Waiting for Godot Analysis
Critical Analysis of Waiting for Godot – Samuel Beckett
Qaisar Iqbal Janjua
Qaisar Iqbal Janjua talks about the “suffering of the being” and how this impacts significantly on views of humanity. The suffering and hopelessness felt by the characters in the play are a result of a lack of agency. The idea of going someplace doesn’t matter as there is really nowhere to go but to wait. Furthermore, as nothing occurs and the plot is almost non-existent, times seems to never end, causing anxiety and apprehension. This is shown through euphemisms in
Pozzo: “I don’t seem to be able to… (long hesitation)… to depart.” Estragon: “Such is life.”
It is apparent that the two characters, Estragon and Vladimir are stuck in this way of life as most of the play deals with them waiting for a redeemer or a savior to take authority and end their pitiful wait. Janjua also states that “at various times during the play, hope is constructed as a form of salvation, in the personages of Pozzo and Lucky, or even as death.” He conveys the fact that even in situations with the company of others; it does not offer any consequences of hope. From Janjua’s opinions, he believes that Beckett portrays the characters suffering from the beginning in order to represent the concept of original sin. This meant that anyone “To be born is to be born a sinner, and thus man is condemned to suffer”. And the only way to escape this form of suffering of emptiness and meaninglessness is to repent or die. On the other hand, both Estragon and Vladimir fail to repent as they wait for Godot to come save them, whilst contemplating on suicide as another way out.
Furthermore according to Janjua, Beckett expresses that there is a split between the body and the intellectual represented through the characterization of Vladimir as the intellect and Estragon as the body or the physical. The characterization of Lucky as “lucky” is another interpretation in the context of the play as most of his actions are determined
Qaisar Iqbal Janjua
Qaisar Iqbal Janjua talks about the “suffering of the being” and how this impacts significantly on views of humanity. The suffering and hopelessness felt by the characters in the play are a result of a lack of agency. The idea of going someplace doesn’t matter as there is really nowhere to go but to wait. Furthermore, as nothing occurs and the plot is almost non-existent, times seems to never end, causing anxiety and apprehension. This is shown through euphemisms in
Pozzo: “I don’t seem to be able to… (long hesitation)… to depart.” Estragon: “Such is life.”
It is apparent that the two characters, Estragon and Vladimir are stuck in this way of life as most of the play deals with them waiting for a redeemer or a savior to take authority and end their pitiful wait. Janjua also states that “at various times during the play, hope is constructed as a form of salvation, in the personages of Pozzo and Lucky, or even as death.” He conveys the fact that even in situations with the company of others; it does not offer any consequences of hope. From Janjua’s opinions, he believes that Beckett portrays the characters suffering from the beginning in order to represent the concept of original sin. This meant that anyone “To be born is to be born a sinner, and thus man is condemned to suffer”. And the only way to escape this form of suffering of emptiness and meaninglessness is to repent or die. On the other hand, both Estragon and Vladimir fail to repent as they wait for Godot to come save them, whilst contemplating on suicide as another way out.
Furthermore according to Janjua, Beckett expresses that there is a split between the body and the intellectual represented through the characterization of Vladimir as the intellect and Estragon as the body or the physical. The characterization of Lucky as “lucky” is another interpretation in the context of the play as most of his actions are determined