In general, I don't usually prefer reading plays nor am I strongly attracted to them. However, my sister's insistence on buying this play for me, reading it, and sharing with me the passages and sections that she liked made me fall in love with the book before I even witnessed it on stage.

When reading this play, we notice that it doesn't follow the traditional rules of the theater with a build-up in events, plot, or conflict and then a resolution. Instead, it's quite the opposite. It has few events and characters. It takes place in a small location where there is a withered tree on the first day (the first act of the play) and it starts to grow on the second day (the second and last act of the play). Even the dialogues are rather unconventional and seem to repeat in a rather dull way. This is exactly what the absurd or illogical theater is all about. It creates a dull and absurd environment with repetitive events and unconnected dialogues to convey the idea of the meaninglessness of life.

From the beginning of the play, we see the state of waiting that the protagonists (Vladimir and Estragon) are living in, trying to add meaning to the meaningless life they are leading, making waiting a means of salvation. But in reality, waiting here is both the means and the end. Even if Godot were to appear (which didn't happen), they would still be waiting for another Godot. The individuals or the people that Vladimir and Estragon represent are actually wallowing in ignorance and backwardness, content with traditions, unproductive except for idleness and waste of time. Even the suicide that the protagonists intended to commit, they don't carry it out and they continue to endure the life that they can't bear to leave no matter how meaningless it is.

Many strange behaviors are exhibited by the characters. Sometimes we feel empathy for them and sometimes we are shocked and disgusted. When Vladimir and Estragon enjoy torturing Pozzo and Lucky, it can be understood that backward people and individuals find great pleasure in watching violence and even in practicing it and releasing their pent-up cruelty and humiliation on those who allow them to, as shown in the second day of the story.

There is a great contrast between Pozzo and Vladimir and Estragon. Pozzo knows nothing about Godot and doesn't wait for him, unlike Vladimir and Estragon, who have made their lives a waiting for someone who doesn't come. And how Pozzo doesn't rely on a savior. In a dialogue, Vladimir asks Pozzo directly: What will you do if you fall to the ground far from us and no one is around? Pozzo: We'll wait until we can get up and then we'll continue on our way. He doesn't rely on waiting for Godot but on themselves (Pozzo and Lucky) and then continuing their way. This is an indication of moving forward and relying on oneself.

It's a confusing and highly symbolic play, and its interpretations depend on the reader's ideas. It has political, religious, philosophical, and social interpretations. And it remains completely unresolved. There are many mysteries that remain in my mind. What does the tree symbolize and what are the changes in its state during the two days? Is it Vladimir's memory disorder? Why was the boy asked if Godot had a beard and what color it was? Estragon's boots and Vladimir's hat!

I am attracted to literary works that talk about waiting and the disappointment of expectations. And I felt a connection with the play similar to that with Forough, the lady of disappointment and waiting. She was rich in (the art of mourning and waiting. I await the next and he doesn't come) and many other such poems. And who knows maybe we are all waiting for Godot.

The more discussions there are about such books, the clearer the picture becomes for the reader. And this is the reason why some books remain alive for a long time. It's a great play that has captivated me.

https://youtu.be/QGHnaklmACc

In anticipation of a theatrical performance of "Waiting for Godot" by the Irish writer Samuel Beckett, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1969 and refused to accept the award himself, thereby making a statement to the audience upon receiving the award.

His works are known for what is called the theater of the absurd, and it is said that this play is considered the most important play in the 20th century in the English language!

The play is frankly bad!

The events of the play revolve around two people waiting for someone named Godot.

They don't know who Godot is and of course he never shows up, and thank God he doesn't!

The idea is repetitive and there is nothing new, and the point of the play is that you can waste a great deal of your life waiting for something or someone and you know deep down that it will never happen...

All the dialogues are meaningless and there is repetition...

There are almost no events and many parts are incomprehensible...

I don't really know what this is all about and why it's supposed to be so great!

Tastes vary...

Waiting. That's what we do. We wait. We don't protest. We wait until the end of our lives. It can't be denied.

And yet, there is a kind of variety that we find. What do we do? We let it pass. Come on, let's get busy! (He walks with big steps towards the small hill and sits down.) In a moment, everything disappears and we are alone again, in the middle of nothing!

"Vladimir"

This is the story of Vladimir and Estragon, who are spending the last days of their lives waiting for a person named "Godot". To pass this time, they embark on a deep journey within themselves to relieve their inner turmoil, even if they engage in vulgar and obscene behavior along the way, which incidentally also leads to disputes and arguments.

Godot: He could be Christ, he could be God.

Vladimir: (successfully) That Godot! At last! Godot! That Godot! We have found salvation! And the others!

I really, really, really enjoyed reading this play, a play that has the style of "meaninglessness".

I read this book with the translation of Abbaspour, but I recommend that you must read the unique criticism and interpretation of this play before reading it! Five shining stars for Beckett's special style

Afinal Quem É Godot?

Today: Vladimir and Estragon are sitting near the tree, chatting about this and that (carrots, turnips, voices from beyond, suicide, the Bible...). What are they doing? They are waiting for Godot!

Tomorrow: Vladimir and Estragon, still sitting near the tree, resume their absurd dialogues. What are they doing? They are waiting for Godot!

The day after tomorrow: Vladimir and Estragon, seated near the tree, continue with their usual disjointed conversations. What are they doing? They are waiting for Godot!

....................

If every day, Vladimir and Estragon sit in the same place, engaging in absurd conversations, claiming they are waiting for a Godot they have never seen before, not knowing if he will come, nor on what day he will arrive, who are they waiting for after all?

What I see here is a simulation of life as an absurd repetition of each day, which results in a continuous wait for death. I confess that I have seen death being called by many names, but Godot... Godot is the first time! However, I consider it to be an excellent name to characterize those days of intense apathy:

- So what are you doing?

- I'm doing nothing - I'm waiting for Godot!...

**"The Absurdity and Theater of the Absurd: Humanity Lost in a Heartless World"**

The fall of humanity didn't occur in Eden but in our era. After an overly long history, we've lost the innocence necessary to believe in any kind of explanation. The only certainties left are the falsity of all interpretive structures and the fundamental incomprehensibility of the human experience without these structures.

Theater of the Absurd depicts an unadorned image of human existence in an era that has become empty and meaningless due to the collapse of human values and the inability to interact and respect one another. In this type of presentation, discussions about the cause of meaninglessness are set aside, and only a threatening, destructive, and terrifying image of human life in a meaningless world is shown. Contrary to a common misconception, the Theater of the Absurd is not accurately described by terms like "emptiness, philosophy of emptiness, etc." Meaninglessness in this type of presentation is a state that has occurred, not an inherent one, and it challenges humanity to create new meanings and make fundamental changes.

In the form of the absurd theater, the structure and atmosphere cannot be separated from the meaning and rational content of the work. What is said in these works is inseparably connected to the way it is said, and it cannot be said in any other way. The classic structure of presentation - beginning, middle, end (setting and introduction, conflict, resolution) - is completely broken, and the usual linear progression of the presentation takes on a circular form. Fantastical and dreamlike realities, grotesque characters, actions - if any occur - are in a surreal space and have no causal relationship. Monologues and streams of consciousness are repeated rhythmically, are meaningless, have no audience, and are full of contradictions, and are suddenly silenced.

Sartre emphasizes the principle of "fundamental refusal of theater" in absurd presentations. Based on this principle, in new theater, psychology of characters, plot, and realism are avoided. (Not without a plot in the sense of having no overall plot of the presentation. Because in all examples of this genre, an overall plot exists.)

Writers in this field commonly express two important themes in their works: **humanity's inability to meaningfully interact and respect others, and the loss of individuality**. The human being depicted is one who has lost their individuality and, as a result, lives in a detached and alienated way or, by repeating the dominant pattern of behavior, becomes indistinguishable from the group and loses themselves.

**In a world where all illusions and glimmers of hope have suddenly disappeared, humanity inevitably feels a sense of strangeness. Their situation becomes that of an isolated individual for whom there is no cure for their pain, as they are deprived of memories of a lost homeland and also have no hope of reaching a promised land. This separation between humanity and their life, between the actor and the time and place of the performance, truly gives rise to the feeling of meaninglessness. Camus**

The loss of individuality is shown by eliminating the distinction between characters and the interchangeability of roles at the end of the presentation. The language in absurd works is evocative of illusions and the confusing and terrifying nature of the world. The language used shows humanity's confusion in the world and their inability to respect others. According to Beckett's belief, this inability to respect others is due to language, that is, language itself is an obstacle to respect. But according to Ionesco, humans are unable to respect others because there is actually nothing to respect.

In absurd plays, nothing is ever clear, no action takes place, and no message is ever conveyed. According to Ionesco, the absurd play does not teach a message but is written only to pose a question.

**"Waiting for Godot"**

"Waiting for Godot" is an invocation of a new kind of faith and, in this sense, is a very religious play. The problem raised in this play undoubtedly has a supernatural nature. The solution for these despairing beings is not economic progress, psychological adjustment, or the drugs prescribed by doctors, but a new definition of humanity and a new relationship with the world of existence. A human who is so in need of meaning will either reexamine the outdated definitions of humanity and God or will seek new definitions. Kierkegaard.

Beckett's plays are more colorless than other absurd works. The polyphony of the play, instead of a linear expansion, confronts the viewer with an organized structure of fragments and images that penetrate each other and can only be understood in their entirety, not as different but harmonious elements that, through simultaneous interaction, convey meaning.

"Waiting for Godot" can be considered the most important representative of the Theater of the Absurd. The play has five characters: Vladimir (Didi) - Estragon (Gogo) - Pozzo - Lucky, and the boy messenger. The two acts of the play take place in the same place and time. A bare tree, on a hill beside a road outside the city, distant and strange. Vladimir and Estragon are two tramps who spend the day waiting for Godot until night.

Who is Godot? A mysterious person whose identity and existence are never revealed, yet is supposed to bring something to Vladimir and Estragon. But what is this thing? Death? Salvation? A reason for being? Vladimir and Estragon themselves have forgotten why they are waiting for Godot. Estragon doesn't remember this reason, and Vladimir doubts and says perhaps they asked for a favor, something undefined, perhaps a prayer. **In fact, Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for Godot to stop the flow of time when he arrives.** "Tonight maybe we'll sleep in his place, a warm and soft place. Our bellies full. We'll wait for him, won't we?" Of course, this part has been deleted in the English text.

Beckett, in response to Alan Schneider, the director of the first American production of "Waiting for Godot," said about the character of Godot: **"I don't know who Godot is. If I knew, I would have said so in the play."** However, there are many strong reasons that tempt us to consider Godot as a symbol of God. Godot never shows himself, has a long white beard (according to Vladimir's conversations), and his messenger is a child shepherd (most prophets have been shepherds and are recognized by this representation). The messenger has another brother whom Godot treats badly for unknown reasons. Is Beckett referring to Abel and Cain and the story of Cain's rejection of Abel's offerings? Vladimir and Estragon are afraid of Godot, and in both acts, when they imagine Godot is coming, they become afraid and try to hide themselves. Does this part refer to Adam and Eve's fear and hiding from God? When Pozzo enters with power in the first act, both are afraid and mistake him for Godot.

In any case, whether Godot refers to the intervention of a supernatural agent or represents a mythical savior, his nature is of secondary importance. The subject of the play is not the person Godot but **the act of waiting and the paradox of time** as a specific and fundamental aspect of the human condition. We are always waiting for something in life, and **Godot represents the object of our anticipation and that's all**, a thing, an event, a person, or death. Also, in waiting, we experience the action of time in its most naked and obvious form.

Several sentences from this play also exist in other works of Beckett, the most important of which is the phrase **"I don't know, sir"** said by Godot's messenger. This phrase is also repeated in Molloy and may be the voice of the attacker who assaulted Beckett years ago. In 1937, Beckett was severely assaulted on the street by a thug. After taking Beckett's wallet, the attacker, for no reason, assaults him with several blows of an ax. After recovering, Beckett meets the attacker in prison and asks him why he attacked him, and he replies: **"I don't know, sir."**

Although Vladimir and Estragon have lost their individuality, more precise examinations can reveal fundamental differences between them. Based on the pattern of comedy performances, Vladimir and Estragon can be considered the central characters of the "serious man and the silly man" who complement each other. In all decision-making, Vladimir has the final say. It is Vladimir who starts the conversations and moves them forward, but Estragon injects meaningless words in response and the conversation is cut off. It is Vladimir who repeatedly remembers that they must wait for Godot. He is the one who asks the boy messenger questions, thinks, and sometimes his words have a philosophical sparkle. He pays attention to his and Estragon's physical needs and protects Estragon. In contrast, Estragon always pays full attention to ordinary matters. Foot pain, problems with boots, the choice of parsley instead of turnips, the request for money, and the remaining bones of Pozzo. It can be concluded that Estragon is a disorganized person and has no religious or philosophical concerns. However, all these interpretations have no effect on reaching the result (meeting with Godot). **Those who are hard at work searching for meaning will not achieve it sooner than those who passively wait for meaning to be found.**

Both Estragon and Vladimir are engaged in suffering. Beckett implicitly refers to the post-philosophical definition of "the problem of pain" and makes a distinction between **"suffering pain"** and **"enduring pain."** Estragon **"suffers pain"** from the area of his foot, and Vladimir **"endures pain"** because of a problem with urination.

Estragon's state of sleep represents a return to the womb and a flight from being (according to Gogginheim, Beckett had a terrifying memory of life in the womb. He always suffered from this memory and was constantly reminded of the feeling of fading away). Then the sleep that Estragon falls into and the word he utters... falling... a fall into this meaningless world?

The other two characters, Pozzo and Lucky, are the antithesis of each other, yet at the same time, they are in connection and unity through their physical and prosthetic forms. They can be considered two opposite poles. Father against son, mother against child (the umbilical cord like a navel string), master against slave, circus director against trained animal (Pozzo has circus tools including a whip, a four-legged stool, an umbilical cord, etc. at his disposal, and their entry is like the start of a comical circus show), or based on Freud's theory, the ego against the id.

Vladimir and Estragon are clearly superior to Pozzo and Lucky. Not because of their belief in Godot but because they are not as simple-minded as the two. They have no faith in action, wealth, or reason. They are aware that everything we do in life is, in contrast to the action of time itself, an illusion. They are aware that self-denial may be the best solution, so they are superior to Lucky and Pozzo because they are less self-centered and have fewer illusions. Otto Rank, the Jungian psychologist, believes that **"the function of Godot is to keep those who are dependent on him unconscious."** From this point of view, hope and the habit of hoping that after all this, Godot may come is **"the last illusion"** that keeps Vladimir and Estragon from facing themselves and the human condition. At the last moment before the realization that nothing is left and Vladimir realizes that it has been a dream and he must wake up and face the world as it is, Godot's messenger arrives and once again plunges him into the activation of the illusion. Beckett, in an article related to Proust, implicitly refers to this aspect of "Waiting for Godot," that is, "the habit of having hope": "Habit is a chain that ties the dog to its kennel, breathing is a habit. Life is a habit or preferably a series of habits. So habit is the name of countless pacts among countless particulars that together make up the individual and countless abstractions that depend on them. The passing periods that separate the successive adaptations of the individual from each other are indicative of the dangerous areas in the life of the individual. Dangerous, unstable, full of pain, full of mystery, and creative, when the moment of "the pain of being takes the place of the boredom of being."

Gassner, in one of his essays on Beckett, states that in this work, the four characters in the play leave the standing position, which is a symbol of their humanity, a total of 45 times.

The beginning of the play in both acts is with the phrase: **"Nothing to be done."** This sentence is repeated in different forms and in various situations in the play and defines the overall space of the play. It is not intended that anything be done or any event occur in this play. Vladimir and Estragon do nothing. In fact, they have found inaction to be the most dangerous possible action.

The subject of the two thieves on the cross is the subject of uncertainty in the hope of salvation and surrender, something that casts a shadow over the entire play. When Beckett was asked about the subject of "Waiting for Godot," he replied: "In the writings of Saint Augustine, there is a wonderful sentence. If only I could remember it in Latin. It is even more beautiful in Latin than in English. **"Do not despair; one of the two thieves was saved. Do not be certain; one of the two thieves was damned."**

The use of Christian symbols in the play is clear. Estragon's falling and sleeping in the river is reminiscent of **Nicodemus** in the New Testament, with the difference that no savior now comes to save Estragon. The two tramps on the stage and the hill on which a half-bare tree stands and is located on the outskirts of the city can be reminiscent of the events of Good Friday (the hill outside the city = Golgotha, the two tramps = the two thieves, the tree = the cross, the symbol of salvation in spring).

Vladimir refers to the arrival of Godot on the promised Sunday. Is today Sunday? Is this the same Sunday between Good Friday **and Easter Monday**? That empty space between history? The Sunday that was accompanied by silence, the fear of the guards, the absence of God, and anticipation? Unlike the Bible, at the end of this play, time remains on that silent Sunday, and there is no Easter Monday of resurrection and judgment.

Vladimir and Estragon, while reminiscing, refer to Estragon's falling into the river and drowning. This can also be considered a reference to baptism and rebirth. The use of the names Abel and Cain in the play, in addition to their symbolic value, shows the inclusiveness of the world of the play's characters.

Among the special techniques that Beckett has used in this play, one can mention the confusion of time and place and the excessive display of human emotions (Vladimir and Estragon embrace each other, but immediately move apart because of the smell of garlic).

Like other absurd works, "Waiting for Godot" has a circular structure. The sameness of time and place in both acts, the rhythmic repetition of events, and the repetition of the poem at the beginning of the second act indicate the false sequence of events. It is clear from the beginning and end of the play that all these events, with slight differences in details, have been repeated and will be repeated many times. Beckett has depicted in this work the only source of new human strength: **"Waiting! In waiting..."**

* - Like Nicodemus: One day a certain teacher of the law came and asked Jesus, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" He replied, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." Luke 10:25 - 37

** - Good Friday is the day when Christ was crucified.

Brilliant. Absurd. Profound.

Hilarity amidst Existential Absurdity! This play truly leaves you scratching your head, giggling, and marvelling at the genius of the author.

It was both moving and amusing! It makes one question the nature of reality, the purpose of life, and the apparent futility of existence.

Two friends, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), are stuck in an endless cycle of waiting for “Godot”, who is going to save them from all their troubles (Blind Date with Godot — will Godot show up? ). Their interactions are humourous, touching, witty, heartbreaking, and profound!

ESTRAGON: We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?

Their friendship was heartwarming, and amidst a seemingly bleak plot, it gave a feeling of hope, warmth, and tenderness. It showed that their bond transcended the futility of their situation.

The author masterfully keeps the reader swinging between two states, existential despair and slapstick humour.

Sometimes, the impact of a single, well-crafted play can surpass the weight of an entire library of long-winded pages.

Side note: The last line also applies to certain other plays as well; ‘Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?’ particularly comes to mind! It's amazing how a play can have such a profound impact with just a few well-chosen words and a captivating story. This play makes you think about life in a whole new way and appreciate the power of theatre to touch our hearts and minds.

**"Waiting for Godot": A Reflection on the Absurdity of Life**

“Estragone - Troviamo sempre qualcosa, vero, Didi, per darci l'impressione di esistere?”



The dramatic futility of life can be so absurd as to provoke so many laughs?







Whether one witnesses this play or reads its text, it seems that one cannot escape laughter as Didì (Vladimir) and Gogo (Estragon) move on the desolate stage of life. They are symbols and metaphors in the face of existential absurdity, where one finds oneself waiting for someone unknown who will never arrive. Meanwhile, Pozzo and Lucky represent a world of the oppressed and the oppressors, of blindness and silence. Beckett was opposed to any analysis of the text, and it is easily intuited that each person could have their own version that is reflective of their own personal vocabulary with which they translate the enigmas of life. Seen in the theater a couple of times, it does not lose its bite even with the solitary reading of the text. The bare stage setting is imprinted in my mind: a curtain that prevents one from seeing the horizon, a bare and so meager tree to which one cannot even hang oneself.



It is a genius work that manages to condense all the malaise of Man, not coincidentally so acutely felt in those years on the eve of the Second Great Carnage.



*****************

Vladimir. It's difficult to live with you, Gogo.
Estragon. It would be better to leave each other.
Vladimir. You always say that. And every time you come back. (Silence).
Estragon. To do things properly, one should kill me, like the other one.
Vladimir. Which other one? (Pause). Which other one?
Estragon. Like millions of others.
Vladimir (sententious). Each one has his own little cross. (Sigh) During the little today and the brief tomorrow.
Estragon. And while we wait, we try to talk without getting on each other's nerves, since we are unable to keep quiet.
Vladimir. It's true, we are inexhaustible.
Estragon. We do it to avoid thinking.
Vladimir. We have extenuating circumstances.
Estragon. We do it to avoid feeling.
Vladimir. We have our reasons.

**"The Absurdity of Life and the Wait for 'Godot'"**

\\n  ESTRAGON: (aphoristic for once). We are all born mad. Some remain so.\\n


Life is presented as an ultimately absurd phenomenon, with the Sisyphian task of constantly pushing a rock uphill, only for it to roll back down, repeated infinitesimally. Our destiny is like this endless loop, similar to the circular yet seemingly flat earth we inhabit. We keep climbing this rope, hoping there is an end, yearning, having faith, and expecting. We wait for our 'Godot', our destiny. But will 'Godot' come? The hope that the scaffold of our lives rests upon is both the source of our absurdity and all we have. In the absence of veracity or tangible proof, absurdity is both everything and nothing. In this illusory life, we weave a tapestry that is as real as we are, continuing to do so presumably until eternity or until 'Godot' arrives. The wait becomes our objective, with reality and illusion becoming indistinguishable.


The comical travesty that Vladimir and Estragon experience is the lot of each of us. It is not gloomy or depressing, but simply our fate. There is no sadness or longing for a substantial goal, but rather a comical search for an absurd objective that is still substantial in its absurdity and reality. The protagonist pursues it seriously while the observer laughs. Only an unconscious and ignorant observer can laugh at this travesty that also affects them. Whether it is an absurd comedy or a comical absurdity, the realization of this absurdity makes one wonder, but the inevitable conclusion is that the two are the same. The acceptance of the illusory veil over the illusion is itself illusory, as this illusion balances and holds our world.


\\n  VLADIMIR: All I know is that the hours are long, under these conditions, and constrain us to beguile them with proceedings which —how shall I say— which may at first sight seem reasonable, until they become a habit. You may say it is to prevent our reason from foundering. No doubt. But has it not long been straying in the night without end of the abysmal depths?\\n


There must be a dead end somewhere, a single answer that resolves all human queries. Without this answer, the essence of life may be unbearable, unfathomable, and unbreachable. So we create our own realities, illusions that are the only lights that illuminate our eternal wait and hope.


\\n  VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.\\n


…….Curtain…….

Samuel Beckett, when penning Godot, aimed to flatten his self and its native environment into a thin strip of organic material, much like a biologist slices life paper-thin for a microscope slide.

He then applied the reductionism of a modern Occam’s Razor to his belief in the absurdity of the universe.

Consequently, all meaning became for him and his audience a reductio ad absurdem into sharp Meaninglessness.

Interestingly, I realized tonight that I often take a Bachelardian turn in my reviews, transforming the hard and fractious facts of my daily life into the soft butter of rêverie through imagination and dreaming. This is my Asperger’s speaking.

I was wondering how to break down the irréfragable walnut of Beckett into digestible pieces. For Beckett and Godot are notoriously difficult to understand, even when sliced thin. His iron will was as unbreakable as mine.

To begin, I turned to memories of James Knowlson’s authorized biography of the Grand Old Absurdist.

In it, we learn a crucial clue about Godot: Beckett, unlike many introverted readers, was a hard-edged extroverted egghead who enjoyed his beer blasts on boys' nights out.

Think of Bertrand Russell. Like Beckett, he was an extroverted intellectual who worked hard to forget life’s pains and aporias.

Extroverts may have become that way to forget private painful emotions.

Beckett, perhaps similar to Russell, felt suffocated by his Irish family’s demonstrative emotions.

So, like Stephen Dedalus, he created an escape world of pure intellect. Emotionally, he was running on empty.

Vladimir and Estragon are also running on empty. They see life as a hopeless dead end. Their affective foils, Pozzo and Lucky, live a sadomasochistic tragicomedy that always contains hope because of its emotion.

Vladimir and Estragon are extroverted intellectuals who agree with Voltaire’s statement that life is a comedy to those who think, but a tragedy to those who feel.

Lucky and Pozzo would respond that life is fullness to those who feel, but emptiness to those who think.

The director Werner Herzog made a film about deranged Antarctic penguins who abandon their friends to venture alone to certain death.

Who’s right? It depends on which side of the fence you’re on. I'm not an intellectual penguin either.

For me, I’m mostly a Lucky who’s never given up on life. That was the Lord’s way too.

You have to keep moving upward, He tells us. Nihilism is a sinkhole. Herzog and Beckett knew this but still traveled into the emptiness within. Are they right?

I think I’ll follow the LORD's way out of this mess rather than indulge in Beckett’s hollow laughter on his endless inner voyage.

Any day. Even though I share Beckett’s flattened but steely simplified self.

For that is the penultimate step before realizing the End is Endless and eternal, insofar as we give up our unending pursuit of an ultimate impregnable position of rest.

- What exactly did we ask him?

- Well, nothing specific.

- Something like a plea.

- Bravo.

- A vague wish.

- And what did he answer?

- That he would see.

- That he couldn't promise anything.

- That he had to think about it.

- To consult his own people.

- His friends.

- His agents.

- His respondents.

- His books.

- His bank account.

- Before making a decision.

- Naturally.

- And us?

- Here?

- What role do we play?

- What role do we play? The role of the petitioner.

- We have come this far;

- Maybe your Excellency wishes to claim her privileges?

- We no longer have rights;

- It would make me laugh if I hadn't been deprived of this possibility.

- We lost our rights;

- We were relieved of them.

This is a must-read/watch/listen. Whatever way you like it.

A beautiful play, Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett. Apparently it is absurd, but I don't want to say that it is as absurd as life is. Not yet. I prefer instead to keep searching for that something beyond the very absurdity and what is meaningful.

Another straightforward confession: I did not actually read the play but watched it on a YouTube video of 2 hrs. In fact, I rarely choose to watch a live performance over reading (the play). This time was an exception. And it was indeed sheer magic to see the characters alive, even if virtually. For almost 2 hrs I haven't moved except to uplift my legs against the bed wall couple of times. (By the way, I found out that if you put your legs up against the wall for 20 minutes your body will thank you later because of some real proven benefits, i.e., improved circulation and drained fluids, improves digestion (flatter belly), relaxed nervous system, better sleep, foot pain relief. So trust and exercise it!)

Last but not least, I eventually understood why my mother always applied this title to whatever action she was expecting me to perform. I was a sort of Godot who failed to make a wanted or timely appearance upon the call. I know, I know, it is not something to be proud of. Now I know.

So, within the play nothing much happens or, maybe too much happens.

There is this small incident where two tramps (why so! I don't know), Vladimir and Estragon, are on stage. They are there to wait – I mean just as everybody else in the world is waiting – nobody knows exactly for what. Everybody is waiting, hoping that something is going to happen: today it has not happened, tomorrow it is going to happen. Of course, this is crystal clear, isn't it? This is the human mind: today is being wasted, but it hopes that tomorrow something is going to happen. And those two tramps are sitting under a tree and waiting… waiting for Godot. Nobody knows exactly who this Godot is. The word sounds like God, but it only sounds, and who knows, all these someone(s) we are waiting for are all Godots.

These two tramps are there just to wait. What they are waiting for is the coming of a man, Godot, who is expected to provide them with shelter and sustenance (so maybe that's why they are tramps). Meanwhile, they try to make time pass with small talk, jokes, games, and minor quarrels…Oh yes! Maybe another big truth. That is what life is composed of: we are engaged meanwhile with small/big things, small/big talk, jokes, games…tedium and emptiness. But, the great thing is going to happen tomorrow. Godot will come tomorrow.

'Nothing to be done' is the refrain that rings again and again, and then, in the midst of the first act, two strangers – Pozzo and Lucky storm onto the stage. Pozzo seems to be a man of affluence; Lucky, the servant, is being driven to a nearby market to be sold. Pozzo tells the tramps about Lucky's virtues, the most remarkable of which is that he can THINK. To show them, Pozzo snaps his whip and commands 'Think!' and there follows a long, hysterically incoherent monologue in which fragments of theology, science, sports, and assorted learning jostle in confusion until the three others hurl themselves on him and silence him.

What is our whole thinking? What am I saying when I say 'I am thinking'? What can I think? What is there to think? And through thinking how can I arrive at truth? And so on and so forth… But there should be an experience. Maybe thinking won't help me much, still I will go on thinking and thinking, and it will be like saying “nothing to be done”...

Anyway, as mentioned few paragraphs above, the curtain rises: two vagabonds are sitting and waiting for Godot. Who is this Godot? They don't know, nobody knows. Yes, of course, again and again repetition. We learn something by repetition. It seems that even Samuel Beckett, when once was asked, “Who is this Godot?” said, “if I had known, I would have said so in the play itself.”

Nobody knows. But the word Godot sounds like God. That is significant. Who knows God? Who has even known? Who can say, who can claim, I know? Godot sounds like God, the unknown: it may be all, it may be nothing. Still they are waiting for Godot. When they don't know who this God is, why are they waiting? It is maybe because if you don't wait for something you fall into something that scares you. Could be inner emptiness, vacuum, nothingness, tedium, boredom, etc…So better to avoid it.

There is a beautiful saying "Remember, man, that thou art dust, and unto dust thou shall return." (Genesis 3:19) Alright, nothing much to debate on that however, we can add that, between and betwixt, a drink comes in handy. Just for the sake of diversity, of course.

So, man is eventually a vagabond because we can't say or don't have answers to simple questions, such as, from where do you come? where are you going? where are you right now? oh yes, I can shrug my shoulders, although they seem stuck a bit these days..

Anyway, Beckett is right; those two tramps seem to encapsulate the whole humanity. But, in a way, they are truer, honest. They decide in an angry mood (curse/swear) that enough is enough and they will leave tomorrow morning. But tomorrow again, the sun rises and they are in the same place and waiting, and again asking when he is coming. They have completely forgotten that last night they had decided to leave. But where to go? Nowhere to go!

Summarizing up, there are two basic truths revealed: first - nothing ever happens; things appear to happen, but one remains the same. We don't judge based on external appearances, of course, because those always change even against our will; and second - we have been going and going and going from one place to another, from one mood to another, from one level to another, but we are not reaching anywhere. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Hence, the overall conclusion is perfectly in line with this joke:

An old chicken farmer is very proud of his brood, so when two smartly dressed city gentlemen ask to look at them, he quickly obliges.

A very fine bunch of chickens, says one of the men.

Thank you, sir, replies the farmer.

And what do you feed them on? asks the second man.

Special chicken fertilizer, imported from China, says the old man, proudly.

A-ha! cries the first man. Just as we suspected. That is illegal. You will be fined two thousand dollars.

A month later, two more well-dressed men show up and ask the farmer what he feeds to his magnificent chickens. The old man, wiser than the first time, says, I just feed them on shit.

A-ha! say the men. We are from the Health and Hygiene Department, and what you are doing is illegal. You will be fined two thousand dollars.

A few weeks later, another city gentleman arrives and asks the same question. This time the farmer shrugs and says, Listen, mister, I just give them fifty cents each and tell them to go to the market and buy what the hell they want!

Waiting for Godot is an existential tragicomedy by Beckett. The play explores the human condition of waiting and the absurdity of life. The characters, Estragon and Vladimir, wait for Godot, a mysterious figure who never arrives. They pass the time by talking, arguing, and doing nothing. The play raises questions about the meaning of life, the nature of existence, and the role of hope.

The dialogue between E and V reflects the confusion and frustration of the human experience. E questions the point of waiting and the value of reading the play. V responds that perhaps there is no point, but that we still have to wait and create meaning in our lives. The play suggests that life is a meaningless ordeal, but that we must find ways to cope and go on.

The images and links provided add to the overall atmosphere of the play. They show the desolate landscape in which the characters wait and the various interpretations of the play. The quotes from the play further emphasize the themes of absurdity, nihilism, and the human struggle for meaning.

Overall, Waiting for Godot is a thought-provoking and challenging play that forces us to confront the reality of our own existence. It makes us question our beliefs, our values, and our place in the world. Whether we find it absurd or profound, it is a play that will stay with us long after we have finished reading or watching it.