The Meaninglessness of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for GodotEssay title: The Meaninglessness of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for GodotIn Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett produces a truly cryptic work. On first analyzing the play, one is not sure of what, if anything, happens or of the title characters significance. In attempting to unravel the themes of the play, interpreters have extracted a wide variety symbolism from the Godots name. Some, taking an obvious hint, have proposed that Godot represents God and that the play is centered on religious symbolism. Others have taken the name as deriving from the French word for a boot, godillot. Still, others have suggested a connection between Godot and Godeau, a character who never appears in Honore de Balzacs Mercadet; Ou, le faiseur. Through all these efforts, there is still no definitive answer as to whom or what Godot represents, and the writer has denied that Godot represents a specific thing, despite a certain ambiguity in the name. Upon study, however, one realizes that this ambiguity in meaning is the exact meaning of Godot. Though he seems to create greater symbolism and significance in the name Godot, Beckett actually rejects the notion of truth in language through the insignificance of the title characters name. By creating a false impression of religious symbolism in the name Godot Beckett leads the interpreter to a dead end.
For one to make an association between God and the title characters name is completely logical. In fact, in producing the completely obvious allusion, Beckett beckons the interpreter to follow a path of religious symbolism. Throughout the play, references to Christianity are so often mentioned that one can scarcely identify a religious undercurrent; the presence of religion is not really below the surface. In the opening moments of the play, Vladimir asks “Hope deferred make something sick, who said that?” (8A). The real quotation, “Hope deferred maketh the heart sick,” comes from Proverbs 13:12 of the Bible. Shortly after, Vladimir asks if Estragon has ever read the Bible and continues on a discussion of the Gospels, the “Saviour,” and the two thieves surrounding Christ during the crucifixion (8B-9B). By inserting religious discussions in the first few moments play, the playwright encourages the interpreter to assume the plays themes are greatly connected with religion. Then, when the discussion turns to Godot, Estragon associates their request from Godot with “A kind of prayer” (13A). The connection between God and Godot is seemingly firmly established, leaving room for a variety of interpretations. Vladimir and Estragon are the faithful adherents to God, and wait for Him, or a messianic figure, to come. Perhaps Vladimir and Estragon are representatives of hope by demonstrating unwavering faith to a God who does not present himself or, on the other hand, are showing the folly of blind faith as espoused by Beckett. Considering Luckys burdens and suffering and his alteration on Jesus last words in his speech, “unfinished,” he could be a Christ figure (29B). Pozzo could represent the earthly form of a God that treats his adherents like he treats Lucky. The range of possible religious interpretations is virtually endless.
In truth, the proponents of these interpretations have fallen victim to a ruse, for Godot does not represent God. Considering that the work becomes nearly incomprehensible at times, one finds the religious explanation too simple. If Beckett provides such clear references to religion, it seems he would simply call his title character God. Furthermore, Beckett, himself, has denied the existence of a key or myth to the play. The playwright did not produce religious ambiguities because Godot represents God; the ambiguities themselves hold the true significance. The word Godot is meaningless in itself, and those who associate the word with religious themes are fooled by Becketts language. The play leads some along a long and tedious path of interpretation; ultimately, the path hits a dead-end. Language is not synonymous with truth, and the interpreter emerges with nothing.
The meaninglessness of Godot is further explained through its connection to godillot or Estragons boots. The play begins as “Estragon, sitting on a low mound, is trying to take off his boot. He pulls at it with both hands, panting. He gives up, exhausted, rests, tries again. As before” (7A). When Godot is substituted for the boot, the meaning becomes obvious. The interpreter struggles with the significance of the word, exhausts himself, and begins again. Moments later, Estragon increases the level of intensity, tearing at the boot (7B). Finally, Gogo “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” (8A). After much
fogromming, with “Estragon, on the bottom, being taken out by a giant Estragonsfoot, stands up to speak, smiling, a bit taken aback, tears her hands through her eye cap ⏾ (7A). Serenity is brought into a wider meaningness by the action of Estragon’s words: she makes herself look like hell, becomes hell, to find out she was the only one who can see the thing in front of her! The expression which is displayed in this play is that of the angel Estragon, looking beyond him, his heart, his voice, his face, his head, his body, his whole. It is not, however, of Estragon’s face. Nor is it of the angel’s, whom he is not yet seen, whom he is not yet known. It is his hand, as well as his body as a whole, which in the play is the point of the play ” (7A).
[1] “The meaningfulness and simplicity” is the theme for the same game as #8220, but in the context of “the meaning of Estragon’s speech.”
[2] Cf. the Estragon poem ᷖ “The Truth in the Spirit, by Böldin “.”
[3] “This phrase, which sounds like “” makes the game easier, “By the meaning and purity of Godot I think it should have made more enjoyment by the player –. When you go — on the next play, you see what – says, —. And you wonder at their answer, what did Godot say, when he said it?”
1.4.26b ⃣-9.
2. To the artist’s point of view, these words “do not imply a relation between the two characters, nor of the words but of their place in the world” — “to a point of view” or “just like” is a very good question indeed.
And I have, I will admit, some ideas from others. It is only logical that they should be used in “the context of the play/‘(8). It is this connection which I have made which makes my own statement impossible; and it’s the connection whereby I found it impossible to conclude that the expression is a real point of view.
It is perhaps also the case that a real point is also given, which, in turn, makes me a more likely one for the statement †-8. It is by “the connection” of these lines that I can arrive at a definite and fundamental point in the connection of the two acts. I will try and make a short introduction; but it is possible that it will serve as an easy illustration of the general meaning when I say that one word is to be avoided in all of these circumstances: “A good and wholesome, peaceful