THE THEATRE OF THE ABSURD:

THE BASICS
The term ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ was coined by Martin
Esslin in his 1962 book by that title. It refers to the
work of a loosely associated group of dramatists who
first emerged during and after World War II.
Theatre of the Absurd came about as a reaction to
World War II.

The global nature of this war and the resulting trauma

of living under the threat of a nuclear annihilation put
into stark perspective the essential precariousness of
human life.
It takes the basis of existential philosophy.
The playwright of the absurd views life
existentially and expresses the senselessness of it.
Most of the plays express a sense of wonder,
incomprehension, and at times despair at the
meaninglessness of human existence. Since, they
do not believe in a rational and well-meaning
universe, they do not see any possibility of
resolution of the problems they present, either.
The absurdist playwrights give artistic expression to
Albert Camus' existential philosophy, as illustrated in
his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, that life is inherently
meaningless. The Myth of Sisyphus is the harbinger of
the theatre of the absurd.
 Sisyphus, punished by the gods, must roll a huge rock
up a hill, and once he reaches the summit, he must
throw it down and start all over again. Sisyphus forever
rolls a stone up a hill and is forever aware that it [the
stone] will never reach the top. The absurdity here is
the why and also the how: The senselessness.
 Camus argued that humanity had to resign
itself to recognizing that a fully satisfying
rational explanation of the universe was
beyond its reach; in that sense, the world
must ultimately be seen as absurd.

The Theatre of the Absurd does not argue about the

absurdity of the human condition; it
merely presents it in being via concrete stage
images.
 It creates a style of theatre which presented a world
which cannot be logically explained.

 It uses techniques that seemed to be illogical to the

theatre world. The arbitrary structure of the plays
reflects the arbitrary and irrational nature of life.
 Structurally, in contrast to a well made play with a
beginning, middle and a neatly tied up ending, the
plays by the absurdist playwrights often start at an
arbitrary point and end just as arbitrarily. The plots
often deviate from the more traditional episodic
structure, and seem to be cyclic, ending the same way
it begins. It rejects narrative continuity and the
rigidity of logic.
 The scenery is often unrecognizable.
 The dialogue never seems to make any sense.
Language is seen as a futile attempt to communicate.
In short, the communication is impossible.
 The general effect is often a nightmare or dreamlike
atmosphere in which the protagonist is overwhelmed
by the chaotic or irrational nature of his environment.
 Most absurdist intermix farce and tragedy in which the
poignantly tragic may come upon the funny, or vice
versa.
 Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Eugène Ionesco, Jean
Genet, Harold Pinter, Edward Albee, Tom Stoppard
can be said to be the primary playwrights of the
absurd.
 The Theatre of the Absurd was also anticipated in the
dream novels of James Joyce and Franz Kafka who
created archetypes by delving into their own
subconscious and exploring the universal, collective
significance of their own private obsessions.
 Unlike the traditional theatre which attempts to create
a photographic representation of life as we see it, the
Theatre of the Absurd aims to create a ritual-like,
mythological, archetypal, allegorical vision, closely
related to the world of dreams. The focal point of these
dreams is often man's fundamental bewilderment and
confusion, stemming from the fact that he has no
answers to the basic existential questions: why we are
alive, why we have to die, why there is injustice and
suffering.
Ionesco defined the absurdist everyman as “Cut off
from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental
roots … lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd,
and useless.”
 The Theatre of the Absurd, in a sense, attempts to re-
establish man’s communion with the universe. The
Theatre of the Absurd hopes to achieve this by
shocking man out of an existence that has become
trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is
mystical experience in confronting the limits of
human condition.
 One of the most important aspects of absurd
drama is its distrust of language as a means of
communication.
 Language is nothing more than a vehicle for
conventionalized, stereotyped, meaningless
exchanges.
The Theatre of the Absurd shows language as a very
unreliable and insufficient tool of communication.
Absurd drama uses conventionalised speech,
clichés, slogans and technical jargon, which it
distorts, parodies and breaks down. By ridiculing
conventionalised and stereotyped speech patterns,
the Theatre of the Absurd tries to make people
aware of the possibility of going beyond everyday
speech conventions and communicating more
authentically.
Absurd drama subverts logic. It relishes the
unexpected and the logically impossible.
 Theatre of the Absurd has some stylistic precursors as
in the following:
 Tragicomedy: The mode of most ‘absurdist’ plays
is tragicomedy. Writers associated with the theatre of
the absurd have been particularly attracted to
tragicomedy. Tragicomedy is a form of drama that
combines tragic and comic elements. Sudden
reversals, averted catastrophes, and happy endings
were the standard ingredients of the form.
Dadaism: Many of the Absurdists had direct
connections with the Dadaists. Dadaism or Dada is a
post-World War I cultural movement in visual art as
well as literature (mainly poetry), theatre and graphic
design. The movement was a protest against the
barbarism of the War and what Dadaists believed was
an oppressive intellectual rigidity in both art and
everyday society; its works were characterized by a
deliberate irrationality and the rejection of the
prevailing standards of art. Dada began as an anti-art
movement, in the sense that it rejected the way art was
appreciated and defined in contemporary art scenes.
Surrealism: Surrealism style uses visual imagery from
the subconscious mind to create art without the
intention of logical comprehensibility. The movement
was begun primarily in Europe, centred in Paris, and
attracted many of the members of
the Dada community. Influenced by the
psychoanalytical work of Freud and Jung, there are
similarities between the Surrealist movement and the
Symbolist movement of the late 19th century.
Antonin Artaud's ‘The Theatre of Cruelty’ was a
particularly important philosophical treatise. Artaud
claimed theatre's reliance on literature was inadequate
and that the true power of theatre was in its visceral
impact. Artaud rejected realism in the theatre, calling
for a return to myth and magic and to the exposure of
the deepest conflicts within the human mind. He
demanded a theatre that would produce collective
archetypes and create a modern mythology.
It was no longer possible, he insisted, to keep using
traditional art forms and standards that had ceased
being convincing and lost their validity. The Theatre of
the Absurd is as Ionesco called it “anti-theatre”. It was
surreal, illogical, conflictless and plotless. The
dialogue often seemed to be complete gibberish. And,
not surprisingly, the public’s first reaction to this new
theatre was incomprehension and rejection.
Existentialism: The Theatre of the Absurd is commonly
associated with Existentialism. Existentialistic ideas came
out of a time in society when there was a deep sense of
despair following the Great Depression and World War II.
There was a spirit of optimism in society that was destroyed
by World War I and its mid-century calamities.
Existentialism was a philosophy born out of the Angst of
post-war Europe, out of a loss of faith in the ideals of
progress, reason and science. If not only God, but reason
and objective value are dead, then man is abandoned in an
absurd and alien world. The philosophy for man in this
“age of distress” must be a subjective, personal one. A
person’s remaining hope is to return to his “inner self”, and
to live in whatever ways he feels are true to that self. The
hero for this age, the existentialist hero, lives totally free
from the constraints of discredited traditions, and commits
himself unreservedly to the demands of his inner,
authentic being.
This despair has been articulated by existentialist
philosophers well into the 1970s and continues on to
this day as a popular way of thinking and reasoning
(with the freedom to choose one’s preferred moral
belief system and lifestyle). An existentialist could
either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an
amoral atheist. Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher,
Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and
Camus an atheist, are credited for their works and
writings about existentialism. Sartre is noted for
bringing the most international attention to
existentialism in the 20th Century.
Human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying
because of suffering and losses that occur when
considering the lack of perfection, power, and control
one has over their life. Even though life is not
optimally satisfying, it nonetheless has meaning.
Existentialism is the search and journey for true self
and true personal meaning in life.
Most importantly, it is the arbitrary act that
existentialism finds most objectionable-that is, when
someone or society tries to impose or demand that
their beliefs, values, or rules be faithfully accepted and
obeyed. Existentialists believe this destroys
individualism and makes a person become whatever
the people in power desire thus they are dehumanized
and reduced to being an object.
Existentialism then stresses that a person's judgment
is the determining factor for what is to be believed
rather than by arbitrary religious or secular world
values.
Existentialism is a 20th century philosophy
concerned with human existence, finding self, and
the meaning of life through free will, choice, and
personal responsibility.
without the help of laws, ethnic rules or traditions.
Existentialism then stresses that a person’s judgment is
the determining factor for what is to be believed rather
than by religious or secular world values.
Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying
concepts:
 Human free will,
 Human nature is chosen through life choices,
 A person is best when struggling against their
individual nature, fighting for life,
 Decisions are not without stress and consequences,
 There are things that are not rational,
 Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial,
 Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and
secular rules are arbitrary,
 Worldly desire is futile.
 Friedrich Nietzsche: Friedrich Nietzsche was one of
the most influential of all modern existentialist and
postmodernist thinkers. He is considered the father of
Nihilism, which teaches that there is no ultimate
meaning to human existence. His attempt to expose
the motives of Western religion and philosophy sent a
clear and blunt message to theologians, philosophers,
psychologists, and all modern thinkers. His written
critiques about human existence, religion, morality,
modern culture, and science challenged and
questioned the value and objectivity of truth and how
life should be interpreted.
 Nietzsche
 Popularized the idea that God is dead.
 Insisted that without God, life is meaningless.
 Was convinced that Christian virtues made weak people. That
meekness was a liability.
 Did not believe in values or truth.
 Believed that all people should strive to be a superman.
 Believed personal power was essential.
 Logically disputing and discriminating truth from opinion and error
was his esteemed virtue.
 Believed good and evil kept the world as it was and in a state of eternal
occurrence.
 Praised the Greek ideals of Dionysius who exalted life in its most
irrational and cruel features, and that the proper task of the superman
was to exist beyond and not effected by good and evil.
 Viewed that freedom and greatness is desiring to love self and life as it
is, was, and embracing the fate of what self and life will be in the future
to come.
 Søren Kierkegaard (pronounced Kyer'-kuh-gohr) (1813-
1855): He was a Danish religious philosopher, passionate
Protestant theist, and non-practicing ordained
minister. His legacy was his belief that our response to God
should be one of unrestrained passion toward our beloved.
 He perceived God and existence of life from a humanistic
view emphasizing the total autonomy of man.
 Many refer to him as the father of existentialism even
though he did not even use the term
 Kierkegaard’s influence is not only acknowledged for
existentialism but also for postmodernism, nihilism, and
different strands of psychology as well.
 no one could hide behind church membership for their
salvation.
 In an attempted to change Protestant rationalistic theology,
he wrote and published his religious philosophy in
eighteen Edifying Discourses for churches to adopt but met
resistance by clergy.
 He argued that the church had become corrupt through
secular and political involvement, that the Bible wasn’t to
become a person‘s final authority until they authorize it to
be by volitional choice, and that the individual is fully
responsible for their faith in God without doctrinal
influence.
 The Theatre of the Absurd departs from realistic
characters, situations and all of the associated
theatrical conventions. Time, place and identity are
ambiguous and fluid, and even basic causality
frequently breaks down.
 Meaningless plots, repetitive or nonsensical dialogue
and dramatic non-sequiturs are often used to create
dream-like or even nightmare-like moods. There is a
fine line, however, between the careful and artful use
of chaos and non-realistic elements and true,
meaningless chaos. While many of the plays described
by this title seem to be quite random and meaningless
on the surface, an underlying structure and meaning is
usually found in the midst of the chaos.
 According to Martin Esslin, Absurdism is "the
inevitable devaluation of ideals, purity, and purpose"
(Esslin [1961] 24). Absurdist Drama asks its audience to
"draw his own conclusions, make his own errors"
(Esslin [1961] 20). Though Theatre of the Absurd may
be seen as nonsense, they have something to say and
can be understood" (Esslin [1961] 21).
 Esslin makes a distinction between the dictionary
definition of absurd ("out of harmony" in the musical
sense) and Drama’s understanding of the Absurd:
"Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose.... Cut off
from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental
roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless,
absurd, useless" (Esslin [1961] 23).
 Characters: The characters in Absurdist drama are lost
and floating in an incomprehensible universe. Many
characters appear as automatons stuck in routines
speaking only in cliché. Characters are frequently
stereotypical, archetypal, or flat character types. The more
complex characters are in crisis because the world around
them is incomprehensible. Characters in Absurdist drama
may also face the chaos of a world that science and logic
have abandoned. Characters may find themselves trapped
in a routine. The plots of many Absurdist plays feature
characters in interdependent pairs, commonly either two
males or a male and a female. The two characters may be
roughly equal or have a begrudging interdependence (like
Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot). One
character may be clearly dominant and may torture the
passive character (like Pozzo and Lucky in Waiting for
Godot); the relationship of the characters may shift
dramatically throughout the play.
 Plot: Plots are frequently cyclical: generally, begins
where the play ended – some lines at the beginning
responding to some lines at the end – and it can be
assumed that each day the same actions will take
place. Plots can consist of the absurd repetition of
cliché and routine, as in Godot. Often there is a
menacing outside force that remains a mystery.
Absence, emptiness, nothingness, and unresolved
mysteries are central features in many Absurdist plots:
for example, the action of Godot is centred around the
absence of a man named Godot, for whom the
characters perpetually wait. The plot may also revolve
around an unexplained metamorphosis, a
supernatural change, or a shift in the laws of physics.
 Language: Despite its reputation for nonsense
language, much of the dialogue in Absurdist plays is
naturalistic. The moments when characters resort to
nonsense language or clichés–when words appear to
have lost their denotative function, thus creating
misunderstanding among the characters (Esslin [1961]
26)–make Theatre of the Absurd distinctive. Language
frequently gains a certain phonetic, rhythmical, almost
musical quality, opening up a wide range of often
comedic playfulness. Distinctively Absurdist language
will range from meaningless clichés to Vaudeville-style
word play to meaningless nonsense.
Characters would exchange empty clichés that never
ultimately amounted to true communication or true
connection. Absurdist characters go through routine
dialogue full of clichés without actually
communicating anything substantive or making a
human connection. In other cases, the dialogue is
purposefully elliptical; the language of Absurdist
Theatre becomes secondary to the poetry of the
concrete and objectified images of the stage.
Many of Beckett's plays devalue language for the sake
of the striking tableau. Harold Pinter–famous for his
"Pinter pause"–presents more subtly elliptical
dialogue; often the primary things characters should
address are replaced by ellipsis or dashes.
SAMUEL BECKETT:
Samuel Beckett is probably the most well known of the
absurdist playwrights because of his work Waiting for
Godot. Beckett's plays seem to focus on the themes of
the uselessness of human action, and the failure of the
human race to communicate. He had quite a normal
upbringing in an upper-middle-class Irish family, and
excelled in both school and the sport of cricket. He
attended the University of Dublin Ireland where he
received his M.A. in modern languages, he then taught
for a short time, explored parts of Europe and
eventually settled in Paris.
In the 1930's and 40's Beckett published many
works in the form of essays, short stories, poetry,
and novels, but very few people noticed his
work. His post-war era fame only came about in
the 1950's when he published three novels and his
famous play, Waiting for Godot which is probably
the most famous absurd play to date.
He wrote Eleutheria, Waiting for Godot,
Endgame, the novels Malloy, Malone Dies, The
Unnameable, and Mercier et Camier, two books of
short stories, and a book of criticism.
Samuel Beckett's first play, Eleutheria, mirrors his own
search for freedom, revolving around a young man's
efforts to cut himself loose from his family and social
obligations. His first real triumph, however, came on
January 5, 1953, when Waiting for Godot premiered at
the Théâtre de Babylone. In spite of some expectations
to the contrary, the strange little play in which
"nothing happens" became an instant success, running
for four hundred performances at the Théâtre de
Babylone and enjoying the critical praise of.
Perhaps the most famous production of Waiting for
Godot, however, took place in 1957 when a company of
actors from the San Francisco Actor's Workshop
presented the play at the San Quentin penitentiary for
an audience of over fourteen hundred convicts.
Surprisingly, the production was a great success. The
prisoners understood as well as Vladimir and Estragon
that life means waiting, killing time and clinging to the
hope that relief may be just around the corner: If not
today, then perhaps tomorrow.
Beckett secured his position as a master dramatist on
April 3, 1957 when his second
masterpiece, Endgame, premiered (in French) at the
Royal Court Theatre in London. Although English was
his native language, all of Beckett's major works were
originally written in French--a curious phenomenon
since Beckett's mother tongue was the accepted
international language of the twentieth century.
Apparently, however, he wanted the discipline and
economy of expression that an acquired language
would force upon on him.
Beckett's dramatic works do not rely on the traditional
elements of drama. He trades in plot, characterization,
and final solution, which had hitherto been the
hallmarks of drama, for a series of concrete stage
images. Language is useless, for he creates a mythical
universe peopled by lonely creatures who struggle
vainly to express the inexpressible. His characters exist
in a terrible dreamlike vacuum, overcome by an
overwhelming sense of bewilderment and grief,
grotesquely attempting some form of communication,
then crawling on, endlessly.
Beckett was the first of the absurdists to win
international fame. His works have been translated
into over twenty languages. In 1969 he was awarded
the Nobel Prize for Literature. He continued to write
until his death in 1989, but the task grew more and
more difficult with each work until, in the end, he said
that each word seemed to him "an unnecessary stain
on silence and nothingness."
Samuel Beckett's primary focus was on
the failure (poverty, failure, exile and loss — as man is
a 'non-knower' and a 'non-can-er') of man to overcome
absurdity.
THE CONCEPT OF TIME
AND
THE SETTING
In Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot Beckett
represents the world of Vladimir and Estragon as
one of chaos, devoid of any meaningful structure
or pattern. Time cannot be applied in this world
where day can end without notice and where one
cannot remember their actions from the previous
day. Time is essentially meaningless, as it is only
experienced by a terminal repetition of waiting
with no end in sight, except death. The mundane
process of this wait is cyclical and almost totally
repetitious, however in the second act variations in
the repetition become apparent.
These variations are most noticeable in Pozzo and Lucky
during their second meeting with Vladimir and Estragon.
Because of time's relationships with the cohesion of
moments in one's life and its representation as a futile
concept within the play, a conclusion can be drawn that life
as well is just as insignificant. The dramatic changes that
occur in Lucky and Pozzo are a manifestation of the
meaninglessness of time and therefore life, the blind forces
of chance and circumstance that indiscriminately wield
themselves upon the human race making time and life
insignificant and powerless, and the ultimate universality
of the individual.
Estragon and Vladimir's individual existence and role
in the world are thus blurred due to their inseparable
lives and consciousness. Their lives are so interweaved
that a unique and individual perception is nearly
impossible. They must on each other every day to
remember what they did and where they did it. Their
voices often ring together in one common voice during
language games they play to pass the time,
proclaiming the universality of their existence:
 Estragon: Oh, I say!
Vladimir: A running sore!
Estragon: It's the rope.
Vladimir: It's the rubbing.
Estragon: It's inevitable.
Vladimir: It's the knot.
Estragon: It's the chaffing. (17B)
These games work to show the triviality of their lives and to portray the
similarity in their perceptions. They must play these games because silence
means a definite stop in the passing of time and their lives. It leaves them in
the state between being and not being, as they only know they exist through
interaction with one another, and between life and death. These language
games mimic the human perception of times fluency, and makes time pass
away faster to the only true ending in sight, death. Vladimir says, "We have
time to grow old… but habit is a great deadener"(43A). This statement only
perpetuates the meaninglessness of their existence because they are aware that
the actions they partake in are to "deaden" the reality of their lives and their
perpetual wait. They confront time only when there is a break in the games and
they can feel that they are simply waiting. These men experience time as a
meaningless and stagnant state of passivity and repetition; thus their lives
mimic this state accordingly.
Circular Movement
A life, which is characterised by a complete aimlessness,
may be said to have become a “life without time.” What we
call time springs from man’s needs and from his attempts
to satisfy them. Life is temporal only because needs are
either not yet satisfied, or goals have already been reached,
or objectives are still at one’s disposal. Now, in Estragon’s
and Vladimir’s lives, objectives no longer exist. For this
reason in the play time does not exist either; and it is for
this reason, and quite legitimately, that events and
conversations are going in circles; after a while this circular
movement gives the impression of being stationary, and
time appears to be standing still.
“Killing” Time
If time still survives here, it is due to the fact that the
activity of “killing time” has not died out yet. The two
tramps try to produce merely the sequence of time. When
they decide to leave, they remain; when they wish to help,
they hardly lift a finger. Even their impulses of goodness or
indignation stop so suddenly that their sudden
disappearance gives the effect of a negative explosion. And
yet they resume their “activity” time and again, because
this kind of activity keeps time moving, pushes a few
inches of time behind them, and bring them a few inches
closer to the supposed Godot.
Time is something which cannot be controlled, and at
the same time it is a fluid concept. Time does not seem
to move at a constant pace (although we assume that it
must) therefore, time itself can be subjective.
This is demonstrated in Vladimir and Estragon’s
conversation after Pozzo and Lucky have departed for
the first time. Vladimir claims that their visit helped to
pass the time, but Estragon claims it would have
passed anyway. Estragon counters “Yes, but not so
rapidly.”
In addition, time in Waiting for Godot is
cyclical. This is largely achieved through
repetition. Some argue that the second act
of the play is merely a repeat of the first.
There are many uses of repetition
throughout the play, such as the line
“Nothing to be done”.
Time, as aforementioned, is meaningless in this play
due to the fusion of the past and present, as well as the
forgotten. There is no orderly sequence of events.
World has no meaning if it is guided by chance and
random occurrences and can be toyed with by, what in
Pozzo's case is called, "Fortune".
The triviality and insignificance of one's life and its
relationship to time is represented in the ideals of the
universality of the individual.
Life is a lengthy period of waiting, during which the
passage of time has little importance.

The amount of time that they had already spent doing

this and the amount of time that would do so in the
future is unknown, but neither is important because
time was meaningless for them.
The overall theme of the meaninglessness of time
presented itself many times throughout the play, often
during what seemed to be silly arguments between
Vladimir and Estragon. Only by looking at the deeper
meaning of these often illogical conversations and by
combining them with other supporting details of the
play can one discover how these logic problems relate
to the whole.
‘Waiting for Godot’ has been referred to as the play
where nothing happens, twice. When nothing
happens, time is empty. And when time is empty, it
cannot be felt to pass. In this way Pozzo validates all of
his measurements of time by his watch, using this tool
not so much to measure as to define time. Later he
denies Vladimir's assertion that “Time has stopped" by
confirming that his watch is ticking. Seemingly, blind
people have no sense of time (as he vehemently
insists) because they cannot watch any timepieces,
mechanical or astronomical. In Act Two, when Pozzo
is blind, he asks Gogo and Didi what time it is. The
way he sees it, time is an illusion to "make us feel we
exist".
Our Existence, A Mere Playing of
Games
The two tramps improvise and invent games to pass
the time. They borrow activities from the vast store of
everyday actions and transform them into play in order
to pass the time.
Estragon plays the game of taking his shoes off and
putting them on; by doing so he does not exhibit
himself as a fool but exhibits us as fools: he
demonstrates through the device of inversion that our
playing of games has no more meaning than his.
Pozzo and Lucky as Champions of
Time
However shy Vladimir and Estragon may feel when
first facing Pozzo and Lucky, there is one thing they
cannot conceal: that they regard the new pair as
enviable. Themselves sentenced to “being without
time,” Vladimir and Estragon look upon Pozzo and
Lucky as privileged beings because they are the
champions of time. Pozzo, the master, is enviable
because he has no need to “make time” by himself, or
to advance by himself, not to speak of waiting for
Godot, for Lucky drags him forward anyway.
SETTING
Beckett's own script notes can best describe the setting
of "Waiting for Godot": "A country road. A tree". There
is an otherworldly alienation in this sparse setting. It
could be anywhere, in any country of the world. No
visible horizon exists; no markers of civilization are
present. The setting is constant; the only change
occurs between Act I and Act II, when the barren tree
of Act I gives birth to five or six leaves in Act II.
The historical setting is unspecified. The time frame is
most likely two days, one of which is probably a
Saturday. The only visible reference to the passage of
time occurs at the end of Act II when the sun sets and
the moon rises. There are verbal references to the
passing of time, such as when the characters make
mention of yesterday and the previous evening.
LANGUAGE
Beckett’s plays are concerned with expressing the
difficulty of finding meaning in a world subject to
change. His use of language probes the limitations of
language both as a means of communication and as a
vehicle for the expression of valid statements, an
instrument of thought.
His use of the dramatic medium shows that he has
tried to find means of expression beyond language.
On the stage one can dispense with words altogether
(for instance, in his mime-plays), or at least one can
reveal the reality behind the words, as when the
actions of the characters contradict their verbal
expression. “Let’s go”, say the two tramps at the end
of each Act of Waiting for Godot, but the stage
directions inform us that “they don’t move”.
Ten different modes of the breakdown (or
disintegration) of language have been noted in
Waiting For Godot.
They range from simple misunderstandings and
double-entendres to monolugues (as signs of inability
to communicate), clishes, repetitions of
synonyms,inability to find the rightwords, and
telegraphic style style (loss of grammatical structure,
communication by shouted commands) to Lucky’s
farrago of chaotic nonsense and the dropping of
punctuation marks, such as question marks, as an
indication that language has lost its function as a
means of communication, that questions have turned
into statements not really requiring an answer.
But more important than any merely formal signs of
the disintegration of language and meaning in
Beckett’s plays is the nature of the dialogue itself,
which again and again breaks down because no truly
logical discussion or exchange of thoughts occurs in it
either through loss of meaning of single words or
through the inability of characters to remember what
has just been said. In a purposeless world that has lost
its ultimate objectives, dialogue, like all action,
becomes a mere game to pass the time.
Beckett’s use of language is thus designed to devalue
language as a vehicle of conceptual thought or as an
instrument for the communication of ready-made
answers to the problems of the human condition. And
yet his continued use of language must, paradoxically,
be regarded as an attempt to communicate the
incommunicable.
He may have devalued language as an instrument for the
communication of ultimate truths, but he has shown
himself a great master of language as an artistic
medium. He has moulded words into a superb instrument
for his purpose.
In Waiting for Godot and Endgame, plays drained of
character, plot, and meaningful dialogue, Beckett has
shown that such a seemingly impossible feat can in fact
be accomplished.
What Beckett is above all conscious of is the dialectical
relationship between the object to be expressed (theme,
subject matter) and the mode of expression (form of language,
style). Regarding the latter as constitutive of the former, he
foregrounds the comic absurdity of their dissociation into two
non-interacting elements, whilst maintaining the dialectic
through the overall theatrical form. However, because Beckett
does not regard language as a self-sufficient system of
concepts exoteric to the theme it is bound to express, the
imposition of dramatic form is in turn problematized. By
radically subverting such a notion of language Beckett sets all
elements of his drama into a type of free-play. It is the
movement within this free-play, taking in all previously fixed
points (self, language, material reality, etc).
In Waiting for Godot Beckett embodies these specific
binary oppositions in the very structure of the play. Didi
and Gogo stand in opposition to Godot much as presence
stands in opposition to absence. In line with our
expectations Beckett thus deals with the structure and
operation of language both at the level of dramatic speech
and at the level of dramatic form in sceptical view of
perception. Only insofar as they can be seen can Didi and
Gogo be sure about their own presence, their own
existence. Waiting for Godot is built upon such a
composite. Didi feels lonely when Gogo sleeps because so
long as the perceiver (Gogo) does not see, then the
perceived (Didi) cannot be sure if he lives.
The repetition of the word ‘nothing’ (‘nothing to be
done,’ `nothing to show’ etc.) does not, then, express
their actual situation, so much as their desire to
become the nothing. Their language is constructed out
of an abiding awareness of the nothing, their
acceptance of an essential negativity which nullifies
any hope of absolute meaning.
In Waiting for Godot, the catalysts of speech are ‘Silence’
and ‘Pause,’ the very elements which undermine the
emotions to which the characters lay claim and which
prevent them occupying any decisive area of commitment.
Silence breaks the continuity of words and conveys
meaning in its totality. Beckett stages the sounds of silence,
the other side of language, and Didi and Gogo, in their
yearning for accuracy, aspire to the point of overlap, to the
zero, to the point where all difference is obliterated. It is a
form of death-wish. The dead voices are heard inside their
silences talking of the past, of dreams and hopes; presence
is once again matching with absence.
Didi and Gogo play incessantly with words; they treat
the same word as its opposite, they find synonyms,
they use scientific terms because they sound
bombastic, they rhyme. But at the same time they
dismantle language into fragments of religious, moral
and scientific thought.
A word like ‘unhappy,’ for example, a word which
inevitably bears an enormous sentimental burden, is
too definite to remain unrefuted:

Estragon: I’m unhappy.

Vladimir: Not really! Since when?
Estragon: I’d forgotten.
Vladimir: Extraordinary the tricks that
memory plays!
Waiting for Godot is not completely a
symbolist play.That is not to say that it does
not have symbols.There are symbols galore
in the play which are more elusive.
However; it is not a pose, for Samuel
Beckett’s drama implies –rather than
expresses-an attitude toward man’s
experience on earth;the pathos , cruelty,
comradership, hope, corruption, filthiness
and wonder of human existence.
THE TREE
The tree is the only distinct
piece of the setting.The tree has
biblical stuff; Jesus was
crucified on a cross, but that
cross is sometimes referred to
as a “tree,” as in, "Jesus was
nailed to the tree.” That
Vladimir and Estragon
contemplate hanging
themselves from the tree is
likely a reference to the
crucifixion ,but it also parodies
the religious significance.If
Jesus died for the sins of others,
Vladimir and Estragon are
dying for nothing.Moreover, we
can think the two men not as
Jesus, but rather as the two
thieves crucified along with
Jesus.
There is more.Vladimir reports that he was told to wait for
Godot by the tree.This should be reassuring-It questions
whether the men are in the right place or not.As Estragon
points out, they are not sure if this is the right tree.And
come to think of it, they cannot even be sure if this is a tree
or not. It looks like a kind of shrub.
Now what we find to be completely baffling is the tree’s
random sprouting of leaves between Act I and Act II. This
is regeneration–it is hopeful, it is growth, it is life! And that
doesn’t sound anything like Waiting for Godot, especially
when you look at how everything else degenerates from
Act I to Act II (We are thinking in particular of Pozzo’s
going blind and Lucky’s mute, as well as Gogo and Didi’s
increasing uncertainty and suffering).Also, the tree’s
sprouting leaves could be an ironic symbol pointing out
 THE BOOTS
Each character is involved in a comedic
action from the play’s beginning.Estragon
is struggling with a tightly fitting boot that
he just cannot seem to take off his foot.The
meaninglessness of Godot is further
explained through its connection to
Estragon’s boots.The action continues in
the second act when the two discover that
Estragon’s boots have been changed.This
situation is great combination of the tragic
and the comic;the situation is hilarious for
its absurdity,but dismal at the same
time.Every thought or action to discover
the meaning of Godot is ridiculous.The
interpretations of the name vary,but,just as
in the boots,there is nothing
inside.Whereas the boots in the first act
were too tight, Estragon decides that these
are “too big”and concludes the discussion
frustrated,saying “That’s enough about
these boots.”
 THE ROPE
 Interpersonal relationships in Samuel
Beckett's Waiting for Godot are extremely
important, because the interaction of the
dynamic characters, as they try to satiate
one another's boredom, is the basis for
the play. Vladimir's and Estragon's
interactions with Godot, which should
also be seen as an interpersonal
relationship among dynamic characters,
forms the basis for the tale's major
themes. Interpersonal relationships,
including those involving Godot, are
generally couched in rope images,
specifically as nooses and leashes. These
metaphors at times are visible and
invisible, involve people as well as
inanimate objects, and connect the dead
with the living.
 The only rope that appears literally is the leash around Lucky's neck that
Pozzo holds. In terms of the rope, the relationship between these characters is
one of consistent domination. The stage directions say that "Pozzo drives Lucky
by means of a rope passed round his neck." Lucky is whipped often. He is
essentially the horse pulling Pozzo's carriage in a relationship that seems cruel,
domineering and undesirable. For the first time in the text, Pozzo is dependent
on Lucky for direction; Lucky is dependent on Pozzo for the same reason,
though this relationship is one of emotional, rather than physical dependence.
The shortness of the rope, necessary because of Pozzo's blindness, affects their
relationship. Although the length of the rope is not literally changed, there is
clearly an equilibrium length which must separate Pozzo from Lucky figuratively
in order for their relationship to proceed naturally; any longer or shorter and
there would not be the proper amount of domination and submission.
THE HAT
 Actions are restricted by absurd rules in
Waiting for Godot.The bowler hat itself
is an already comic symbol, thanks to
Charlie Chaplin.The bowlers and others
broadly comic aspects of their personas
have remainded modern audiences of
Laurel and Hardy who occasionally
played tramps in their films.The hat-
passing game in Waiting for Godot and
Lucky’s inability to think without his hat
on are two obvious Beckett derivations
from Laurel and Hardy.
 THE CARROT
 Carrots and turnips are in one sense just a
gag reel for Vladimir and Estragon’s comic
bits.The carrot probably is not about the
meaning of life.But it could be a hint as to
the differences between the way Vladimir
and Estragon live their lives.And we were
interested in their disagreement over the
vegetable: "Funny," Estragon comments as
he munches, "the more you eat, the worse
it gets." Vladimir quickly disagrees, adding
that, for him, it’s "just the opposite." On
the one hand, this could be a completely
meaningless conversation – the point is
simply that Vladimir is in disagreement,
playing at opposites, adding to the
bickering duality between himself and
Gogo.
DUALITY
 Another symbol in Waiting for Godot is duality.In the
text,there are full of pairs,such as Estragon and
Vladimir,the boy and his brother ,Pozzo and Lucky,Cain
and Abel and of course the two acts of the play itself. With
these pairs comes the repeated notion of arbitrary. If
Vladimir and Estragon try to hang themselves, the bough
may or may not break. One man may die, one man may live.
Godot may or may not come to save them. In the Bible,
Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and Abel’s accepted for no
discernible reason.Even the tone of Waiting for Godot is
filled with duality: person arguments,back- and-forth
questions,disagreement-agreement, question and answers.
NIGHTFALL AND THE RISING MOON
 While Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot, they also wait for
nightfall. For some reason, they don’t have to wait for him once
the night has fallen. The classic interpretation is that
night=dark=death.The falling of night is as much a reprieve from
daily suffering of a lifetime.There is also the issue of the moon
,as its appearence in the sky is the real signal that night has come
and the men can stop waiting for Godot.Time passes in an
absurdly inconsistent manner in Waiting for Godot;while the
characters decay(Pozzo goes blind,Lucky loses the ability to
speak),the tree goes in the other direction blossoming in a single
night.
 SMELL
 Estragon is repeatedly repelled by smells in Waiting for
Godot. Vladimir stinks of garlic, Lucky smells like who
knows what, and Pozzo reeks of a fart in Act II. It seems
every time Estragon tries to get close to a person, he is
repelled by their smell. It looks to us like smells represent
one of the barriers to interpersonal relationships. Estragon
is not just repelled by smells– he’s repelled by the visceral
humanity of those around him. There’s something gritty
and base about the smell of a human body, and for Estragon
it’s too much to handle.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
GODOT?
 The range of possible religious interpretations is virtually
endless.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. 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 character’s name.By creating
a false impression of religious symbolism in the name Godot
Beckett leads the interpreter to a dead end.In the opening
moments of the play,Vladimir asks ”Hope deferred make
something sick,who said that?”. The real quotation “Hope deferred
make the heart sick” comes from proverbs 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.
 By inserting religious discussions in the first few moments of play,
the playwright encourages the interpreter to assume. The play’s
themes are greatly connected with religion.Then,when the discussion
turns to Godot, Estragon associates their request from Godot with “A
kind of prayer”.The connection between God and Godot is seemingly
firmly established ,leaving room for a variety of interpretations.
Waiting for Godot consists of two men unable to act, move, or
think in any significant way while they kill time waiting for a
mysterious man, Godot. The characters fail to realize that this
very act of waiting is a choice; instead, they view it as a
mandatory part of their daily routine. Even when these men
manage to make a conscious decision, they can’t translate that
mental choice into a physical act. They often "decide" to leave
the stage, only to find that they are unable to move. Such
inaction leads to stagnancy and repetition in the seemingly
endless cycle of their lives.
If Vladimir and Estragon realized they had the freedom of
choice, they could break their daily cycle of habit and inaction.
The problem is one of consciousness and the uncertainty
surrounding the result of any potential action prevents them
from breaking the stagnant cycle of their waiting
Waiting for Godot is hailed as a classic example of "Theatre of
the Absurd," dramatic works that promote the philosophy of its
name. This particular play presents a world in which daily
actions are without meaning, language fails to effectively
communicate, and the characters at time reflect a sense of
artifice, even wondering aloud whether perhaps they are on a
stage.
The play has all the traits of existentialism both Vladimir and
Estragon represent the man in general who is facing the
problems of his existence in this world. They are
interdependent like all other man. Hope for salvation is the
subject of play and is the problem faced by the whole human
race. Representing the man in general, the two tramps realize
the futility of their exercise and we note that they are merely
Waiting for Godot is a play driven by a lack of truth –
in other words, uncertainty. Characters are unable to
act in any meaningful way and claim this is so because
they are uncertain of the consequences. Without the
presence of objective truth, every statement is brought
to question, and even common labels (color, time,
names) become arbitrary and subjective.
The portrait of daily life painted by Waiting for Godot is a
dismal one. It is repetitive and stagnant. It lacks meaning and
purpose and entails perpetual suffering. The solution (which
none of the characters take) would seem to be action and choice
despite the ever-presence of uncertainty, and an awareness of
one’s surroundings and past actions. As one character says,
"habit is a great deadener" – our actions should stem from
conscious choice rather than apathy.
The barren setting of Waiting for Godot is proof that Vladimir
and Estragon will never be able to break their cycle of inactive
waiting; it negates the possibility of life or creation.
Time presents a slew of problems in Waiting for Godot.
The very title of the play reveals its central action: waiting.
The two main characters are forced to whittle away their
days while anticipating the arrival of a man who never
comes. Because they have nothing to do in the meantime,
time is a dreaded barrier, a test of their ability to endure.
Because they repeat the same actions every day, time is
cyclical. That every character seems to have a faulty
memory further complicates matters; time loses meaning
when the actions of one day have no relevance or certainty
on the next.
Religion is incompatible with reason in Waiting for Godot. Characters
who attempt to understand religion logically are left in the dark, and
the system is compared to such absurd banalities as switching bowler
hats or taking a boot on and off. Religion is also tied to uncertainty,
since there is no way of knowing what is objectively true in the realm
of faith.
Waiting for Godot operates on one damning, principal contradiction:
the men can only be saved if their personal god, Godot, were to
appear. However, since a commonly accepted interpretation of God is
that he is without extension (meaning he doesn’t occupy space),
Godot’s presence would mean that he is not God. This renders
Vladimir and Estragon’s waiting absurdly futile.
Estragon compares himself to Christ when he decides to go barefoot.
When Vladimir tells him not to compare himself to Christ, Estragon
responds that "all my life I've compared myself to him."
Friendship is tricky in Waiting for Godot, as each character is fundamentally
isolated from every other. Relationships teeter between a fear of loneliness
and an essential inability to connect. This tension is central to the play. The
problems that keep characters apart vary from physical disgust to ego to a
fear of others’ suffering.
Human relationships are existential: Pozzo and Lucky are literally tethered by
a cord in a master-slave relationship. Pozzo who seeks friendship from
Estragon and Vladimir ends up forming a meaningless friendship with them,
much like his meaningless relationship with Lucky, which dehumanizes both
of them.
The friendship between Vladimir and Estragon seemingly overcomes the
existential whenVladimir wakes up Estragon because he “felt lonely” (9).
Estragon and Vladimir are tethered by an invisible bond in a relationship that
can best be characterized as friendship. While at times they hate each other,
they cannot live without one another or they would die of boredom.
Suffering is a constant and fundamental part of human existence
in Waiting for Godot. Every character suffers and suffers always,
with no seeming respite in sight. The hardship ranges from the
physical to the mental, the minor to the extreme. It drives some
men to find companionship (so as to weather the storm
together), causes others to abuse their companions (to lessen the
suffering of the self), and for still others leads to self-isolation
(since watching people suffer is a kind of anguish on its own).
Vladimir and Estragon suffer not for lack of happiness, but for
lack of certainty. It is worse to not know whether or not they are
miserable than to be certain of their anguish.
None of the characters in Waiting for Godot shy away from the
fact that death is inevitable. In fact, death becomes at times a
solution for the inanity of daily life. The main characters
contemplate suicide as though it were as harmless as a walk to
the grocery store, probably because there’s nothing in their life
worth sticking around for anyway. They ultimately do not
commit suicide because they claim not to have the means, but
also because they are uncertain of the result of their attempt (it
may work, it may fail). Because they can’t be sure of what their
action will bring, they decide on no action at all.
Estragon and Vladimir put the label of "waiting for Godot" on
what is really just a systematic waiting for death.