Waiting for Godot - June 2018

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

Our June 2018 Short Story/Novella is the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. It is listed at 109 pages and was published in 1953.

[Marilyn]

Spell check - Wating. :)

[Lia]

Anybody else feels bad about laughing at the excuses for cruelty? I know I shouldn't but I find it very funny. I didn't really "get the joke" reading the paper version last year. I'm using a "full cast" (albeit a very very small cast) audiobook this round and I'm surprised how funny it is when dramatized.

[Rosemarie]

I was fortunate enough to see the stage version before reading the play and found it very helpful, since I could visualize the scenes.
For me, one of the themes of this play is friendship. These two fellows have been friends for a long time.

[Lia]

What did the tree look like, Rosemarie?

[Rosemarie]

During Act One it was bare. In Act Two, after intermission, the tree was covered with leaves.

[Lia]

I wonder what's the point he's trying to make. I've always thought Beckett was giving the stage hands a hard time by making them pull off something that seems so impossible -- to sprout leaves in half an hour or so. I suppose it's not that hard to change the set in reality.

[Sue]

Mark wrote: "My first experience with Godot was seeing a film version (part of the Irish National television, Beckett on Film series) broadcast on our local Public Broadcasting station.
I was spellbound! and w..."

Interesting Mark. I should re-read it then because I remember being a little bored with it, but I saw and read it in my 20's. I'm going to skip the group read though because I have too many to catch up on.

[Rosemarie]

One of the scenes that stays with me is when one of the characters reaches into his pocket and hands the other one a carrot, since they have little else to eat.

[Melanti]

I had to read this for school and all I really remember about it is being not very impressed. I'm not sure if I still have my copy, but I think I"ll try to watch it rather than read it this time.

[Pink]

Hmm, I can't remember too much of this at all, even though I only read it recently. Perhaps I'll look for a stage production to watch online and see if that refreshes my memory.

[Kathleen]

Melanti wrote: "I had to read this for school and all I really remember about it is being not very impressed. I'm not sure if I still have my copy, but I think I"ll try to watch it rather than read it this time."

I think this is a great idea. I loved watching this play and kinda hated reading it.

What Mark said above about the clash between hope and despair is perfect. I'm equipped with the tired, disappointed realism, still reading it didn't work for me. I'm curious enough to watch this thread though. :-)

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name]

I just remember walking away from this thinking they were dead souls in purgatory

[Leslie]

Lia wrote: "I wonder what's the point he's trying to make. I've always thought Beckett was giving the stage hands a hard time by making them pull off something that seems so impossible -- to sprout leaves in h..."

So much is said in opposite because the Irish were not allowed to speak out against what England was doing to them in their own country. They are telling you, without telling you. The entire play is commentary on life in Ireland under English rule. The tree is a metaphor of their life, losing more of what they had each day - right to vote, right to be Catholic, right to own businesses, and certainly a right to eat all that was grown on their native soil because of the English rule, left instead to subsist predominantly on potatoes which ultimately became infected with a devastating blight ruining the crops for years.

[Leslie]

Rosemarie wrote: "One of the scenes that stays with me is when one of the characters reaches into his pocket and hands the other one a carrot, since they have little else to eat."

It's very tongue in check, Irish humor, laughing at the English people's love for William L'Orange, the reason we all eat orange carrots to this day (honoring him), rather than the natural variety of colors in which they appear.

[Leslie]

Melanti wrote: "I had to read this for school and all I really remember about it is being not very impressed. I'm not sure if I still have my copy, but I think I"ll try to watch it rather than read it this time."


Find an Irish person from or still connected to Ireland to explain it to you. It will deepen in meaning.

Also, I haven't read all of this, but this was absolutely terrific. Beckett: Waiting for Godot by David Bradby.

[Lia]

Leslie wrote: "So much is said in opposite because the Irish were not allowed to speak out against what England was doing to them in their own country. They are telling you, without telling you. The entire play is commentary on life in Ireland under English rule. The tree is a metaphor of their life, losing more of what they had each day - right to vote, right to be Catholic, right to own businesses, and certainly a right to eat all that was grown on their native soil because of the English rule, left instead to subsist predominantly on potatoes which ultimately became infected with a devastating blight ruining the crops for years. "

I'm not following, can you walk me through this please.

The play was originally written in French, and staged in a Paris theatre, why would Beckett need to be "telling you without telling you" if the critique is about British treatment of Ireland? And why would a barren tree suddenly, miraculously sprouting leaves be metaphor for losing more each day?

[Rosemarie]

After thinking about the tree sprouting leaves, it occurred to me it could show how long the two were waiting there for Godot, long enough for the tree to sprout leaves again.
I saw the play in English so I read the French version just to compare. The mood was the same overall. I think it is making a comment on life and our general existence.

[Leslie]

Beckett is Irish and like a great many left Ireland. He moved to Paris and wrote in that language as he was learning it. There are some great commentaries out there.

[Lia]

Leslie wrote: "Beckett is Irish and like a great many left Ireland. He moved to Paris and wrote in that language as he was learning it. There are some great commentaries out there."

I know he's Irish, but is he "telling you without telling you" to evade British censorship while in France? I'm still not seeing why a bare tree sprouting leaves (Arrival of spring? Regeneration? Life cycle?) might be a comment on Irish sufferings under British policies.

I've read some commentaries on Beckett, mainly on the universality of human sufferings, on language, on (French) punning or wordplays in general, even on satire of religion. I haven't seen interpretation of the play/ the tree as commentary on British/ Ireland political situation, I'm not objecting to that interpretation, I just don't see the connection. I'd love to read up on that if you've got a link.

[Lia]

Rosemarie wrote: "After thinking about the tree sprouting leaves, it occurred to me it could show how long the two were waiting there for Godot, long enough for the tree to sprout leaves again...I think it is making a comment on life and our general existence. ."

I tend to agree it is a comment on general existence. The great waiting and waiting for that something that never shows up, until you're completely destitute, but keep waiting anyway, reminds me of the man in front of the gate of the Law in Kafka's parable. (The scene is also included in The Trial)

[Leslie]

I don't really have time to go further with this now. I gave a great book on Beckett.

This may seem odd, but there are some terrific children's books that provide a great overview of Irish history and would fill you in quickly. I tried to post a few here, but Goodreads is acting up.

Waiting also refers to waiting on relief efforts for the famine which are promised, come in briefly but are not renewed as England focuses efforts elsewhere.

Here's a link to a sample of David Bradby's book on Beckett.
catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/...

[Leslie]

I had someone from Ireland explain this to me and there are things I've been told that are not shared publicly, behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, so it's difficult for me to go too far on some of these. I suggest finding someone from Ireland and asking. They love to educate people on their history.

The Story of Ireland by Richard Brassey
The Irish Famine: The Birth of Irish America by Tony Allan
Ireland by Jean F. Blashfield

All are excellent children's books, great reviews and explain this time period. My library had all three of these. If you are narrating in code backwards, Lucky is the English. Pozzo you will need to learn some history of Ireland to understand. :-)

[Lia]

Thanks for the linked sources Leslie, I'll look them up. I'm a big fan of Joyce, Yeats, Wilde, and Beckett, but I tend to read them through a global reader's lenses. It would be interesting to see how Irish readers interpret their (well, Beckett's) works.

[Leslie]

And I wasn't trying to say that was all that is happening in the plsy either. I'm trying to explain that there are some real world people, places, and events that are being signaled about, not just theoretical symbolism. Interesting thoughts. As you might guess from the name, Ireland and Wales are big in my ancestral tree too. I'm going to leave it here as I need to move on to other things today. I've read this before. Enjoy the play!!!

[Leslie]

Lia wrote: "Thanks for the linked sources Leslie, I'll look them up. I'm a big fan of Joyce, Yeats, Wilde, and Beckett, but I tend to read them through a global reader's lenses. It would be interesting to see ..."

It is really different viewed through the Irish lens and I understand what you mean about the global lens. I have been doing a reading challenge related to Ireland and had spare time at the library so flipped though those books and discovered they were better than the adult books at quickly, easily explaining the history. Joyce is difficult. I think Americans read Joyce and get something out of it, but largely don't fully appreciate everything happening in those works. You mentioned censorship. Yes, there was censorship at every level for the Irish. Today they are no longer under English rule as once before, but they are peacefully within the EU, which may explain a reluctance to air and complain about the past events. So much was lost. No one wants to go through that again.

[Lia]

FWIW, Beckett himself came right out (very uncharacteristic of him) to speak against allegorical readings:

(to Alec Reid) 'the great success of Waiting for Godot had arisen from a misunderstanding: critics and public alike were busy interpreting in allegorical or symbolic terms a play which strove at all cost to avoid definition"

But then authorial intention isn't taken very seriously these days, he might deny it, people are still free to read allegorically.

[Leslie]

Yes, that's in the book on Beckett that I was recommending. And you're right. The Irish love to tell a story, it's not always straightforward. We love to laugh at things, people, even hardship. And, most don't really care, and often don't want, you to fully understand what they are saying. It's like, if you get the full story, you are close to me and get this and we are both laughing at this. If you don't, I probably don't care about your opinion anyway, although I hope you enjoy most of the story. If I wanted You to get everything, I'd have put enough in there for You to get it. There's a lot of laughing at the speculation of what might be going on within the writing. Remember, the Irish were shut out from education under English rule, and consider who is reading these works. I think a big clue is it's written in French because he couldn't live in Ireland any more.

[Lia]

I'll read it Leslie, I just thought it's worth sharing. :)

Beckett thinks the success of his play came from controversial (mis)interpretations, it's fitting that it's also getting kind of controversial here (in a good way, I think.)

[Leslie]

I think Beckett is a bit tongue in cheek about who would have had the education to get the complicated allegorical nuances of his writing. There was an awful lot of anger towards the English and their need to feed their own within the country, but shut off the native Irish from everything from food, eventually land, decent work, education, a right to vote, a right to practice your own preferred religion, right to speak in your own language, etc. There's also quite a bit of sadness over w h at has happened to their beautiful land, the native Irish, their culture, etc. It's a very sarcastic piece of writing.

Ok, now I really do need to do other things! :-) Enjoy the reads!!! My library didn't have the bigger book.

I forgot to mention, the Irish were also not alowed to speak their own language in their own land under English rule (Gaelic), another reason to write a play in French. I meant to include that earlier.

[Vicki]

YouTube has an video labeled "Waiting for Godot full play" but is described as "based on the play". It's an hour and 53 minutes long, with Irish actors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wifcy...

[Thorkell]

Lia wrote: "FWIW, Beckett himself came right out (very uncharacteristic of him) to speak against allegorical readings:

(to Alec Reid) 'the great success of Waiting for Godot had arisen from a misunderstanding..."

A piece of art should not be interpreted by intent but rather by inner logic. I once wrote a poem and showed it to someone who had a very different interpretation of it than I had. In fact I realized that I had not managed to say what I wanted to say and that this person had understood what I ended up writing much better than I had.

An author is just another reader once the piece is written.

[Thorkell]

Sue wrote: "Mark wrote: "My first experience with Godot was seeing a film version (part of the Irish National television, Beckett on Film series) broadcast on our local Public Broadcasting station.
I was spel..."

How come I can't see what Mark wrote?

[Thorkell]

As to the meaning of the play. It is obvious that it does deal with symbiosis. People come in pairs. There's Vladimir and Estragon. Pozzo and Lucky. The Boy and his brother, one who is treated well and the other beaten. There are two Biblical stories that mirror the brothers, the story of the thieves on the cross (one saved and the other not) and Cain and Able (again one loved and the other not).

It is interesting that even though Vladimir and Estragon torment each other and Pozzo and Lucky have a rather unhealthy relationship they are depended on each other and do in fact help each other in the end. They are dependent of each other. Almost like they are two sides of the same person, having an inner dialog.

As to Godot. Why are they waiting for him? We never really learn anything about it. Also how long have they waited? Only few days or is it maybe months or years or from birth? Their memory seams to be shaky. We can't even be sure that what happens the day after is the day after since the leaves are kind of a miracle. Are we to believe they came after one night or have more days passed? All of this is connected to the identity of Godot. If they have been at it for a long time then we are indeed in a play that reminds us of (as Lia points out) "the man in front of the gate of the Law in Kafka's parable. (The scene is also included in The Trial)".

Godot can be God (with his white beard, never seen and only known through his messengers) but he does not have to be God. He could just be the meaning of life, what ever that is in your life. Or the idea that there is a meaning to life (which very well might not be).

I'm really not ready to make up my mind, one way or another. The play is so open that it is hard to tie it down to one interpretation.

[Lia]

Thorkell wrote: "A piece of art should not be interpreted by intent but rather by inner logic...An author is just another reader once the piece is written.
"

What if it’s absurdist art devoid of logic?

And what if Beckett repeatedly said if he wanted Godot to represent God, he would have called his character "God" and not “Godot?” Should we take that kind of denial into consideration?

[Thorkell]

Lia wrote: "What if it’s absurdist art devoid of logic?"

Then the lack of logic will suggest that it is absurd. This play could easily be argued to belong to that category. Not that absurd art can't have meaning. It often does.

"And what if Beckett repeatedly said if he wanted Godot to represent God"

If the text supports and you agree with it then that would be the meaning.

Let me take another example. This time from a very famous film. The Birth of a Nation (1915) by D.W. Griffith. It facilitated the refounding of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915. It helped making KKK extremely popular and the film was screened by KKK all over the country to get more members. Still D.W. Griffith always refused that the film was racist. Everyone saw the racism in the film except Griffith. So should we take his word for it?

[Lia]

I’m just not sure if the text supports it. Clearly we suspect people deny what they really mean, what they really desire etc, the whole Freudian enterprise seems built on that premise.

I’m still not sure if the text itself supports Godot as God, or that the characters are waiting for God, or that there’s anything particularly suspicious about Beckett arguing against that specific interpretation, or his emphasis that he’s interested in the shape and not the idea.

[Thorkell]

Lia wrote: "I’m just not sure if the text supports it. "

I agree that the text is so open that there is no obvious way to interpret it. I do however see the logic in the God interpretation and I don't think there is anything in the text to exclude that interpretation. If you do see that then please point it out to me.

[Lia]

Thorkell wrote: "Lia wrote: "I’m just not sure if the text supports it. "

I agree that the text is so open that there is no obvious way to interpret it. I do however see the logic in the God interpretation and I d..."

It’s not that the play specifically excludes that interpretation, (I tend to think of it as something like an inkblot test that can represent anything you want to see.)

It’s just that if the author specifically says that’s not what he’s saying, and there is no concrete support for that interpretation in the text, moreover, Beckett is stating an aesthetic preference for the shape rather than specific idea, then it would seem you will have to provide the arguments and evidences to make the case if you want to say that Beckett falsely denied his play is in fact about waiting for God.

[Thorkell]

Lia wrote: "It’s just that if the author specifically says that’s not what he’s saying, and there is no concrete support for that interpretation in the text, moreover, Beckett is stating an aesthetic preference for the shape rather than specific idea, then it would seem you will have to provide the arguments and evidences to make the case if you want to say that Beckett falsely denied his play is in fact about waiting for God."

Let me then introduce this form Beckett himself:

"It would be fatuous of me to pretend that I am not aware of the meanings attached to the word 'Godot', and the opinion of many that it means 'God'. But you must remember – I wrote the play in French, and if I did have that meaning in my mind, it was somewhere in my unconscious and I was not overtly aware of it."
Bair, D., Samuel Beckett: A Biography (London: Vintage, 1990), p. 591

And:
"Beckett has often stressed the strong unconscious impulses that partly control his writing; he has even spoken of being 'in a trance' when he writes."
Mercier, V., Beckett/Beckett (London: Souvenir Press, 1990), p. 87

[Lia]

Beckett is aware of his own impulse and the linguistic (public) association, and yet, he repeatedly said he did not mean to say waiting for God — this is not to deny that possible inclusion, but it’s one amongst many possible associations, and the play itself isn’t written about that singular interpretation.

For your considerations, there are other associations with “God - -“ in French as well:

As Colin Duckworth has use fully observed, the name itself ‘is a trouvaille of the first order’...‘opening up several associations of ideas, through punning and analogy, in both English and French’. ... this sustained interest is obviously playful, the kind of enjoyment that anyone sensitive to words would get from verbal coincidences...Of a dozen common French words and phrases that begin with g-o-d, nearly every one has some teasing connection to the story and theme of Beckett’s play. Godillot is French for ‘hobnailed boot’ or ‘shapeless old shoe’; and godasses are ‘military boots’. Godailler is ‘to go pub-crawling’, and goddam is French slang for ‘an Englishman’ (who according to Estragon had drunk a little more than usual on the way to the brothel). Goder means ‘to pucker’, or ‘gather cloth into folds’, but it is also slang for having an erection. Godiller, the word for ‘a scull’, or ‘small racing boat’, has a vulgar connotation: ‘to fornicate’. And godenot is ‘a juggler’s puppet’, ‘a joker’, ‘a misshapen little man’. Closest in sound is godet, the name of a popular cognac, but also the French word for ‘a wooden bowl’ or ‘mug’, which in different usages refers to the bowl of a pipe (smoked by Pozzo who carelessly refers to Godot as Godet) and a small glass of wine...

It seems, what Beckett is playing with is coincidence, language, multiple possibilities. IMO, that plenitude of associations, and playfulness, seem more significant than the singular interpretation of “god.”

[Thorkell]

Lia wrote: "It seems, what Beckett is playing with is coincidence, language, multiple possibilities. IMO, that plenitude of associations, and playfulness, seem more significant than the singular interpretation of “god."

I totally agree! And I think your example of inkblot test is spot on too.

[Lia]

:D

[Mark]

An interesting discussion of the possible meanings of the word Godot in the title.

Personally, I don't have any confidence in the remarks made by authors, or artists of any type, about their own works once they have released them to the public. Joyce for example was notorious for saying outrageous PR like statements about his own books. Even the great Beethoven when the public poohed the premiers of some of his late string quartets is said to have remark: " They are not for you, but for a later age." Which seems more sarcastic than informative. So, I don't attach much value to brother Beckett's insights as to what the title may mean.

As to Mr Duckworth's remarks about the numerous words, though spelled differently, that would when spoken by a French person sound like godot his argument seems to ignore the relationship of the word godot to the two words which proceed it: ( a phrase which is repeated, almost like a refrain, throughout the text). Are we to believe that the heroes are waiting for hobnailed boots or waiting for a wooden bowl? They might be waiting for an erection, but even that seems far fetched.

Then there are the two scenes with the boy ostensibly identified as a messenger for or from Godot. Don't they ask the boy point blank: "Did he send you?" (or something to that effect) which would again render the notion of boots or bowls rather nonsensical?

Therefore, I think the internal evidence from the text leads more directly towards God than anywhere else.

[Thorkell]

Mark wrote: "An interesting discussion of the possible meanings of the word Godot in the title.

Personally, I don't have any confidence in the remarks made by authors, or artists of any type, about their own w..."

Good points Mark. But regarding erection. I found this on Wikipedia:

Sexual
Though the sexuality of Vladimir and Estragon is not always considered by critics,[88][89] some see the two vagabonds as an ageing homosexual couple, who are worn out, with broken spirits, impotent and not engaging sexually any longer. The two appear to be written as a parody of a married couple.[90] Peter Boxall points out that the play features two characters who seem to have shared life together for years; they quarrel, embrace, and are mutually dependent.[91] Beckett was interviewed at the time the play was premiering in New York, and, speaking of his writings and characters in general, Beckett said "I'm working with impotence, ignorance. I don't think impotence has been exploited in the past."[92] Vladimir and Estragon consider hanging themselves, as a desperate way to achieve at least one final erection. Pozzo and his slave, Lucky, arrive on the scene. Pozzo is a stout man, who wields a whip and holds a rope around Lucky's neck. Some critics have considered that the relationship of these two characters is homosexual and sado-masochistic in nature.[93] Lucky's long speech is a torrent of broken ideas and speculations regarding man, sex, God, and time. It has been said that the play contains little or no sexual hope; which is the play's lament, and the source of the play's humour and comedic tenderness.[94] Norman Mailer wonders if Beckett might be restating the sexual and moral basis of Christianity, that life and strength is found in an adoration of those in the lower depths where God is concealed.

[Mark]

Thank you for the compliment, Thorkell. - )

I think my reference to erections, since it was one of mr Duckworth's many alternative meanings for godot, was sort of meant tongue-in-cheek. I've always felt that the two protagonists suffered more from problems of the prostate than anything else. (The reference to erections upon hanging may be general knowledge; but it does come up twice in the Cyclops episode of Ulysses.)

As far as the piece from Wikipedia, and no offense intended at all, but I would much rather hear your opinions of the play rather than any of those gathered from the net. Let's exchange our ideas!

[Thorkell]

Mark wrote: "Thank you for the compliment, Thorkell. - )

I think my reference to erections, since it was one of mr Duckworth's many alternative meanings for godot, was sort of meant tongue-in-cheek. I've alway..."

If you look above then you will find my thoughts (message 34). I think the God idea is a good one. Especially since Godot has a white beard. One of the most distinctive aspect of paintings of God. As to all the French meanings of Godot.

And if we are interested in what the author thought when writing the play (which I'm not), lets not forget that Beckett was learning French when he wrote the play. I doubt he knew of all the meanings behind Godot (and words that sound like it).

[Mark]

I seem to have forgotten the scene with a reference to a man with a white beard. (I leant out my copy and have not seen it in years.) Does the boy offer this description or is it advanced but one of the heroes and confirmed by the boy? I just don't remember.

My understanding of the writing in French thing, I think I read somewhere is that he claimed to abhor the English language, for I guess semi-political, being an Irishman, reasons. And therefore chose to write in French. But regardless of his overall understanding of the language I think he knew perfectly well what he meant by the word he used in the title; there may certainly be some ambiguity in the minds of critics and audiences, but I sincerely doubt there was ever any doubt at all in the mind of the author.

[Thorkell]

Mark wrote: "I seem to have forgotten the scene with a reference to a man with a white beard. (I leant out my copy and have not seen it in years.) Does the boy offer this description or is it advanced but one o..."

Yes when the boy is asked how Godat looks like and if he has a beard the boy says that he has white beard.

[Mark]

Thorkell wrote: "Mark wrote: "I seem to have forgotten the scene with a reference to a man with a white beard. (I leant out my copy and have not seen it in years.) Does the boy offer this description or is it advan..."
Cool! Thank you. - )
Since the play is sub-titled A Tragicomedy can't we then speculate, politely, that there may be something modestly sad and amusing about the fact that Christians have been waiting 2000 years for the potentially uncertain return of their God?