Some ‘hows’ for the ‘whys’ in the character’s world.
Context determines action when words are superfluous
The characters look for answers in weird places. (delegation of responsibility)
In this play there is a reduced list of props and each of them has significance as it marks the action in counterpoint to dialogs. This, concords with the general thematics which serve as a critique to human hypocrisy.
—(characters might say what they mean but, inescapably, they do what they do)—
Vladimir brings up the faults of man as he says to Estragon:
” There’s man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet.” his claim is not erred. Nevertheless, the stage directions consecutively following this quote denote a repetition of his action; as previously stated by Becket.
“(He takes of his hat again, peers inside it, feels about it inside it, knocks on the crown, blows into it, puts it on again)
His constant inspection of the hat reinforces the idea of unreal expectations.
From an example later on in the story we can see the importance attached to hollow objects.
The hat image is resourceful.
“Pozzo: He can’t think without his hat.” (about Lucky)
The characters are affected by these objects as denoted by Lucky’s example: He can only speak when he’s got the hat on, and stops when the object has been withdrawn. The hat as the think-machine example pertains to, and is one of the foremost examples of, the absurd which mocks the states of affairs in reality and actuality. The use of images and metaphors is extensive in this practice.
Becket takes a hat, a man, human expectations, all of them, and assigns them roles which would not, normally, be considered normal; part of reality.
THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM REALITY.
I will not spend more time identifying this elements because it’s not my task to do that. I know that to say “how this play is different from reality” is part of the first group’s task but i needed to state some hows’ in order to explain the whys.
Thank you for indulging, and feel free to comment on this.