 Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is a play that presents conflict between living by religious

and spiritual beliefs, and living by an existential philosophy, which asserts that it is up to the
individual to discover the meaning of life through personal experience in the earthly world.
Support for this assertion regarding the nature of the play is based on firsthand interpretation of
the dialogue and action within the play itself as well as interpretation of quotes and ideas from
Samuel Beckett and his critics.

 Günther Ander clearly points out the notion that the protagonists in Beckett’s plays, including
Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot, reflect humanity in general. He states that
“the fabulae personae whom Beckett selects as representative of today’s mankind can only
be clochards, creatures excluded from the scheme of the world who have nothing to do any
longer, because they do not have anything to do with it” (142). While the argument here holds
with the notion of Vladimir and Estragon representing humanity, it is necessary to note that
Günther’s statement conflicts with this discussion in that Vladimir and Estragon have everything
to do with the world, merely lacking proper perception of it.
 Being more specific, it can be shown that Vladimir represents the portion of humanity who
trusts in religion and spiritual beliefs to guide them, and that Estragon represents the more ideal
existentialist portion of humanity who chooses to stop waiting and construct the meaning of life
based on experience in the tangible and physical world around them. The following is an
example of dialogue which supports this concept:
 Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.
 Estragon: Who?
 Vladimir: Godot.
 Estragon: Good idea.
 Vladimir: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand.
 Estragon: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes
 (13).
 Here we see that Vladimir is depending on Godot to tell him what he needs to know regarding
his existence, while Estragon asserts that they do not have the time to wait and that they should
take action on their own before it is too late. The metaphor of the cooling iron suggests that
humanity does not have enough time to wait for their spiritual ponderings to offer them
enlightenment, that the chance will pass, and their efforts will not take effect once it does.
Therefore, it can be concluded from this that Estragon’s suggestion that he and Vladimir make
their own way now, before it is too late, is the more ideal course of action advocated by the play.
It is Estragon who follows the notion of no longer waiting on religion for answers and going to
the philosophy of existentialism.
 There is another instance in the dialogue between Estragon and Vladimir that plays on the idea
of Vladimir as faithfully religious and Estragon as progressively humanistic:
 Estragon: Charming spot. (He turns, advances to front, halts, facing auditorium.) Inspiring
prospects. (He turns to Vladimir.) Let’s go:
 Vladimir: We can’t.
 Estragon: Why not?
 Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.
 Estragon: (despairingly). Ah! (8)
 Once again, the existential philosophy of human experience in the physical world is what
Estragon seeks in his desire to leave for “inspiring prospects,” and the common human tendency
to wait on religion to offer answers is inherent in Vladimir’s suggestion that they should stay and
wait so that they can be enlightened by Godot.
 Samuel Beckett, 1977

 Those who interpret the play often expend too much effort attempting to infer the identity of
Godot. Even Beckett himself states that he has no idea who Godot is, and that he would have
made it clear in the play if he did (Ben-Zvi 141-142). Beckett makes the misdirection of people
who seek to find out who Godot is in his statement that “the great success of Waiting For
Godothas arisen from a misunderstanding: critics and public alike were busy in allegorical or
symbolic terms a play which strove at all costs to avoid definition” (Ben-Zvi 142). Beckett’s
intention to not have the identity of Godot pondered reflects the underlying notion in his play
that people should stop pondering the divine realm and focus on the human condition in
physical existential terms. In this case, the entire play reflects the situation humans find
themselves in. Godot does not have an identity, according to Beckett, and it is therefore
erroneous to try to find out who he is. Considering the way in which this play reflects the human
condition, one can also say that this means it is erroneous to ponder the spiritual realm which is
beyond our ability to comprehend.
 H. Porter Abbott also makes note of the idea that it should not be the focus of interpretation of
the play to find out who Godot is. He notes that the audience should be most concerned with
the fact that the identity and nature of Godot is never revealed, rather than trying to figure out
his identity. Abbott states that “concealment, or conversely blindness, is one of the things the
play is very much about” (10). His use of the word “blindness” may be taken into consideration
as it can be related to the notion of blind faith. When the boy comes at the end of both acts and
informs Vladimir that Godot is going to come, Vladimir never questions him about how truthful
he is being about his knowledge of Godot. Vladimir only asks the boy superficial things about
him, his brother, and his home life. The following section of dialogue in the second act is an
example of this:
 Vladimir: What does he do, Mr. Godot? (Silence.) Do you hear me?
 Boy: Yes Sir.
 Vladimir: Well?
 Boy: He does nothing, Sir.
 Silence.
 Vladimir: How is your brother?
 Boy: He’s sick, Sir. (106)
 Here we have Vladimir questioning the boy about Godot, but he never goes so far as to question
the reliability of the information the boy gives him, he just abruptly changes the subject when it
would make more sense to push on the subject when he was given the suspicious answer that
Godot does nothing. It seems from this that Beckett is making a statement about the case of
blind faith in religion. Christians, for example, are taught to never question the will of God, and
take what they are told about him for granted. Taking this notion as parallel with the case of
Vladimir and the boy, it seems to be suggested here that blind faith in religion is equally as
pointless as Vladimir’s blind faith that Godot will come based on what the boy tells him.
 Estragon and Vladimir

 Near the beginning of the first act, Estragon attempts to tell Vladimir what he had dreamed after
waking from a nap. Vladimir forcefully insists that he keep it to himself, and then Estragon,
gesturing towards the universe, asks, “This one is good enough for you?” (10). The following
silence sets this quote apart from the rest of the line, it makes reference to the idea of looking to
the supernatural, the universe, as one way of pondering the meaning of life. Estragon would
rather discuss his dream with Vladimir, and maybe through interpretation, become more
enlightened about the human condition. It seems as though Beckett makes use of this to say that
one should place more emphasis on personal experience as a means of discovering profound
truths rather than looking into a realm beyond human comprehension and certainty. In other
words, instead of looking into a universe he could never understand, Vladimir should listen to
Estragon’s dream, focussing on human experience, which is the only thing humans can really
comprehend.
 The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky in the first act is an example of the notion that
humanity must look away from religion as a source of the meaning of life. The dynamic between
Pozzo and Lucky in the first act reflects the relationship some people have with their religion.
When Estragon asks why Lucky does not relieve himself of the burden he carries once he and
Pozzo have stopped to rest, Pozzo replies that it is because Lucky is trying to impress him so that
he will not be sold at the fair. This reflects how a religious person would bear certain
discomforts, such as rising early from bed every Sunday to attend church, in order to please
higher beings, eternal bliss in the afterlife.
 In the second act, it is revealed that at least one of the bags carried by Lucky is filled with sand. A
bag of sand most often merely serves the purpose of providing extra weight, such as sandbags
often used to stave of flood waters, or to weigh down a hot air balloon. Given this, it can be
concluded that the unnecessary nature of the bag filled with sand that Lucky faithfully bears in
order to impress his master is symbolic of the unnecessary burden many religious people carry in
their various rituals of worship. One can conclude from this that the situation with Pozzo and
Lucky is an attempt by Beckett to express the notion that religious practices serve no actual
practical purpose, that it is an unnecessary weight keeping them from noticing the
enlightenment the physical world has to offer.

 It appears as though Beckett misspoke when questioned about Lucky. In response to being asked
if Lucky was named so because he does not have to wait for Godot like Vladimir and Estragon do,
but that he has his own Godot in Pozzo, Beckett stated, “I suppose he is Lucky to have no more
expectations” (Ben-Zvi 144). It is arguable, however, that Lucky actually does have expectations,
and that he is equally, if not more, insecure than the two tramps who remain forever waiting for
Godot. Lucky faces the uncertainty of whether he will end up remaining with Pozzo, or with a
new master, in much the same way that most religious people are always waiting to find out
what they have waiting for them in the afterlife.
 David Hesla states in The Shape of Chaos that “[Vladimir] and [Estragon] are largely spared the
burden of the past, for their memories are so defective that little of earlier time remains to
them” (133). The protagonists of the play certainly lack burden from the past as a result of not
retaining it, but it is not the purpose of this discussion to suggest that it is more because they do
 not really have a past to remember, rather than the fact that they can not remember. Vladimir
and Estragon spend their present finding ways to simply kill the time and focus their attention on
the future, neglecting their present. Without paying attention to the present, one will not have
sufficient memory of it when it becomes the past. From a spiritual perspective, this seems to say
that people who spend their lives working to ensure bliss in the afterlife and to understand the
meaning of life should instead focus on what they have before them so that they can make the
most of life and not end up wasting it by building themselves up to spiritual expectations which
are far less certain than the pleasures immediately obtainable in the physical world.
 It can be concluded that the interpretation of instances from the dialogue, character dynamic,
and second party interpretation of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Becket offers much compelling
evidence in support of the notion that the play makes reference to existentialist philosophy as a
more suitable means of the pursuit for the meaning of life than is following religion or making
spiritual inferences.

The Caretaker contains elements common to a movement in drama called the Theater of the
Absurd, a term coined by British critic Martin Esslin to describe the plays of Samuel Beckett,
Arthur Adamov, and Eugene Ionesco. Absurdist plays encapsulate the irrationality,
contradiction, and meaninglessness that their writers see as symptomatic of the modern world.
The particular absurdity in The Caretaker directly relates to issues of class and social
conformity, with each character desperately trying to realize their worth in terms of their
economic usefulness and social status. Aston spends the whole play trying to fix things or
talking about future up-keeping projects, seemingly wanting to validate his ability to work and
be useful. Mick, meanwhile, holds on to his lofty ambitions of becoming wealthy and living in a
lavish home, and Davies works hard to hide his poverty so that Mick and Aston will accept him.
The desperation with which each character tries—and fails—to uphold the outward appearance
of economic and social prosperity borders on ridiculous. In this way, the play’s absurdity
suggests that the way modern society judges people’s value makes it difficult (if not impossible)
for people to achieve genuine happiness and success.

Aston’s efforts to be useful and productive are tragically absurd in their impossibility: he
repeatedly tries to convince himself and others that he’s capable of repairing and decorating
Mick’s building, even though he clearly isn’t. Aston, who desperately wants to be a contributing
member of society, perpetually prepares to fix various objects around the house, a job Mick
assigned him sometime before the events of the play. He makes a big show of getting ready to
undertake this massive job, leaving multiple times to get the tools and materials he needs and
talking about his goals incessantly. These outward displays indicate Aston’s desire for Mick and
Davies (and by extension, the world at large) to see him as useful. They illuminate his underlying
social and economic insecurity, as his earlier electroshock treatment for mental illness has
rendered him permanently disabled and unable to engage meaningfully with the world around
him. The absurdity of Aston’s anxiety lies in the fact that he’s in an impossible situation: his
disability renders him physically unable to be productive, and yet the only way he can conceive
of being valued is through his ability to work.

Alongside this, Mick’s situation is absurd in its irony: his attempts to help Aston by giving him
the job of fixing up the building only fuel Aston’s feelings of helplessness. Like Aston, Mick
appears to believe that his worth as a person depends on an outward appearance of social
credibility and financial prosperity. As a result, it is his dream to live with Aston in the fully
repaired and elaborately decorated building that Mick owns. He ostensibly enlists Aston to fix up
and decorate the building in an attempt to make this dream a reality—but it’s obvious that Aston
is incapable of doing this, so it’s also possible that Mick is simply trying to give his isolated,
disabled brother a sense of purpose. But Mick’s attempts to instill purpose and meaning in his
and Aston’s lives are in vain: Aston’s physical and mental limitations hinder his ability to
complete the repairs, which only makes Aston’s helplessness and inability to be productive all
the more obvious. And, as a result, Aston’s failure only seems to push Mick’s idealized vision
further out of reach. This situation, darkly absurd in its inescapability, gives the sense that in a
society that values people only for their material success, people’s efforts to lift themselves out
of poverty and disillusionment may only push them down further.

Finally, Davies’s situation is absurd in its contradictory nature, as his vain attempts to conceal
his poverty lead him to reject the charity that could actually help him transcend it. When Davies
asks Aston for a pair of shoes—which he insists he needs in order to go to Sidcup to retrieve the
identification papers he needs to get a job—Aston generously obliges, offering Davies a
perfectly acceptable pair of shoes. Davies, however, immediately takes issue with the shoes,
complaining about their fit and appearance and melodramatically lamenting that wearing them
would “cripple [him] in a week.” Davies wants other people to think he has high standards and
refined tastes, but this leads him to reject Aston’s act of generosity. As a result, he denies himself
access to the help he needs and thus the ability to improve his situation and actually become
impressive to others. Davies rejects shoes from Aston not once but twice, which lends an
element of comedy to his self-defeating behavior, rendering it even more absurd. In different
ways, then, Mick, Aston, and Davies all absurdly perpetuate the very social and economic
circumstances they wish to transcend, suggesting that the way modern society measures people’s
worth by their productivity and outward displays of wealth sets disadvantaged people up to fail.