Structure

“Waiting for Godot” does not follow the congenital play structure. It has no action which is soul of a
tragedy (drama), therefore, it is entirely different from other plays.. Samuel Becket has proved Aristotle
wrong in many ways. He has proved that the concept viz. “there can be a tragedy without character but
not without action” has become old now. He has written a play without “a proper beginning, middle and
end”. Still his play is successful. Many critics have remained failed to answer the reason behind the
success of this novel.  The play has nothing in it yet it glues the audience to the chairs. It has gained much
success; even it has been translated and perfumed many countries. Its freshness can be felt even today.
Samuel Becket has violated the traditional rules of playwriting yet this play is successful and given him
fame. The play has no story, no plot, no characterization even then it is successful. Traditional writers
were used to write plays with good plots, strong characterization and good actions but “Waiting for
Godot” lacks all these necessary ingredients. It does not fulfill even a single requirement of traditional
dramatists. Samuel Becket experimented with theater and he became famous. Thus, in order to judge
“Waiting for Godot”, we have to consider view of critics and the interest of audience. It cannot be
adjudged on the basis of comparison technique; it is entirely a new concept, therefore, it cannot be
compared to any traditional play.

There is no exposition, development, reversal and denouncement in the play. Its structure is based on
repetition; both acts have similarity in many ways. Not only dialogues are repeated but actions are also
repeated; both acts end without any development. There are some similarities in both the acts. For
instance, in both the acts, Estragon feels problem with his feet and boots; he is beaten by strangers in both
acts; comic conversation involving carrots, radishes and turnips is available in both the acts; Vladimir has
problem with his urination in both the acts; they decide to commit suicide in both acts; three characters
come and go in act-I; similarly these three characters visit in act-ii of the play; their visit has been
repeated; both acts end with let’s go but none of them moves from his place. Thus, there is repetition
everywhere in the play, however, this repetition sometimes becomes ironical, which does not let the
audience leave their chairs. Undoubtedly, the play has repetition but this repetition has its unique
importance. It is interesting and compels the audience to watch the whole play. Moreover, there is a little
difference in every repetition; sometimes there is different in intensity of dialogue delivery; somewhere
there is difference in the actions; somewhere in words. Thus, these little changes always drift the
emotions of audience.

There are very less characters in the play but Samuel Bucket has created contrasting characters. Every
character is different to each other. Estragon and Vladimir although are dependent on each other yet they
are entirely different; there is difference in their thinking; one likes telling funny stories other find them
bore; one shows his sympathies with Lucky, others has fellow feeling for him. Similarly, Pozzo is entirely
dependent on Lucky but his is totally different from him; there social status is different; their philosophy
is different; their behavior is different. Hence, it is also an importance feature of the play “Waiting for
Godot” that it has contrasting characters. Vivian Mercier’s views are considerable. He has briefly defined
the structure of this play in following words:-

“a theatrical impossibility—a play in which nothing happens, that yet keeps audiences glued to their seats.
What’s more, since the second act is a subtly different reprise of the first, he has written a play in which
nothing happens twice.”
Similarly, there are some other views of critics regarding structure of this play. One critic says: this play
is “undramatic but highly theatrical”. He has also suggested it “not as undramatic but as a parody of the
drama”.