“Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play

Introduction
Martin Esslin wrote a book titled “Theatre of the Absurd” that was
published in year 1961. It dealt with the dramatists who belonged to a movement
called “Absurd Theater” though it was not regular. Samuel Beckett was one of
those dramatists who had largest contribution in “Absurd Theater”. His play
“Waiting for Godot” also belonged to the same category and was called absurd
play.

Absurd Theater
There was no regular movement regarding theater of absurd rather it was a
group of people who wrote plays without following the conventional rules. In
simple words, performance of plays that were written by group of unconventional
writers was called theater of absurd.

No clear definition of theater of absurd is available. However, Martin Esslin

provided an informal definition of absurd plays and “absurd theater” in following
words:

“If a good play must have a cleverly constructed story, these [plays of absurd]
have no story or plot to speak of; a good play is judged by subtlety of
characterization and motivation, these are often without recognizable characters
and present the audience with almost mechanical puppets; a good play has to
have a fully explained theme, which is neatly exposed and finally solved, these
often have neither a beginning nor an end; if a good play is to hold the mirror up
to nature and portray the manners and mannerisms of the age in finely observed
sketches, these seem often to be reflections of dreams and nightmares; if a good
play relies on witty repartee and pointed dialogue, these often consist of
incoherent babblings.”
Characteristics of Absurd Theater:
From the above said remarks it is crystal clear that absurd plays were
entirely different from traditional plays. These remarks provide us following
characteristics of absurd theater:

 No story or plot
 No characterization and motivation
 Neither a proper beginning nor ending
 Unexplained themes
 Imitation of dreams or nightmares instead of nature
 Useless dialogues

“Waiting for Godot” as an Absurd Play

“Waiting for Godot” fulfills every requirement of an absurd play. It has no
story, no characterization, no beginning nor any end, unexplained themes,
imitation of dreams and nightmares and above all it contains useless dialogues.

(1) No story or Plot

“Waiting for Godot” does not tell any story nor does it has a plot. The play
starts with waiting and ends with it. Characters do not go anywhere. They stand
still in front of audience and do nothing except passing the ball. They talk and
pass the time. The play lacks action. Actions of characters are not related to plot
but to themselves. Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot and audience perceive
that perhaps real story of the play will start after Godot’s arrival but Godot does
not appear on stage nor is he introduced to the audience. Eventually, play ends
with waiting. In this ways, “Waiting for Godot” fulfills first requirement of an
absurd play.
(2) Lack of Characterization
We don’t know past of the characters. They are not introduced to the
audience. We know only their names and their miserable situation. Their motifs
are unclear. Although it is explicit that they are waiting for Godot yet it is not told
to the audience that what purpose Godot will serve if he comes. Hence, lack of
characterization proves that “Waiting of Godot” is a play of absurd theater.

(3) No Beginning and End

It has no beginning nor has any end. It starts with a situation and ends with
it. Both the acts start and end in same way. For instance, when characters come
on stage they reveal their purpose. They say they are waiting but Godot does not
come and the act ends with waiting. Second act is also the copy of first act with
minor differences. The play goes on and eventually ends with wait. Hence, there
is no proper start of the play nor does it has a proper end. It is a journey from
nothingness to nothingness as observed by an eminent critics. It is a play in which
nothing happens twice “Nothing happens, nobody comes … nobody goes, it’s
awful!”. Fulfillment of this requirement also proves that “Waiting for Godot” is an
absurd play.

(4) Useless Dialogues

Most of the dialogues of this play serve no purpose. Incoherent babbling is
also important ingredient of theater of absurd as mentioned by Esslin. Whole play
is based on delivery of dialogues but most of them have no apparent meanings.
Every dialogue is full of symbols. Every word refers something in hidden meaning
but it lacks the interest of audience because it lacks action.

Dialogues create action in every play. Action loses its importance without worthy
dialogues. In case of “Waiting for Godot”, no action has been presented,
therefore, dialogues are boring and they are written just to pass the ball. Thus,
they are meant to pass the time. Word “nothing” has been repeated numerously
in the play. It actually indicates nothingness in it. Thus, dialogues of the play are
nothing but incoherent babbling. “Waiting for Godot” can be called an absurd
play due to this trait of absurd theater.

(5) Unexplained Themes

Unclear themes also make “Waiting for Godot” a play of absurd theater.
Audience do not observe any obvious theme in the play. Superiority of a play is
always dependent on its themes. “Waiting for Godot” has no obvious theme. If
there is any, it is hidden. Moreover, it presents individualistic vision of the writer.
There is an effect of alienation in the play with respect to themes.

(6) Imitation of Nightmares

This play does not hold the mirror up to nature. It does not portray the
manners and mannerisms of the ages. Esslin is true in his definition of theater of
absurd. This play “seem[s] often to be reflection of dreams and nightmares”.

Conclusion
At last but not the least, “Waiting for Godot” is entirely unconventional
play. Samuel Becket violated all dramatic conventions. Indeed, every ingredient of
theater of absurd has been fulfilled by him. Regardless of that this play is
successful. He wrote this play to break the rules of traditional dramatists.
“Waiting for Godot” completes every factor of theater of absurd, therefore, it can
successfully be called the play of absurd.

Compiled By Irfan Khan