The Theatre of the Absurd

In 1950s Europe sees the rise of a new kind of innovative unconventional modern plays which
later on were categorized as belonging to The Theatre of The Absurd. This type of theatre was
defined and clarified by British-Hungarian critic and dramatist Martin Esslin, in his book Theatre
of The Absurd in 1961.

Absurdity is a term that refers to the contradiction between man’s desire to find meaning in his
existence and the truth of life which is considered to be meaningless. Albert Camus, the French
philosopher described absurdity of human life as; ‘The conflict between the human tendency
to seek inherent value and meaning and the human inability to find any in a purposeless,
meaningless and irrational universe.’

Albert Camus believes that life has no meaning and that nothing exists could be a source of
meaning. I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know I
cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. [The myth of
Sisyphus].

And it is on this philosophy that Beckett created his famous play ‘Waiting for Godot’. Jon
Erickson in his article states that ¨Beckett´s Waiting for Godot is a play about basic striving for
meaning in a world in which meaning is not forthcoming¨ (258).

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.”
Martin Esslin on absurd plays
This genre is the revolution against religion and tradition. It produces the themes and questions
examined by Existentialism. Theater of the Absurd examines the absurdity in human life by
exploiting meaningless repetitious dialogue, plots which are lack of reality, purposeless and
confused setting, puppet-like characters. It is an exploration of the human conditions such as
human anxiety, misery, ordeal, anguish, hopelessness in the face of a sleeping universe

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 end
• 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 and meaningless actions. Roby Cohn, an
American theater scholar and a leading authority on playwright Samuel Beckett, looks upon
‘Waiting for Godot’ as one of the masterpieces of Absurdist Literature.

The setting of “Waiting for Godot” constitutes an absurdist atmosphere. The setting of the play
consists of a barren country road, a lifeless tree, and a ditch constituting the desolate, unearthly
countryside. Such a setting of the play reminds us of the condition of the world after the two
world wars as the world wars caused anxieties, confusion, hopelessness, and new problems to
all of humankind.

Absurdity in the life of characters

The Absurd theatre delt with a deeper layer of absurdity--- the absurdity of the human condition
itself in a world where the decline of religious belief has deprived man of certainties. Like the
waiting between birth and death in Gelber’s plays, Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’, is also about
an absurd wait. According to Martin Esslin, the Theatre of Absurd projected a situation where it
was “no longer possible to accept simple and complete systems of values and revelations of
divine purpose.” Life was projected to face its “ultimate stark reality.” What the existential
philosopher Kierkegaard believed that “we are thrown into existence here and there”, is
reflected in the theatre of absurd. And Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot’ reveals this stark reality of
human existence through the characters of the two tramps. they surrender themselves to the
‘absurd waiting’ for Godot. Often they grow tedious of the wait and decide to go but they fail as
they say:

Estragon: - I’m tired! Let’s go. Vladimir:- We can’t Estragon:- why not Vladimir:- We are waiting
for Godot. (Act 1 )

The main characters’ lives are meaningless, and they live an absurd life by trying to confront the
meaninglessness of it by passing time through meaningless activities and useless dialogues.

Confronting the Meaninglessness of Life in Waiting for Godot

Camus suggests various ways by which one can confront the meaninglessness of life. [from other
notes. Albert Camus]

The Absurdity of the Main Characters’ Language and Action

One of the things that makes the play absurd is the fact that the language and the dialogues
between the characters do not always make sense and do not always match their deeds, for
instance, at the end of both acts, Vladimir and Estragon say that they are going to leave, but do
not move.

VLADIMIR: Well Shall We Go?

ESTRAGON: Yes Let’s Go. (But they do not move.)

they change the dialogues, but they do not take proper decisions. This shows the absurdity of
human life, especially modern human beings. “Nothing happens twice”, comments Vivian
Mercier, an Irish Critic. What Beckett wants to convey through this play is nothing happens –
and in real life too nothing happens.

Esslin mentions that absurd plays, such as Waiting for Godot, “Neither have a beginning, nor
an end” (xvii) and he explains that language is no longer a tool of communication (45). Which
is exactly what it appears in the play. It seems as if the two acts are taken as a sample of a
lifetime and therefore, it is unknown how this waiting process started and how it will end.
Moreover, the characters converse using cliches that do not seem to make sense. Look for
instance at the part in act one, in which they say: Estragon: Pale for weariness. Vladimir: Eh?
Estragon: Of climbing heaven and gazing on the likes of us. (48) Exchanges of words like these
and many others make some of the dialogues of the play ambiguous and confusing.

‘Conclusion

To conclude we can say that Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” consists of all the
characteristics of an absurd drama. Meaningless, senseless, illogicality, and ignorance which
surrounded humankind following the world wars and created an absurd existence, is
represented by Samuel Beckett in “Waiting for Godot”;

Existentialist play
Existentialism focuses on concrete human being or “existence”. An important feature of
atheistic existentialism is the argument that existence precedes essence for it is held that man
fashions his own existence and only exists by so doing, and, in that process, and by the choice
of what he does or does not do, gives essence to that existence.
In concise words, existentialism is theory that believes “man is what he does”.
Existentialism in “Waiting for Godot:
“Waiting for Godot” is an existentialist play for it embodies Christian existentialism. Christian
existentialism stress the idea that: I God only, man may find freedom for tension. The word
“Existentialism” stands for one’s “awareness” of one’s “beingness”. It stands for a vital
principal of life. “Waiting for Godot” resembles the existentialist literature because it deals not
only with existence or identity but also with the momentary and the internal time. The time
mentioned in “Waiting for Godot” is related to man’s mental condition. For instance, the
major problem for the tramps is to make time pass in such a way that they are least bothered
by it. Vladimir and Estragon constantly complain of the slowness of time passing and do their
best to hurry it with their futile diversions.
“Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful.”
Estragon- Waiting for Godot
But we know that outside the natural time, its consequences flow on. For example, the tree
has grown five or six leaves. Pozzo has grown blind and Lucky dumb. Here Estragon remarks:
They all change, only we not.
It should be noted that waiting the natural course of time, they think they would relieve
themselves from all of their problems without doing any effort. They might die naturally and
save the effort of hanging themselves. There is a distinction between the momentary and
eternal time for it deals with the question of existence and identity. This difference can also be
seen in this play.
 In “Waiting for Godot” physical time is sometimes taken seriously and sometimes it is
ridiculed or condemned. Estragon once succeeds in confusing Vladimir about the passage of
time as well as about the day of week.
Doubts about time make the tramps doubtful about their existence and identity. One tramp
claims to be of the part, it is doubted by the other. Their own identity and existence in time is
also questionable. One day seems to have elapsed between the first act and the second, yet it
becomes extremely difficult to differentiate this day with the previous by any important
physical evidence.
The fact that Vladimir and Estragon do nothing except be and exist, highlight existential
themes. The two wait for Godot, instead of searching him out, and, though they want to leave,
they never do. By the end of the play, one gets the feeling that the two will remain in that
strange place forever, waiting for a man who will never come: “Vladimir: ‘Well? Shall we go?’
Estragon: Estragon: ‘Yes, let’s go.’ They do not move.”
”
Existentialism manifests itself in Waiting for Godot through its motifs of despair, absurdity,
alienation, and boredom.
One of the most prevalent themes is that of loneliness as a consequence of godlessness. In a
blank futile universe devoid of purpose, design or care – represented by the featureless
Beckettian landscape, human beings are alone, and condemned to be free. Afraid of this
isolation Estragon and Vladimir cling together despite their quarrels, and Pozzo and Lucky do
not untie themselves. This futility leads to another characteristic of existentialism: despair.
Since there is no preset will, Existentialism preaches the individual freedom of choice.
Estragon and Vladimir have made the choice of waiting, without any instruction as Vladimir
says that Godot “didn’t say for sure he’d come”. Yet they wait to know exactly how they
stand. The boredom of waiting prompts them to ponder over their identity, as inactivity leads
the individual to think. Estragon remarks: “We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the
impression that we exist? It is learnt that man needs a rational basis for existence but fails to
find one, making his life no better than a wasted passion. The two tramps, Estragon and
Vladimir vainly attempt to put order in their lives by waiting for Godot who never arrives, and
reiterate that “Nothing is to be done.” This inaction further questions their very entities, and
Estragon anxiously doubts: “Where do we come in?”
Whenever Estragon and Vladimir make a decision, the stage directions dictate that “They do
not move. ” and continue to show passivity. Therefore, even their resolution to go is not
strong enough to produce action. Many times Estragon says “Let’s go”, but Vladimir always
reminds him that they can’t as they are “waiting for Godot. ”This inability to act renders
Vladimir and Estragon unable to determine their own fates. Instead of acting, they can only
wait for someone or something to act upon them- referring to the existentialist argument of
man’s desperate need to establish his own purpose and meaning to life.
Furthermore, Vladimir and Estragon ponder suicide by hanging themselves from the tree, but
once again their anxiety stops them, as the latter remarks: “Don’t let’s do anything. It’s safer.
” Kierkegaard’s notion of ‘Dread’ or ‘Angst’ includes ideas of existentialism which talk about a
state in which the individual’s freedom of choice places him in a state of anxiety, as he is
surrounded by almost infinite possibilities. This could explain the inactivity of both the tramps.
They are aware of the different choices they can make but are hesitant, just as they decide to
leave at the end of the act but remain motionless. Thus, the end of act 1 firmly asserts the
characters’ hopelessness.
Beckett infers that people pass time with habits to cope with the existentialist dilemma of
the dread or anxiety of their existence. Estragon and Vladimir idly pass their time to escape
the pain of waiting and even thinking Vladimir expresses this idea at the end of the play:
“Habit is a great deadener.” All the events narrated through the course of the play – the
Crucifixion story, the suicide plan, playing talk – seem nothing more than silly pastimes.
Pozzo and Lucky’s coming can also well be interpreted as an act to entertain Vladimir and
Estragon; a way in which Becket questions whether life itself a mere source of entertainment
is just to pass the time while waiting for salvation. However, the distractions end sometime or
the other, leaving them again with their futile inaction: “The essential doesn’t change. ” This
once again echoes the existentialist theory that life will end in nothingness as it has begun,
reducing all of man’s achievements and accomplishments to nothing. Time has little
significance in this futile lifecycle. The past often becomes misty to Estragon as he often asks
questions like “What did we do yesterday? ” He does not remember Pozzo and Lucky and
even the place in Act Two, and shortly, Pozzo fails to recognize the tramps (Estragon and
Vladimir) too. The mysterious boy returns with the same message; Godot never comes and
tomorrow never seems to arrive. Vladimir, therefore, is right to say that “time has stopped. ”
Estragon conveys the horror of this uneventful repetitive existence in “Nothing happens,
nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful! “.
Character sketch of Vladimir
Vladimir, also known as Mr. Albert or Didi, is the lead character of the play Waiting for Godot
created by famous Irish novelist and playwright Samuel Beckett. He is described by the author
as a man with exceptional intellectual capacity, who is full of optimistic thoughts.
More Intellectual
vladimir thinks logically and takes the decision on the basis of reasoning, hence, we may say
that he is the strongest of all. He time and again tells Estragon that they should wait until
Godot arrives. Vladimir also reveals that he once met Godot still he does not remember how
exactly Godot lookalike. He also gives hope to Estragon and boosts his moral due to which
Estragon agrees to wait for Godot.
Strong memory
In comparison to Estragon, Vladimir is quite strong whether it be saving Estragon or it comes
to the basic purpose of them being there. It is him that keeps on reminding Estragon that they
are waiting for Godot, a mysterious personality supposed to help them out of their terrible
condition.
Vladimir, though quite different from his parallel Estragon, is not strong of memory either.
Though he does remember that they are waiting for Godot but he cannot recall the day Godot
is supposed to come. Nor does he remember where he exactly said he would come. Even the
time and place is not certain. What he remembers is that Godot would come tomorrow. He
keeps on reminding Estragon that they must wait for Godot though: "He didn ' t say for sure
he'd come. "
He is similar to Estragon in several aspects including the loss of memory as well the concept of
them being lost to the stage where there is very little chance of their survival even if they
repent. He proposes Estragon that they should have committed suicide in the days gone by
when they had little respect left: "Hand in hand from the top of the Eiffel Tower, among the
first. We were respectable in those days. Now it's too late. They wouldn't even let us up."
An optimist personality
Vladimir is also a ray of hope in the play because he is the only character that remembers
something. He is the one that talks of hope and betterment. Only he talks about repentance
and redemption though he does admit that chances are little and "It's too much for one man."
Uncertain about time ; He too, is unaware of the notion of time. When he comes back to the
same place where it was a bare tree "yesterday"; he claims to have separated from Estragon
just for one night whereas we can observe the tree has got new leaves and this is not possible
in a single night. However, his character is quite strong in comparison to all other characters in
the play. He does represent the entire mankind and the little hope with them: "But at this
place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the
most of it, before it is too late!" But unfortunately, he does nothing but to profess that: "We'll
hang ourselves tomorrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes."
Vladimir’s Hat is his Problem:
He has problems with his hat as Estragon has with his boots. It symbolizes that his
overthinking is the main problem of his life. He has a God gifted habit of thinking and opining
about the matter. He time and again peers into his hate as he looks for something in it. It
means that whenever this major character (Vladimir) of “Waiting for Godot” starts a
discussion he does an analysis of it and then explains it to Estragon. His mind never remains
free nor does it stop thinking. Overthinking is one of the most discussed psychological
problems of the modern era and so as of Vladimir. He creates problems with the help of his
mind, hence, his head has been named “Charnel House”.
♦ Character sketch of Estrogen
Estragon, also known as Gogo or Adam, is the second lead character of the play Waiting for
Godot. From the very beginning of the play, it becomes clear that Estragon is completely
different to Vladimir.
Represent dismal and shocking condition of humans
Estragon is the real lost character who receives the blows regularly and spends the night in
some ditch and begins a new the next day. There seems no change of routines for him
throughout the play. He is dependent upon Vladimir for everything including his defence and
survival but he still unable to bear the conversation of Vladimir: " Don't touch me! Don't
question me! Don't speak to me! Stay with me!
Uncertainty and away from religion
There is no sense of time and place to especially to the character of Estragon. He remembers
nothing at all. He doesn't recall having reached the place yesterday. He can't even recollect
having left his shoes.
He does not even remember Bible. While Vladimir is referring to the incident of two thieves
and being saving of the one, Estragon is unable to understand the meaning of what Vladimir
says. He asks for details but finding no answer thinks it is about their birth. Vladimir laughs and
asks if he ever read Bible and the reply is:
"I must have taken a look at it".
They discuss about Gospels and Estragon remembers nothing about the book except the map
of the holy city.
Representative of existentialism;
The loss of memory is accompanied by excess of fear for Estragon. He is always afraid and in a
sense of pain. Through the mocking episodes of pain and fall of man's glory what we feel for
Estragon is the image of human decadence and deteriorating complexities of man's being.
Even existence loses meaning in all such circumstances:
"We always find something to give us the impression we exist".
Well, there is just impression and what about reality! The character of Estragon helps in
building the theme of association and society. He cannot survive alone. It is unbearable to be
lonely and without society. The role of society, in the form of Vladimir, encourages him to exist
and survive though in the words of Vladimir:
"To every man his little cross. Till he dies. And is forgotten."
So, they are born to die with no purpose and no meaning to their life at all. This is the
dilemma and tragedy of modern man.
Estragon, the Wicked Smart Guy
Except Estragon isn’t actually a simpleton at all. Sure, he may be lacking in, shall we say,
intellectual fortitude (he folds under his own questioning), but he has this habit of tossing out
unbelievably profound comments as though they were nothing. But you probably want
specifics. To start, look at the "let’s hang ourselves!" exchange in Act 1. Estragon realizes right
away that the bough might not support Vladimir. Though he asks Vladimir to "use [his]
intelligence,"
Estragon gets credit for what we think of as the three encapsulating lines of Waiting for
Godot. As far as we’re concerned, all the play’s action could be condensed in the following
way: 1) "Nothing to be done" (1.1) (also the opening line of the play), 2) "Nothing is certain"
(1.125), and 3) "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful!"

Lives Mundane life He never thinks about various philosophical issues and prefers to pay
attention to the matters of the earthly world instead. Estragon is concerned mainly with more
mundane matters: He prefers a carrot to a radish or turnip, his feet hurt, and he blames his
boots; he constantly wants to leave, and it must be drilled into him that he must wait for
Godot. He remembers that he was beaten, but he sees no philosophical significance in the
beating.
Contrast between Vladimir and Estrogen
Vladimir represents the portion of humanity who trusts in religion and spiritual beliefs to guide
them, and that Estragon represents the more ideal existentialist portion of humanity who
chooses to stop waiting and construct the meaning of life based on experience in the tangible
and physical world around them.
The following is an example of dialogue which supports this concept:
Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.
Estragon: Who?
Vladimir: Godot.
Estragon: Good idea.
Vladimir: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand.
Estragon: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes
Here we see that Vladimir is depending on Godot to tell him what he needs to know regarding
his existence, while Estragon asserts that they do not have the time to wait and that they
should take action on their own before it is too late. The metaphor of the cooling iron suggests
that humanity does not have enough time to wait for their spiritual ponderings to offer them
enlightenment, that the chance will pass, and their efforts will not take effect once it does.
Therefore, it can be concluded from this that Estragon’s suggestion that he and Vladimir make
their own way now, before it is too late, is the more ideal course of action advocated by the
play.
It is Estragon who follows the notion of no longer waiting on religion for answers and going to
the philosophy of existentialism. There is another instance that plays on the idea of Vladimir as
faithfully religious and Estragon as progressively humanistic:
Estragon: Charming spot. (He turns, advances to front, halts, facing auditorium.) Inspiring
prospects. (He turns to Vladimir.) Let’s go:
Vladimir: We can’t. Estragon: Why not? Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.
Estragon: (despairingly). Ah! (8)
Character sketch of Pozzo
Pozzo is the part of human society which is affluent, knowledgeable and yet ignorant of the
troubles and sufferings of their fellow humans; this character may even be charged for the
atrocities and cruelties of the dominant sectors of society and masters.
In the first crossing of the road where Pozzo deliberately turns blind to the miserable plight of
Lucky, his servant-cum slave, he is contrast to the personalities of the two tramps that are
awakened to their state of uselessness. Pozzo is careless of society because he considers
himself above humanity and society:
"He can no longer endure my presence. I am perhaps not particularly human, but who
cares?"
The treatment of Pozzo with Lucky is not human or near human by any stretch of imagination.
He is the materialist which would not care for the pangs and troubles of Lucky. He would take
the benefit and throw the peel away. Pozzo appears an evil personality in the first phase of the
play where he is willing to sell Lucky for a considerable price:
"I am bringing him to the fair, where I hope to get a good price for him. The truth is you can't
drive such creatures away. The best thing would be to kill them."
But the second part of the play reduces Pozzo to nothingness. He was the only character in the
play having some sort of control over things but when he crosses the road for the second time,
he is quite old now. He is blind. Now Lucky carries him along and Pozzo is dependent upon
Lucky. However, the role of Lucky has not changed. His role remains as it ever was, to serve his
master no matter how he behaves. The blindness of Pozzo is symbolical of the deterioration
and fall of man; every passage of time, though man is devoid of any sense of time, engulfs man
with an even chaotic and pessimistic situation. The strong, intelligent and self-amusing Pozzo
has completely changed. He has lost his memory. He has lost his happiness. He has no sense of
time and place. He will go where Lucky will take him to.
He will fall if Lucky falls, he will walk if Lucky walks. Pozzo replies to the tramps in in the second
act: "I don't remember having met anyone yesterday. But tomorrow I won't remember
having met anyone today. So don't count on me to enlighten you."

Character sketch of lucky

Lucky a slave of Pozzo, whom Pozzo treats horribly and insults him by addressing him only as
pig. He (Lucky) throughout his stage presence is mostly silent in the but gives a lengthy, mostly
nonsensical monologue. When Pozzo asks him to think out loud, here his aloud thinking is
“commanding performance”. That simply means for Lucky thinking becomes mechanical as,
when Pozzo commands performance Lucky resumes to think and when he is commanded to
stop, he suddenly stops. The torrent of his incoherent speech is a parody of stream of
consciousness monologue and is a clearest statement of Becket’s belief in the uselessness of
thought. Also, to terminate his thinking one has to remove his hat.

Pozzo who abuses him physically and verbally made to work him till the point of exhaustion.
Lucky’s character has been portrayed as an enviable in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Becket,
his name is just Lucky but he so unfortunate (unlucky), while all the characters has
unnecessary dialogue in the play, he just remains quiet throughout the part of his appearance
on stage, he only utters two sentences, one of which is more that seven hundred words long.

Lucky suffers at the hands of Pozzo willingly and without hesitation, because he is tied to
Pozzo by a ridiculously with long rope in the first act.

The rope is tied against his neck, when he is not serving Pozzo, he usually stands in one spot
drooling, or sleeping if he stands there long enough. He has a picnic basket in which he has a
coat, and a suitcase full of sands.

REPORT THIS AD
Lucky’s place in Waiting for Godot has been heavily debated by critic. Even his name is
somewhat elusive. Some have marked him as “lucky” because he is “lucky” in the context of
the play.” He does not have to search for things to occupy his time, which is a major pastime
of the other characters. Pozzo tells him what to do, he does it, and is therefore lucky because
his actions are determined, he follows Pozzos’s order. Beckett asserted, however, that he is
“lucky” because he has “no expectations hence he ‘ll not be disappointed in life.

In the play, Lucky is often compared to Vladimir and Pozzo is compared to Estragon as being
the intellectual, left-brained part of his character duo i.e. he represents one part of a larger,
whole character, whose other half is represented by Pozzo. Pozzo and Lucky are simply an
extreme form of the relationship between Estragon and Vladimir (the hapless impulsive and
the intellect who protects him). His philosophies, like Vladimir, and is integral to Pozzo’s
survival, especially in the second act. In the second act, Lucky becomes mute. Pozzo mourns
this, despite the fact that it was he who silenced Lucky in the first act

Lucky is most famous for his speech in Act I. The monologue is prompted by Pozzo when the
tramps ask him to make Lucky “think”. He asks them to give him his hat: when Lucky wears his
hat, he is capable of thinking. The monologue is long, rambling word salad, and does not have
any apparent end; it is only stopped when Vladimir takes the hat back. Within the gibberish
Lucky makes comments on the arbitrary nature of God, man’s tendency to pine and fade
away, and towards the end, the decaying state of the earth. His ramblings may be loosely
based around the theories of an Irish philosopher Bishop Barkeley.

Perhaps Becket introduces Berkley into Lucky’s speech to link with Estragon’s question, that
‘Do you think God sees me’?

Nonetheless, Lucky we can say by reading the text, he has a master- slave relationship with
Pozzo, who for Pozzo is like a burden of beast and represents human tragedy in the play.