Category: Uncategorized

(3) Lucky treated as a dog/slave on a leash.

Well, this is different from reality in the way that law forbids slavery. Also, the norms by which society abides, or claims to function by, are against a practice of the sort.

Moreover, this character’s leashing indicates his position in terms of power relations to the rest.

Subjugated by Pozzo, Lucky’s ‘automatization’ is clearly another factor that makes the play different from reality. It does so by exposing the extension of Lucky’s lack of self determination. His dependence to act on command make him an ‘automat’. Then, when he is left to his own device, as proof of what has been previously stated, he rambles nonsense.

In conclusion, life in in this limbo-like world degenerates character.

About that hanging…

Hey Eric–

I think you picked out a great piece here.

The fact that the characters casually contemplate suicide also puts the audience’s attention in the moment. At this point, it is really possible that anything could happen. During the play, it is difficult to avoid thinking about the sum of the play while the action is in progress. The sum of the play’s action cannot be assessed until every moment has concluded. Rather than focusing on the the “result” before the play has ended, the audience is forced to focus on the individual moments because they cannot predict when the play will end.

Remix of my first post…

Geoffrey McQuilkin 

          After careful considerations and rereading the play and seeing that my teammates disagree with my position, I may have had a change of heart about what the meaning of the play is.  Maybe the play is critique of passivity.   I know that directly contradicts my last post but so be it.  Perhaps Beckett wanted to call the audience to action by showing the petty non-occurrences that accompany a passive life style.

 "Let us do something, while we have the chance€¦Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!" 

          It is possible that Beckett wants to motivate the audience to do something meaningful with their lives by showing them two acts of life that is limitless in potential, yet absurdly monotonous.  Perhaps the fact that Pozzo and Lucky go blind and dumb (respectively) in Act II is meant to serve as a reminder of how precious the gift of life is and how we should never waste it in petty conflicts and hollow repetition.  Carpe Diem indeed!

Sam B.- How is it different pt. 1

Time-  The perception the characters have of time in the play is skewed.  Often they mistake a passage of time to be much longer than it actually was, or much shorter.  The audience, however, can only guess at these things however, because questions of time are never answered.

 

Repetition of spoken words-  Very often the characters repeat lines or words over and over again.  This is different from reality.  It seems as though they are doing it to derive some reason out of what they are saying.

 

Motivation of those Waiting-  As the watcher of the play observes, there is really no reason for the two men to keep coming back to the tree each day.  The amount of time is insignificant, we are meant to understand that they will keep coming back forever.

 

Importance of Situations-  The gravity of many situations is skewed.  Why don't the two men help Pozzo up immediately?  Their casual conversation as he is begging for help is definitely different from reality.

 

Food-  All that remains for the men to eat are carrots, turnips, radishes, and bones.  I fond it interesting that the first three are almost like what one would feed a horse, such as the one Lucky is trying to be.

 

Treatment of Servant-  One of the most noticeable differences from reality is in the treatment of Lucky.  What is the purpose of treating him like a beast of burden?

 

Circular Path of Reasoning-  There are never conclusions in the play, only discussions.  These discussions become arguments until Vladimir and Estragon get distracted or just drop the subject.

 

Longing for Death-  Certainly in reality men do not seriously discuss how unhappy they are or how they would love to hang themselves if they only had the means. 

 

Quickness of Changes that Normally take a Long Time

            Tree- In one day has grown full leaves

            Blindness-  In one day Pozzo has gone blind

What is the Play about? (I think I hit this one out of the park)

Geoffrey McQuilkin

          While reading Waiting for Godot, I was "waiting" for a climax or crux moment that would give me a better understanding of the play and facilitate the process of answering the first questions in the Longman analysis.  I waited and waited.  The leaves on the trees changed color and fell from their limbs as seasons came and went, but the plot never came.  In the winter of 2008, when the snow was gently falling on a brisk evening at the University of Richmond and I was warm in my dormitory, I began to uncover what Samuel Beckett had left for me to discover on my own.  Pondering the day's events in my head, it became clear that Waiting for Godot was a social commentary on the repetitive nature of the human experience.  The way that Beckett repeats the actions of Act I in Act II (with some inconsequential changes) is a metaphor for the monotony of our everyday lives.  Human lives consist of a myriad of repetitions of a daily routine that is essentially meaningless.

            The play builds towards a climax that never comes.  Godot never arrives and there is no reason to believe that he would if Beckett had added a third act.  It seems as though the entire play (and perhaps life sadly enough) is about wasting time.  The main characters find themselves "Waiting for…waiting" (50).  It is not a stretch to imagine that GODot represents God or death and the title of the play implies the futility of life.  Beckett seems to imply that life is meaningless as it consists of distracting ourselves with various tasks (and tensions) as we wait to die. Estrogen and Vladimir are the protagonists in the play, yet they both serve as representatives of mankind.  Beckett uses Vladimir to point out how man strives to find meaning in his existence in vein.  One could say that Vladimir is meant to point out the absurdity of religion in this sense.  However, to assign a meaning to anything or any character in this play would be considered an absurdity by Becket as the play is about meaninglessness.  The analysis for "what is this play about" should be left as a blank space in a tribute to meaninglessness.  But that would be too deep for most audiences.

            And just a side note: the word "Meaninglessness" contains far too many letters for what the word actually means.  It should be a one or two letter word or an invisible word such as            .  Thinking about what the meaningless play is about is hurting my brain and I apologize if what I wrote was ridiculous.  I am only human so it doesn't matter anyway (according to Beckett of course, I love blog posting). I suppose this blog post is just one more repetition in the endless cycle of pointless waiting.  And that is what the play is about.  

-GODOT IN WONDERLAND

BY ALEJANDRO

Anything can gain meaning in a place where things are not clearly defined and superficiality, slave to perception, reigns. When superficiality is not only upfront but is the core of everything…

Thus, a projection of someone becomes the dominant force. ‘God-ot’, through a perspective from inside the play , seems to be pulling the strings. This is different from reality in the sense that, normally, people would not be dependent of another person. Specially, this does not happen in a circumstance where the person awaited is a total stranger.

The clockwork of this play makes the audience ask itself what has Godot promised. Since this character is absent the entire time, but his omnipresence manifests through every action, or the lack of them there of, it acquires a God-like importance.

Deliberately, Becket’s minimalistic construct allows the different concepts -like time, space, setting, characters, the moon, twilight- to gain evocative and interpretative dimension; a tangible one as denoted by the reach of this piece.

Universality bursts out through imagery with the potential to extend as far as the audience capabilities to contrast, or relate to the concept, permit it.

Why is it Different From Reality?-Names-Godot

By Eric Houdek 

Perhaps Beckett presents such the unique name of Godot to help make symbolism within the play clear.  If the last two letters are taken away from the word Godot, the word God is formed.  There are also biblical references made throughout the play.  A unique name grabs the attention of the audience, perhaps making it easier to be drawn to this symbolism.

How is it different from reality-setting?

By Eric Houdek 

The setting within Waiting For Godot greatly differs from reality.  Throughout the whole period of the play, whose exact lapse of time is unknown to the audience, the characters stay within a small area, never leaving the same spot.  The characters all of opportunities to leave, if even for just a little while, but they still stay in the same place. 

Different from actuality

Actuality

Better Memory

-We know what we did yesterday

-We know what day of the week it is

-We would know if we went to the same place two days in a row

-We don’t talk about hanging ourselves in a careless manner

-We don’t find people treated like a horse (Pozzo and Lucky) or have slaves.

-We don’t sell people at fairs (unlike Pozzo and Lucky)

-We would notice (unlike Estragon) if someone was being treated cruelly. Estragon prefers to chew his bones.

-We tend to speak with sentences that are more descriptive, pertinent, and meaningful.

-We don’t listen to people think for entertainment (I don’t at least…)