Waiting for Godot - June 2018

[Thorkell]

Mark wrote: "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? "

In fact Paul told the Christians that there was no point in getting married and having children since Christ would be coming back any day now. So in a way the Christians have been told that Christ is coming tomorrow from day one.

[Mark]

Yes. As I said in one of my early messages which I petulantly deleted, I think the play represents something that almost everyone wishes were true: that it would be wonderful if we could all be just a little bit nicer to each other, and yet the reality, based upon our dreadful history, is that we probably never will. Hope and despair, side by side, haunting the human condition. I think the whole play can be summed-up in the very first line: "Nothing to be done." - )

[Thorkell]

Mark wrote: "Yes. As I said in one of my early messages which I petulantly deleted, I think the play represents something that almost everyone wishes were true: that it would be wonderful if we could all be jus..."

Totally agree. With the return of Christ there would be heaven on earth. No more hunger, no more injustice...

It is interesting that they are always waiting instead of doing something to make their lives better. If we read the play in this light then we can also see it as a criticism on Christians who are more interested in the return of Christ than a just society. Even today we see Christians who don't care about pollution because Christ will fix it when he comes back. The same goes for wars in the middle east. It is all in the service of the return of Christ. No need to try to make our world a better place. Just wait.

[Mark]

I don't disagree with you, Thorkell, but I'm not sure it's fair to point just at the Christians. I think fundamentalist from all the major world religions are in many cases more concerned with strife than with healing. I think we should be careful here and not stray to far beyond the limits of the play. I actually feel there is a slight air of optimism in the story. That in a sense we would cease all together to be human if it were not for our hope that something good could possible come from all of this. In my mind I like to hold up Art as a counterbalance for all the ugliness that goes on. How can the same creatures that would destroy it all in the name of the unknown create with the same hands wonders that were inspired by the awe and reverence we can feel just by gazing at the stars. - )

[Bob, Short Story Classics]

I agree with Mark, let's move the discussion back to the play and the author and leave religion and current events on the sideline.

[Lia]

For me, the relationship of this play to Joyce seems to be defined by opposition: in the Ulysses, the two main characters are in constant motion, they are walking all day, two heavenly bodies traversing the sky, becoming. Stephen isn't going to stay in his state. Entelecheia! The acorn is on its way to becoming a tree.

Beckett's two characters separated at one point, the play starts with their reunion. But from that point (i.e. the start) they stay completely still, not moving, not becoming, not enacting their potentials.

The hanged men erection reference to Joyce is especially telling (IMO) -- for Joyce, having son(s), recognizing a son, represent social responsibility. Bloom's preoccupation is primarily about reproduction and succession (Rudy, with Stephen as possible resolution.) Vladimir and Estragon desire the chance of an erection, but are deterred by the spilling of semen, it's "safer" to do nothing, to defer, to wait.

Safer? What could possible be a threat to people on the brink of suicide by hanging?

“Where it falls mandrakes grow. That’s why they shriek when you pull them up”

They seem deterred by the myth that mandrake is a by-product of a suicide's semen. Even the mythical risk of reproducing (or producing) through his fallen semen is too horrible to risk, all progression of fresh life must be prevented.

That's why I'm so curious about the tree sprouting fresh leaves.

[Mark]

(IMHO)
Bloom's preoccupation in Ulysses is with Molly's pending adulterous adventure.
His relationship to Stephen, grossly over dramatized by critics, is more as a colleague than a surrogate son.
Maybe the barren tree is a symbol of despair, and the new leaves are sign of hope?

[Lia]

Regardless of what Bloom's preoccupation is, it's probably safe to say that Ulysses featured two men metaphorically "separated" and then united, the only really relevant point here is that Ulysses is characterized by movements, separation, and union, whereas WFG is all about stasis, no movement, no development, no action.

Bloom wanted a kind of succession, fatherhood (to a son, we can disregard the daughter), even if he has to hallucinate to get it, and recruits Penelope (Molly) to participate in his lie to himself to enable his sense of complete life, of fatherhood, of social responsibility. I may or may not have misread that about Ulysses, the details seem less significant, the overall shape though, is that Ulysseus came from bleakness of a society that offers no hope, to some kind of possible fruitful escape, through the use of imagination. Whereas Beckett seems to focus on sustained effort to prevent bearing fruit (mandrake.) Let's go! No, stay! Let's hang ourselves! No, what if? Let's .... nah let's defer, wait, wait, and wait.

The idea of new leaves seem to go against everything else in the play, in my reading there's a Schopenhauer like sense of comic hopelessness (and yes, I think Schopenhauer's despair is funny in a ridiculous way, just like I think Vladimir and Estragon are comically hopeless. I didn't laugh when I first read the play, when I put on an audiobook I couldn't stop laughing, and I feel guilty for laughing, like I'm a bad person for being able to find their plight funny, and I suspect that's Beckett's intended dramatic effect.)

But like I said, when I first read it, I treated this like a closet drama not intended to put on stage for real (and it is Beckett's first staged play. It's quite possible that he wrote it with no expectation of performance in the beginning.) So I took the liberty to assume Beckett meant that as some kind of black humor -- no tree will sprout leaves over intermission, but the impossible playwright/ boss is going to force the poor stagehands to perform the impossible. (The tree, two men, a boy might as well be a reproduction of one of Yeats' complete set, and Yeats famously made demeaning, sadistic "directions" for his actors/ stage crew. The drama-script portion of Ulysses (Circe) is similarly full of sadism and unreasonable instructions.)

Imagine my shock when I realize they actually put leaves on.

[Mark]

I read Ulysses as a love story.
A poignant study of Yeats' beautiful phrase: "love's bitter mystery".
I think the stage directions in Circe are a hoot!

[Petrichor]

I'm new to this discussion and much of it goes a bit over my head.

Before starting to read, I watched this video about the philosophical / absurdist interpretation of the play. It puts the play into a historical context: both Becket and the author Albert Camus join the underground resistance against the invading Nazis. At that time, Camus writes a book using the Greek legend of Sisyphus to write about the meaninglessness of life. The video describes how Waiting for Godot can be seen as being about the same topic, just using a different narrative.

Although I do not recognize every single aspect mentioned in the video while reading, I found that the book makes a lot of sense with these ideas in the back of my mind. It definitely helped me to understand what is going on beneath the surface and made me appreciate the book more than I otherwise would have.

I don't think that this interpretation contradicts the interpretation of British suppression of the Irish. I think the reason why the book lends itself to so many interpretations, is because it is about the general idea of dealing with a lack of autonomy or hopeless situations in general. And this seems to be something many people in different contexts can identify with.

[Thorkell]

Petrichor wrote: "I think the reason why the book lends itself to so many interpretations, is because it is about the general idea of dealing with a lack of autonomy or hopeless situations in general. And this seems to be something many people in different contexts can identify with. "

Well put!

[Katrin]

I loved reading all your comments because they motivated me to continue reading.
I am halfway through and struggling because I can't seem to get the hang of it. Now that I have some food for thought I will tackle the other half.

[Vicki]

I had a hard time reading the play, it seemed really flat, so I watched the YouTube performance and it helped a lot. Then I could see the performance as I read the lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wifcy...

[Rosemarie]

I saw the play before reading it, and it really helped a lot, especially since not a lot happens in this play.

[Cynda]

Pink wrote: "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."

Hi Pink. When I read this play last year, I watched the play on YouTube. Here is a link:

https://youtu.be/Wifcyo64n-w

[siriusedward]

I finished 50% of the play and seriously need a break...so far,without knowing any context, I felt the story to be of people waiting for something.(God by varipus names,I think).yet not sure of it..not sure of themselves...(believing without listening properly or putting any effort towards it or without any sense or purpose or such)
And also we who are supposed to feel for our fellow man's suffering are always ready to express our outrage against the criminal from afar,without taking any real action and without really doing a thing for the one suffering...
To be ready to be convinced by the oppressor at the slightest pretext..and the outraged mass ,acting out of self interest not out of true sympathy.....and the oppressor on being asked an honest question always tries to distract/or not hear/convince by overtalking himself..always aware of the people looking on,wanting to be the center of everything and everyone on sight.Speaks one thing and does things quite opposite to it.Makes the sufferer to react violently by pushim him into a corner and when the said sufferer bites the hand (or in this case kicks the leg of the hesitant pitier,) blames ths sufferer for the injury..telling they are just like that.

[siriusedward]

It really is a tragicomic...I mean..the actions and the dialogue is funny..but the actual subject is rather tragic ...

[siriusedward]

All the absurdities and nonsense and repetitive way of speaking of nothing yet everything also makes me think of The Stranger by Albert Camus... maybe because both are existential, I can't think why else ? They are otherwise so different in tone .

[siriusedward]

It also feels like a blank canvas to me..to fill it with our own experiences and perceptions.

Maybe because I am not understanding all the deep meanings and symbolism... I am liking what I am reading though....as it makes sense to me..
It does have meaning to me..and I think in the end the perception and the meanings and what and how we take a book is upto us ,the reader.

[Newly]

I just started this one great to see some activity on a thread. can't wait to share thoughts!

[siriusedward]

Do share..its an interesting read isn't it?

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name]

SE that’s practically what I got from it. I just can’t express it like you can. Thanks for your words