Waiting for Godot

This is the worst book I have ever read. It has no point and goes nowhere. Some people would say dung thrown against a white canvas is modern art. If you are one of these such people you may love this book. I, on the other hand, see it at face value. The Emperor has no clothes. An absolute waste of 2 hours in vain frivolity.

The description and reviews of this book which I purchased in the kindle edition are confusing and led me to believe this was a study guide which included the text of the play. WRONG. This is a study guide only. The product description needs to be corrected. My primary motivation was to read the play.

Disappointed . . . Waiting for Godot had me waiting for more, for something more . . . I just didn't learn much (if anything) from this long-praised tragic-comedy play . . . It must be better on stage--way better! Fortunately Mr. Beckett need not concern himself with my little opinion.

I have not yet finished the book, but am enjoying it. I am writing this review because the formatting of the kindle version is terrible. There are differing font sizes and I can't look up words using the built-in dictionary. It seems as though large blocks of text are images and not actual searchable text. Consider buying the hard copy of this title.

Growing old carries with it any number of discomfiting surprises. For me, one of the more recent and relatively minor ones was realizing that I had altogether forgotten having read WAITING FOR GODOT once upon a time. While I had an idea of what the play was about, I thought that was simply by virtue of its landmark status in absurdist/existentialist literature. But then, in culling through books long in storage, I came across this old Grove Press paperback ($1.75 cover price) with hand-written marginalia I recognized as mine from when I was about twenty. So I had to read it (actually, re-read it), first, in order to visit the former self who produced that marginalia, and second, to read as a mature reader what has been voted the most significant English language play of the twentieth-century. I think it deserves that accolade. WAITING FOR GODOT is brilliant.

The stage directions for Act I read "A country road. A tree. Evening." In this sparse landscape are Estragon and Vladimir, two men with bowler hats (perhaps counterparts of Laurel and Hardy). After some initial palaver, Estragon gazes around and says, "Let's go."
Vladimir: We can't.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We're waiting for Godot.

A day later, after two visits from Pozzo and Lucky and much facile (or is it serious?) philosophizing, Estragon and Vladimir are still waiting. Near play's end they discuss hanging themselves from the solitary tree, but, when they test the cord that Estragon uses to hold up his trousers, it breaks.
Vladimir: We'll hang ourselves to-morrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
Estragon: And if he comes?
Vladimir: We'll be saved.
* * *
Estragon: Well? Shall we go?
Vladimir: Pull on your trousers.
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: Pull on your trousers
* * *
Estragon: (realizing his trousers are down). True. (He pulls up his trousers.)
Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
But they do not move, and the curtain falls.

Much has been read into this spare, bleak, and darkly funny play. I often lean towards the obvious, so I favor an interpretation in which the play is a depiction of the world without God, where -- nonetheless -- everyone is waiting for Him. Incidentally, that interpretation has a little more to commend it if "Godot" is pronounced as the British and Irish do, with the accent on the first syllable. (Beckett reportedly said that accenting the second syllable, as North Americans tend to do, was wrong.)

The play originally was written and published in the late 1940's in French ("En attendant Godot"). Beckett himself produced the English version, which is not a literal translation of the original French, but rather slightly more vague and ambiguous.

Waiting for Godot was not a good play at all. I read it for school, but would never read this sort of play. It was about two guys and their relationship over the years and the people they meet along the way. They always have to be doing something to occupy their time. If they don't find anything to do they alway end up saying they want to kill themselves. It was the worst play I ever read. I will not give away the ending but it was about nothing! Don't bother reading.

The only reviewer of this play, as of this date, is a Mr. Wilfong who stated, "I will not attempt to analyze or define this play in this space." I can certainly understand why he made that statement. What is there in this play to analyze or define? There is no substance. This play is obviously written for Academe. Samuel Beckett obviously pulled a fast one with this play which begins, continues, and ends nowhere. It is listed as a "Tragicomedy." Two idiots (clowns perhaps?) sit, fall, stand, and sleep by a tree, waiting for Godot. They converse with each other in a nonsensical manner (this must be the comedy aspect), and interspersed among their irrational thoughts, three other characters are introduced, none of whom add anything to the play. Some reviewers mentioned God in their remarks. I did too, when the play ended. I thanked God when I read the last word. Perhaps the ending will be considered the tragic aspect, however, in my opinon, the end of this play is the only great part of this highly over rated piece of meaningless refuse. After coming to my senses, and realizing that the play was over, I could finally close the book forever and toss it. I don't know what Beckett was smoking when he wrote it, and I don't know what the reviewers were smoking when they rated it, but it wasn't cigarettes. Take my advice and purchase a good book or play. I don't believe I have ever read anything worse in my entire life.

It's not easy to find a good (and legal) copy of this production these days, but if you can find it, the Schneider production so very worth it. Beckett's play is a challenge to produce, not only because of the Beckett Estate's insistence that the play must be performed precisely as written, but mainly because it is too easy to drag the script out in a dull, ponderous, bloodless performance. This production reminds us that Godot is a comedy--or at least that it has a lot of genuinely funny moments. The dialogue is delivered in a perfectly bantering manner, and the actors have wonderful chemistry between them.

This is a filmed stage production, which always risks seeming flat and contrived, but given the mood of the script, the production works well technically. The camera close-ups deliver facial expressions that might be lost in a live stage production, and the black-and-white color scheme fits the tone of the play, which meanders back and forth between Chaplain-style slapstick and Casablanca-style melodrama.

If you're not familiar with Beckett, you should know that he pioneered "theater of the absurd" with this and other plays. Don't expect a clear plot or an obvious "point" to the play. Beckett's plays are experimental, putting average characters in absurd situations and letting them try (and usually fail) to cope with their own existence. Waiting for Godot is an artistic masterpiece, but it won't be winning "feel-good movie of the year" any time soon.

The amazing thing about Waiting for Godot is that it has always engendered confusion, uncertainty and half-formed theories. It's puzzling to most viewers and reviewers. So much so, you have to wonder why anyone likes it, since they don't seem to be able to understand it. Yet far from an enigmatic muddle, Godot is crystal clear. It is an Irish vision of Purgatory/Limbo.

All the evidence points to it; no evidence contradicts it. It lets the whole story come together consistently and rationally. Two ragged fellows meet every morning and do nothing all day. Not that there is anything to do - the world is essentially flat, boundless, gray and barren, save for one derisory dead tree. There is no water, no food (save for a single old vegetable in the pocket of one of them - every day), no shelter, no objects of any kind. Not even a place to sit. Estragon is doomed to remember nothing except being beaten up the night before. Every night. Vladimir is cursed with an inkling of having been here and done this before, but can't quite nail it. Total frustration.

They consider suicide, but don't even have the means to do even that little. They are dead men already, so it is redundant. They cross paths with another pair, similarly cursed, and this happens every day with no one remembering the previous encounter. They are doomed to repeat this meaningless activity every day for eternity. And part of it is waiting for a man who they've never met and who never comes. He cancels on them every afternoon.

What fresh hell is this? to borrow from Ms. Parker. They are waiting for God(ot) to decide their eternal fates. And every day, God doesn't show. It's Limbo (since cancelled).

It is precisely the same Limbo envisioned by another great Irish author and playwright, Flann O'Brien, in his last novel - The Third Policeman. In it, the nameless "hero" awakens in a land much like the one he came from, but can't interact with. Instead, his wanderings continually take him to the police station, where the two constables tell him he'll have to wait for the third policeman, who never shows. The police talk endlessly about a bicycle parked there, and whether or not it has moved, is capable of moving, should move, has the will to move, didn't it just move? After 150 pages of this, our hero surmises this can't go on and must be a bad dream, because it's not as if he is dead, he says. And it hits you; yes, of course that's it - he is dead. This is Purgatory. Doomed to endlessly repeat the same boring, pointless rounds all day every day, visiting a deep well of lockers where he can withdraw anything he wants or needs, but he cannot take any of it back up the elevator if it adds even a fraction of an ounce to the personal weight he came down with.

Nonsense. Frustration. Boredom. Futility. Pointlessness. Endlessness. Hopelessness. Agony. There is no climax, no love, no betrayal - the minimum requirements of drama. There's just the same again. That is Beckett and O'Brien's vision of what awaits Irishmen. In other words, more of the same. Forever. That is as powerful as anything truly dramatic, and accounts for Godot's undiminished popularity.

Waiting for Godot is, in more ways than one, timeless.

In literature, repetition is not pointless. In existential plays, such as this one, it is downright essential.

Both words and situations recur incessantly throughout the play, not because the events themselves are important, but because the fact that they keep occurring drives home the meaning of the story. In this two-act play, two men battle boredom, indecisiveness, and illogical predicaments combined with highly ridiculous, Catch-22-like situations. One of these instances takes place when Vladimir and Estragon are debating on what they should do to amuse themselves while they wait for the elusive Godot. When Estragon suggests they hang themselves, they debate on who should go first to ensure that they would both die and cannot decide who is lighter, and then Estragon decides that it is better to wait and ask Godot when he comes who should hang first while they wait for him to come. This, of course, makes no sense.

And there are several places in the play in which the protagonists debate on whether to hang themselves. They always reach the same conclusion: that it is "safer" to wait. This scene repeating itself makes it obvious that absolutely no decision is ever reached, and that the characters are forever searching for the truth, only to discard their efforts when they decide temporarily that it would be better to let someone else decide for them; that someone is Godot, and he never comes. However, they retain hope that one day their questions will be answered in the form of the nameless boy who always returns at the end of the day, saying he had a message from Godot that he will be there tomorrow. By the end of the last act, it is obvious that the characters have been going through this forever and could conceivably never be free of waiting for Godot. Since Godot never comes, their questions are never answered, and they retain their indecisiveness and and are deprived of any relevant information. Also, it is never made clear why the characters are waiting for Godot. It is almost sure that the characters themselves do not know. They are in existential angst because they don't know when he will come, when they should be wondering why he is expected to come. The meaning is never made clear to the poor, bewildered Estragon and Vladimir.

Another aspect of the play that repeats itself is the men's continually changing attitude toward each other. In the instance of Estragon's dreams, which also repeat, Vladimir seems to hate him. A minute later along the storyline they are embracing. Dissatisfaction with clothing, most notably hats, is also prevalent. Estragon is seen at the beginning cursing his boots as he tries to remove them, at which point Vladimir remarks, "There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet." But Vladimir is guilty of this as well, when he removes his hat and tries in vain to find out what is wrong with it.

Later in the play, Lucky, Pozzo, Vladimir, and Estragon all switch hats only to have the hats come full circle again. It shows the characters' misguided self-loathing as they look for flaws in their clothing. The fact that this circumlocution with the hats occurs makes it obvious that the characters keep looking for ways of making themselves feel better through trivial mendings of outside wrongs as they suffer the angst in their deeper nature. At the beginning of the second act, the dissatisfaction with clothing drags itself into the next day in the form of Estragon's smelly boots lying dead center of the stage when Vladimir arrives, and in the form of Lucky's discarded hat, remaining through the night in the same place it was left. So every day the dissatisfaction recurs.

Another recurring event is the returning of Lucky and Pozzo every day. Even though the men all met the day before, they seem to not know each other. It is obvious in many ways that all the characters remember selected parts of the day before, but none of them are sure enough of themselves even to trust their own memories. They, as existential characters, trust nothing but the present. Their memories are there, they just don't trust them. Some evidence of their memories is the fact that Vladimir's speech toward Estragon tends to change to resemble Pozzo's from the day before, when he calls him a "pig" as Pozzo called Lucky. He never did this before. They also "play Pozzo and Lucky"; Estragon cursing Vladimir and Vladimir dancing and trying to "think" as Lucky had. Also, Estragon remembers Lucky kicking him and Pozzo allowing him to have his chicken bones. However, he does not remember their names.

There is also quite a bit of dialogue which recurs in the play, whole sections of dialogue which is repetitive in itself in addition to being repeated. The abundance of references to Heaven and Hell are evident; in the scene in the play in which Vladimir, thinking he hears Godot coming, exits left and Estragon exits right, Vladimir remarks, "We're saved!" relating Godot as a savior. When Estragon re-enters, seeks out Vladimir, falls into his arms, and remarks, "There you are again," Vladimir exclaims "I'm in Hell!" Neither character can define Heaven or Hell, because they have always only known their situation, each other, and the site of the tree. The tree is always there, a constant reminder and measure of the time that is slipping away as they wait without reward.

Estragon and Vladimir are constantly trying to amuse themselves with words. At one point they ask each other questions. At another point they pretend to fight, then pretend to make up. And several times, they have discussions, seriously executed but completely inconsequential. Estragon tends to repeat certain phrases, playing the "constant" as Vladimir attempts to make sense out of the situation. These phrases, though meaningless and irrelevant, tend to recur throughout any conversation with Vladimir. These show his inability to think for himself and his resulting existential dilemma.

The one exchange that resurfaces throughout the entire play is the following:

"Let's go."
"We can't."
"Why not?"
"We're waiting for Godot."

They're staying there simply because waiting for Godot is the only purpose they have in life. Neither character has any idea what they would do or say if Godot did eventually show up. They simply wait. This is evident partly because neither character even knows what Godot looks like and sometimes even forget his name.

Not once in the actual dialogue are the names "Vladimir" and "Estragon" ever mentioned. Instead, the protagonists call each other "Didi" and "Gogo." These names themselves are repetitive, showing that everything, even the men's names, and symbolically, the men, constantly recur into a meaningless cycle of waiting for Godot.

Waiting for Godot is probably best understood by someone who has seen it on stage, rather than just read it and perhaps seen pictures of the characters. I belong to the latter category, one who has just read it, so I'm sure I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to reviewing Beckett's best known play. Nevertheless, it speaks clearly enough when read that there are, I think, useful observation to be made.

Beckett's use of language, even in translation, strikes me as exemplary given its purpose. His prose is as lean or as cluttered or as fraught with affectation as it needs to be. One can imagine characters such as Vladimir and Estragon speaking in the variously bemused, impatient, consoling, angry, demanding, appreciative, and meaningless ways in which Beckett has them speaking. They are, it seems to me, quintessentially commonplace. I can see why a reader might be inclined to ascribe to them the status of what today we call street people, but I don't think it makes much difference. They complain, argue, inquire, greet, and otherwise engage each other in much the same way as any two adults killing time.

Pozzo is a pathetic, absentminded fop with aristocratic pretentions, and that is just how he talks: to himself, past the main characters, and in a self-congratulatory, smug fashion at odds with the minimal and transitory nature of his attainments. Beckett gives him precisely the words, mannerisms, conceits, and studied aloofness that one would expect from a person of this sort.

Lucky, in some respects, is the most interesting character in the play. His long and nonsensical exposition on thought, while meaningless, has the unmistakable rhythm and drone of pretentious academic discourse. I take Lucky to be saying that those who would learn more about life and its meaning need go no farther than the mundane exchanges among the other characters in the play. Otherwise, we just outsmart ourselves, imagining depth and insight when there is none. It seems reasonable to conclude that the juxtaposition of the everyday discourse involving Vladimir and Estragon with the long-winded, extravagant, ostentatious, cluttered, imbecility of Lucky's presentation emphasizes that Waiting for Godot is a dramatist's exercise in existentialism. As hard as we may look for a more substantial foundation for everyday life, we won't find one.

"Lucky" may seem an odd name for a slave, someone owned and used by the uncaring, self-important, and self-indulgent Pozzo. Perhaps it's an error in translation or just a bit of otherwise pointless irony. However, if we accept the judgment that Waiting for Godot is an exercise in existentialism, Lucky has an advantage over the other characters: slaves don't make decisions, they just do as they're told and they need find no meaning in what they say or do. Free men, by contrast, must use good judgment and make informed choices in a world where value and meaning, ostensibly, are inherent and can be discerned. Free men, in other words, are doomed to do the existentially impossible, while slaves are free of these hopelessly burdensome obligations. Maybe the rope-bound and berated Lucky is, at least in an existential sense, lucky after all.

What, then, is the point of the process that anchors Vladimir and Estragon together and in the same place throughout the play? What is the point of Waiting for Godot? In an existential world, when Vladimir and Estragon tell themselves and each other that they are waiting for Godot they give voice to a purpose, one that is as good as any other. Beckett's point seems to be that we are all, in our own ways, waiting for Godot, for something fundamentally purposeful and heavy-laden with meaning, even though the purpose and meaning are not revealed.

Whatever one makes of the foregoing comments, I feel obliged to admit that I would not have given Beckett's play much thought if it were not celebrated as a masterpiece. Maybe I have been doing much as Vladimir and Estragon: trying to make meaning where there is none.

Waiting for Godot is one of those plays that I keep coming back to and finding new layers in. Every few years, I like to reread it to try to understand it better. Perhaps it would be wiser to read an essay or some sort of scholarly text about it, i’m sure there are many, but that would be avoiding the pure joy that reading this play brings me.
At first glance, it’s funny, and weird. Bear with me here, there’s a lot of word play, but at its surface you have two seemingly homeless guys waiting for someone - or some thing - that may or may not show up. And they meet a stranger that they may have met before, and there’s a weird interlude about suicide and the whole thing repeats in act two and then you get to the end and it may seem like nothing has happened. But everything has happened?
It’s a play you can’t take at face value and even though the stage directions add a lot of detail to what’s going on, I feel like it would be much better seen rather than read. At any rate, you have to delve deep into this - is it about the human experience and existential despair, brought on by waiting for things to happen in life rather than going out and getting them yourself? Is it about waiting for the inevitable end and the futility of life? Or is it just weird and french and minimalist and existential in nature? I’m not really sure, but I want to say yes to all of those?
It’s a damn delight, at any rate.

No one really knows what this work means. It is by Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. Becket recognized that there were multiple attempted explanations of his play, which is in two acts. He refused to explain it other than to say it is a "tragic comedy." Some viewers say that the play reflects personal experiences about what life is all about. A critic wrote that it is a play in which nothing happens, but people are glued to their seats watching it. The play was originally written in French and Becket himself translated it into English.
Many people note that the two main characters in the play are waiting for Godot despite not knowing where or when Godot will appear. While waiting they discuss some of their problems and what they have seen. Godot never arrives.
They, and I among them, note that the name Godot is similar to God and interpret the play as humans waiting for Jesus to return. Some criticize this interpretation because the play was originally written in French and French for God is Dieu. I think that this critic can be overcome by noting that even in French the two are waiting for Godot/God and the play as a whole support that they are waiting for Jesus return. Who else could they be waiting for who does not arrive.
Why didn’t Beckett admit that the play was about Jesus’ failure to return as he had promised? Perhaps he was afraid that he would be criticized for sacrilege.

"Waiting for Godot" is a play that merits being read about once every decade of your life. My reasoning behind this is very simple: the play deals with the ideas of God, faith, daily living, death, our interactions with those we care about (and those we don't) and about the perceived hopelessness of hope. In short, things that we deal with on a daily basis. These fundamental aspects of life are also things that we change our views on as we age and get different life experiences under our belt.
I will not attempt to analyze or define this play in this space. I think the myriads of interpretations this text offers are almost numberless. And, I am sure that if I look at this review a few years hence I will have changed many things that I thought about this play. Such is the nature of the masterpiece that Samuel Beckett has created. The two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, are two friends who alternate between loathing and desperately loving and needing the other. Their interactions are the crux of the play, and on this reading I was very moved by the simplicity and honesty of the relationship that they share. There are also two secondary roles that pop up once in each act, Pozzo and Lucky, and their part in the play serves as one of the more tantalizing mysteries of interpretation. I am still not sure what Beckett is doing with them, and I have read the play twice now, and saw it performed once.
The English translation of the play was done by the author himself, and having the original author make the translation is one of the many reasons why I think this text has staying power. Beckett was able to convey his original ideas, in the manner he chose, and thus the English version really is the same play.
I don't know if "Waiting for Godot" is about our relationship with a God that is silent in modern times, an existential treatise on faith, or is it simply commentary on humanity. Actually I can say confidently that the play touches on all three and much much more. If you have some smart friends read and discuss this work with them. It will make for an interesting evening.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Fortunately, once again based on the 1-star reviews, reading this play was not a school assignment. In fact the decision was made in a rather circuitous fashion. I was inspired by Harvard sociologist, Laurence Wylie, who wrote an account of his two-year stay in the Provencal village of Roussillon. He moved there, with his wife, and two young children, in 1950. In Wylie's account, entitled Village in the Vaucluse, Third Edition, he called the town "Peyrane." It was an account far removed from the chichi, upscale "destination" village of today; in 1950 it was still marked by the poverty of the post-World War II period, when farmers would shot sparrows for food. But the most astonishing part of the book is revealed in the preface to the second edition, when he is back in Boston, and was reading Beckett's play (obviously in French, in which it was originally written). He came across a passage that read, as translated: "But we were in the Vaucluse together, I'd swear it. We worked in the harvest together on Bonnelly's farm, in Roussillon..." Wylie had lived in this small village for over two years, only six years after one of the most famous playwrights of the 20th century had lived there, during WW II. He was later able to confirm, on subsequent visits, with individuals whom he had had numerous conversations that yes, of course, Beckett had lived there. Didn't everyone know that? Supposedly Beckett was inspired to write the play, after waiting for a long time, trying to hitch-hike a ride up to the village, off the N 100, which cuts through the valley just north of the Luberon Mountains.

The play was first produced in a Left Bank (naturally) theatre in Paris. Beckett himself translated the work into English, and in doing so omitted references to Bonnelly's farm and Roussillon. Instead, when the two principal characters, Vladimir and Estragon are reminiscing about picking grapes, the countryside is transformed into "Macon country," which is actually 300 km to the north. Beckett left one sentence that still points to the ochre cliffs for which Roussillon is famous: Vladimir: "But down there everything is red!" (p. 40)

The play itself is in the Theatre of the Absurd tradition. In parts, the dialogue between the two characters may seem pointless and meaningless. There are far more questions than answers. It is a play, like fine wine, that seems to improve with age (one's own.) The play has achieved "iconic status," has entered the English language as a metaphor, and has even entered my backyard. I have a thin, spindly tree, almost dead, that I refuse to cut down: in honor of the only "prop" in the play, it has become my "Waiting for Godot" tree, and the subject of an inspirational glance or two during the day. There are so many possible "takeaways" from the play. For those who are "waiting" for some external event to happen, like a court decision for instance, perhaps the "answer" is not to, after bearing witness to the absurd actions of Vladimir and Estragon, who are constantly waiting, hoping... The change is within. I've seen the play produced at least twice, most recently here in Albuquerque. 5-stars.

I review books based NOT on what the world thinks is great literature, but on how I enjoyed and interacted with the book. One star is reserved for the special category of books I refuse to waste any more time finishing them. The shortness of "Waiting for Godot" saved it from this fate. Still, it took me several sittings of forced reading to accomplish that.

This is incredibly boring material. Maybe it would have looked more funny and entertaining seeing it performed than reading it. But here I am reviewing the book and not the play. The boredom aspect is most likely intentional - to create the feeling of meaninglessness that the author thinks applies to humanity. The meaninglessness came through alright - the whole time I wondered myself "why am I reading this book?"

Frankly, I could not connect. Maybe after the mayhem and nihilism of two world wars, works like this had an audience. But, to me, it did not seem like a work that stood the test of time. The times are different, and despite all the things that are wrong with today's world, I see more hope than hopelessness, at least in my own life. Shakespeare's plays, and even some of the Greek works, written centuries earlier, are more appealing and speak more directly to us than Waiting for Godot every did.

True the text has a few memorable quotes, sentences I like and want to write down. But it is not worth making a whole boring play just to encase this handful of quotes. My advice: read it only if you do not value your time, if you have nothing better to do, or if you feel depressed.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

This play is a classic, and yet there is a lot to say about it.

First of all the play is in two acts with exactly the same characters but in a situation that evolves from first to second day. Two main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, are homeless people who live along an isolated road, or in some wasteland. They have nothing at all, except their clothes and their shoes. They eat a carrot, a turnip or a radish, raw of course. They are waiting for Godot, a character described by his messengers as an old man who is the landowner of a farm where he raises sheep and goats, taken care of by two young brothers. These two main characters are the evanescent hosts of two people who come along the road, Lucky the slave (pack mule if you prefer) of Pozzo, his master. These will become in the second act a dumb (mute) slave and a blind master. The situation in other words is degrading among those who have some semblance of social structure. This makes four characters, a perfect crucifixion turned into a pagan if not satanic pentacle with the boy messenger sent by Godot to tell those who wait for him he won't come tonight but will for sure tomorrow. With Godot we turn this pentacle into Solomon's number six.

And the boy messenger gives us a line of interpretation that has never - as far as I know - been followed. The sheep on one side and the goats on the other side, the shepherd never beaten by Godot and the goat keeper regularly beaten by Godot is an allusion to Matthew 25:32-41 where Matthew explains that when Christ will come again, the Second Coming, he will sort out the humans on one side the sheep who will go to heaven and on the other side the goats who will be sent to hell. Godot is thus the master that we are waiting for, Christ in the Second Coming. This leads to reading Godot as it should, built on god with the diminutive suffix -ot. There are several words with that etymology in English, generally drawn from French or Italian, or even Latin. The most famous one is "harlot" borrowed from French in the 13th century with its original meaning of tramp, homeless person, vagabond, which Estragon and Vladimir are by the way. The suffix was in fact derogatory in this word, a diminutive turned derogatory, which is quite common. Godot is then the small God, the little God, Jesus Christ, the son of God, and we feel Beckett is making fun of this Christ that we are expecting all the time but never comes and sends (choir-)boys to tell us he will come tomorrow, always on the following day.

Then what's the fate of the two main characters? Their social status is that of totally marginalized people living on the shoulder and in the ditch of an isolated road, feeding on some roots they probably steal from some fields or gardens. Then they have no sense of time. Over and over again we are reminded that they don't remember yesterday and cannot even conceive of tomorrow. They only have the present instant that they do not live in a dynamic time perspective but in its pure duration. In the same way they have lost the sense of space they only know here and at most there is everywhere else. They only know close and far. They only know distance but their space is flat and has no depth. It is at best punctual in a two dimensional non measurable and unfathomed space. They have developed their dyslexia to a total lack of temporal and spatial perspective. They have also lost all logic and they repeat what they say, over and over again. Vladimir alludes to the two thieves of Christ's crucifixion, and that is the most elaborate allusion to the Gospels when, without giving the names, Vladimir tells us Luke is the only one to state one of the two thieves is saved, whereas for John there are two thieves but none is saved, and for Mark and Matthew the thieves are not even mentioned.

If we understand Godot the way I have explained it, this allusion to the two thieves can be set in parallel with either couple of characters, Vladimir trying to lead Estragon to accepting that only one of them will be saved. The two passers-by are essential then, since Estragon and Vladimir have to demonstrate which of them is good and helpful with these passers-by, the condition to be a sheep later on, and good essentially with the rejected one, hence with Lucky, and that is not easy. By the way when Godot was written and then published and performed a Lucky was already getting very famous, Lucky Luke (note the allusion to Luke's Gospel), who appeared for the first time in the famous magazine Spirou as a comic strip character in December 1946. Beckett could not ignore that magazine nor that character.

This play is questioning our ability to survive after the man-made apocalypse of the Second World War, amplified later on with the possibility of a nuclear conflict. Apart from waiting for the Second Coming that will never come, though it is not stated so brutally, the rest is purely opportunistic adaptability to a world that has lost all conceptualization of time and space and even social organization, the surviving social class society shown in Lucky and Pozzo is decaying fast from one day to the next. Is it an allusion to the Stalinist system of the Soviet Union? Maybe.

It is easy though to see an abstract form or situation that can be the distillated matrix, melting-pot or mould of the post WW2 world devastated by the Cold War. Has this pure form in anyway become obsolete today? The answer is political and depends on our own convictions.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Like a precursor to the way we communicate today via acronyms and hyper-abbreviated text messages, Waiting For Godot is a pared-down, sometimes lyrical and frequently absurd running commentary on the human condition. A typical exchange between the two main characters goes like this: "What do we do now? --While waiting. --While waiting. --We could do our exercises. --Our movements. --Our elevations. --Our relaxations. --Our elongations. --Our relaxations. --To warm us up. --To calm us down. --Off we go." The obvious question, what are these two men waiting for, is less important than what they are doing while they are waiting. The brilliance of the work is its universality, the fact that we are all susceptible to thinking that our lives will be great if only such-and-such would just happen. We wait for our boss to understand us, for our husbands to love us, for our kids to graduate . . . and before we know it, our lives are over and all we have done is wait.

I count myself lucky in that my first exposure to this utterly amazing piece of writing was via a production of the play featuring some of the best classically-trained theater actors in America today. It is, after all, a play, and while you can certainly read plays and get a lot out of them, they were meant to be performed, and seeing them performed by acting companies that are at the top of their game is like no other experience. So, kudos to the American Players Theater and actors James DeVita, James Ridge, Brian Mani and John Pribyl, who performed this play brilliantly in 2010 and opened my mind to the possibilities of WFG. OMG it was an incredible performance, which led me to read the play and explore its richness phrase by phrase.

Imagine going to the theatre and expecting an extravagant production complete with stage settings and costumes and lots of actors coming and going across the stage and then being confronted with this. An empty stage except perhaps for a bare leafless tree, just a black backdrop that is never changed and only two actors costumed in dusty rags who never leave the stage. And imagine a dialogue as sparse as the setting and you have Beckett. A post WWII theatre, or perhaps post-apocalyptic depending on which production you see. But modern, there is no mistaking that. Not so much existential as absurd though of course those two definitions overlap. Existential implies a certain amount of freedom though that one does not feel except of course in an oppressive way on becketts stage. Freedom, perhaps, but there is nothing to be done with it. Absurdity. The actors go through the motions of a dialogue but they get nowhere and nothing is ever found out, least of all who Godot is. Waiting for Godot, the title, is like a zen state but graceless, a frustrated state, neither here nor there. The dialogue begins to wear down to repeated phrases and simple gestures but that is it. The experience is a less than exalting one but it is powerful in a strange anti-mythic way. Rituals exist but meaningless ones. A bitterly ironic theatre where even the value of speech itself is brought into question. But the players go on playing. Deliberately acting out their assigned roles for lack of having anything better to do. Beckett has given them no further instructions. And so the curtain closes. And the lights are turned on. And the doors to the modern world open.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

One of the most striking plays written in the 20th century, Samuel Beckett's, "Waiting for Godot," is a must read for any serious student of theater, lover of the theater of the absurd, or those interested in high thought as seen through the eyes of a couple of nobodys.
An absurd play, it is stirring, chilling and unreprentively satirical. The characters even poke fun at the play that they are in as one of the states that, "nothing ever happens," and he is right. Stark and empty, the play has an air of waiting for something to happen. Not only are the main characters, Didi and Gogo (Vladimir and Estragon), waiting for something monumental, but so are the readers.
The potential bleakness of the world that we live in comes to a head in this play where every action hinges on the appearance of Godot, who strikes a resemblence (acording to the players) to God himself.
Beckett was quoted as saying that if he had meant, "God," he would have said "God." Godot, is ambiguous and powerful; as is the play that carries his name.
An excellent, though thick read. The play is dark, and by no means uplifting. By this point in time, "Waiting for Godot," should have been read by everyone. This piece is the center of the theater of the absurd movement, and has been quoted, and been alluted to more often then any play since its writing. It is perhaps only less well read than, "Hamlet," and "Private Lives," by Shakespeare and Coward, respectively.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Almost every work of Literature is famous for telling an interesting story, perhaps a masterful insight into human sexual relations, a gripping portrayal of a power struggle, a gasp inducing twist in the climax. In short, in the majority of Literature, something actually happens.

Waiting for Godot, along with certain other works by Beckett such as his Sartre inspired drama 'Endgame' pretty much stands alone as an exception to this. It is one of the most famous, and controversial plays of the 20th Century. As everyone knows, it focuses on the ruminations of two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon who stand on a road by a tree waiting for Godot. After two days (and two and a half hours of stage time), Lucky and Pozzo have appeared and performed an absurdist farce, a boy has asked what message he should relay to Godot but Godot himself never appears. By the end of the play, the two tramps are no further forward, only the passing of time has elapsed and a few leaves on the tree have sprouted.

That, in a nutshell, is the human condition. We exist, time passes, things happen to us which, looking at it from the grand scheme of things are absurd and meaningless then we die. Who is Godot? God himself - in whom belief in his existence is a futile fallacy? People speculate as such but it is essentially futile. Beckett himself was notoriously reticent when it came to divulging what meaning there was in the play. He once said he just 'liked the shape of it'. That's about it.

Towards the end of the first act, Estragon exclaims 'Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!'. This line was apparently greated with a hearty 'hear hear' from an audience member when it first opened in London.

Beckett was astonishingly well read in Literature, theatre, languages (most of his major works were originally written in French as he wanted the discipline of writing in an acquired second language), philosophy and psychology. His detractors demean his work on the grounds that it says nothing. Beckett, on the other hand, considered that after a lifetime of scholarship (and depression), that nothing was the most valuable insight to offer. Just before he died, he said that he could no longer bring himself to write as he considered every word to be 'an unecessary stain on silence and nothingness'. Following his advice, I too shall stop.

This is another boonie dog review by Wolfie and Kansas. The play "Waiting for Godot", allegedly by the human playwright Samuel Beckett, fills a major void in the literary canon.
Some humans find this play perplexing. To us dogs, much of the hidden meaning of "Waiting for Godot" is as clear as the odor of day-old road kill. The lead characters, Didi and Gogo, laze around by the side of a country road, waiting for whatever, yipping and yapping about whatever comes to mind, gnawing on chicken bones, and sniffing boots. Didi and Gogo are boonie dogs, like us! The enslaved character Lucky is a domestic "pet", housebroken and "fixed" (i.e., broken). Pozzo is a parody of a not atypical pompous human self-proclaimed "pet owner". The remaining character, the boy, may represent the quintessential, but often somewhat clueless, noncanine animal companion of primate derivation, Lassie's Timmy. The sole prop in the play's scenery, a tree, has obvious uses and significance for canines.
Godot could be God, or an alpha mail who will lead a raid on a restaurant dumpster, a bitch in heat, a human bearing Milk Bones, or a noisy truck to be chased. Godot represents all of the things that we wait for when we hang out by the roadside.
Once the reader understands the true meaning of "Waiting for Godot", it is clear that this play was written by a dog. Just as women used to publish under male pseudonyms, and blacklisted screenwriters used fronts, so the anonymous canine who wrote this play had to put a human playwright's name on his or her work in order to have it staged and accepted. We believe that plays should be seen, heard and smelled, rather than read. However, until "Waiting for Godot" is properly staged with a canine cast, it can perhaps best be enjoyed by reading the script.
Dogs have already produced classic poetry, such as Skipper's "Complacencies of the Fenced Yard", published in "Unleashed: Poems by Writers' Dogs". Now we know a dog has written "Waiting for Godot", a classic play. This only heightens our aniticipation as we await the coming of the great canine novel.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Almost every work of Literature is famous for telling an interesting story, perhaps a masterful insight into human sexual relations, a gripping portrayal of a power struggle, a gasp inducing twist in the climax. In short, in the majority of Literature, something actually happens.

Waiting for Godot, along with certain other works by Beckett such as his Sartre inspired drama 'Endgame' pretty much stands alone as an exception to this. It is one of the most famous, and controversial plays of the 20th Century. As everyone knows, it focuses on the ruminations of two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon who stand on a road by a tree waiting for Godot. After two days (and two and a half hours of stage time), Lucky and Pozzo have appeared and performed an absurdist farce, a boy has asked what message he should relay to Godot but Godot himself never appears. By the end of the play, the two tramps are no further forward, only the passing of time has elapsed and a few leaves on the tree have sprouted.

That, in a nutshell, is the human condition. We exist, time passes, things happen to us which, looking at it from the grand scheme of things are absurd and meaningless then we die. Who is Godot? God himself - in whom belief in his existence is a futile fallacy? People speculate as such but it is essentially futile. Beckett himself was notoriously reticent when it came to divulging what meaning there was in the play. He once said he just 'liked the shape of it'. That's about it.

Towards the end of the first act, Estragon exclaims 'Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!'. This line was apparently greated with a hearty 'hear hear' from an audience member when it first opened in London.

Beckett was astonishingly well read in Literature, theatre, languages (most of his major works were originally written in French as he wanted the discipline of writing in an acquired second language), philosophy and psychology. His detractors demean his work on the grounds that it says nothing. Beckett, on the other hand, considered that after a lifetime of scholarship (and depression), that nothing was the most valuable insight to offer. Just before he died, he said that he could no longer bring himself to write as he considered every word to be 'an unecessary stain on silence and nothingness'. Following his advice, I too shall stop.

This is another boonie dog review by Wolfie and Kansas. The play "Waiting for Godot", allegedly by the human playwright Samuel Beckett, fills a major void in the literary canon.
Some humans find this play perplexing. To us dogs, much of the hidden meaning of "Waiting for Godot" is as clear as the odor of day-old road kill. The lead characters, Didi and Gogo, laze around by the side of a country road, waiting for whatever, yipping and yapping about whatever comes to mind, gnawing on chicken bones, and sniffing boots. Didi and Gogo are boonie dogs, like us! The enslaved character Lucky is a domestic "pet", housebroken and "fixed" (i.e., broken). Pozzo is a parody of a not atypical pompous human self-proclaimed "pet owner". The remaining character, the boy, may represent the quintessential, but often somewhat clueless, noncanine animal companion of primate derivation, Lassie's Timmy. The sole prop in the play's scenery, a tree, has obvious uses and significance for canines.
Godot could be God, or an alpha mail who will lead a raid on a restaurant dumpster, a bitch in heat, a human bearing Milk Bones, or a noisy truck to be chased. Godot represents all of the things that we wait for when we hang out by the roadside.
Once the reader understands the true meaning of "Waiting for Godot", it is clear that this play was written by a dog. Just as women used to publish under male pseudonyms, and blacklisted screenwriters used fronts, so the anonymous canine who wrote this play had to put a human playwright's name on his or her work in order to have it staged and accepted. We believe that plays should be seen, heard and smelled, rather than read. However, until "Waiting for Godot" is properly staged with a canine cast, it can perhaps best be enjoyed by reading the script.
Dogs have already produced classic poetry, such as Skipper's "Complacencies of the Fenced Yard", published in "Unleashed: Poems by Writers' Dogs". Now we know a dog has written "Waiting for Godot", a classic play. This only heightens our aniticipation as we await the coming of the great canine novel.

"This is incredibly absurd, hilarious, dark -- *pause* -- and hilarious."
"Funny."
"A riot."
"Without meaning."
"Hopeless."
*takes bowler hat off, looks in it as if searching for something*
"What?"
"It's hopeless."
"What's hopeless?"
"This review."
"Of course."
*places hat back on head*

Fifty years after its premiere, Samuel Beckett's play WAITING FOR GODOT has achieved classic status, yet it is a play more talked about than read or performed. Many people could tell the vague plot of two hobos waiting on a roadside for a man who never comes, a metaphor for the "waiting for God" that forms the duration of human existence, but much of the play remains unknown. Reading the play shows a different side of the play than popular imagination, though it will not be a rewarding activity for all.

The stage is simple. "A country road. A Tree". So is the casting. The repartee of hobos Vladimir and Estragon forms the bulk of the play's dialogue. Two other men, Pozzo and Lucky, twice stop by. Finally a Boy appears as a messenger from the mysterious Godot. Pozzo and Lucky are left out of most popular references to the play, but they form a vital part of its action. When we first meet Pozzo, he is a rich man, smoking a pipe, feasting on a whole chicken... and leading his servant Lucky around with a rope and barking orders at him. The choreographical duties imposed on Lucky are a tour de force of stage writing.

While drama is written to be performed, the text of WAITING FOR GODOT allows one to pick up on various subtleties missing from performance. One is amusing stage directions. When Vladimir says "I don't understand" and Estragon replies, "Use your intelligence, can't you?", there follows the direction "Vladimir uses his intelligence." In the theatre, many of the play's most profound comments come too quickly to be properly reflected upon and digested by the audience, but reading the play lets one proceed through Beckett's musings at one's own pace. Finally, reading the play lets one spot oddities about Beckett's own translation of the play from the original French, many slightly peculiar turns of phrase in English.

While the play's meagre plot of waiting for a God who never reveals himself is often seen as existentialist, reading the play reveals instead an absurdist perspective. Unlike those writers who felt that the absence of God forces Man to determine his purpose on his own, Beckett sees little possibility of purpose. Because of the lack of hope and the frustrations that fill the dialogue, WAITING FOR GODOT can be depressing and inexplicable to many. One's enjoyment from reading the play is dependent essentially on how comfortable one is with absurdism. Nonetheless, I'd recommend at least trying.

I enjoy reading this play. Samuel Becket (1906-1989) is considered by many to be one of the most important dramatists of the mid-twentieth century, and received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. WAITING for GODOT is not only his most popular, it is also his first professionally produced play. In 1953, it opened at a tiny theatre in Paris, France. The liner notes explain that the story line "evolves around two seemingly homeless men waiting for someone -- or something -- named Godot." It reminds me of the frustration I feel when I wait for meaning to arrive in my life rather than seeking it out. I also enjoy the humour. It is a comic theatrical piece combining pantomime, dialogue, dancing, pratfalls and slapstick. It is vaudevillian. The characters Pozzo and Lucky provide the physical comedy, while Vladimir and Estragon engage in whimsical banter. I only wish that Mrrs Abbott and Costello would have taken up this material because they perfected this type of conversational conundrum. E:Where shall we go? V:Not far. E:Oh yes, let's go far away from here. V:We can't. E: Why not? V:We have to come back tomorrow. E:What for? V:To wait for Godot. If you are interested in an influential theatrical work of the mid-twentieth century, this drama will be interesting to you

The more Beckett you read, the more you realise how unimportant 'meaning ' is in his work. Beckett's philosophy of life rarely extends beyond the anguishes of adolescent poetry - the meaninglessness of life, the directionlessness of modern man, the random absurdity (or is that a tautology?) of the universe) yada yada, with a bit of Proustian temporising thrown in. Further, there's something numbing about vaunted 'universality', about transcending the local - something that means anything usually means nothing.
what's cherishable about 'Waiting for godot' is not its picture of the void, but the words used to fill it - more specifically, the games, the rhythms, the musicality, the clowning around, the echoes, repititions and verbal patterns; the way dialogue can fly off in any direction at the whim of the speaker, and yet always seems to come around to the same point.
I also think a knowledge of Beckett's Resistance experience, as described by James Knowlson in his biography, enriches the play rather than diminishes it; while its depiction of an arbitrarily violent world is tangibly sickening and plausible rather than vaguely metaphorical. Unlike 'Endgame', 'godot' doesn't make you feel like hanging yourself from a tree - well, it had ME tapping my feet. With bittersweet melancholy, of course.

My first comment for this play....it's much more effective when read aloud. We started this play in a theater class at my university and I finished reading it alone. There's a world of difference.
There are so many varied reviews on Waiting for Godot and I must admit it could go either way. This play can be considered symbolic of everything, or symbolic of nothing. Some say that Beckett was trying to portray human loneliness and a search for meaning in the unknown (Godot, aka God). Others say, that's a big assumption and the point of the play was that it had no point at all. Basically it all comes down to your perspective.
There's an age-old question about art....does the "correct" meaning of art come from the intent of its creator or does the meaning come from the impression of the viewer or reader? An example would be the paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe. Critics and historians frequently push the idea that her huge flower paintings are symbolic of human genitalia while O'Keeffe denied that she had any intent to portray that symbolism.
There are about a zillion interpretations of Waiting for Godot and no one will ever agree. While I would say that I wasn't highly entertained by this play, I respect this piece as a classic and one that has sparked controversy. Controversy, after all, is the highest level of flattery.

Waiting for Godot is perhaps the most brilliant peice of theatrical genius I have come across in my varied, albeit brief, carreer in modern and classical drama. The play that launched the metatheatricallity movement will undoubtedly be understood by very few of those who read it their first, second, even tenth times. Yet the symbolism in this play, once found, makes the reader want to jump to his feat and scream "NOW I get it!"
The dialogue is so disjointed and repetitive that it will seem to make no more sense than...well, for lack of a better example, the Bush v. Gore decision written in Sanskrit. But every line, every action, every direction in the play was placed with an enormous amount of thought. My director once told me it is impossible to cut anything out of this play because everything is so important.
I don't want to give away the excitement of the play by telling about the symbolism in any great detail, but the play's original title lends greater sense to the meaning. <<En Attendant Godot>> translated literaly means "While Waiting for Godot" which can lead to a greater sense of what the play is truly about. Second, as a real treat, Lucky's monologue in Act One is not the gibberish it seems to be. There is something extremely and frighteningly coherent about it: but that's something for you to find on your own (I'm certain any Cliff's Notes or similar text would reveal the secret if you're unsucessful). In short, this is my favorite straight play of all time, and I strongly suggest it those who want a truly theatrical adventure.

this past week i've had the good fortune to work backstage at a production of "Waiting for Godot." During that time I heard and saw this play many many times, and I've had a lot of time to think about the characters. Truth be told, this is one of the most intricate, deep works of literature i've ever come into contact with. It has so much relevance, and so many valid interpetations.
The production that I was a part of was very good, and extremely well acted. This is definitely a play that needs to be seen, not read. There IS a lot of humor in the acting that is lost just reading stage directions.
I would now like to talk about the characters and symbols of this play. If you're not interested, you can stop here.
Some see it as a play about the inability of man to give meaning to his own life. Others see it as a poignant treatise on god's non-involvement with human affairs. As for myself? I found each of these views valid, but what intrigues me the most is the idea that Gogo and Didi are stuck in purgatory and are waiting for the end of the world. This is not far fetched, as Samuel Beckett was an Irish writer, and would have been very familiar with Catholic dogma. Also, the character of the "boy" uses symbols from the book of Revelations. He says that he takes care of the "goats" and that his brother takes care of the "sheep." These are symbols for the unsaved and saved souls, respectively. In this interpetation, Gogo and Didi are both unsaved.
There are symbols in the nicknames of the characters as well. There's alot to be said for the names "Gogo" (a command and concerned with the future) and "Didi" ('i did' backwards, a name of authority and commmandING, and concerned with the past). The relationship of Pozzo and Lucky parallels that of Gogo and Didi as well, but in exaggerated form. Pay close attention to this. It says a lot about their characters.
There are very specific reasons that the two main characters are eternally stuck. Didi's problem is that he's conceited and he's never satisfied. This can be seen in his very first statement, and in the treatment of his hat. In other words, there is nothing to be done b'c anything he can do is 'beneath' him. Gogo's vice is that he's too stuck on self-interest. He's always concerned with the pain in his legs, food, and ways to take advantage of a situation. For him, there's nothing to be done b'c he has no care for anything that does not immediately effect him.
Finally, I would like to mention that there ARE scenes where Gogo and Didi have memories that go very far back in their lives. They're usually muddled or ignored by the other character, though, so the memories become useless.

Most of the reviewers don't get the basic concepts of God and existentialism in this play. I recommend students/others to get a Cliff Notes-type study guide, ESPECIALLY if you need to do it for a school review/essay. I'm not putting anyone down here...it's an easy read that people tend to take at face value. Think harder.

I can only compare this to reading Camus' The Stranger. It's a great, and quick read, to figure out what makes him "The Stranger". THE epitome of existentialism! Unfortunately, I just found WFG on Kindle. Read the guides in either of these books. It will help you grade-wise. If you think it's too hard...try reading "The Stranger" in French and understand it. Good luck and good grades! 8)

Many readers of 'Waiting for Godot' obsess about the identity of Godot and whether he represents God or any other almighty being. It is unlikely that Beckett was referring to God as the man for whom the characters are waiting, as religion is only ever mockingly referred to in Beckett's theatre.

Although Beckett was not referring directly to God the name is not without importance. Godot is seen as a messianic being by the characters who will bring salvation for those who believed he would come. The wait for God is not represented by the play, but is used as a template.

'Waiting for Godot' is essentially a sustained metaphor for how most if not all human beings spend their whole life waiting for something that isn't coming. Beckett was not able to identify Godot because of the subjective nature of such a being. As critics have written, this play is a written ink-blot test and a failure to see any coherent meaning says more about the reader than the play.

This is yet another example of Beckett's chilling insight into human nature, and his readiness to state what others are unwilling to accept.

There is something about this innovative play that is really funny, but it is hard to say what exactly. The story is almost like an episode of "Seinfeld" where it is really about nothing, but the various plot lines keep it moving and captivating. I am not a huge fan of most literature (plays or novels), but this is by far the best thing I have ever read. There's no complicated language that muddies the story or useless information that has no relevance. Every line has a purpose and gets the point across well. The story is clearly based on the life of Beckett as brief research on him, and an understanding of existentialism, will reveal that he was waiting for something in life but didn't know what. That is my interpretation of the play, but the true beauty of the play is that there is an endless number of ways that it can be interpreted, and it is different for every reader. Because the underlying concept of waiting without purpose is easy to relate to, this play is great for anybody. I highly recommend it!

Waiting For Godot is certainly an interesting and unique drama. The sparse presentation and sense of hopelessness underlying this tragicomedy appeals to the existentialist in me, but I was not moved or stimulated enough to grant this work five stars. I daresay that the effect of Waiting For Godot is much more impactful and effective when performed on stage than it is when read, particularly in terms of the lyrical dialogue that often comes to the fore. To a large degree, this is a play about nothingness (which is quite different from a play about nothing), so I find it rather strange that it is hailed as one of the greatest dramas of the 20th century. This kind of thing usually suits my tastes but few others'. There's no fantabulous show designed to bedazzle the ideas of the spectator, just a country road and a tree set during the evening hours. The cast numbers five individuals: the two unfortunates Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo and his "slave" Lucky, and a little boy (possibly, in the context of the play, two little boys who may or may not look exactly alike). Estragon and Vladimir spend their time examining their hats, worrying with their boots, thinking about separating or just hanging themselves to be done with it all, and of course waiting for Godot. I don't want to ruin this for anyone, but you never meet or find out if this mysterious Godot even exists. Some critical thinkers (along with a few of your basic pseudo-intellectual crackpots) seem compelled to interpret Godot as a God-figure, but I see no reason to make that speculative leap.
Estragon and Godot really have no sense of who, where, and when they are, as becomes clear in their interactions with the wealthy passerby Pozzo and Lucky, his personal servant who is as much a trained mule as he is a man. Lucky can "think," though, and you'd better grab a seat and hold on when he gets started. After the first night comes, Estragon and Vladimir return to the same spot to once again wait on Godot, and once again Pozzo, now suddenly blind, and Lucky return. No one seems to remember anything much about the others or of the previous day with the exception of Vladimir, and the interaction between the four major characters certainly introduces some comedy, albeit of a tragic, resigned sort. The comedy actually makes the drama more tragic, so its classification as a tragicomedy in two acts is pretty apt. I don't see a lot of hope revealed here, although others seem to. Life is simply meaningless is the message I get most clearly out of it, so the only hope I perceive comes in the form of waiting for something that may or may not happen while doing nothing yourself to make anything happen. We are all waiting for something, I suppose, but such a vivid portrayal of the utter futility of such behavior strikes me as more depressing than inspiring. This drama really deserves multiple reads in order for its true essence to work its way closer to the surface; it may well be, I freely admit, that I have yet to spot whatever essence the play intends to reveal to me. I won't deny Waiting For Godot is a landmark drama, and I fear this review has done it very little justice, but I consider the act of writing it a victory of sorts over the useless practice of waiting for Godot to come and explain everything to me and take care of all my questions and troubles.

It's hard to imagine a first time reader of this classic sitting down in a chair, reading it and saying, Oh, now I know why it's great. It's more likely than this reader would throw the book down and ask what the fuss is about. But, if you've seen any production of it or tried to read the dialogue out loud, it can really make a huge difference. Even the expression "waiting for Godot" has taken on a mythic meaning in cultures around the world. You cannot summarize the "point" of the play in one pithy sentence, but the play will make you think about whether what happens between the two protagonists is what is important, or the imminent arrival of Godot. Beckett takes such a simple idea and makes it contain the answers to all the big questions. If nothing else, the play will make you think about how we pass time, how we process information and where the focus is in our own lives -- what is the point and is there a point? That is why the play has achieved worldwide literary status, at least in my humble opinion.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

For many people this play is mundane and quite odd. However, I think this play demonstrates conclusively the problems brought to bear in modernist culture. Modernism teaches us that the newness and material goods will be the key to fulfillment. Waiting for Godot clearly deconstructs that theme.

The two characters Vladimir and Estragon are lost, not because they understand traditional morals and culture, but because their culture has abandoned them. They are surviving, but not happy. They are in need of Godot. Many make a religious claim about Godot, but I make a cultural claim. The characters don't know what they are waiting for because they have not been told. Western culture in the period of the two World Wars took a break. It was seen as not needing to defend itself, and it got defined. By Modernists, Socialists, Anarchists, and these characters are trying to find out what they believe. The tragedy is that no one who would defend western culture is willing to speak up. That is what the people want, a defined cultural ethic, that has been lost. Will it stay lost forever? That to me is the point of this play and what I took from it.

After reading only twenty pages, I was too tired to continue to read, because every conversation requires the strong concentration on its analysis. All conversation is composed of some particular intervals, some adequate distance between characters. Its role is to confirm the identity of the mutual intention or the absence of the mutual hostility, or to tranquilize the anxiety about the misunderstanding.
I wonder why this novel is called as absurd after analyzing these correctly constructed conversations. The unconscious behaviors in their conversations, for example, the pause, the interval, and the distance are composed to understand their unique characteristics. This concern about the unconscious has already been manifested at his first work of "Murphy." The important thing is not to interpret the logic of the conversation, but to read the meaning of the unwritten.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words

I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

A lot of reviewers have tried to extrapolate that Godot is God and that Vladimir and Estragon are seeking religious meaning. To me, it was the waiting, presumably endless, that was important.
It is clear that Estragon and Vladimir represent commen men waiting for some "real meaning" to be evident in their lives that will fulfill their emptiness. To me, the title could have easily been "Waiting for Pizza" or "Waiting for Miss Right" -- it doesn't matter. The object of their waiting, Godot, could even be extended to even mean a deity or some spritual happiness. What was important to me was the waiting; the hope in the face of hopelessness and the perserverance to find meaning are strengths of mankind.
The story in itself is pointless -- that is, without a finality found in the third act of the traditional play. However, that could very well be the main point.

Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett

The setting starts and ends in the same place. A barren space with only a tree and bound for comfort. We are introduced to the main characters Estragon and Vladimir immediately. They are described as tramps and their seemingly only purpose in life is to wait for this elusive Godot. The first line in the play is, "Nothing to be done." And essentially, nothing is done. Nothing will be done. Nothing to be done.

The two men try to pass time, by talking idly, arguing, eatings, etc. Another pair then comes along. Pozzo and his slave Lucky. Both are even more insane than Estragon and Vladimir. Pozzo and Lucky exit the stage, leaving Estragon and Vladimir alone, once again. Godot does not come. They comment on leaving the place, but neither move.

In a stroke of genius by Beckett, Act II is almost exactly the same.

Is this Beckett's commentary on life? religion? society? the human condition?

Many believe that Godot is a symbol for God, however, Beckett himself said, "If by Godot I had meant God I would [have] said God, and not Godot."

On a side note, Godot, or at least it's pronunciation, means "forever" in Irish Gaelic. So perhaps, Beckett meant that the play is literally about waiting forever.

I personally found this play to be fascinating. The dialogue is simple, but behind the simplicity is so much more. There is a sense of restlessness and loneliness that can be felt when reading this play. On the surface, the play is just about two men waiting for a man that may never show up. But beneath the surface, I believe this play is about what happens when one waits for life to come. Rather than moving forward and making something of life, one is somewhat content to idly wait. Perhaps out of laziness? a fear of failure? a fear of success?

Who knows?

What can be confirmed, though, is that this play is one of the greatest 20th century works of art. It is definitely worth reading.

I would like to see this play live.... after reading it, I am intrigued to see actors bring it to life. It is a story written on many levels and I think the best way to understand the irony is to see it presented on stage.
I enjoyed the written piece though. It is full of wry humor and irony.
The two main characters are waiting for Godot... an unknown "authority" coming sometime... all throughout the play. They continue to wait and contemplate the meaning of life through banal conversation.
One has to wonder who Godot really is.... and why he is so important to wait for.
Perhaps Godot is the culmination of all life for these two men? A "God"-like figure, looming over us all as we wait on and on until life's ultimate endpoint.
This is strong existential writing. Beckett purports the theory that today is all there is, and the most significant thing is to live in it and exist.
I will probably need to read this one again, it is the type of writing that begs to be examined more than once. If you like comedy in an absurd light... this play is for you.

Most of the reviews that I have written for the store are based on the books, the DVDs, and the CDs that I already own. I occasionally buy a new product via the store, but I mostly review the stuff that I already own.

I own this book...this play because I read it while in a Humanities course in college. I went to college rather "late" in life...whatever that means...and yet I derived more from the experience than I probably would have had I gone right after High School. I am one of those people who believe that it's not college that makes a "well-rounded" indivividual, but life experience. If colleges and universities handed out degrees based on Life Experience, I'd probably have a doctorate three times over...

We were given the assignment of reading this play and seeing the live production that the college I was attending just so happened to be putting on. With my primary focus being on philosphy, I embraced the Existentialism Unit that we were now focused upon. My best friend, who was/is an "atheist" was less receptive of these Existentialist ideas he considered strange and elusive. You think he, being an atheist, would have been more open to them than I who had already been bitten by the Metaphysics/Spirituality plague. Truth be told I think the only reason he says he's an atheist is because he's a cheapskate and doesn't want to shell out extra money for Christmas gifts.

So we go see this play and people were getting pretty agitated. In this play everything goes round and round but never arrives at any final conclusions and I noticed how we, as a society, love our answers. We are not soothed by questions and proposistions and "what if?" scenarios. We feel the need to latch onto something because something is better than nothing.

Isn't it?

The Existentialists believe that the universe is random, chaotic, and ultimately meaningless and so in a sense they "give" meaning to meaninglessness. Just like an atheist believes in non-belief. You see, the human species cannot not give meaning to his/her life...we cannot not believe...we can "pretend" that life is without meaning and that we don't believe but everything that falls onto the screen of our perception, will take on the shape of our perceptions.

I loved this play. I loved the merry-go-round type dialouge. Isn't this what we all do? We get a belief so engrained in our heads and we think that it is the only way to believe and so we spend a lot of time trying to convince someone who may not be as receptive to our point of view as to why it's valid. What I have learned over the years is that the only reason why a belief is valid is because we are the ones who validate it. It doesn't make us "more right" than the person who doesn't believe it, it just makes us believers of the belief. And contrary to popular opinion, the more people you have who also believe the same way you believe does not prove that it's any more valid than if only one person believed it.

This play did not dissolve me into a puddle of desperation and futileness, in fact it added more meaning to my life which would probably make Samuel Beckett gag. It made me fall in love even more with this crazy life that only I can live. Nobody lives by proxy. Each of us are liberated and imprisoned by our beliefs. The best we can ever hope to be is determined by what we are willing to believe at any given time. This is why it's a good practice to sit down and journal about your beliefs from time to time and question why you still believe what you believe. You may have outgrown certain beliefs, certain ideas, certain ways of being in the world but don't be like the two "bums" in the play, don't keep postponing what it is that you eventually desire to see; see it now, live it now, be it now. If you are going to be an atheist, be the best atheist you can be. If you are going to be a Christian, be the best Christian you can be. If you are going to be an Anarchist, be the best Anarchist you can be. Just don't think that everyone is going to believe exactly as you believe and don't make others wrong simply because they may have another point of view. In the end, none of us truly know what's on the other side. Yes, we've had people with Near Death Experiences, but nobody has ever come back after being completely dead with a report, we just have reports from people who have been "mostly dead".

Take life with a grain of salt and enjoy the ride.

Peace & Blessings.

Beckett always impresses me. Although most of his plays/ novels are hard to follow at first, there is something incredibly appealing about them. His dialogues appear to be meaningless and trivial, when in fact he captures many thoughts and images within the disjointed and confusing conversations. Beckett makes this look easy but in fact is next to impossible to accomplish successfully. Waiting for Godot is a play for the Modern society. All of the conventions of the past have fallen to dust and there is a search for meaning in a meaningless world. Whether Godot will ever appear or if he even exists does not matter; all that matters is the thought of him. Waiting for Godot is a play that forces you to contemplate your own interpretation of modern conventions by forcing you to see the deeper meaning within his text.

This play is one of the most celebrated dramatic works of the twentieth century. I however have found it to be less than satisfying in reading. It certainly has humor, indirection, a poetic pithiness, suggestive material for interpretation in many ways. But the lack of conventional plot and story, the absence of any kind of real development of character , the very devices which are part of the plays 'modernness' and innovativeness do not appeal to me. I suppose I am an idiosyncratic old fogey but I just do not get from this the kind of meat and heat I would say get from the reading of a Shakespeare Tragedy or even works by some twentieth century playwright like Arthur Miller.

This play centers around two men who spend the entire story waiting for someone who in the end never shows up.
This vague character is none other than Godot who is never seen in the play at all. We only know of him from the conversations of Vladimir and Estragon who spend all their time just waiting for him.
This character Godot is more like a distant or abstract concept than a real person and the way this story is written
it seems that the author was trying to show this.
Which is why Godot is not portrayed in the story at all but only as a subject of conversation.
As with any story this can be interpreted in different ways.
I see this tale as an allegory or parable describing those who waste their lives or time waiting for something that will not come about.
It could be the hopeful gambler who bets everything on winning a fortune and lives only to achieve this. As time goes by all he manages to do is simply lose more money in the process.
Instead of striking it rich he ends up more broke than ever.
Or it could be the workaholic who plans for a future of ease and
pleasure,while sacrificing everything else including himself,his health and peace of mind.
However he succumbs to a heart attack brought on by stress before he even gets a chance to quit the rat race.
There could be other examples it could represent.
For example the futility of some religous people who think the second coming and their deliverance is at hand.
They wait and see every occurence around them as proof that the end is near,but as time passes by and they pass away then it occurs to some observers that what their waiting for is just wishful thinking.
What this shows to me is that it is never a good idea to stop living and sacrifice all your needs to wait for a future that may not come.
To do so is an act of pathetic absurdity like Vladimir and Estragon wasting their time waiting for an appointment that never occurs.

I didn't truly appreciate the dark humour of this play until I saw the Gate's touring production at Penn. This is the same cast that performs it in the famous film adaptation. I think theatre, other than Shakespeare, is better seen first and then read, but this is probably postmodern existential Beckett at his most accessible. He didn't win a Nobel for nothing.

Having just viewed Waiting for Godot I'd suggest detailed meanings that I have not seen in any of the reviews. Written between 1947-1949 the play is not only about the emptyness of life in the destroyed landscape of Europe, but about the expectation of the Second Coming or God 2. The main characters are the lost, hopeless, English (Dodo)and Russian (Vladimir)empires. They have nothing to do except to try and recall their past. The boy who brings the message from Godot is the future, his brother, the past. At the end of Act II, the future still comes to offer hope that Godot will come tomorrow, but the past is now fully dead. Most of the details of the action, Passo, and Lucky fit very neatly into this understanding. Recall that Beckett, as an Irishman, served in the French underground during the war.
In my opinion, it is both an expression of wide frustration with inaction and a very specific picture of post WWII Europe.

Beckett's "Waiting for Godot":
Why It Still Works Today
We are all well too familiar with the old adage reinforcing patience, hard work, and dedication. Our parents were raised by parents who instilled these fundamental characteristics, rewarded by businesses and companies who believed in the same. For many generations, it has been preached that good things come to those who wait. However, in today's competitive economic and employment fields, quite the opposite is true. Many of us have come to a point in our professional and personal life where it seems to be uncertain whether we should take the road less traveled or remain dedicated to an organization. Written in 1949, Beckett's play "Waiting for Godot" is perhaps more demonstrative of today's choices in life than it was when written. The play highlights the lives of four characters in such a manner that questions whether we should be content in waiting or whether we should create our own future.
As indicated by the title, the play largely focuses on two men waiting for the arrival of a man named Godot for a purpose that the author never reveals. Vladimir and Estragon, the two men, spend the duration of the play waiting by a tree, making every attempt to pass the time until their expected visitor arrives. Vladimir and Estragon tell jokes, play with their hats, and even contemplate suicide in the time they spend waiting. They ultimately discard the suggestion of suicide in fear of being left alone in the event of an unsuccessful attempt. Even though the arrival of a young boy only suggests a day has passed since the play began, the tree tells of a less forgiving passage of time in that it shows the changing of season. Vladimir and Estragon's faith in the arrival of Godot can be compared to a dedicated employee of a company. Many organizations promote from within to foster morale and give employees motivation to compete amongst each other. However, time in service doesn't always equal a promotion for the Vladimirs or Estragons of the organization. While these men would be loyal to a company, they may not be eligible to lead others in the organization due to their inactions.
Beckett provides his own contrast to Vladimir and Estragon in the other characters of the play, Pozzo and Lucky. When Vladimir and Estragon first encounter Pozzo and Lucky, Pozzo is representative of a wealthy man traveling to sell his "slave" Lucky. Not only does Lucky transport the man like a mule would pull a cart but he is blindly devoted to Pozzo. Beckett distinguishes Pozzo and Lucky from the main characters in the play in that they continue on their own journey, not waiting on the direction or expectations of others. When Pozzo and Lucky appear again after the tree has notably changed seasons, their situation has changed dramatically. Pozzo is now blind for a reason that Beckett does not disclose and Lucky is still his dedicated servant. However, Pozzo now needs Lucky to be his eyes and must trust him completely. Pozzo illustrates one dynamic of our social structure within an organization while Lucky represents another. Pozzo can be compared to the powerful president or owner of a company who has built his success with his own will to succeed, but as a result has lost sight of the importance of his subordinates. Lucky reinforces the significance of loyalty and dedication to success in a way independent of all other characters in the play, just as he would be different in his definition of success in the workforce. Lucky might not measure his success by his climb up the ladder to success or how much money was in his pocket, but rather by whom he had helped along the way. While Lucky remains the same internally, his significance to Pozzo changes in such a way as to humble the once arrogant and cruel man.
As opposed to the traditional saying, it can be argued that good things come to those who refuse to wait but instead seed their own failure and success. Waiting for Godot was written over six decades ago, but is just as applicable to today's socioeconomic successes and failures as it was then. Vladimir and Estragon represent the people who wait for an opportunity to fall in their lap while Pozzo represents the self-driven workaholic, and Lucky is representative of the humanitarian. Even though Pozzo lost his eyesight and perhaps his fortune by living a seemingly adventurous life, he lived all of it with a devoted "friend" by his side. It is quite easy to see how Pozzo and Lucky lived a much better life than their acquaintances that simply let life pass them by.

According to the book's back cover, Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in 2 Acts" opened in Paris in 1953. The play has been translated from the French by the author. The action of the play is simple: a pair of characters named Vladimir and Estragon are by a tree along a road where they are waiting for someone named Godot. As they wait they encounter Pozzo, his pathetic slave Lucky, and a boy.
There are many hints in the dialogue about theological questions; this theme starts early in the play with a discussion about a seeming inconsistence in the 4 Christian gospels. Other biblical references and allusions follow.
This play is bizarre and at times absurd, but also sad and haunting. Beckett seems to be exploring the ideological and psychological conflicts of the 20th century: faith versus nihilism, fellowship and compassion versus callousness and cruelty. But ultimately I think any simple attempt at summing up will not due the text justice.

Many parts of this play are comically driven - many are not. And, the majority are neither - or so Beckett may have said as part of his stylistic prank on the reader. Beckett had a target, and he would smile at his target as much as permitted. His dripping dialogue is often interpreted with misinterpretation, misidentification, miscue. That part of the play is resoundingly great.

To not have read this, but experienced it the first time as a member of the audience, may be asking too much of the auditory skills- asking them to constantly respond to clever and contrarian statements which spill off the characters' tongues almost every third or fifth line. One favorite discourse which evidences how fast and clever it can be: "We're in no danger of ever thinking any more." "Then what are we complaining about?" "Thinking is not the worst." "Maybe not. But at least there's that" "That what?" "That's the idea, let's ask each other questions." "What do you mean, at least there's that?" "That much less misery."

Reading thickly carved conceptions like that recited above can easily make one receive and learn more with each reading. This is one of those plays that I could read over and over again, and each time realize something totally new with each reading. This is a "deep" thinking piece of literature.

So who is Godot? Who knows. What does he represent? Who knows. What is the reason that Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot? Who knows. Are there religious interpretations? Yes. Is God recreated in Godot? After all, Estragon has a nickname - Gogo. Vladimir has a nickname - Didi. Is God a nickname for Godot? If you want to believe such, so believe. Possible religious interpretations are infinite. They absolutely exist. The book starts with discussion of the Bible, and reading of it and some misinterpretation of a proverb. But, beware. Beckett is a master of literary illusion - are the words delivered to portray their nothingness, or by their juxtaposition can the meaningless became most meaningful? Is the Bible part of that "nothingness?"

Sounds almost mean as much as words. The sound of Godot - pronounced the same in English as the original French (Irish Beckett lived in France and wrote in French) - is one example of sound perhaps trumping meaning or definition. One character - Pozzo - is called Bozzo (we grew up watching his cousin Bozo) and later Gozzo. Great inflection of sound. And, sound often is the core of comic reaction - some sounds are funny. Pozzo sounds funny, so does Bozzo, so do many other words in the play.

Admittedly, this is one book you need to read about after having been read. And, to do it justice, I will review this analysis by myself years down the road after I read it again. This could be fun. I can not fathom what it will mean to me then. Who knows.

To start, a quick word of warning-this play is a lot to wrap your head around. As we follow the journey of Vladimir and Estragon, two tramps left with "nothing to be done", we begin to see ourselves in their characters. As they sit around, waiting for the enigmatic Godot, readers are able to see an objective view of life. On a shallow level, this play may seem like the simple ramblings of two hobos who may be slightly out of their minds. However, when looking deeper, we can see that the two characters are indeed every man. The action of the play is, in many ways, the action of many people's lives.
The ending of the play leaves you with more questions than answers. Story wise: who is Godot? Who are Vladimir and Estragon? Will Godot ever come? Will he be everything they are waiting for? Is there truly "nothing to be done"? And, connecting to one's self: am I waiting for my Godot? Do I tell myself that there is "nothing to be done", rather than do something? Overall, what is the purpose of life?
So, for the thoughtful, philosophical reader looking for a quick thought provoking read, I would recommend this play. By the end of it, you will be wondering what you have just read, as well as who you are, and what your life truly means. However, that being said, if you are simply looking for an enjoyable read, with solid characterization and an enjoyable plot, then I would highly recommend picking another book.

Waiting for Godot is not for everyone. The text though simple and short, are heavy with the weight of the most basic of all burdens: existence itself as a human being.
What is it to be human?
Waiting for Godot succeeds in capturing the stark and painful realities that most refuse to stare in the face when it comes to our day-to-day lives. Is there a God? What am I doing here? Why should I go on despite the apparent uselessness and futility of life? Why be good?
It captures and presents this with the same harsh naivety that a child would point out an Emperor's nakedness. And it is we who are naked.
It captures and cuts through to the painful ironies that mark and define our existence as human beings: hope amidst hopelessness, charity despite poverty, love marked by fear and misunderstanding.
It captures and portrays the bitter desolation of being just one human being forced to see only with one's own eyes, feel only one's own emotions, and know only one's own thoughts.
Above all, it captures and points to the cold emptiness and helplessness that opens one up to the possibility of grace.
It's a difficult book to read. It is best read with others. It begs a lifetime of simply trying to bear witness that there is hope and meaning, and that God exists. It asks for the proof of a life--capable of loving and living truly.
Absurd?
Of course. That's life.

Ah... Waiting For Godot. Where do I even start?
This play, one of the finest plays by the most important playwright to write in English (I know he originally wrote it in French) since Shakespeare (Feel free to argue with me) finds a outlet and a means to express the longings and emptiness of modern man.
For all those who don't like it, get a friend and read it out loud together. That might change your mind.
To all the reviews which seem to find that the whole "point" of the play can be found in the name Godot (which as a mixture of English and French could mean "Little God"), I think you are simplifying the play to a great extreme. One of my favorite quotes by Beckett on this subject was that if he had known who Godot was, he wouldn't have had to write the play. Frankly, all of you trying to find "meaning" or solution to the play are looking in the wrong places. Which isn't to say there isn't a lot there. Juggle it all round in your head, but don't ever really grab on to something as the key: you're probably wrong.
To the review who complained that Beckett didn't adequately give the time period or location for his play, I argue that he did: "A country road. A tree. Evening." That is all you need, and according to the man himself, all that should be on stage, scenery-wise.
A Civil War play? You must be joking.
But anyway, to summarize, Beckett finished what Hemingway began: distilling the language of literature into a tangible, true format with which we can truly explore the nature of human existence. Centuries from now they will remember Hemingway, Joyce, and Beckett when they talk about 20th century literature.
So there.

Waiting for Godot, a play about two men who cannot communicate and always wait for something that never comes, attempts to show us the futility of waiting for that phantom message or meaning humanity is obsessed with--it is a call to action. This play is packed with nonsensical dialogue. The plot does not exsist. Yet, once we realized that Waiting for Godot is a parody of human existance it starts to make sense--at least in subtle ways. Much of the play cannot be interpreted in any finality, but, that is what has kept this play alive throughout the twentieth century. It's enigmatic, a puzzle of words, poetry, and philosophy. I recommend this to anyone who wants a challenge. The play is short and does not take too much commitment. Take a quiet evening and give it a shot. What are you waiting for?

the poet billy collins wrote that you shouldn't take a poem, tie it to a chair, and then beat it with a hose until it confesses its meaning. something like that. the same goes for Waiting for Godot. yes, in-depth analysis of this work is both fun and enlightening, but it tends to dilute its overall effect. when i first read this play, i didn't understand its deeper meaning or cosmic message--i just really liked it. not knowing why i liked it made the experience that much more interesting. having read analyses since, i can say with confidence that i "get it," but also that "getting it" isn't entirely the point. so let your head spin a little. if you don't immediately understand what beckett is getting at, at least you'll have plenty of jokes and quirky dialogue to enjoy. there's something for everyone in here.

Well, admittedly, I prefer viewing plays as opposed to reading them but since this play was suggested as a group read with close friends during a recent trip to D.C, I was willing to give it a try. Waiting for Godot was selected on a whim; my friend spotted a used copy of the play while shopping, perused the description on the back cover and having heard of the play previously decided to buy it (it was only $1). The play was a quick read that would certainly have left me with a brain cramp had there not been other people to discuss it with. The more we talked about the play's religious connotations, symbolism and "greater meaning", the more I appreciated my encounter with it. Set in what we believed to be anywhere - hell, purgatory, earth (we all had differing opinions) - Waiting for Godot seems to question the meaning of existence and the connectedness of one human to another and perhaps even human's relationship to God.

The later point resulted in much discussion after a little research on the play revealed that Samuel Beckett didn't mean to imply that the play's main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, were waiting for God, although this reader and many others arrived at that conclusion. The author noted in previous interviews that Godot has some reference to boots in French; that on a subconscious level perhaps he was thinking of God. Good to know that he was as confused about his work as I was. There are codependency overtones as well as self sufficiency, faith, love and fear; Beckett seems to put it all out there for contemplation. While I won't recommend the reading of this play to others I don't regret having read it. Should the play ever be performed in my area I'll make a point to see it; perhaps more of the comedy aspects of this tragedy will become apparent to me.

Absent the discussion with my friends, this read would most likely have resulted in a 1 star review. Thanks to the "When We See Each Other Book Club" and the fact that I get to count the play for my annual "classics" read, it's been elevated to 2.5 stars. While I won't avoid any future encounters with the works of Samuel Beckett; after all he is a Nobel Laureate, I won't rush to read his other work either. Deep I think?

This play is a pure production of the postmodern mind after WW2 when Auschwitz was finally brought to the guilty consciousness of everyone. The worst war ever was finished for sure but the minds of the survivors could not erase the horror of the gas-chambers, the crematoriums, the smoking chimneys and the ashes spread and scattered over the plains of Poland and other places.

Samuel Beckett in his double nationality or culture or bilingual existence wrote in French after having spent his war years in the French Resistance as a close fellow traveller of the Communists, and he dedicated his writing career and his plays to the absurdity of a humanity who is able to commit such horrible genocides and witness them without hardly protesting, at least for quite some time, the Catholic church in the front row of the silent witnesses. And I am not thinking of the Jews only, but also the gypsies, the gays, the mentally sick and so many other categories like communists, socialists, you name them you have them. How many war prisoners from the eastern front were freed after the war from German detention camps?

Waiting for Godot is typical of this tone and mood but this is built very precisely, like the mechanism of a clock, the clockwork of human nature if not essence, by the author. Let's examine some of the means used here.

First of course the fourfold figure. Four characters bring the tetragrammaton to the foreground of the stage, the tetragrammaton of the name of God, the big god, the real god YHWH, the name that cannot and must not be pronounced, the name that uses a quadruple consonantal root instead of the standard triple consonantal root of the Hebrew language, in the terms used by Lucky:

"a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown<n but time will tell are plunged in torment polunged in fire whose fire..." [my emphasis]

And that figure will be used all the time, like with the characters, as being: two plus two, but also with numerous expansions to six, eight or more. We will come back to that when we deal with the meaning of Godot himself, the presence of God in the play. Let's keep in mind that this quadruple motif is a direct Hebraic reference to God who is present everywhere in the play and yet never, or nearly never, quoted in any serious way.

Estragon and Vladimir, Gogo and Didi, a variation on Godot with the stammered Gogo-Didi, but they cannot be God, since they are waiting for Godot. They are homeless men who stink like hell, spend the night in ditches and meet every morning on this desolate and deserted road. They have nothing to do, so they play games to pass the time. These two with Godot are like a holy trinity but who is the father, who the son and who the holy spirit? At least one is absent and after WW2 we can think God is absent because he abandoned humanity to their gory lot. The two days of these two characters are absolutely parallel with only some details that change. A carrot is eaten on the first day while turnips are refused, a black radish will be rejected on the second day, just as much as the turnips. The only tree in the landscape is bare on the first day but has four or five (what a lack of precision indeed for Beckett) leaves on the second day. Estragon is taking off his boots at the beginning of the first day and will leave them behind in the evening, but he will find boots there on the following morning, will pretend they are not the same as the day before and will put them on at the beginning of this second day.

The rest of the time they pass the time by telling jokes, like the unfinished joke on the brothel and then the suggestion to hang themselves from the tree, unfinished too, with the remark that such an activity would give them "an erection" and then "all that follows would fall on the soil" and "mandrakes" would be born from it. Obscene remarks. At the beginning of the first day Vladimir had to button up his fly, and at the end of the second day Estragon will have to pull up his trousers that had fallen around his ankles.

But the main distraction is of course the going through and visit of the second couple, Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo mixed up with Godot for a minute, is leading a slave who is carrying his luggage. Lucky has a rope around his neck and is a totally submissive slave. In front of the protest from Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo justifies it by the fact that Lucky wants to be the best serving slave he can be for obscure reasons and anyway that is not to last since Pozzo is taking him to the market to sell him. The solution is even worse than the problem. Pozzo insults Lucky all the time and makes fun of Godot with two triple wisecracks, "Godet-Godot-Godin" and "Godin-Godet-Godot." As we will see Godot is a small God (it works in English but Samuel Becket thinks in English, no matter what some will say). The diminutive suffix -ot works in French but also in English where it was transferred some eight of nine centuries ago, often derogative in meaning, amplified in its diminutive dimension with Godet and divinized, if necessary with the reference to the Germanic god Odin with Godin.

But Pozzo seems to be the devil impersonated and he manages to play with a motif based on 9 or 18, three times 6 like in 666, the name of the beast. Pozzo is thus apocalyptic and messianic. But his fate is just a good retribution for his diabolical violence to Lucky and his down-treading and down-looking condescendence if not arrogance when turning blind the second day, But Lucky has no luck on his side since he has turned mute at the same time, "dumb" as Beckett says. If their passage was entertaining the first day, it was not the second day since they fell on arrival and dragged Estragon and Vladimir into their fall and they were only able to crawl off stage while Estragon and Vladimir stayed for the final distraction of the day, the same again on both days, with variations, but more in a while.

In fact Lucky's dumbness is a great loss because he was the main attraction of the first day when he thought aloud and told us a long tirade of incoherent but perfectly repetitively structured discourse, starting with the only divine reference with four "divine" as expected and necessary. The discourse of someone whose brain and tongue work automatically uttering things he has learned, maybe thought in some past and now just repeats making them extremely repetitive and hence rhythmic with series of words that expand one another without really meaning much: accumulation of words like hammering on the anvil of the blindness of the audience at the total loss of perspective of humanity.

And here we come across the total loss of time and space, distance and duration in all the characters. Pozzo himself, the supposedly most structured character, at least the first day, loses his watch at the end of this first day. They also have lost and are losing their memory all the time, from one moment to the next. They don't remember the day before and they forget what they have just said in two seconds. The reference to the Rhone river is just one word for Estragon who remembers and Vladimir along with him but to declare that it is all dead and buried. The reference to Macon is even more buried and dead than the Rhone since Vladimir remembers it but Estragon does not and rejects it in the name of the country where he is now, puking his life away, and this country is Cackon, an enigmatic place indeed.

And the whole world is either full of dead people, "billions of them" as Estragon says, all dead souls amplified to infinity by three quadruple figures: "All the dead voices. They make a noise like wings. Like leaves. Like sand. Like leaves." "Rather they whisper. They rustle. They murmur. They rustle." "They make a noise like feathers. Like leaves. Like ashes. Like leaves." And remember then that four is the symbol of God with the tetragrammaton, but also of the crucifixion of Christ and there these dead souls are crucified with the three quadruple figures as if these were the three nails of the crucifixion; Humanity has been crucified for no reason whatsoever, crucified to absurdity.

That's when the two brothers, the two boy messengers intervened. The first one at the end of the first day. He looks after goats and is sent by Godot with the message that Godot "won't come this evening but surely tomorrow." The second day it is the second brother, who looks after sheep and is beaten by Godot, who comes to deliver the same message. We have to think of Abel and Cain, and these two biblical brothers are invoked by Estragon to speak of Pozzo as Abel and of Lucky as Cain, each name repeated twice building thus a fourfold figure: "Abel Abel... Cain Cain" But the second boy messenger tells us Godot is a man with a white beard (a description that Lucky had already given) and there we come to the identification of Godot as God, a God that is promising to come everyday but never comes and men can only be gullible and wait.

The Biblical references are numerous in the play leading to the identification of Godot as a little God, derogative diminutive name. At the very start Vladimir invokes "Our saviour" and the two thieves crucified along with him and one is saved in one gospel, none are saved in a second gospel and none are mentioned at all in the other two gospels. Crisscrossing of binary elements with a quadruple figure that is limping on the one saved thief in only one gospel out of two and out of four. The only mention of a day is "Saturday," or "is it Saturday?" But Saturday is the day of Shabbat, Biblical indeed. Then Godin introduces Odin, twice, Estragon pretends he is called Adam. The heavy quadruple motif everywhere and particularly in Lucky's long speech. The two brothers alluding to Abel and Cain. The triple reference to Christ who was going around barefoot. The opening song of the second day dedicated to dogs, works perfectly well in English since god and dog are so close phonetically; God is an inverted Dog. Is that flattering? Estragon will refer to God twice more: "Do you think God sees me? ... God have pity on me." We are coming close to the end. Then the invocation of Abel and Cain, that is an accusation, to refer to Pozzo and Lucky. Finally the last attempt to hang themselves, the checking of the rope holding Estragon's trousers, a rope that breaks as soon as they pull on it. And the fatality of life is brought up at the end:

"We'll hang ourselves tomorrow. Unless Godot comes. And if he comes? We'll be saved."

That's the very pattern of the second coming. And the play can close with Estragon pulling up his trousers that were around his ankles during that invocation of Godot as the little God, the Jesus, the son who will maybe come tomorrow to save them, a permanently promised and never granted second coming. And that definitely is a rewriting of Yeats' "Second Coming" who brings a monster, the Beast, in the crib of that second coming. The beast has come, the Beast has destroyed humanity and the second coming is just an empty promise from a small and powerless God more or less existing like an Arlésienne that we all hear about but never see. Crisscrossing of Irish and French references.

There are so many more details that we could fill at the very least many pages. But all best things have an end. And that is the end.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Waiting for Godot was dubbed a "tragicomedy" and there doesn't seem to be any other word better suited to describe this play. The random and wandering personalities of Vladimir and Estragon, the main characters, lend an amusing air to the entire work. However, their inability to accomplish anything or even grasp what is really going on around them inspires some sympathy (and irritation), though it may be weaker or stronger depending on how strange the book strikes the you. Unless one goes into Waiting for Godot expecting the existentialism it can be somewhat confusing, and may seem a bit more pointless than it is meant to be. Knowing a little bit about Beckett and his beliefs will probably make it more enjoyable, but it is interesting and well written enough to stand on its own. What I love the most about this book is Beckett's ability to make the absurd seem so close to reality. Vladimir and Estragon are most certainly not your average Joe, but a lot of what they say seems familiar and most of the time rather humorous. Waiting for Gogot is really what you make it, because while at its core it is a just a story of two confused homeless men, it is also a meaningful and slightly endearing tale. Go in looking for a meaning, and knowing how Beckett means to get things across, and I think that this play will end up reading much better than if one goes in just cold. A short read, and worthwhile, I would say, at least for its originality and humor.

I read this book a couple of days ago, and came here to see what others thought. I saw several reviews with just one star, and another with five and a quip about Americans being unable to think about what they read. I thought it was an excellent play and happen to be an American, so I just thought I'd stick that out and stand up for Beckett and the United States. Because this is, in fact, an excellent book. It is not tedious or slow; it is complicated without action. It's about the meaninglessness (hope that's a word) of life, about not waiting for life to pass you by, and about going out to find your destiny for yourself, instead of waiting for another to bring it to you. It's an awesome piece of work; I recommend it to anyone who likes to read, and anyone who has ever wondered why.

Samuel Beckett's classic play, Waiting for Godot explores many deep philosophical topics including the purpose of life and life without the existence of God. This exploration in existentialism, a philosophical view that life is complicated and without a predetermined objective, is a great example of how an author can do more with less--that is, use simplicity to create complex themes and meanings. One of the main reasons I like this play is because of how Beckett uses a simple setting, simple dialogue, and simple stage direction to create a deeper meaning and view of life.
Some argue that the play becomes monotonous and repetitive, which it does, but I argue that Beckett does successfully create monotony in a way that does not bore the reader or theatergoer. Another reason I like the play is because Beckett uses comedy to engage the reader and keep audience interested in the little action that is happening onstage.
Finally I like the reality of the play. Like Estragon and Vladimir, everyone has something they are waiting for or something they are questioning. Whether that is the meaning of life or the questionability of an existence of a God, this play can be applied to almost anyone's life. Beckett captures a view of life that does not omit the mankind's deep spiritual search or life's unanswerable questions.
I would recommend this play to anyone who is interested a piece of theater that effectively captures mankind's need to find answers to the unanswerable questions.

When I read Godot for the first time, I was a high school senior in my AP English class, and the book was a reading that the teacher had us do in class for the existentialism theme. The play is almost a satire of the old religious ways and even though Beckett wrote the play with a grim setting a seemingly rambling lines, if you read the lines carefully, they have more meaning than you can imagine. References to Christ and Christianity are everywhere and it takes a very open minded individual person to understand half of the book. I have re-read the book about 5 or 6 times, and each time I am able to understand more of the dialouge and its subliminal meanings. Waiting for Godot is by far one of the most ingenious works that I have read to date, and I will continue to read it in the years to come. This book has made me re-evaluate my role as a human being in this world and my values. It is truly sad to read that many people find it meaningless, because they do not open up their minds and do not read in between the lines.

anyone who sits there and trys to read and interpret this book at the same time is not going to enjoy it. it's about flow, movement. the book is just a journey, a train of thought steaming on through the pages. it was highly entertaining and amusing in many ways. i didn't think about what any of it meant till i had finished it, b/c otherwise i would have ruined a wonderful read. once i finished it i could think about it and basically it does seem to give the impression of a bleak view of our purpose, but that's what i've thought for a long time anyway. it's liberating to think that way, however. you live merely for the adventure, the collection of experiences, and you become a jumble of reactions. that's what i think this story shows. don't worry about a meaning or purpose, merely enjoy the ride, through life and this story. if you want something to analyze, fine go ahead, have a blast. but i think if you approach this book without any thought of trying to figure out what the whole thing means, and enjoy how little sense he makes through the story and enjoy the movement of it and the jumping, you'll come off being rather pleased. and then you can sit back and think about it and realize that it was all about the move and anticipation, the fun of waiting and the things that happen along the way.

Apparently, people have made much of the "fact" that Godot is god. While hardly being a fact (and in fact, being outwardly denied by Beckett himself), people who search too desperately for the specific personage Godot represents miss the point. One can say that Godot is god, especially if one is a New Critic and therefore ignores whatever the author may have said about his work. And while at one point Vladimir exclaims (and I'm just paraphrasing): "Godot is here! We are saved," this does not explicitly explain who Godot is. He could just as easily be bringing money to Vladimir and Estragon as he could be bearing salvation for them. The point is, that Beckett was an essentially existential writer, and saw that all of life was just waiting for the terminal breath. Furthermore, in the act of waiting for an ending, Vladimir and Estragon constantly make the existential choice: whether or not to keep on waiting. Several times they contemplate committing suicide; several times Estragon threatens to leave. In the end, they confirm their existence (yes, only one existence--they seem to be as one person in the dialogue: this is no mistake) by deciding, if offhandishly, to remain living; living, and waiting.

Samuel Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot, was surprising entertaining,
though nothing happened throughout the two acts. The two protagonists of the play,
Estragon and Vladimir, two hobo looking men, are waiting on a country road by a tree.
The setting is bare and dark. The two men discuss matters of life and religion while
waiting for a man named Godot who was to meet them there. During the play, they are
visited only by three others, a messenger boy who works for Godot, and Pozzo who has a
servant named Lucky. While Estragon insists numerous times that they leave the place,
Vladimir reminds him they are waiting for Godot. The men remain there for what appears
to be the changing of a season because leaves have grown on the once barren tree;
however, Godot never comes.
While the two men represent all mankind, Vladimir is the more philosophical of the
two. He understands the constant struggle of man to give his life meaning and he knows
that we do not have that power; he knows that they must wait for Godot to tell them what
to do. He grasps the idea that men never accept their own faults and often blame their
society. On the other hand, Estragon, or Go-Go as his friend calls him, is the more
materialistic of the men. When asked if he remembered reading the Bible, he replied that he
remembered the pictures. Both are well-developed, complex, and plausible characters.
Religious themes are often brought into Waiting for Godot. The tree which they
wait beside is a reminder of the two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The road on which they stand symbolizes a
purpose or direction in life, somewhere to go. The general tone of the play is one of
isolation, despair, and loneliness. One of the first conversations between our protagonists
is about Estragon being beaten at night. He says no one was there to help him. There was
no good Samaritan; we do not get much help from our fellow man. Man's inhumanity to
man is constant. Vladimir ignites a conversation about four Evangelists in the Bible of
whom only one spoke of one of two thieves being saved. The two thieves are an ironic
parallel between the two hobos, Vladimir and Estragon.
Waiting for Godot ventures into the universal human conditions of life. Beckett's
Christian Existential beliefs shine through in the essential idea of his play: there is nothing
to be done. Humans do not have the power to give their lives meaning. It is a play about
hope, waiting, and meaning in our lives, mixed with irony (the existence of the name God
in Godot) and humor. Although Beckett never discredits God, he does discredit human
theories for explaining the existence of God. Our lives are unfinished. We can never
come to a final conclusion about God because language and reason fall short of
explanation. We may have certain assumptions about God, but we can never come to
logical conclusions. Nothing is ever established beyond all doubt and we must live with
doubt. Doubt becomes a motif of the play. Beckett also touches on the point that life is
short. We can never be sure of anything.
Reading Waiting for Godot is an eye opening experience. Because of the things
our society has taught us for so long, we have excepted them as truths when in reality,
there are no truths. Men were born sinners. The play's themes are both well-developed
and implied. Beckett's original, interpretive fiction deals with more than just human
conditions, it explores the consciousness of man as well as concerns beyond man.

Existential playwrite Samuel Beckett writes of the absurd in this tragic comedy of two old friends who are waiting for someone named Godot. Of course they dont know who he is, nor do they know anything about him (or It), but nonetheless, they are waiting for him. Witty and charming throughout, as well as non-sensical and of course absurd. Definately a classic! This play also raises many theological and philisiophical questions as to what Godot is, many speculate it is indeed God(ot?). It would seem to fit. Highly reccomended for anyone interested in writing, plays and literature as well as existentialists.

this important play has quite a long and interesting history. many of its productions around the globe tried to give their own versions of the story. and here lies its uniqueness: its outlines draw an empty space, submissive to any explanation you'd like to fill it with.
throughout the play, becket plants little secrets, jokes, and double meanings in many words. the word "godot", is combined from "god" and the suffix "ot" which adds a sense of affection, as if it was "little god". but this is only one of the many meanings to this word. the most interesting one is the resemblance to the french word "godet". godet is a smoking pipe, or a street lamp, or any vessel which is made in order to be filled with something. and the connection is obvious - godot's character is just an empty vessel, which the reader or viewer can and should fill with whatever he sees right.and as godot's character, the whole play is like this empty vessel. therefore, numerous different meanings are placed in this vessel, varying it's qualities and finding new ones constantly.
but there remains an important question, how empty is this vessel? well, in my opinion the only way to capture it's true thickness and original universal meaning is by noticing the little details in the play. because it doesn't really matter who godot is or isn't, and wether didi and gogo are reacting to a big disaster of some sort. the key is to ignore the vessel, to reduce the attention in the characters and their deeds, for they are beckett's truth's grim soldiers. they are, unknowingly, the messangers of the play, or it's true ideas, but their role in it is minor. the powerful character is their dialogue, who has a life of it's own.
so don't try and dress the characters in different costumes, or dealing with bizarre inventions in order to fully understand what is going on. instead, listen carfully to the dialogue, and digest every sentence, for it is one of the best texts man has ever written. and not everything is crystal clear, but like other beckett's writings, well - it seems like you can understand it, before you know you do.

WAITING FOR GODOT is somewhat akin to a conceptual artwork, in which the concept behind the artwork is more important than the sensual aesthetic experience or the entertainment value. In this case, however, what is behind the artwork is a non-concept, the impossibility of creating a masterpiece. After the monumental impossibility of Joyce's FINNEGANS WAKE, what remains for the serious artist? WAITING FOR GODOT is about the impossibility of a masterpiece in the modern world. In that sense, this play is the last masterpiece of "high art." The torch has now passed to movies and popular forms.

Many critics have tried to convince us that WAITING FOR GODOT is very funny and entertaining. I remain skeptical. There are a few moments of wry humor, but not enough to make up for the emptiness of "waiting." There is literally "Nothing to be done" in this play. "Waiting" is a non-action. What's interesting about the play is that the inconsequential dialogues and trivial actions are presented as significant; there's something like an "alienation effect," or a "defamiliarization," as we are invited to ponder how and why this drama is meaningful.

Why is there "Nothing to be done"? Is it simply because it's all been done before? Or is it because life in the modern world is without any serious purpose or meaning? In many ways, WAITING FOR GODOT is a reaction to the Holocaust and Hiroshima. The characters who have "something to do" in this play are Pozzo and Lucky, who by their stupidity illustrate the futility of action in the modern world.

A "tragicomedy" in two acts, Waiting For Godot is original and like no other. This is a play in which nothing happens twice. The setting includes a tree that symbolizes the tree of life, and a road, which implies a journey, direction, and a purpose. Located on a set that is foreign, Estragon and Vladimir are hobos that wait for the authority to tell them how to live their life. While these two men wait for Mr. Godot, they meet three other characters. Among the three are Pozzo and Lucky. Throughout the two acts, Mr. Godot never comes. Estragon and Vladimir are distraught, but still insist on waiting because they are lost and need someone to tell them what to do with their lives.
The characters in the play are well developed. Because they are complex individuals, Estragon and Vladimir are good examples of realistic and plausible characters. The plot of Waiting For Godot is interpretive and original. This play has deep meaning and is not just a commercial plot. The tone of the play is one of despair, isolation and loneliness. The theme through out Waiting For Godot involves two men not wanting to make their own decisions and needing to take responsibility for their actions. I feel the author has been bold to make a statement through his play that is unique and realistic. Looking at the underlying theme of the play, anyone can relate to the situation.

The original minimalist play of Vladimir and Estragon, waiting for Godot to come along for reasons neither they nor we grasp, but meeting in his place the disingenuous Pozzo and his mute slave, Lucky. No one knows what any of it means, I least of all, but reading it leaves no doubt how it propelled Beckett into the forefront of letters. - See more at:[...]

Waiting for Godot is a book that takes a lot of concentration and understanding. It holds a great amount of importance and significance dealing with life. You will find yourself very frustrated at imes because of the way Becket writes the book. The plot is very dull and boring. It takes place around a tree on the side of a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. The main characters are two men named Vladimir and Estragon. They spend the entire book waiting for Godot, a man in which neither of them have ever met. They need to talk to him because they have questions and no answers. While they wait they meet Pozzo and Lucky, two other important characters. The theme of hope plays a mojor part of the book. Hope is what Vladimir and estragon build while they spend days waiting for Godot. The two characters are faced with many situations in which their hope is a great importance. Their hope gets them a long way. Waiting for Godot is a good book once you are able to realy understand it. The author makes it difficult for readers to understand. Although it is frustrating at times there is strength in the book. That is the importance of our lives that is expressed to make a point to the readers. It makes you think about your life and the way you are spending it. Becket semed to make the book confusing which i believe could have been written just as good without being so confusing. At the end it would have been nice to know what happens. Maybe it was made to be like that but it would have been good to know the outcome and not just leave the reader with wonder. If you are able to take a challenge and read Waiting for Godot, I wish you luck. Once you understand Beckets writing, it really is quite an interesting book.

That's right; don't expect a plot in this quintessential Theater of the Absurd drama. The events revolve around two "tramps", although they are not refered to as such, and their life's agony. Vladimir especially feels isolated, for every day, it is as if he is the only one who remembers the past. Is his friend Estragon so down in life that he purposefully represses each day (which is almost exactly the same as the next)? This is very interesting in thought-provoking. If you like it, I would suggest Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead!

After reading The Stranger by Camus, I did not think that existentialism could be more plainly defined in prose, but Godot has left me debating (and yes, also waiting). Beckett, it seems, is also magically able to actualize ennui as a comedy -- as he puts it, a tragicomedy. But moreover, the piece does well to capture a subtlety of the existential mood: man's inextinguishable, incorrigible hope.

The Buddha stated that part of the human condition is to be an addict, addicted to colours and shapes.
Vald: I have been thinking about what you said, you know about being addicted to colours and shapes, I'm afraid it's complete nonsense. Of course I like a good painting as much as the next man (looks around), but in my opinion only children playing with the crayons and blocks suffer from your complaint !
Buddha: Even a blind man is addicted to colours and shapes. Very well let's undertake a thought experiment and see how the world looks like without these two drugs. (The Buddha takes out a small board with two switches, one marked Colours the other Shapes, he flicks the colour switch to OFF).
Vald: (Looking around his apartment) I see what you mean, the world has got a bit dull, but it has romance, like a Bogart movie, I like the textures and angles with a bit of strength and cleanness and it certainly gets rid of the gaudy yellow the management company painted the place. The sun it white and the clouds a metallic grey, no indecision or deceit. Yes I could live in a world without colour.
The Buddha smiled, (the Buddha always smiles so this tells you nothing) and flicks the shape switch to OFF. Catastrophe - the apartment and everything in it disappears.
Vald: Christ that was dramatic! Everything is gone these is nothing left except this pile of stones and a grey metallic sky. There's light like an overcast winter day, no sign of the sun and a uniform greyness. It looks just like the set of "Waiting for Godo".
Buddha: Isn't it time you went to work?
Vald: God your right, where's the car got to?
Buddha: Your new motor certainly caught the eye, I guess you were hoping to slay a few ladies with its shine and powerful shape, unfortunately in our world it has also disappeared. However if you sit on this rock and move you arm and legs about in the appropriate manner you will eventually get to the office.
Vald does as instructed (the Buddha sneaks off to laugh himself silly).
Vlad: I think I'm moving, but it's hard to tell, everything looks so similar, I looked around for the pile of stones near where the apartment was, but I couldn't find it among all the other piles. Its all very confusing. Hello this must be the office, or what's left of it, I recognise some people. Yes there's the boss, where's his Armani suit ? he seems to have swapped with a beggar.
Buddha: You are being a bit harsh, he clothes are warm if a bit nondescript, like your own.
Vald looks down at his "suit" and frowns.
Vald: Anyway I have important work to do, new plans for the broadband internet you know.
Buddha: The what?
Vald: You know delivering high speed multimedia to the public.
Buddha: You mean high speed colours and shapes.
Vald sits on a stone, looks crushed.
Vald: (Resentfully) well there's text as well, you know - Words.
Buddha: As yes Words, we have them in this world, lots of them in fact. So do you speak these words for the edification of you listeners over the er. Internet ?
Vald: Me ? God no, the creative types do that ! We keep them in the next office. (wanders over to a nearby pile of stones, talks to some people, then runs away)
Vald: They threw rocks at me the bastards ! It turns out that nearly everything the wrote about was colours and shapes, all they have left to write about is "relationships". I said that must be interesting, and they turned nasty.
Buddha: As yes relationships, we have them in this world, lots of them in fact
Vald starts to cry.
Buddha: What's the matter ?
Vlad: I was going to collect my pay, but what's the use ! I was saving for a holiday in the Far East, but what's good is travel if everywhere is the same and everywhere is dull and grey like here ! Without colour and shapes money is worthless.
Buddha: Have a carrot.
Vlad: You wouldn't have a piece of celery, I don't like carrots.

Samuel Beckett�s play, Waiting for Godot, is �a play in which nothing happens twice,� as a critic once wrote. This tragicomedy is about two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who are waiting for Godot to come and give their lives direction. During their wait, they are visited only by three other characters. First, they meet Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is on his way to the fair to sell Lucky, his slave. The third character the men meet is Godot�s messenger boy. The boy appears in both acts, as do Pozzo and Lucky. In each act, the boy brings the same news, that Godot will come tomorrow. By the end of the play, Godot never comes and Vladimir and Estragon are left waiting.
The two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, are round characters, meaning that they are well developed, plausible, and realistic. Through these characters, Beckett is describing our lives as being silly and pathetic. He is telling his reader that life is neither noble nor grand and that no one, except us, can give life purpose, meaning, or direction. Through these two characters, Beckett undercuts the human arguments of the existence of God. He never discredits God, but he does discredit our rational machinery of explaining God. Beckett is telling his reader that humans cannot come to a final conclusion about God, because He is incomprehensible and cannot be described in language. Other points Beckett brings across through his characters are that we have no control over our lives and we do not have the power to give our lives meaning. Beckett is telling us, as Estragon says in the play, that there is �nothing to be done.�
The setting of the play is very plain. There is one tree and one road that disappears into the distance. The tree symbolizes time. In the first act, the tree is bare, as compared to the second act when the tree has sparse leaves. The road represents direction and neither Vladimir or Estragon chooses to follow the road.
Beckett does a wonderful job of developing his characters and making them realistic to his reader. However, a weakness of this play is that it was not entertaining, because nothing really happens. But, through this, Beckett makes a powerful statement about life in general, that it has no purpose, meaning, or direction.

It is not very clear whether the two tramps are more interested in Godot or we are.We wait for Godot along with the two tramps with a lot of patience, impatience, hope and hopelessness.For three hours at least we think that the two tramps may finally come-it is a unique opportunity for Catharsis-we want to atone for our lack of humane feelings for others-what if two poor tramps are in the void and have to drag a painful existence, we are at least happy and full of hopes. We should remember that waiting is astrong metaphor in the play-to wait is to exist and to exist we have to wait for something.Beckett is forcing us to live the Holocaust of our conscience, the bombing of our beliefs, the destruction of our faith in God.We wait for the play to proceed-we want to draw meaning from it-why should we?We wait for the tramps to act or we expect something miraculous to occur-much of the waiting is done by us-the tramps are enjoying themselves-you and me we are desperataly looking for meaning in it-does your life have any meaning, any logic?Then why do you want the tramps to have any? The play takes us deep within ourselves-it is an introspection in the remote recesses of our conscience.It is a rethinking process-who are we?We are a mixture of Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo, Lucky and even Godot-we have been marginalised by our own conscience, we are travellers ,looking for better prospects, we carry others'burden without realising that we have been enslaved be our senses and desires.We are like Godot-we promise and do not keep our words. Threatrically speaking the play is revolutionary.Broken sentences,regular confusions by the tramps, the long diatribe by Lucky remind us of serious devaluation of language in our world-the two world wars have not totally killed humanity but have left them grovelling, we are like Sysiphus, we are condemned to wait. Watching the play brings us closer to our own existence.

To be frankly honest I have now read this book 4 times, I don't know exactly why I did so but I did and I am still confused. If you feel that you should get the book that a lot of critics call "the most important play of the 20th century" then while you're at it pick up a coles notes style book for it. But don't pay much for the interpretation book since the one I bought summed up the entire play in one paragraph that took up half a page. And I agree with one critic who described the two act play in one sentence "nothing happens...twice" Unless you have to buy this book for school or you're a large fan of plays then don't bother doing more than looking at the pretty cover art

While I'd heard of this play before, this was my first experience reading it. A play wherein nothing really happens; however, I was totally absorbed. For its lack of "happenings" there is great dialogue between Estragon and Vladimir. Layers upon layers of symbolism, and symbolism that about any reader could construe differently depending on the mindset, experience and perception of each respective reader. Worthy of its acclaim, I think.

Waiting for Godot centers around two bums: Estragon and Vladimir. Estragon has an incredibly short memory and relies on Vladimir to remember for him. As a result, Estragon is extremely impatient and constantly suggests that the two would be better off if they parted. However, Estragon needs Vladimir and Vladimir needs Estragon, so they never do part. Vladimir, due to Estragon's lack of memory, is unsure of his own memory. Vladimir enjoys the company of Estragon, for it allows him to recall past events. Together, they spend their time devising ways to pass the time until 'Godot' arrives. Neither Estragon and Vladimir or the reader surely know what Godot is or looks like or whether he will ever arrive. On two occasions, they meet Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is Lucky's master and decides to stop and talk to Estragon and Vladimir for a bit of company. Pozzo hardly listens to what the other characters in the play say and frequently launches into melodramatic prose. Lucky is Pozzo's slave, tied to Pozzo via a rope around his neck. Lucky only speaks twice during the entire play. His monologue, which is delivered upon Pozzo's order of 'Think', is completely incoherent - a mix of half-finished words and sentences. Lucky is very obedient to Pozzo and rather violent and hostile to strangers, especially Estragon, who he bites. In the second act, Pozzo and Lucky return again, this time Pozzo is blind and Lucky is mute. They have no memory of ever having met Estragon and Vladimir. The play ends in the same way Act One ends - Estragon and Vladimir are still dependent on eachother and remain waiting for Godot.
Waiting for Godot is a classic text of existentialism and Absurdist literature. The very ambiguous nature of these two strands of thought and literature makes Waiting for Godot extremely difficult to understand and extract. However the questions, confusion, anger and melancholy that arise from the lack of explanation, meaning and answers is one of the very themes of the play. The large amount of speculation people have made upon Godot (the most popular one being that Godot symbolizes God) is entirely misdirected and a waste of energy. Beckett himself ignored such claims and interpretations, stating that the emphasis should be upon the 'Waiting for...' section of the title. Religious interpretations see Estragon and Vladimir as humanity waiting for the return of the messiah (Godot). Pozzo represents the Pope and Lucky is the faithful. Marxist interpretations see the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky as that between a bourgeosie and a proleteriat - Pozzo being blind to the injustice he causes and Lucky unable to protest against his treatment. Another interpretation claims that Lucky is granted his name because, in the context of the play, he is unduly lucky. This is because the other characters of the play are constantly searching for ways to pass the time, while Lucky's actions are fully determined by Pozzo. Other interpretations posit Estragon as the body without the intellect and Vladimir as the intellect without the body.
Overall, Waiting for Godot is a superb and though-provoking play. It should not be shunned for its ambiguity - for that is the very beauty and theme of it. Despite all this, it certainly calls for multiple readings. It is a remarkable insight into the nature of the individual and society in a meaningless, unexplainable world. Waiting for Godot does not propose any solutions or consolations - rather it paints a picture of the current predicament and man's reaction. Nearly every human being is waiting for their Godot and is employing some means of wasting the time until its arrival. I highly recommend this classic - it cannot and will not be ignored.

Waiting for Godot is an interpretive and original tragicomedy written by Samuel Beckett. The play has many underlying meanings and can be interpreted in many different ways. The two main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, are waiting for a man named Godot. It is assumed that Gogo and Didi have been coming back to their same spot day after day to wait for Godot. Every day Godot sends a messenger boy to tell the men that He will not see them today but He will surely see them tomorrow.
The theme of this play, along with many of Beckett's other works, present a comically pessimistic allegory of mans condition. Didi and Gogo have the stature of realistic and plausible characters. Their stories and actions can be related to the hardships and temptations faced in the twenty-first century.
Beckett's strengths in writing Waiting for Godot include making the problems of life into something people can laugh about. Beckett does an excellent job of portraying the human condition and vividly describing the bleakness of life. The downside for Beckett's play is its complicatedness and the depth that the reader must go to in order to find the real meaning of the story. Its repetitiveness is crucial for the hidden meanings but tiresome to read.
Waiting for Godot is a book for someone looking to distinguish certain aspects of religion and the choices people face. Godot also discredits the arguments for the existence of God through human reason and logic. However, the humor present in this play makes reading Waiting for Godot an interesting and very unique experience.

Put most simplistically, Waiting for Godot is a story about finding a meaning to life. Two dudes, Vladamir and Estragon, sit around in a barren area and wait for Godot. What the author tries to convey is that sitting and waiting for a meaning of life to come to you is foolish and unrewarding. The only scenery in the play is a tree that symbolizes the tree of knowledge. In th first act, the tree is bare, representing a feeling that knowledge is dead. But the tree sports leaves in the second act, a representation of some hope in the quest for knowledge. The two characters in the play never leave the area, never utilizing this hope. This symbolizes the difficulty that humans have in finding a meaning to their life. What makes the message in the play resonate is that neither of the characters are bound to the area. They often talk of other places to go. But still, they remain, waiting for Godot. The message is that waiting for meaning will leave you in a world of chaos. For you to have a rewarding meaning to your life, no one will give it to you. You have to make it.

I didn't enjoy reading this play. I thought that once the Beckett had gotten me aware of the pointlessness of the characters and their situation and then hammered it into me 20 times to make me feel and empathize with them, he should of moved on. However, he doesn't and keeps uselessly hammering till the reader gets frustrated with the characters. He intends to create boredom and meaningless and gets anger and disgust. The character of Pozzo and lucky are especially trite cut outs of the bourgeious owner and his proletariat vassal. There are a couple of funny and witty moments, but that's all. Having said that, just like Napoleon Dynamite, the sheer audacity and uniqueness of this play makes it a worthwhile read. You will find yourself thinking of it afterwards (which is fun), but bored while reading it (which sucks). That's my 2 cents. Thanks for reading.

This book brings up an interesting question: what do we wait for? The sudden realization that our lives are spent waiting for the next event in our lives to occur. Not often do we stop to consider the events of the present without yearning for the events of the future. Such is the struggle of the two characters in this novel. Only one of which truely realizes his situation. In the two characters seemily meaningless conversation that alludes to biblical passages, philosophical movements, and contemporary thinking, the point is brought across with repitition: what are we waiting for? And in this only one answer seems to be true: we are waiting for Godot to come! And comes the resounding moan... A very good read, dispite the clear fragmentation that Beckett used. A metaphor is suggested (such as the Eifel tower) but no idea is place on the metaphor, or it is detached from it. For example, a rose is associated with love, this book would take away the love aspect of the rose metaphor, leaving us only the rose and allowing use to draw our own conclusions. A book for a good deep thought, it gets my personal thumbs up.

Vladimir and Estragon are two characters that are both living their lives in a routine that is unchanging and predictable. There is no space for impulses and they have shrunken their lives down to word games and simple diversions to pass time. If it is the following of our finest impulses, the belief in our own beauty and strength and a desperate honesty that makes us kings and queens then these two are as far from being kings and queens as possible. Like Lucky, they are tied to a rope and bound by a master they have created in their own minds. It is understandable that they are impoverished and that the world is not opened entirely to them for success and prosperity; however, it is the resemblance of their lives to those of many we know that makes this play so haunting. Many people spend their lives watching television or passing the time with argument like Estragon and Vladimir and all that the next day holds is what has already come before it --nothing.

I find it hilarious that so many reviewers find this play "complicated" or "profound". I have to let them in on the secret: the play is neither complicated nor profound. It is absurd. This play is not about anything in particular (less than, say, Seinfeld which was "about nothing"). A bunch of people hang out on the stage and pass the time in the stupidest way possible: inane banter and stupid games. All is random and pointless, by design.
After I read the play I thought it was utter crap. But now, after I am reading this misguided reviews, I am beginning to think maybe Beckett was on to something. People really do not get it, even when it is spelled out in the very first line of the play ("nothing to do"). This habit of interpretation is so fixated in most people's consciences that they have to grasp at meaning even when it is deliberately removed from context.
This play is the ultimate farce, and the spectators are the ones getting fooled. Actually, this is not even a play, it is an exercise in audience psychology, the dramatic equivalent of ink blots. But why many enjoy being made fools of is beyond my comprehension.
Some say that Beckett "challenges the conventions of theatre", and that in itself should lend some value to the play. No thanks. Flaunting rules and convention is, in itself, not a source for value, or beauty, or truth. In "Waiting for Godot" the result of this deliberate rule-breaking is something that is utterly boring and idiotic. There is no iota of anything worthwhile in the play. Frankly, it is horrible.
For some intelligible theater of the absurd, that is theatre which has an insightful look at the absurdity of life without being itself absurd, I recommend Eugen Ionesco. His plays are far more contextualized and less ambitious, and are also quite funny.
But for some wildly entertaining theatre of the absurd nothing beats Seinfeld reruns.

If you haven't read or seen 'Godot', log off right now, get to your nearest library or bookstore, and get a copy. Read it, have a good cry, read it again. It definitely bears a first, second, a hundredth look.
'Godot' is probably the most important English-language play of the 20th century, a play which gives itself over to a simple interpretation and (on further reflection) staunchly refuses to be so easily encapsulated. It is a prime example of the 'Theater of the Absurd', in which physical reality entirely gives way to the reality of the stage. It is a play in which language itself breaks down spectacularly, in which the players are not characters but types, in which the central character doesn't appear on stage -- and in which the notion of a 'central character' comes under attack.
Read the play with an ear for the rhythm of the dialogue and the overwhelming mood of the piece. The characters' speech is musical, making the piece far more engrossing than (for instance) 'No Exit' by Sartre. When you're finished, have a look at 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead' by Tom Stoppard, which hautningly weaves together 'Godot' and 'Hamlet'; also have a look at Beckett's own 'Endgame', which features one of the most heartbreaking final monologues in all of theater.
To dispel a myth: Beckett did not intend for Godot to be simply God; the fact is, we do not and *can not* know who Godot is. But neither can we look at Vladimir and Estragon without seeing something of ourselves.

Although Samuel Beckett's "Wating for Godot" may seem absurd and out of this world, it really is an amazing play. The reason for all of its nonsense is the simple fact that it is a play in the absurd! It is set on a blank stage with only two main characters and a tree, with some other guests scatered about the performance. And although this play may seem dull and dry is really can be either inspiring and hopefull or disapointing and pointless, it's the way that you percieve it. To those that see the action of these two men as meaningless, stupid and dumb, they see thier mission of waiting for Godot as dissapointing. Its those people who think that waiting for Godot day after day is always a let down. It's the same routine, with a few changes, and at the end it is always " Godot will see you tomorrow." However, some believe that this play is inspiring and hopefull. The men show some kind of loyalty to Godot and never give up hope. They just keep comming back hoping that Godot will come today. And while they are waiting, the explore the thoughts of themselves and some questions of life and meet others with different incites. They live their lives waiting for Godot and although he never comes, they seem content in comming back the next day, enduring the same old routine, just to see if Godot will come. The humor is witty and the language is a blast to figure out and follow. This is truly and entertaining play.

If you want to wrestle with something that’s strange and ambiguous then Waiting for Godot might be worth a try but no promises that you’ll enjoy it or even find any merit in it.

Follow link for full review: [...]

It may appear superficial after reading the first portion of the book. However, it is worthwhile to read on, as he moves on to reveal the intricate paradox found in human life. Characters seem to be used metaphorically and cajoles the audience with a dark truth underneath the funny side of surface. Interesting to read.

OOK! I am a college student and our teacher assigned us to read the play "waiting For Godot" and write a 6 pages essay on it commenting the nature of human relationships. Now! i don't think the book sends the message quite clearly. I've also read the play "for The Pleasure Of Seeing Her Again" and our teacher says that these two plays have something in commen. But unfortunately I cannot find any connection. Waiting For Godot does not flow. there are three or even more characters come and go. The characters seem to have no connection to one another.ie: Vladimir,Estragon and Pozzo have come from different backgrounds and somehow don't relate to one another. I think the book has something to esssy about existence, creation, world, life, death, and people. The book wants to say that our existence rely on chances and probability, in a way that we don't have any control on our life. I also don't know how these two plays, Waiting for Godot and for the pleasure of seeingher agin have somehting in commen. I guess For the pleasure of seeing her agsin more likely relates to peoples lives than Waiting For godot.

For all who don't know, the title of this review is a quote that Vladimir (Didi) says about his hat.
Anyways, Waiting for Godot is a play unlike any other. To make a long story short, its about two people waiting for this other man to come. Two other people come...they go...the come again...they leave again..and in the end...the two men are still waiting for this man. Should i mention that this man never comes? And even after the play is over the two men are STILL waiting?
An enjoyable tragicomedy to be seen, moreso than read, Waiting for Godot is definitely a masterpiece in theatrical literature.

I stage managed an award-winning production of this play and am very familiar with it as a result. I watched this production on PBS and have been searching for a copy of it ever since. It is exquisite. If I could afford the price, I would buy this even though it is a VHS version.

In your one star review, you actually understood Beckett's genius, despite your trepidation for it. The play takes place in two days that practically mirror each other. The idea of the days being practically the same is to show a human existence at its most basic level where each day mirrors the next, making human beings' struggles on earth completely meaningless. For instance, each day you wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, go to bed, and then repeat the cycle the next day with slight deviations in your routine. Look at the three page monologue of Lucky where he points out that "man in brief...wastes and pines waste and pines..." To me this completes the theme of the play that man is born then he will one day die. In between, he wastes away at meaningless tasks. Beckett's straight forward stripped down look of existence makes me shiver with the truth it contains. This is truly a masterpiece of our time.

As an absurdist philosophical exploration on the meaning of life (or lack of), it entertains in the dark perspective that life itself is a comedy, with or without a punch line, when one spends it waiting for something else than life itself. "Waiting for Godot" is very much an acquired taste. Reading the book has to be less satisfying that seeing the play, but this shortcoming is mitigated by the fact that it is generally performed with a minimalist décor.

Samuel Beckett's play seems to endlessly perplex reviewers: they want to see in it concrete associations that it generally denies them. Is Godot God? Are Didi and Gogo heroes for their seemingly indefatiguable faith he will arrive, or fools for hinging all their hopes and dreams on a man who never seems to arrive to help alleviate their suffering?

Waiting for Godot, in proper Modernist fashion, strips away all the layers of narrative and form and leaves nothing but the naked husk of a play, which Beckett no doubt felt revealed the human condition at its most basic. But the play's power doesn't really come from that. Rather, what makes Waiting for Godot so compelling is its wide applicability: it's a story about random oppression, brutality, and dreams deferred by harsh realities. It has been performed as an allegory of apartheid South African, the Jim Crow South, the horror of the war in Bosnia and about every other possible situation imaginable. Why? Because as Benjamin Kunkel pointed out in a piece in The New Yorker not so long ago, "[N]ot everyone has a God, but who doesn't have a Godot?"

Beyond the metaphysical implications of the play, though, it's popularity stems from its near-perfection: for all the philosophical meaning people see in it, the action progresses with virtually no direct reference to it, and every line which seems to suggests some sort of grand significance has a very concrete meaning in the action. Take the infamous opening: Estragon, the first of the tramps, struggles to pull off his boot to relieve his swollen foot. Unable to get it off, he gives up and announces "Nothing to be done." Vladimir, wincingly wandering onto the stage and grasping at his crotch (precious few readers and actors for that matter seem to grasp that one of the play's running jokes is Vladimir's venereal disease, which causes him immense pain when urinating), thinks Estragon is commenting on his own ailment, and announces, "I'm beginning to come round to that conclusion myself. All my life I've put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything! And I resumed the struggle."

On the one hand, the lines relate concretely to the action of the play; on the other, they have become representative of modern man's ambivalence towards a cruel and uncaring world, and such clever cynicism has linked Beckett to the French Existentialists in whose circles he moved after the Second World War. But seen merely as declamatory statements of world-weary cynicism, the lines lose all their power; Beckett's achievement comes from his ability to link such nihilistic sentiments to extremely comic moments, and it is the humor that carries the reader or the theatergoer through what would otherwise be an unbearably cynical play. Steve Martin, who played Vladimir in a famous 1982 production at the Lincoln Center in New York, put it best when he said that he sought to serve the humor of the play, because the meaning could carry itself but the humor could not. That's a lesson which, sadly, precious few theater directors seem to grasp, but which the careful reader discovers in Beckett. Definitely a must-read, but read it before seeing it, because few productions do it justice.

Godot is not bedtime reading. I'm not even sure that it can even be considered pleasure reading. Is it great literature? Yes! What Beckett does with language and the lack of language--the silences, the pauses--is extraordinary. Don't think that you can just sit down and read through this play and "get it." As with all plays, the experience of engaging the play as the member of audience is paramount. Three stars only because this is not a play that is to be read in silence.

Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot is a play of subtle beauty and truth of humanity's search or lack of search for meaning. Beckett uses minimalist techniques such as one set for the two acts to achieve the idea that merely letting life pass one by is absurd. The play takes places on a road where is little scenery besides one tree, alluding to the tree of knowledge. However in the first act, the tree is leafless, symbolizing that knowledge is dead; thus, life is chaotic and absurd. Contrastingly in the second act, the tree has leaves illustrating that there is still some hope. However, Vladimir and Estragon do not utilize this hope since they never leave this area. They wait for Godot to come to them. This lack of action demonstrates that if meaning is to be found one cannot wait for knowledge or life to come to him, it must be sought out. Furthermore, the two men's inability to leave their situation illustrates the difficulty humans have in searching for meaning. Moreover, Beckett does not suggest that the searching for meaning is worthless but a struggle. For instances, the leaf filled tree signifies the existence of knowledge and the characters talk of other places to flee to; they are not bound to their area. However, they do not leave. They wait for Godot to come them and once he has not come they do not move. In Waiting for Godot the absurdity of life lies in its characters inability to search for meaning since they hope it will come to them eventually. Consequently meaning or knowledge never comes to a person, which explains the ludicrousness in the two men's worlds where they no longer have a grasp of reality. They are bound to a world of chaos by their choice.

Waiting For Godot is a classic. I know it's really shaped how modern plays. But wow... this play is frustrating. It has it's moments, but for a majority the play you just want to bang Didi and Gogo's heads against one another. When I was reading this I couldn't help but wonder what people saw in it. I really had to struggle to get through it. If I hadn't been required to read it for my drama class, I would have tossed it out my 3rd-floor apartment window. Do read it if like me, you're interested in writing plays. But if you're just reading it because a friend was raving how good it was, give it a miss. They're probably just "being" pretentious drama majors who couldn't tell art from a scribble done by a two-year old.

Samuel Beckett's classic work is possibly the most important work of the 20th century. He defies many dramatic traditions within the work as he drives home the play's minimal, yet powerful theme. If one reads or views the play, then asks himself "Who is Godot?", then one has missed the entire point. Godot is irrelevant. The play is about Gogo and Didi waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting. What do we, as humans, do everyday? We wait. We wait to wake up, we wait to go to work, we wait to go to lunch, we wait to get off work. We all live in a repetitive structure of waiting, but what are we really waiting on? What? Nothing? Who knows? We involve ourselves in these repetitive structures to avoid the questions of nothingness. Gogo and Didi's games are an attempt to avoid nothingness. As one reviewer once said, "The play is about two men in search for the meaning of life and finding meaninglessness." The play can be utterly hilarious, but just when you're at the peak of your laughter, a character says or does something that makes us realize their predicament, our predicament, and it crushes you. It is a masterpiece. Sadly, it is a hard read and good productions are rare, but if you do catch a good one, it might make you see many aspects of life in a different light, for better and for worse.

This is by far my favourite book. The depth is unlike any other. If you read this book once, you will give it a negative review because you didn't actually read it properly. When you read it a second time you'll catch things you didn't notice the first time. The third time you read it you'll probably cry because it's freaking incredible! I've read it over 100 times and it never gets old. Best book of all time!

Like all great works of literature, this can only be enjoyed with repeated reading. The performative nature of Beckett's art insists on SHOWING one what boredom is rather than telling one about it. The lack of definite structure and the seemingly rambling dialogue is Beckett's way of expressing the uncertainty and loss of order in the modern world. Yet the play is peppered with little stabs of lyric and sheer poetry. Despite our futile existence, we are sometimes capable of the great and good. The wait for Godot is a remark on just how much faith we place on a thread of hope and how much we need/depend on it. In uncertainty, there is only hope to cling to. The beauty of the play lies not in its easy accessibility, but in its powerful reflection on human nature and life. One of the best of the twentieth century plays i've read.

I loved this play. The openess within this play is fascinating. There are so many ways to interpret it and yet somehow it leaves you feeling as confused as Vladimir and Estragon.
The way this play is constructed is amazing.

It is hard to understand how people can give this play one star. Actually, it is easy because Americans don't like to think very deeply into what they read, if they read at all (generally speaking, of course). The play deals with faith in the face of absurdity. It is about blind hope and waiting for something that will never happen. And about the cyclical nature of life. I highly recommend the play to anyone with an open mind.

An existentialist tragicomedy in two acts. I loved this play-- definitely the epitome of a tragicomedy. I laughed out loud at many of the lines from Vladimir and Estragon, the main characters, as well as Pozzo, a man that happens by as they wait for Godot. The deeper themes of the play got me thinking too.
Who is Godot and why are these two men waiting for him? Good question. It's not important though-- not as important as their waiting to be saved by Godot at least. The way the characters passed away the time of their waiting made the pages fly by for me-- it seemed I had scarcely started when I was at the end!
Highly recommended. Waiting for Godot is a great, quick read.

This was a fantastic play. From the simple setting on a barren road with the lonely tree, to the odd characters, this play kept me intrigued from beginning to end. I can honestly say that I was (and certainly still am) waiting for Godot in many ways than one. Without giving away too much, the story has an interesting group of characters that fill the play with absurd rambles with seemingly insignificant meanings. After reading the play, I had a sense of the deeper meaning behing the novel. I found this play to be a great read and an enjoyable way to notice exactly how we think. It may seem a little confusing at first, but it is definitely a must read for any true fans of literature.

I recommend this French play, in which two characters spend two acts waiting for the mysterious Godot, to everyone because of its message about religion. At first glance, that message seems to be one advocating the opinion that religion is futile, but on closer examination, the play sends out a different message to readers. As it is comprised of two acts, Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" is a short, quick read that it is inexcusable to miss.

What is your perception of the VOID ? The vacuum ? If you ever had the chance to feel the absolute void, the true nothingness, would you consider it to be beautifull ? Would you consider it to be God ? Or would you be scared and turn away ? To get a feeling of what other people felt just read the previous reviews. Some of them thought it was majestic, some of them thought it was God and some of them fled away, scared, and because they got scared they thought that it was something ugly.
Since we do not have the chance to perceive the real void because the natural law forbids it, the closest thing available is Waiting for Godot. The words are misleading. There should be no words, but Becket had no other choice in the material world that we live. So if you are curious to see in what category you belong just read it.
As for me, I thought it was beautifull. One of the most beautifull things I have ever experienced....

Damvlad: It will come.
Estrogen: Yes, I know. When it does, we move.
Damvlad: Right arm.
Estrogen: You mean right on?
Damvlad: That's right.
Estrogen: On.
Damvlad: Arm.
Estrogen: But the point!
Damvlad: It will come.
Estrogen: Perhaps.
Damvlad: Yes, perhaps, but why wait?
Estrogen: Maybe that's the point.
Damvlad: It could be. Either way, we are waiting.
Estrogen: True.
Damvlad: Lots of people think there's a point.
Estrogen: Some don't.
Damvlad: Some do, some don't, but either way, we must wait.
Estrogen: That doesn't mean there's a point.
Damvlad: What other point could there be?
Estrogen: Do we even need a point?
Damvlad: Some people might.
Estrogen: Even if there's no point?
Damvlad: Perhaps.
Estrogen: Maybe we should go.
Damvlad: No, I still think that we should wait.
Estrogen: Maybe that's the point.
Damvlad: Right arm.

Some think Waiting for Godot is an argument for existentialism. Others believe it is about man's eternal struggle for the answer to the ultimate question. Neither seem correct.

In short, this is a play for those who prefer to strip everything down to the most basic form of language, to strip life down to a mere game of waiting. That is, in essence, what this is all about. We have two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who both wait for a man who may or may not ever show up. They don't know why. They don't know exactly when he will be there. Still they wait, eternally, by the tree, by wherever they think he said he would show.

This isn't an absurdist play, although it has been labeled as such. Absurdism, though, seems such an insulting way of labeling such a masterpiece. We oftentimes go thorugh our readings with the idea that everything has to be complex, that there has to be a theme placed deep within a convoluted story, but with Waiting for Godot, we have a simple theme: waiting.

The two characters symbolize nothing. They are, quite simply, not waiting to be analyzed. They become, in effect, victims of Samuel Beckett's own game: they are his quotation, and he only says what needed to be said at the time, and so he wrote it, whether people would catch on or not, whether they would label it absurdism or not.

If you were to take every line of this play and utter it aloud, very slowly, word by word like a robot in a very monotone fashion, you would probably capture the idea. If it's any indication, he wrote everything in French first--his second language--and then translated it in to English, just so it can be simple. I don't assume, of course, that this work should be cherished simply because it's an exercise in simplicity. But I submit that it should be cherished because it's a genuine, themeless--somehow--masterpiece about two people waiting for the most unimportant, unknown thing that may or may not ever come. It is frequently hilarious and constantly frivolous, but somehow, it manages to charm. It is like one of those songs that you can listen to over and over again, and it has no lyrics, and no meaning--as far as you know--but it still makes you feel good under glaring adversity.

Anyone reading "Waiting for Godot" will experience sixty pages of "waiting" that ends without a solution. Unexplained and left for the director to decide are geographic location, time period, and character appearance. This generality obviously makes the play sound somewhat interesting because it requires reader imagination. . . and evidently Beckett intends it to be very general, but what it difficult is that any reader could make anything that comes to mind out of the play and argue their point just as well as the next. The plot in "Waiting for Godot" consists of waiting. period. Vladamir and Estragon encounter the same boy every day who tells them that Godot will come tomorrow. The boy tells them it is his first time seeing them every day. Why? Unexplained. The reader must find meaning. Vladamir and Estragon frequently forget simple things. They forget why they have been waiting even though they have been waiting for Godot indefinately. They forget the color of their boots even though they have been wearing the same clothes indefinately. Why? Unexplained. Maybe they are mentally ill. Perhaps everything being the same for so long has made them unable to notice or pay attention to common things. Many readers say that the whole thing has to do with God and Jesus Christ. I could argue just as persuasively that the whole thing directly relates to the Wizard of Oz. Readers expecting the book to enlighten them as to a new religious perspective will find that Beckett makes God almost evil. If the book has to do with God or Christ, readers will find a message telling them to stop paying attention to the God they believe in because he really doesn't care. Stop going to church, stop following commandments. . . get on with your life. Anyone interested in action, charcter encounters with others, or a real page-turning play should not read this book. It will not enlighten. The only thing someone would experience reading "Waiting for Godot" is sixty pages of the same thing that was going on in the very first page: waiting. Anyone who will now say that I didn't read the book enough times or that I wasn't reading inbetween the lines must understand that I came up with many ideas inbetween the lines that may have worked, but when the ENTIRE play is written inbetween the lines, it not only takes incredible amounts of time to read, but also has no definate meaning. As for reading the play again, if I were to attempt reading "Waiting for Godot" a second time, I would be doing nothing but reminding myself how much I hate the play.

Before starting this book, I was told that it's about two guys sitting by a tree waiting. Sound boring, right? It actually wasn't that bad. It's about believing, and having hope. These two guys sit by a tree every day waiting for Godot. They just sit there every day, talking and waiting. They're not sure if he'll ever come,but still, they go back every day. In the end, they are still waiting, hoping that Godot will eventually come, but knowing he probably won't. Everyone does it. They wait around, hoping something will happen or someone will come, knowing that it probably won't, but they're not willing to give up. It's like sitting by the phone, waiting for it to ring, or in a relationship where one person is holding on hoping for things to work out, when the other has already given up. As frustrating and depressing it may sound, it's life and it happens every day. Beckett is just telling it how it is.

Beckett never intended for this book to be a timeless piece of classical literature. People thta wrote reviews like a couple that I read really have blown the whole idea out of context. Yes, it is blantanly obvious that Beckett was meaning for Godot to transfer into God, but it is superfellous to point that out. I think that the idea of crucifing him for challenging the ideas of the average white cathoic male, while at the same time being one, is absurd and people really need to "chill out". This is one of those books that recvieves som much hersay, but at the same time needs to be read and interepreted on a personal and individual level more then any other book I have read My advicer to you is to leave your mind open and really enjoy his unique grasp of human behavior and enormous capacity to interpret and transfer the raw emotions of two strangers in to words and the fact that not alot of authors can or have the guts to do. This book is amazing whether he meant for it to be that way or not

This is truly one of the most impactful and meaningful pieces of literature I have ever read. I've been through it and through it and through it, and I never tire of the thought is provokes. While it seems to be one of those works that you either totally love, or totally hate, anyone with an interest in existentialism will find this to be an utterly delightful non-story.

I've noticed many reviewers state that this book is laced with Christian themes, that Godot is symbolic of God. This is not entirely correct, and should not really be dwelled upon. While Beckett himself denies the book's apparent biblical themes (He claims that the play is about shoes, and that the naming of the saviour comes from a road near his house, "Godot St."), one can almost declare that it doesn't matter who or what Godot is - you will find the story (Or lack thereof) to be much more profound if you focus not on the fact that Didi And Gogo are waiting for Godot, but merely that - much like all of us - they are waiting - and wait on.

"Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!". That phrase, said by one of the main characters of "Waiting for Godot", somehow sums up the whole plot of this short tragicomedy in two acts. Strange??. You can bet on that!!!. So much that a well-known Irish critic said of it "nothing happens, twice".

The play starts with two men, Vladimir and Estragon, sitting on a lonely road. They are both waiting for Godot. They don't know why they are waiting for him, but they think that his arrival will change things for the better. The problem is that he doesn't come, although a kid does so and says Godot will eventually arrive. Pozzo and his servant Lucky, two other characters that pass by while our protagonists are waiting for Godot, add another bizarre touch to an already surreal story, in which nothing seems to happen and discussions between the characters don't make much sense.

However, maybe that is exactly the point that Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) wanted to make. He was one of the most accomplished exponents of the "Theatre of the Absurd", that wanted to highlight the lack of purpose and meaning in an universe without God. Does Godot, the person that Vladimir and Estragon endlessly wait, symbolize God?. According to an irascible Beckett, when hard-pressed to answer that question, "If I knew who Godot was, I would have said so in the play." So, we don't know. The result is a highly unusual play that poses many questions, but doesn't answer them.

Ripe with symbolism, "Waiting for Godot" is a play more or less open to different interpretations. Why more or less open?. Well, because in order to have an interpretation of your own, you have to finish the play, and that is something that not all readers can do. "Waiting for Godot" is neither too long nor too difficult, but it shows a lack of action and purpose in the characters that is likely to annoy many before they reach the final pages, leading them to abandon the book in a hurry. That is specially true if the reader is a student who thinks he is being barbarously tortured by a hateful teacher who told him to write a paper on "Waiting for Godot" :)

My advice, for what it is worth, is that you should persist in reading it. If it puts you to sleep, try reading it aloud with some friends, and discuss with them the implications of what happens with the characters. This play might not be thoroughly engaging, but it changed theatre and the possibilities opened before it forever. In a way, it provoked a blood-less revolution, and because of that it deserves at least a bit of our attention.

Belen Alcat

I read this book with some previous knowledge of Beckett and the story, so I kind of knew what I was getting into. I did not find that the read was difficult, but it was definately stimulating. This tale of two men, Vladimir and Estragon, is sometimes hillarious, but underneath it all lies the greatest despair of all...nothing. I reccommend this book to anyone who likes the slightly off-center world.

What a drag that the original recording from way back when with Burt Lahr and E.G. Marshall is not available on CD. I haven't heard this one, and it may after all be very good - if someone has actually heard both, please argue with me, but I'm still waiting for a reissue of the one I remember. Burt Lahr was FANTASTIC in his role!

Ok, the book makes you think. I give it that. But there was very little story line, and it was all nonsense. Ok, and I did laugh, but I still think it could use some more plot. I guess overall you can say that I liked it, but at the same time, was Beckett writing a book of complete nonsense? What was the point? Put it this way...if you're looking for something to read, and you don't care what, read this play. If you want some real meaning, read it anyway just so you can write a review and email me what you think!

"Two men await the coming of the distinguished, however elusive, Godot." Not often can a play be summed up in one sentence, but any other comment on this work is pure speculation. Perhaps it is an allegory toward the human condition and seperation of God, but maybe it is just two lazy idiots who sit around waiting for life to happen to them. But it may be neither. In a monotonous French play like this, it is important to add something worth reading about. In Waiting for Godot, the quick exchange of dialogue may be the only element that keeps a reader going. But blessed is he (or she) that does sludge all the way through, because there is a resounding, yet noiseless impact of allegory and verisimilatude in this short drama.

Who needs book reviewers and critics? Is it not that each of us has his or her own opinion about this book? If I wished the input of others, I would turn to James Hillman -- "Be true to your depression" -- and Jung (quoting the message over the door to Hades) -- "Abandon all hope ye who enter here." -- now these men know what the human condition is all about. One might call it Creative Despair.
And then, too, there is something essential about "not knowing" (Hillman again)...or, as Goethe put it: "I don't know who I am, and God forbid I ever should."
Just some thoughts :)

We used this book for Performing Arts for the area of Absurdism. This book has enlightened me both in my Performing Arts and my own Life, of how people in general just waste there lifes. The fact its content isnt flowing, but rather switching between Acts (rituals) simulates how people progress from day to day wasting there time, and for nothing. Your born, you die. You choose the in between. A sad theory, but maybe one that will encourage pessimists to believe that you can make the glass half full, if you try.
Thats what I am still to work out.

I could read this book again and again, and still laugh as much at the characters' "stupidity". I found that there is a lot of depth to this book and that the story somehow imitates our lives... sometimes. It is so easy to pass this book as completely useless, so you'd better make sure that you let your imagination go with the book!!

Existentialist playwright, Samuel Beckett, has a true knack for relevance. Captivating one of the most basic questions that has plagued man since the beginning of time, Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot, epitomizes the reality which defines our existence. The simplistic play presents themes provoking deep insight. Does God exist? What are we doing here? What does it mean to be human? Comprised of two acts that essentially contain nothing, Beckett's minimalist drama has ironically been acclaimed as one of the greatest works of the twentieth century.
I personally recommend this as a must read.

If you want to wrestle with something that’s strange and ambiguous then Waiting for Godot might be worth a try but no promises that you’ll enjoy it or even find any merit in it.

Follow link for full review: [...]

My feminist friend would call the play sexist. “Where are female characters?!” is her usual criticism in such cases and not even the great Becket can escape her criticism, knowing in particular that Beckett famously objected when, in the 1980s, several women’s acting companies began to stage the play. Beckett was quoted as saying “Women don’t have prostates”, a reference to the fact that Vladimir frequently has to leave the stage to urinate. More on [...]

Waiting for Godot was incredibly hard for me to start reading. But once I got into the book, I discovered a beauty around it. The part that struck me the most was found in the ending. Through this play about two men waiting for nothing only to find nothing, I discovered a part of my own soul. I learned that in life we must ask questions, not look for answers. There are no answers. But questions will always lead to another question, and that is our answer. And this is why life is beautiful.

I was forced to read this play by Samuel Beckett in school during my sophomore year! I absolutely hated it!! I thought that it was simply overanalyzed and overappreciated in the modern literature world! To be honest, the book is badly written, confusing at times, too bizarre, and just utterly annoying! I don't understand why this existentialist novel is such a big hit. I give it an extra star because we brought up some really interesting points on the novel in class (it does make you think at times). However, that point doesn't change my opinion of the book and the author who wrote it. NOTE TO TEACHERS: Please think carefully before assigning this book, instead consider other existential works such as: The Stranger (by Albert Camus) or existential short stories (by Camus, and others).
A BRIEF SYNOPSIS
* There is no structured plot, and the waiting business gets annoying.
* Vladimir and Estragon are two alienated bums who travel extensively, but are waiting for one Mr. Godot in a rural field in France. They encounter a strange duo, Lucky and Pozzo, and have a pointless rendezvous with them while they are waiting for Mr. Godot.
* There are a series of repeated actions to exenuate existential ideals.

This classic of the absurd tragicomedy must be given its due respect though I have to admit, I found it a bit of a sleep-inducer. The story follows a conversation about a character wasting his time awaiting the arrival of his friend. The friend, it seems, is never going to arrive and so the plot is really a roller-coaster ride of emotions from excited anticipation to boredom to utter hopelessness and dispair. But, sadly, its an anti-climactic end with nothing - which is, in essence, the message of the play. Read it for it's historical and social significance but do not expect more than what it can give. Risking negative votes on my review I have to add, at least it is short and Beckett does not make the mistake of attempting to belabor a very tired point.

If it can be hung, I'm afraid 'waiting for godot' is primed for the tate gallery! I can imagine it created quite a stir back in the early fifties, but then so did Hirst with his sliced-up pigs and horses. The joke's on us.
To be sure, the world NEEDED a play like this - and that's why three of the best for this one.

This play is completely absurd and that is the powerful point that the writer is trying to make about existence and all that comes with it.

highly recommended for those who are interested in Philosophy, theater and the non traditional.

Just a quick note for any of you educators who are thinking about assigning this great piece of literature that explores the human experience. Christopher Guest's recent movie, Waiting For Guffman, is a fine companion piece to Beckett's play. Guest-of Spinal Tap fame and fortune-does an excellent parody based on the same context of this play that exposes the ridiculous stereotypes developed by American culture.

Contrary to the popular belief that this is a bunch of BS, I find it to be one of the most honest and moving insights to humanity. It may seem redundant and boring within the first five pages, but this play demands us to ask more of ourselves in seeing its depth. The ever-present way they wait for Godot symbolizes the continual hope that there is in searching for meaning in the middle of life's absurdities.

This play is not deep, beware the temptation to overanalyze what's plain to see right in front of you: a masterpiece of post World War 2 dramatic literature, a work that perfectly describes the postmodern condition. Anyone serious about theatre needs this play.

If it can be hung, I'm afraid 'waiting for godot' is primed for the tate gallery! I can imagine it created quite a stir back in the early fifties, but then so did Hirst with his sliced-up pigs and horses. The joke's on us.
To be sure, the world NEEDED a play like this - and that's why three of the best for this one.

This play is completely absurd and that is the powerful point that the writer is trying to make about existence and all that comes with it.

highly recommended for those who are interested in Philosophy, theater and the non traditional.

Just a quick note for any of you educators who are thinking about assigning this great piece of literature that explores the human experience. Christopher Guest's recent movie, Waiting For Guffman, is a fine companion piece to Beckett's play. Guest-of Spinal Tap fame and fortune-does an excellent parody based on the same context of this play that exposes the ridiculous stereotypes developed by American culture.

Contrary to the popular belief that this is a bunch of BS, I find it to be one of the most honest and moving insights to humanity. It may seem redundant and boring within the first five pages, but this play demands us to ask more of ourselves in seeing its depth. The ever-present way they wait for Godot symbolizes the continual hope that there is in searching for meaning in the middle of life's absurdities.

This play is not deep, beware the temptation to overanalyze what's plain to see right in front of you: a masterpiece of post World War 2 dramatic literature, a work that perfectly describes the postmodern condition. Anyone serious about theatre needs this play.

I know this is one of those works that are supposed to be masterpieces, but it did absolutely nothing for me. To be fair, I'm not a theater person, and I never got the appeal of absurdist works or anything else along those lines. I got about a third of the way into this and just couldn't stand to read it anymore, it drove me nuts. If you can appreciate that kind of stuff then I guess I can see why so many people love it, I'm just not one of them.

Okay, I know that everyone loves Beckett, that he is an artist, more than he is a writer, but that's the problem. He's too absorbed in the formal aesthetic of 'nothing', or 'absurdity', that he doesn't grant readers what they want: Character.
His entire approach (in his prose work) is derived from the last chapter in Joyce's Ulysses, which isn't nearly as remarkable as Faulkner, Gaddis, and Pynchon- who all took from Joyce and expounded, where as Beckett is only imitated.
It's old news: The men waiting for Godot argue about nothing while waiting, and Godot never shows up. It's suppose to be this grand metaphor for God(ot) (Get it?), that there isn't an inherent one, and that the waiting is the only thing which 'creates' him.
I gave up in the middle because I got the joke already, it was so obvious. Beckett had a point to make, and wrote a stoy (play) at us, instead of for us.
If you want to experiment with language, write a poem and get it over with, so you don't waste other reader's time, instead of what Beckett did, which was bury himself in only what he'd like to think only he could understand.

A wonderful and classic tale of how we spend our lives. Research would indicate that this story had origins in the French Underground of WW II, and its original publication by Grove Press "Made" that business and its owner. Seemingly inane, it reflects the Existentialist view of life, but its meaning and its lessons are profound, a play seen or read again and again over the years.

I read this play for my AP Literature class. It is an amazing piece and should be analyzed thoroughly by everyone who reads it. This literature is extremely symbolic and must not be taken for face-value. Everyone who enjoys reading intellectual and philosophical works should definitely read this piece.

I have read and re-read this play several times, all in Beckett's own translation to English. All I can say is the Theater of the Absurd is well named. It a boring, trite play. Doesn't represent any aspect of Humanity I am aware of unless sheer Boredom is one of our principal traits.
I suppose all the raving critics (and others) who think THIS is the PLAY of all time have some reasons for their belief. Unfortunately, I think that they, as those who LOVE J.J.s' Ulysses, are merely esthete beings who rave at anything they cannot fathom. I would challenge any critic to sit in front of me and give me a word by word understanding of the play.

I love live theater, reading plays, and watching video of plays.

The meaning of this play is that life is meaningless.
You "get" that 5 minutes into it.
But Beckett makes you live all of life from this perspective, in slow motion, for hours.

I would rather have open heart surgery with no anesthtic than to ensure this play in any form again.
It's that bad. No, it's worse.

Think of any work by any other author, something you cannot stand reading, and it will be a million times more pleasurable than reading anything by Beckett. Think of the labels on canned corn. Becket plays are as pointless as filling a canvas with a single color. It's completely boring. The dictionary should have "Any Becket play" as the definition of that word.

I understand that there are a lot of egos on the line, but the emperor has no clothes, and the emperor in this scenario is Beckett.

VLADIMIR: To every man his little cross. Till he dies. And is forgotten. -Waiting for Godot
The American director Alan Schneider first met the Irish playwright Samuel Beckett in 1955, after being hired to direct the United States premiere of ''Waiting for Godot'' in Miami. Schneider had come to Beckett's Paris apartment bursting with preproduction questions, especially regarding the identity of the title character. To Schneider's initial query, ''Who is Godot?,'' the laconic playwright famously replied, ''If I knew, I would have said so in the play.''
Henceforth, Schneider was to devote most of his career to realizing Beckett's stated intentions in his plays. But despite his fidelity to every letter of Beckett's text, and despite the participation of such popular clowns as Bert Lahr and Tom Ewell, the Miami production of ''Waiting for Godot'' was a resounding flop. Baffled by the metaphysical reverberations of a work that had been billed as ''the laugh riot of two continents,'' a third of the audience left at intermission. Others lined up at the box office not to purchase tickets but to ask for refunds. -from Robert Brustein's NY Times review of The Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider
To read Waiting for Godot is to bitterly envy those lucky folks who actually had the privilege of walking out and demanding their money back. In a more just world they would have hunted down the playwright and horsewhipped him.
Here is the play in its entirety: Two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, wait by a tree for two days, expecting the imminent appearance of Godot. Instead they are visited by a master and slave, Pozzo and Lucky, and a boy who brings them a message that Godot will soon be there. The curtain falls. The crowd hisses.
That's it. Godot is obviously supposed to be God (though Beckett relentless fought against others finding meaning in the work) and the play presumably demonstrates the futility of human existence: waiting around for the God who never shows. Of course, this message is nothing new. In fact, it is central to the story of Christ. When he was being crucified, Jesus wailed: "Oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is in this moment that God/Christ came to understand man's despair and Christ then admonished: "Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." So 2000 years ago, it was said better in a far superior drama; why sit through this piece of crap?
One delightful irony that I found is that Beckett was adamant that production of this play--which is supposed to show the folly of existence, the impossibility of communication, etc.--follow the strict guidelines that he envisioned:
In his autobiography, the American director Alan Schneider recalled his attendance with Samuel Beckett at the first run of Waiting for Godot in London in 1955. Whenever a line was misinterpreted or an extra piece of stage business was added, Beckett would clutch Schneider's arm and exclaim, in a clearly audible stage whisper, "It's ahl wrahng! He's doing it ahl wrahng!"1 That loud whisper still sounds in the ears of those who stage Beckett's plays now. No other dead dramatist remains such a daunting admonitory presence for his directors and performers. Where most great playwrights were content to write the text of a play, Beckett wrote the entire theatrical event. He specified, not just the words, but the rhythms and tones, the sets and the lighting plots, and these specifications are preserved in the remarkable series of notebooks whose publication by Faber and Faber is now completed with S.E. Gontarski's exemplary edition of Beckett's ledgers for productions of his short late plays.
Where most plays invite the active participation of actors, directors, and designers in determining the meaning of the work, Beckett's work demands that the meaning remains indeterminate. Where theater artists think of themselves as interpreters, any interpretation of a Beckett play is necessarily a reduction. With these plays, creative intervention seems like crass interference. The director is haunted by the playwright's stern ghost, frowning, clutching his arm, whispering at every deviation, "It's ahl wrahng!" -from Game Without End by Fintan O'Toole (NY Review of Books)
I mean that's just beautiful. Life is pointless, but it's my way or the highway. You've gotta love it. These poor existentialists have such a hard time keeping their story straight, you can sometimes almost feel sorry for them.
I took a Humanities class in High School and absolutely loathed it (some of you may recall my discussion of Ragtime which a teacher suggested I read for the class--see Review). This was one of the things we read and even as a callow youth of 15 or 16, I was flabbergasted at what a crock it was. Now that I'm older, crustier and, hopefully, wiser, I have even less patience with idiocy and this play is truly idiotic.
GRADE: F

I am very interested in absurdism and meaninglessness in literature and philosophy, so naturally I picked up a collection of works by Samuel Beckett, one of them being Waiting For Godot. Needless to say I was disappointed to the point of absolute frustration. I felt ripped off. I picked up Beckett like I have picked up works by Camus and Sartre, expecting drama, passion and moving accounts of the futile struggles of everyday man. This is not the case with ANY of his works. Reading his works was like the equivalent of staring at a robot saying "life is pointless, life is pointless," over and over again. His works have no soul and no since of the actual struggles and conflicts the modern human faces when coming to terms with existence. Shame on these so called intellectuals who tout Beckett's brilliance. Read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus and "Nausea" by Jean-Paul Sartre, which are written with a strong sense of urgency and introspection. And forget about Beckett's works, which read like they come from the pen of an automaton.

I picked up Waiting for Godot with no knowledge of it other than having heard that it was a play in which not a whole lot happened.

Literary types have concocted political, Freudian, Jungian, existentialist, biblical and homoerotic (and many other) interpretations of the play. I am not interested in any particular interpretation, for this reason: the play is extremely boring. By the middle of the second act, every last aspect of the play is tiresome. It's billed as "a tragicomedy in two acts." But it's not very tragic or amusing.

This play's influence on Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is obvious, except that that play held the interest a little better and offered a little more overt philosophical insight on life.

Waiting for Godot goes into the category of works that some people (pretentious literary snobs and pretentious literary posers) say are so deep and meaningful because they don't have the slightest idea of what it means. Waiting for Godot is not deep and it's not interesting.

If you thought reading books was fun,then you've never seen this dull book.This is a real tragedy,alright-the tragedy is the book was written and plublished.You wade through pages of meaningless drudgery,trying desperately to find ANYTHING exciting.You keep reading,hoping and praying it will get better.But no.It just keeps getting worse with every sentence.I finally gave an utter scream from frustration and set fire to this dud,mentally kicking myself for wasting money on it.If you want an actaul BOOK,read Charles Dickens or Mark Twain instead.

I must admit that I find myself lucky to not have been assigned this incredible waste of time and human intellect as a student. Even now,many years later, I find it one of the most godawful wastes of time I have encountered, on a level with a group of pseudointellectuals who stand, glasses of dry French Chardonney in hand, discussing the inner meanings of an "artist" who makes his works by throwing buckets of paint at a canvas, or a Matisse which certainly had to have been made as a great cosmic joke.
First, if you feel the need to read something on the same subject written by an author standing truly at the top of his craft, try Eugene O'Neils "The Iceman Cometh". If that seems too intimidating, then the whole thing can be summed up in a one line quote from Kurt Vonnegut: "Why are we born only to suffer and die"?
Now you have an hour and a half of your life you can spend doing something useful &/or enjoyable.
And remembeer the person who said it first and best: "The rest is silence".

I was required to purchase this play for a Theatre class. Personally I don't care for the script. I feel like it is a bit hard to follow and unsatisfying.

The vender has been wonderful! Thanks!

J. Hickling

If you want to wrestle with something that’s strange and ambiguous then Waiting for Godot might be worth a try but no promises that you’ll enjoy it or even find any merit in it.

Follow link for full review: [...]

It can astonish you because of surprising way of interpretation, it can dissapoint you because of unexpected visual form. However it is a good choice for conceptual maniacs. If you have read the play, you will have enough time to meditate and rethink it while watching the movie. If you did not, it could be the first stimulus to read. Waiting is the most suitable word which describes this DVD. One thing not to forget: don't expect too much from the cover - it is misleading.

I can't think of a better way to spend a few hours than to read this play! It is the PROTOTYPE -- the APOTHEOSIS -- the ACME -- the NO MORE DRAMA EVER NEED BE WRITTEN of all GREAT plays since the beginning of theatrical history! This is entertainment of the highest value, and of course a PROFOUND THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE! Check out the excerpt below if you don't believe me!

Estragon: I can't go on...

Vladimir: You must...

Estragon: Why?

Vladimir: I don't know... Because...

Estragon: Cause why?

Vladimir: Beats me... Because... Hold on, here comes Lucky! Maybe he has an answer!

Lucky: Hi ho! My cheerios are soggy! Walk the walk and talk the talk. Flames on horizon burn holes in socks...

Vladimir: See? What did I tell you? There's your answer!

Estragon: I can go on now! Thanks, Lucky!

Lucky: No problem, sport!

Estragon: Are you sure though?

I have but one thing to say: WOW! Sometimes, when I read this play or see it on the stage (which never fails to marvel me with its endlessly profound wit), I think how shallow my mind is when compared to the GREAT Samuel Beckett's. Do yourself a favor and buy this play, or at least go see a performance. If the above passage has failed to hook you in, then I would seriously question your LITERARY discernment.

This is the most stupid thing i have ever read! Nothing happens except for two idiots wait around for a person who is never coming (godot). Its supposed to be about existentialism or what not for those artsy people who want to find some deep inner meaning. I could care less. I would have rather read about paint drying!! Did you know the author won a Nobel Prize for this! What a load of crap! Its like those artists who literally throw paint onto a canvass, make up some stupid story about how man is evil and destroying the earth or something, and then get it put up in an art museum. The back says it is the "cornerstone of twentieth century theater". I don't think so. This just shows that people are stupid enough to like it because they are supposed to because some artsy critic said how it changed his life. Well I don't think so. I have gained absolutely nothing by reading this and gone one step closer to hating modern "art" (if you can call it that!)! So don't waste your money on this. Read something worth your while like harry potter or lord of the rings, (or if you really agree with me and want to read something that liberal politicians just loathe, you should read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton)

I'm not a big fan of existentialism to start out with, but I began this play expecting at least to find an interesting theme or philosophy concerning the nature of life and existence. This work, however, is pure tripe. Critical appraisal should not even be attempted for this drivel- it's akin to the random scribblings of a two-year old or a mud-splattered canvas. The drawing on the front cover has more artistic value than this play. In my mind, it doesn't merit serious consideration and analysis, because it is by nature pure absurdity and nonsense. Beckett sure accomplished his goal though- look how many reviewers commented on the "extremely difficult themes" and "brilliant artistry" of the play.