Category: CLOSED Longman Group Two- Why is it different?

by Adam B. Ferguson

In regards to the setting (a country road, a tree)

this description is very nondescript and unspecific.  It is quite ironic that they are supposed to meet Godot by the tree but have no specifications to which tree (what kind, where, etc.) By making the setting description so general and nonspecific it plays into the overall tone of the play and the dejavu feeling.

ESTRAGON:
We came here yesterday.
VLADIMIR:
Ah no, there you’re mistaken.
ESTRAGON:
What did we do yesterday?
VLADIMIR:
What did we do yesterday?
ESTRAGON:
Yes.
VLADIMIR:
Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you’re about.
ESTRAGON:
In my opinion we were here.
VLADIMIR:
(looking round). You recognize the place?
ESTRAGON:
I didn’t say that.
VLADIMIR:
Well?
ESTRAGON:
That makes no difference.
VLADIMIR:
All the same . . . that tree . . . (turning towards auditorium) that bog . . .It is clear that neither Vladimir or Estragon truly knows what is going on or fully understand where they are or supposed to be.  However, their discussion about the tree itself is quite fascinating.  According to Paul’s comments on the symbol of the tree earlier a tree usually pertains to life and continuous growth and change unless affected by a foreign force. Each character tries to identify the tree where they are waiting for Godot, however, with each  description or identification the image begins to change and completely evolve until finally they believe they may be in the wrong place.

VLADIMIR:
He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?
ESTRAGON:
What is it?
VLADIMIR:
I don’t know. A willow.
ESTRAGON:
Where are the leaves?

VLADIMIR:
It must be dead.
ESTRAGON:
No more weeping.
VLADIMIR:
Or perhaps it’s not the season.
ESTRAGON:
Looks to me more like a bush.
VLADIMIR:
A shrub.
ESTRAGON:
A bush.
VLADIMIR:
A€”. What are you insinuating? That we’ve come to the wrong place?
ESTRAGON:
He should be here.

Much like the growing and changing of an actual tree, their conversation does the same from tree, to weeping willow, to a tree without leaves (no longer having to weep), to a shrub, to a bush.  A tree starts as a single, tiny seed which once planted begins to grow and flourish until it becomes a completely different being from that of the single seed.  The tree then produces seeds which start the entire process over again.  This talk of the tree and the changing description of it keeps the conversation moving forward as it grows and flourishes to become a completely separate entity.   It moves the conversation from simply talking about what kind of tree it is and its many changing aspects to the question at heart – are they in the right spot as they continue to wait for Godot?

What does the nondescript tree in this play represent, and why is this different from reality? Had Godot really been trying to meet our two men, would he have not been more clear about the tree where he wanted to meet them? Perhaps this is the only tree in this world, and it is important enough that everyone knows it:

VLADIMIR:

He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?

Trees are somewhat eternal in nature, they continue to grow until they are obstructed by either man, weather, or another tree. Trees are interesting because damage which is inflicted upon them remains a constant scar for their entire existence, even if converted to lumber, they become stronger as time passes but do not lose their history. Beckett’s tree is one which might provide shade to the men below in the same way that a forest canopy shelters the plant and animal life below.

VLADIMIR:

From a bough? (They go towards the tree.) I wouldn’t trust it.

Here, the tree takes on its own personality, it becomes a character in the play. A character which could have provided an ending to the saga, but instead is left alone to continue its eternal existence, life for a tree has no meaning.

by Paul Kappel

The play’s major characters Estragon and Vladmir are certainly not characters renowned for their lengthy and wordy conversations, a number of their discussions spanning less than just a few lines:

VLADIMIR:

Did you ever read the Bible?

ESTRAGON:

The Bible . . . (He reflects.) I must have taken a look at it.

VLADIMIR:

Do you remember the Gospels?

ESTRAGON:

I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. That’s where we’ll go, I used to say, that’s where we’ll go for our honeymoon. We’ll swim. We’ll be happy.

A major reason for this is Becketts clear disregard for the details of life. Our two men are in a state of purgatory while waiting for Godot, being forced to make small talk in order to pass the endless amount of time which is passing. Conversations which are described as being “curt” are generally a good symbol of people who might not be the greatest of friends or who are simply bored with eachother’s company. All that needs to be said has been said.

By Eric Houdek

As Erica has stated, Waiting for Godot is different from reality due to short term memory lapses by the characters, the concept that time is skewed, and the day is repeated.  I think all of these propsitions tie together.  By presenting the concept that time is skewed by presenting repeating days and unreliable memories, Beckett makes it clear that the specifics of the play are not important.  If they were, the audience would have a clear understanding of exactly when and where the play takes place.  However, by making time and events unreliable, it becomes apparent that this play is universal.  It can be occurring anywhere and at anytime, and it applies to all of mankind. 

By Eric Houdek

As Erica had mentioned, in Waiting For Godot, Pozzo becomes blind in one night and helpless in one night.  Because Waiting for Godot does not operate on a linear time scale, the one night is irrelevant.  Although it may attract the audience because it has happened so “suddenly,” one night could be as little as one night or as long as one’s lifetime.  As Pozzo enters the play, he is indeed somewhat of a powerful man, construed to be much more well off than Lucky.  However, regardless of his fortune and power, Pozzo eventually ends up helpless and blind.  Perhaps Pozzo’s helpless condition represents man’s mortality.  Man eventually will die, whether it be at an old or young age.  Pozzo’s blindness could very well represent man’s inability to comprehend life.  Maybe Beckett is suggesting that regardless of one’s life experience, man will never truly understand what life is about. 

By Eric Houdek

As Erica had stated, Waiting for Godot is different from reality because the characters from within have short term memory lapses.  Thus, the characters are not the most reliable and do not really have an idea about what is going on.  Through using short term memory, the whole premise of the stoy becomes ambiguous, perhaps extending the story to all of mankind.  While the short term memory displayed by the characters leaves the characters as appearing feeble minded and having no chance of understanding of the things going on around them, perhaps Beckett is suggesting that mankind is too feeble minded to understand the reasons for its own existence.

By Eric Houdek

As Alejandro and Mary Beth have stated, Waiting For Godot is different from reality because there is immense ambiguity in the perception of time.  I feel that Beckett has presented this ambiguity for a number of reasons.  First, the inibility of the characters to grasp the true concept of time helps to invoke a sense of hopelessness and cluelessness upon the audience.  When looking at the title, the concept of time is expressed in the word waiting.  The characters spend all of their time waiting for Godot, which turns out to be fruitless.  Perhaps because the audience cannot identify the time that is parallell with the play, Waiting For Godot suggests that the hopeless struggle presented in the play applies to man as a whole.