English Literature 


S. B Gardi 

Department of English, MKBU


Nirali N. Makvana 

Sem 3

Roll no. 15

niralimakvana9599@gmail.com 

niralimakvana.blogspot.com

slideshare.net/NiraliMakvana1



Various reading or approaches of the play " Waiting for Godot " By Samuel Beckett 



Key words : Absurd theatre, Deconstructive, Psychoanalytic, Postmodernist reading, Waiting for Godot 



♧ Brief introduction about author  :-


Samuel Beckett 




Samuel Barclay Beckett  was an Irish novelist, playwright, short story writer, theatre director, poet and literary translator. A resident of Paris for most of his adult life. He wrote in both French and English. Beckett's idiosyncratic work offers a bleak tragi comic outlook on existence and experience, often coupled with black comedy, nonsense and gallows humour. He is considered one of the last modernist writers and one of the key figures in what Martin Esslin called,  " Theatre of the Absurd. " His best known work is his 1953 play " Waiting for Godot ." Samuel Beckett was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in Literature for his writing, which is new forms for the novel and drama in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation. 



♧ Brief note on What is " The Absurd Play " and " Waiting for Godot " as an Absurd Drama  :-



The Phrase " Absurd Drama " or " The Theatre of Absurd " gained currency after Martin Esslin's book " The Theatre of Absurd published in 1961. Esslin points out that there is no such things as a regular movement of Absurd dramatist. 


By " Absurd " Camus meant a life lived solely for its sake in a universe which no longer made sense because there was no God to resolve the contradiction. 


In other words what Camus called " Absurd " Kierkegaard called " Despair. " And it is on this philosophy that Beckett created his famous play " Waiting for Godot. "  Before the Genre of " Absurd Drama " gained popularity in the hands of Beckett Adamov, Ionesco and Gennet were characterized by clearly constructed story and subtlety of characterisation and motivation. 




In the play, practically nothing happens, no development is to be found, there is no beginning and no end. The entire action boils down in an absurd setting of a country side road with two tramps Vladimir and Estragon who simply idle away their time waiting for Godot, about whom they have only vague ideas. They have nothing substantial to tell each other and yet they must spend the time, for they cannot stop waiting. Two other characters, a cruel master called Pozzo and his half-crazy slave called Lucky appear. Eventually a boy arrives with a message that Godot will arrive the next day. The two tramps decide to go away, but they do not move and the curtain falls, eventually nothing happens. 


The second act is the replica of the first act, but Pozzo is now blind and Lucky is dumb. The wait of Vladimir and Estragon continues but in despair. This monotony characterized the world after the wars and this condition was captured and depicted in the Theatre of Absurd. The Absurd theatre delt with a deeper layer of absurdity--- the absurdity of the human condition itself in a world where the decline of religious belief has deprived man of certainties. Like the waiting between birth and death in Gelber’s plays, Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, is also about an absurd wait. According to Martin Esslin, the Theatre of Absurd projected a situation where it was “no longer possible to accept simple and complete systems of values and revelations of divine purpose.” Life was projected to face its “ultimate stark reality.” What the existential philosopher Kierkegaard believed that “we are thrown into existence here and there”, is reflected in the theatre of absurd. And Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ reveals this stark reality of human existence through the characters of the two tramps. 


The theatre of Absurd is a post world war creation. It is a creation and a search for a way of relief after the two terrible wars. This provided a dignified way for the people to confront the universe deprived of what was once its centre and its living purpose----the God and faith. Beckett also unfolded “Waiting for Godot” with similar view. The title itself is suggestive that the play deals with a prolong wait and the waiting of the two tramps is for Godot.


When Beckett was asked who Godot was, he replied, “If I knew, I would have said so in the play.” Such a reply forced the critics to offer varied interpretations of the identity of Godot. The very word ‘Godot’ is suggestive of a weakened or diminutive form of the word ‘God’. In fact, the French version of the play “En Attendant Godot”, seems to contain an allusion to a book “Attente de Dieu”, which further supplies evidence that ‘Godot’ stands for God. Thus they surrender themselves to the ‘absurd waiting’ for Godot. Often they grow tedious of the wait and decide to go but they fail as they say : 


Estragon:- I’m tired! Let’s go. 

Vladimir:- We can’t 

Estragon:- why not 

Vladimir:- We are waiting for Godot. 

(Act 1 )



There are four approaches for reading this play :-


♧ Deconstructive reading of the play  :-



When we study “Waiting for Godot”, we come across the central theme of the play, which revolves around the waiting for Godot, who does not appear in the play. Nevertheless, the two characters of the play, Vladimir and Estragon, who are homeless vagabonds, seem to be entrapped in the trap of illusory world of the metaphysics of presence. They are tied up with messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism of the term Godot. Messianic is one of the forms of the metaphysics of presence, which is evident in the concepts of theocentrism and anthropocentrism. Any ideological, religious and political system, which claims to be authorised legitimacy, is messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism. This messianism is dominant in human thought. Jacques Derrida also calls this way of thinking messianicity, according to which Christian hope of a future to come.Therefore, the word Godot in the play signifies both theocentric as well as anthropocentric messianic logocentrism, which may be noted is, the privilege given to it as Jehovah of “The Old Testament”, his wrath frightens, and like Messiah (Jesus Christ) of “The New Testament”, his Second Coming will redeem the humankind. He may stand for salvation, donation, rebirth and promise, which is able to be a link between these logic and the two waiting tramps. However, the tramps are fallen in the trap of illusory world of the metaphysics of presence and messianism. Therefore, they are mentally tied up with thelogocentric messianic term Godot. Nevertheless, they have taken it for granted that it is a dominant source of redemption and salvation. They attempt to discover the meaning, origin and truth under the umbrella of the presupposed messianic logos Godot.


Therefore, Godot can punish them if the tramps leave, redeem, and reward them if they keep waiting for him. The tramps have strong desire to turn Godot’s absence to presence. This desire is identical to the yearning of west European philosophy for centre or the stable and fixed signified by the metaphysics of presence. This messianic logocentric metaphysical presence makes a concrete physical anthropocentric entity for the tramps. For instance, 

Vladimir’s yearning to perceive an exact image of Godot’s appearance in an anthropomorphic manner, bringing him on the level of human perception is an attempt of this kind:



“Vladimir: (softly) Has he a beard, Mr Godot?

Boy: Yes sir.

Vladimir: Fair or… (He hesitates)… or black? 

Boy: I think it’s white, sir” (Beckett, Samuel, 1956, Act 2, p. 92).



In this manner, Vladimir cannot perceive the image of Godot without what west European philosophy’s tradition of the metaphysics of presence and messianism has set for him as the foundation of messianic logocentrism of his beliefs and thoughts. An absent entity of Godot in the play refutes definition, and at this point, it becomes very close to Jacques Derrida’s definition of difference than to the metaphysical notion of messianic theocentric or anthropocentric logos. Jacques Derrida explains that difference is “formation of form” (Derrida, Jacques, 1976, p. 63)” and the historical and epochal unfolding of Being” (Derrida, Jacques, 1982, p. 22), something that negates origin.



♧ Postmodernist reading of the play :-



“let’s go” _”we can’t” _ “why not” _ “we are waiting for Godot” _”ah” (Becket, 1956 p. 16-henceforth Becket). With this disconsolate utterance, Samuel Beckett introduces the strange world of Waiting for Godot, a mystery that is wrapped in enigma. Before the elucidation of any literary criticisms, it would be indispensable to take a perfunctory look at the play. Waiting for Godot was first written in French version in 1949 and then translated into English in 1954 by its Irish writer. The two down-and-out men who wait expectantly to visit inscrutable Godot, have nothing significant to do with their lives, while waiting at a tree in the middle of nowhere doing every possible thing, 

even contemplating suicide, just to keep the dreadful silence at bay. Their waiting is interrupted by passing through of three other characters of the play, Pozzo and his subservient slave, Lucky, and the boy whose name was not mentioned, but seems to be the messenger of Godot. Waiting for Godot had the most strikingly profound impact on everyone, which commenced the trend that became known as the “theater of absurd”. More importantly Samuel Beckett made Waiting for Godot as the violation of the conventional drama and the direction of expressionism and surrealism experiment in drama and theater. Waiting for Godot was one of the most exceptional plays of the post-second world war era. Esslin calls it “one of the successes of the post-war theater” (1980, p. 3) More importantly the play does not formally end when the boy, who is somehow the harbinger of dejection, keeps Vladimir abreast of the fact that Godot is not coming this evening. The play indeed begins with waiting for Godot 

and ends with waiting for Godot as well. 




Tragio-comic Elements in Waiting for Godot 


Although Waiting for Godot is said to be depressing, but as a matter of fact in different parts of the play the four characters fabricate different movements of humor in their mannerism and behavior. In other words, tragic and comic aspects of the play are amalgamated simultaneously. Most of the time, we can feel this helpless absurdity throughout the play. 



Estragon: why don’t we hang ourselves? 

Vladimir: with what? 

Estragon: you haven’t got a bit of rope? 

Vladimir: no 

Estragon: then we can’t 

Vladimir: let’s go 

Estragon: oh, wait, there is my belt 

Vladimir: it’s too short 

Estragon: you could hang on to my legs 

Vladimir: and who would hang onto mine? 

Estragon: true (Becket, p. 42) 



Or even when his pants are fallen off his feet, he does not notice that, and Vladimir makes him aware of that.



♧ Psychoanalytical reading of the play :-



Dreams seem to be of importance for Vladimir and Estragon and the unconscious mind consists of repressed memories and fears. I believe that sometimes when Estragon is dreaming his repressed memories and fears surface, and therefore it feels important for him to tell Vladimir about them. However, in Act 1 Vladimir does not want to hear about what Estragon dreamt and he gets very irritated when Estragon tries to tell him about his nightmare. In Act 2, Vladimir consolidates Estragon when he wakes up even though he still does not want to hear what he dreamt about, as is how in the discussion below:


VLADIMIR: [Softly.]


Bye bye bye bye

Bye bye bye bye

Bye bye bye bye

Bye bye…

[ESTRAGON sleeps. VLADIMIR gets up softly, takes off his

coat and lays it across ESTRAGON’s shoulders, then starts

walking up and down, swinging his arms to keep himself warm.

ESTRAGON wakes with a start, jumps up, casts about wildly.

VLADIMIR runs to him, puts his arms round him.]

There…there…Didi is there…don’t be afraid…

ESTRAGON: Ah!

VLADIMIR: There…there…it’s all over.

ESTRAGON: I was falling –

VLADIMIR: It’s all over, it’s all over.

ESTRAGON: I was on a top of a –

VLADIMIR: Don’t tell me! Come, we’ll walk it off.



♧ References 




[1] Akhter, Javed. “Waiting for Godot : A Deconstructive Study .” International Journal of Humanities and Culture Studies , vol. 2, no. 1, 2015, pp. 42–63.


[2] Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot, New Delhi: 

Penguin Books India. Pvt. Ltd.1996. Print.


[3] Dalarna, Högskolan. “A Psychoanalytic Reading of Vladimir and Estragon Samuel Beckett's " Waiting for Godot ".” 2007, pp. 2–27.


[4] Esslin, Martin. Theatre of Absurd. Penguin Books, 1968.


[4] Hooti, Noorbakhsh. “Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot : A Postmodernist Study .” Vol. 1, 2011, pp. 40–49.


[5] Hussain, Tazir. “Theatre of Absurd and Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot as an Absurd Drama .” IJSR, vol. 3, no. 11, 2014.


No comments:

Post a Comment