Author: logan turner

What it’s all about: the human relationship with God (or fate)

by Logan Turner 

It’s all in the name, as well as the description/action.

Aside from the Godot/God name connection, Godot is also referred to look similarly to standard images of God (long white beard), have had the same ‘profession’ as God (both were shepherds), and like God, Godot seemed to have supremacy over all characters in the play (as God does over all things, because He is a supreme being).  Also, it is said that Godot has all the answers to unasked questions (they don’t remember the question they asked him, or even if they did, yet both Estragon and Vladimir feel like Godot has an answer for them).  And in information that one of the messenger boys gives (about being nice to his goatherd and beating his flock of sheep), it shows that Godot is selective in his punishments and rewards, like God himself was.

All of this, and Estragon and Vladimir’s knowledge of Godot show that man will never have a relationship or understanding with God and His ways (because neither of them can grasp anything about Godot, even from either of the messenger boys.  And that which they do glean is not significant enough to make any deductions about the man).  As a species we don’t grasp what we need to, to comprehend a supreme being.

Now, I also don’t believe that this is the ONLY thing that the play is about.  It’s merely one more idea to add to those of my counterparts.  And I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with Geoffrey about how the play is about how monotonous human life can be.  I think that Amy’s idea of live vs death may be a stretch and a twisting of words, but I like her other ideas.

The First Reading

The First Reading of Waiting for Godot

by Logan Turner

Question 1 – There is no climax where the tension snaps.  This play is merely two renditions of the same scene, and while things happen during this scene, there is not one large climax; ultimately both end in similar ways.  If I had to pick a moment of climax, it would be Estragon and Vladimir’s decision to actually hang themselves, and the decision to use a more suitable object (the rope) if Godot does not come on the third day.

Question 2 – The two sides of the tension that snapped were Godot not showing up on the second day, and whether or not the two tramps would decide to actually carry out their next suicide plan.

Question 3 – It has worked throughout the play because everyone, the audience included, has been wondering who Godot is and whether or not he will actually show up (after Act I), and wondering on if the tramps will actually end their miserable lives.

Question 4 & 5 – I think that the point in the play that the driving force emerged was when Estragon and Vladimir first arrive at the tree and know that they are there for a reason, and are waiting for a man named Godot, and NOTHING else.  The fact that they know so little about their own situation acts as the driving force.  This driving force, is in turn, resisted by two things.  One, the fact that no one knows if/when Godot will actually come (especially after Act I), or if he really exists!  And two, whether or not they will actually commit suicide, because if they do they will never gain any more knowledge of their situation.

Question 6 – Yes, the climax moments in the individual scenes are very important to the overall tension of the play.  Because each scene ends in almost exactly the same way, the audience is left wondering if they are ever going to see any kind of significant changes between acts.  This adds to the steady rise and fall of tension throughout the play, and never really peaking past a certain point (and if extrapolated through more Acts would probably stay the same).

Question 7 – Yes, the protagonists of this play are Estragon and Vladimir, equally.  They play main roles in causing the audience to think about their situation in two distinct ways: Estragon says things and acts in ways that make you think about the physical world (surroundings, feelings, sounds, etc.); Vladimir says things and acts in ways that make you think about the more emotional side of things (what the world is like, how bad life is, etc.), things that are less personal.

Question 8 – There is not a whole lot of context in this play to cause tension, because there is little information and therefore little context.  But, a few things that seem to cause tension are: the fact the neither the characters nor the audience can ever see any events or receive any information about the world beyond the setting where this play takes place (a road/a tree); and the fact that the audience does not have any background information (context) about the characters or their situation.

Question 9 – The nature of the audience’s involvement, is to get bored.  And I mean this in the best way possible, because if they get bored, the get Beckett’s point that life can be very boring and repetitive.

Question 10 – The play opens on what seems like a country road, but is also somewhat bizarre.  There is a tree on the side of the road, but otherwise the landscape is barren and wasted.  We see Estragon sitting on the ground…

Question 11 – In terms of emotional involvement, I don’t think we are asked very much.  And this is because you need to not have emotional involvement to understand what Beckett is trying to say about everyday life being so monotonous.  We should develop an interest for the characters, but it is never enough to actually care that much about what happens to them, but merely just to see it actually happen, just so we know.  I think that the level of Critical Assessment required is much higher than that of emotional involvement.  The audience must critically assess everything in this play because there are so few things (people/places/significant actions).  This play is about subtle changes not really being changes at all, so the audience must pay close attention to see these things and figure out what they mean.

Question 12 – Why did Beckett not write one or two more scenes?

Implications of backwards analysis

One other question that none of us in group one has yet addressed, that we still need to, is “what are the implications of doing the backwards analysis of the action?”

Simply put, this is a way to better understand the cause and effect relationships between the actions of the play.  For example when doing this analysis straight from the beginning to the end, as we learned in class, one action can lead to many sub-actions, therefore creating a potentially monsterously confusing tree of actions.  When working from the back to the front however, when you pick an action, there is ONLY ONE other action that could have caused this to occur and therefore it is much easier to find the single cause than it is to find multiple effects.

Without doing the analysis backwards, some actions could be missed entirely if one action has four or more sub-actions branching from it, so it is also more thourough to do the analysis from back to front.

— Logan

Act I & Act IV (Scenes 1-3)

hey guys, sorry it took me so long to post that part that I got assigned, but I got alex’s email really late last night.  Anyway, here is the breakdown of Act I and the parts of Act IV that hadn’t been done yet. — Logan

Act IV, Scene III

Lucio is saddened by the death of Claudio and tells the disguised Duke that if Angelo were not in power and the real Duke was there, Claudio would not have been killed because the Duke himself is a sort of womanizer.

The Duke gives Isabella a letter for Friar Peter

The disguised Duke tells her that she should meet with the Duke (himself) the next day to inform the Duke of Angelo’s treachery

The disguised Duke falsely tells Isabella that Claudio has been killed

The Provost agrees

The Duke asks the Provost to take Ragozine’s head to Angelo, in place of Claudio’s

The Provost tells the Duke of the death of the pirate Ragozine, who has a close resemblance to Claudio

The disguised Duke enters and talks to Barnardine, but cannot change his mind

Barnardine is drunk before his execution and refuses to pray, therefore the execution cannot happen yet

Act IV, Scene II

The Provost agrees

The disguised Duke approaches the Provost, showing his royal seal, and tells him that Barnardine is to be executed first, in the morning, and that he should make the severed head look like Claudio when it is presented to Angelo

The Provost receives a letter from Angelo saying that Claudio MUST be executed in the morning so that the execution of Barnardine can take place in the afternoon

The Provost asks Pompey to assist the executioner in his preparations for Claudio’s execution

Act IV, Scene I

The Duke (disguised as a friar), urges Mariana to accept because she has already entered into a marriage contract with Angelo, and her actions are therefore just

Isabella tells of Angelo’s proposition to her, and that Mariana should take her place in Angelo’s bed

Isabella arrives at Mariana’s home to inform the disguised Duke of her meeting with Angelo

Act I, Scene IV

Isabella determines to talk to Angelo and to do her best to get the deputy to be merciful to her brother

Lucio explains to her how women always have a degree of power over men, simply because of their sexuality

Isabella doesn’t think that she has enough power to influence the decision

Lucio tells Isabella about Claudio’s plight and how he is to be put to death in three days

Lucio visits St. Clare, where the nuns live, and meets Isabella

Act I, Scene III

The Duke and Friar Thomas discuss the Duke’s plan and disguise him as a friar to spy on Angelo

The Duke admits his faults as a ruler, and therefore explains to Friar Thomas his choice of Angelo as deputy

The Duke does not travel far and stays in a monastery near Vienna

Act I, Scene II

Claudio asks Lucio to inform his sister, Isabella, of what has happened so that she can make an appeal to the governor

Claudio states that he intended to marry Juliet, but was arrested before he could do so

Lucio goes to the prison to visit Claudio and hear his side of the story

Lucio talks to Mrs. Overdone and learns that Claudio was sent to prison for impregnating Juliet out of wedlock, and that Claudio is to be beheaded in three days

Act I, Scene I

The Duke informs Angelo of his decision and leaves the city soon thereafter

Escalus approves of the choice
The Duke confides in his trusted friend Escalus, and asks if he made the right decision

The Duke appoints Angelo as his Deputy, in his absence

The Duke wishes to escape from being in power and having to make decisions

Hodge Character Analysis

by Logan Turner

Name Desire Will Moral Stance Decorum Adjectives
Willy To live the American Dream, be well liked, attractive, and a good family provider. STRONG: Willy blinds himself for the entire play with his delusions, and will not give in to anyone, even going so far as to kill himself for his son. He is willing to sacrifice everything. Lives by the moral code of others. He follows the morals of Dave Singleman, and aspires to be exactly like him. He has a huge sense of duty to his family. Thinks that appearance is very important. He also wants to be well liked. Plain suits (ie: average traveling salesman), blue collar, aged Naïve, determined, caring, hopeful, wishful, driven, disillusioned, blinded, stubborn, childish, older, worn down.
Linda To be a good wife and mother. MEDIUM: She is extremely supportive of Willy, especially to his sons, but her desire is so simple, that she does not need much will to accomplish it. Duty to husband and family. Sacrificial. Dresses like a housewife. Always in the kitchen. Downtrodden, miserable, devoted, liar, housewife, dutiful, loyal.
Biff The American Dream, to be well liked and successful. Starts MEDIUM, then becomes STRONGER at end of play: initially believed everything his father told him about how to be successful, but when these things don't work out, Biff realizes his father's errors and changes his own ways and starts to become a happier person because of it. Follows ALL of Willy's values, and has not developed any of his own. Moral stance is more apt to change than Willy though, because Biff realizes how blinded they are. Attractive, strong, broad-shouldered, living in Willy's shadow. Failure, attractive, athletic, stupid, thief, disillusioned, hopeful, caring, eldest.
Happy He wants his father, Willy, to approve of him, and to be equal to Biff in Willy's eyes. WEAK: Happy has a weak will because he wants to be very different from his farther, but is so blinded by his father's ideals and philosophies that he, himself does not even realize it. He aspires to be nothing like his father, because he recognizes Willy's failures, but in the end cannot escape the family ties. Rejects his father's ways and everything to do with him, tries to live life differently. Unattractive, overweight. Youngest, somewhat responsible, a player, blinded, well-built, ambitious, self-centred, vain, hedonistic.
Charley The American Dream, to be successful and respected, but he does so in a very different way from Willy. STRONG: Charley knows who he is, where he comes from, and what he wants€¦ and he doesn't care what others think of him. He knows his place in the world and will not let anyone else sway that. He tries to help Willy realize his delusions. Businesslike dress, nicer suits that Willy, confident. Practical, not superficial, friendly, caring, successful, practical, ethical.

Thought (Idea) Summary

I’m hoping that this is the sort of summary that you were looking for Walter… Amy and I were a little bit unclear when we were emailing each other about it last night, but I’m being very brief because all of the needed supporting information can be found in either of our posts.

 1. Things stated by the characters in plain words: Feminist Ideas/Unjust Gender Roles, Burning Desire for Revenge/Struggle for Power.

2. From the action; not the interpretation: All of the aforementioned ideas can be found directly in the text, explictly stated in one fashion or another (see our actual posts for supporting information)

3. The themes of Medea are very similar to those of Euripides other major plays.  There is much supporting information, from other author’s, in Amy’s second post to back up this claim.

Additional Thought (Idea) – The Desire for Revenge

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Amy has thus far said about the idea of gender roles in Medea, but there are a few other thoughts/ideas that recur throughout the play as well:

 Another main thought/idea of Medea is that of the ‘torn nuclear family.’  This all begins right at the beginning of the play, in the first 16 lines, when Jason decides to abandon Medea and his first two children to remarry Glauce.  Ultimately this decision comes down to a quest for power by Jason, and this becomes more evident as the play goes on.  This thought is Euripides comment on how he thinks people often act in Greek society.

 Another prevalent thought that goes hand-in-hand with the familial problems is that of how to handle revenge.  Early on in the play, the Nurse becomes afraid of Medea and her thirst for revenge against Jason, because it is becoming all consuming.  Medea even discusses wanting to go so far as to hurt her own children just so that she can get back at Jason for the pain he has caused her.  Euripides wants to show the idea that someone going through intense emotional stress doesn’t just turn against the cause, but rather against the entire world around them (evidenced in lines 95-96, and 110-114).  Under normal circumstances, any loving mother, no matter how angry, would never want to hurt her own children for an act of revenge.

This line of thought continues in lines 659-660 as the Chorus curses men for unlocking female desire and then “disowning” it.  Which shows that a person’s anger for revenge affects even other people and has them thinking ill thoughts about others (ie: Medea desiring revenge on Jason so badly that some of that anger rubs off on the Chorus until they too begin to dislike men, more).

In lines 796-797 Euripides shows just how strong and overwhelming the desire for revenge can be to a person.  Medea is quoted as saying, “Yes, I can endure guilt, however horrible; the laughter of my enemies I will not endure.”  At this point, her desire for revenge on Jason is so intense that she sees nothing but her ultimate goal.  Medea is so blinded by her desire for revenge that nothing else in her world takes precedence over that thought.  And, it is also known that it is a conscious decision by Medea to feel this way, because she says that she “will not endure.”  Had she said “can not endure,” it would mean that she had no choice, but the use of ‘will’ means that she is making the decision to deal with the guilt about killing her own children if it serves her ultimate goal.

Another place where Medea almost openly admits to giving in to her desire for revenge is in line 1076, where she says “Anger, the spring of all life’s horror, masters my resolve.”  This is the point where Medea has completely given herself to her desires for revenge.  In line 1053 Medea even goes so far as to call her own children a “sacrifice.”

All of these thoughts/ideas stem directly from things that Medea herself says to different other characters in the play.  Euripides is not 100% clear about his personal thoughts on the desire for revenge, but I think that he feels that revenge is something that is dealt with on a day to day basis in Greek society, for a multitude of reasons, but the struggle for power would be the most prominent.  The thought/idea of a burning desire for revenge takes a back seat to Euripides thoughts/ideas on feminism (Medea’s main focal point), but none-the-less is still a prominent idea within the play, and worth considering because it still has much relevance today.