Rose Porfido
ENG 2850
Professor Peer
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
A tragicomedy is plainly defined as a story that blends the genres of comedy and of tragedy. This is a balance of positive and negative, of optimism and pessimism, it is a gray area. While Waiting for Godot does have its optimistic and pessimistic moments, it is not meant to be defined in terms of “good” and “bad”. I believe that Samuel Beckett wanted the reader to question something beyond good and bad; something in another gray area; their own reality. Waiting for Godot is not meant to have a positive or negative meaning or interpretation, or supposed to make the reader feel happy or sad for Didi and Gogo. It is meant to have the reader question and define reality.
There is a moment in the play when Vladimir questions what is real. Estragon and Vladimir can remember things that happened that Pozzo and the Boy cannot remember, but it seems that Vladimir is the only one who questions it. After they meet Pozzo and Lucky the first time, Didi and Gogo discuss how no one they meet ever recognizes them (39). Again, in act II, Pozzo doesn’t remember meeting the pair the day before and Vladimir seems surprised by this (79-80). He brings it up to Gogo and he seems a little confused, as if he didn’t give it much thought (80). Vladimir says “Was I sleeping, while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today” (81). It appears that Vladimir is aware of something strange going on in his world.
Estragon and Vladimir seem to be reliving the same day in both acts. It is unclear what kind of a reality they are living in and it is hinted that Vladimir may start to become aware of it. The author may be suggesting the readers to question their own reality. What was real to Vladimir and Estragon may not be real to us as readers, and what is real to us individually may not be real to someone else.
What makes this work so unique is that it is purposely meant to be vague so that it has no clear meaning. A clear setting was left out of this play, something that defines a big part of a story, as well as descriptions that may guide the reader as to how to visualize what is going on. It is so vague that the story itself is completely lacking- the story and the characters never get anywhere and there is no plot or storyline.
Waiting for Godot is entirely subjective. The way it is interpreted is based on the reader (or actor). Whether it is optimistic or pessimistic is to be determined by each reader and their own perspective and experience with it. Beckett’s intention was to keep this play open to interpretation. Beckett devised Waiting for Godot to be so unclear because he didn’t want to lead the reader to think a certain way or leave the reader with his biased perspective. He wants readers to create that for themselves.
What is Samuel Becket trying to say about the concept of reality? What is the point of writing a story that is totally subjective?
I can agree with you on that the play is meant to be vague and unclear. While I was reading the play, I had a strong feeling that the play is really pessimistic. However, when I came to the class and listened for other’s people comments, I realized that some people thought that it was an optimistic play. After hearing their arguments, I was convinced that this play could be also viewed as a optimistic play. However, I still had the strong feeling that it was pessimistic. This proves your statement, “Whether it is optimistic or pessimistic is to be determined by each reader and their own perspective and experience with it.” I agree that everyone determines the mood of the play bases on their experience and perspective.
From my point of view, this is the exact purpose why Samuel Becket wrote such a subjective play because he wanted his readers to have more freedom to interpret his play based on their perspectives. He wanted his readers to be more active and analytical to fulfill the huge gap in the context of the play with their own interpretations, rather that just following his ideas. He wanted to have people debating over his play with totally different opinions, while they all correct.