Thursday, March 4, 2010

Samuel Beckett's *Waiting For Godot* Blog Post on Act 1


This is a 20 point homework assignment.
  1. Prompt A: Post your reaction to something specific and thought provoking (for literary analysis) in Act 1 (though this is not a minimum, your post should be at least a couple hundred words.) Feel free to ask questions in this section as well, since everyone will be reading these posts. There should be no repeats in ideas or topics--you will not get credit if you post something that has been covered already.
  2. Prompt B: You should also respond by elaborating on another comment in the stream (about the same length--a couple hundred words as a minimum.)
You will be graded on the Malden High School Open Response Rubric.

Prompt A due by class time Friday March 5th.
Prompt B due by midnight Friday March 5th.

25 comments:

Jackie said...

Hello all,
Alright so first of all I just have to say I love this play. It's very funny. This prompt is in regards to the dialogue. I have to say that at first glance I thought that because of the short simple sentences, the dialogue was also going to be simple and that the the theme or subject was going to be straight forward. However, I noticed that the dialogue does a lot more than this. In using short concise dialogue, Beckett sets up Estragon and Vladimir to seem like well, simpletons however, as the dialogue progresses you see that they are much more complicated than this. The stage directions also play a major part in this, particularly in the scenes with Estragon's boot and Vladimir's hat. It seems as though they are searching for something. Not only are they waiting for the mysterious Godot, but Beckett makes it seem like they are searching for something within themselves that they do not quite know about. The fact that both of them continue to claim that there is "nothing to be done" is also interesting in that it seems as though they give up on everything that seems too difficult to understand. For example, when Estragon begins to question Vladimir about Godot he asks him if Vladimir is "tied down" to Godot when Estragon changes the subject to the carrot. The conversation goes as follows:
Estragon: (he raises the remains of the carrot by the stub of the leaf, twirls it befire his eyes.) "Funny, the more you eat the worse it gets."
Vladimir: With me it's just the opposite.
Estragon:In other words?
Vladimir: I get used to the muck as I go along.
Estragon: (after prolonged reflection) Is that the opposite?
Vladimir: Question of temperament.
Estragon: Of character.
Vladimir: Nothing you can do about it.
Estragon: No use struggling.
Vladimir: One is what one is.
Estragon: No use wriggling.
Vladimir: The essential doesn't change.
Estragon: Nothing to be done.
It is ironic when Estragon says "the more you eat the worse it gets" because it seems as though Beckett does this to show how the more they wait, the worse their situation gets or will get. If they leave, they might miss meeting Godot, if they stay, he might never come. There is also irony in that the whole conversation parallels this, they are talking about their whole situation without knowing it while yet being correct in that there is indeed "nothing to be done".

oliviak said...

I agree with Jackie, this play is interesting and it is comical. I don't completely understand what exactly is going on, but it's entertaining to read. I was confused in the beginning with the setting, because I got the impression that they were in an outside setting from the first page that says "A country road. A tree." However, I guess they were in a building off of the country road which I didn't catch onto until Pozzo and Lucky left.
The characters of Pozzo and Lucky were interesting, Pozzo being the dominant male and Lucky being a seemingly unintelligent servant. Pozzo treats Lucky horribly for reasons I don't know why, but he did have a quick change of heart. On page 23, he says:

Pozzo: (sobbing.) He used to be so kind...so helpful...and entertaining...my good angel...and now...he's killing me
Estragon: (to Vladamir.) Does he want to replace him?
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: Does he want someone to take his place or not?
Vladimir: I don't think so.
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: I don't know.
Estragon: Ask him.
Pozzo: (calmer.) Gentlemen, I don't know what came over me. Forgive me. Forget all I said. (More and more his old self.) I don't remember exactly what it was, but you may be sure there wasn't a word of truth in it.....

It's like another person took over Pozzo because he was tough and threatening when he introduced himself to the men, but then he breaks down and cries, he actually feels sorry for Lucky and calls him 'my good angel'. He notices it and then corrects it, but he doesn't even remember what he says.
Also, Pozzo implies twice that he knows something about their deal with Godot, or who Godot is. The first time is on page 20 when he says: "...anyhow you see who I am, who has your future in his hands...(pause)...at least your immediate future?"
In this line, it seems like he pauses to see if the other two men notice what he just said, but when he doesn't say anything he tries to clear it over and say 'immediate future' so that it won't seem like he knows something. Vladimir catches on and then says: "Who told you?"
Pozzo tries to change the subject and in parenthesis on that same page is a line before Pozzo's spech that says: "(who has followed these exchanges with anxious attention, fearing lest the question be lost.)" The question being why Lucky never puts down his bags, so that the topic won't go back to how Pozzo knows anything.
The second time is one page 24 when Pozzo says:
Pozzo: Why it's very natural, very natural. I myself in your situation, if I had an appointment with a Godin...Godet...Godot...anyhow you see who I mean, I'd wait till it was black night before I gave up...."
In this instance, the men don't even notice and they continue on with their conversation. I'm convinced Pozzo knows something, but he won't say anything. The oblivious personalties of Vladimir and Estragon just help Pozzo get away with his insinuations.
I'm interested as to what will happen in the next act now that we have some information.

Jackie said...

Olivia,
I too noticed that Pozzo seems to know something the other two don't. However, I think Pozzo would be nothing without Lucky,who I have to say, left me flabbergasted. When he finally speaks I could not stop laughing. While I was laughing I did get the thought that perhaps Beckett sends Lucky on this tirade to show that perhaps it is Lucky who knows more than does Pozzo. I think that maybe Beckett is trying to show Pozzo as somewhat pompous (though entertaining he is)and full of himself. I think that he is using Lucky as a tool for irony. Though Lucky may seem pitiful and not smart, it is quite clear that he is, perhaps it is just his spirit that is broken? Also maybe he is using this to parallel Vladimir and Estragon?

Jen said...

I thought the play was interesting also. Like Olivia said it was kind of hard for me to understand at times, because the way the information was introduced was kind of confusing. In waiting for Godot.
I noticed that since the beginning of the play these characters kept talking about doing something but they never actually took any actions. They sit by and keep waiting for something to happen while life keeps going by. For example they keep on waiting for Mr. Godot to show up, and they’re not even sure when this meeting is.
Vladimir: We can’t
Estragon: why not?
Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.
Estragon: (despairingly). Ah! (pause.) You’re sure it was here/
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: That we were to wait.
Vladimir: He said by the tree.( they look at the tree.) Do you see any others.
Estragon: What is it?
Vladimir: I don’t know. A willow.
Estragon: Where are the leaves?
Vladimir: It must be dead.
Estragon: No more weeping.
Vladimir: Or perhaps it’s not the season.
Estragon: Looks to me like a bush.
Vladimir: A shrub.
Estragon: A bush.
Vladimir: A- . What are you insinuating? That we’ve come to the wrong place?

I noticed that every time they would say they were going to do something they would sit there and talk or do something repetitively. What they say id just random, by talking about all these various subjects, they pass time, without even noticing it. They always end up in an argument over what ever subject they’re talking about. Because of the choices that they’ve mad e they keep on talking about how different life could have been if they made different choices and didn’t hang out with each other anymore.
I thought that it was interesting how in the beginning he kept looking inside the hat. He acted like as if the hat would give him the answers to life, as if it helped him with his words and decisions. I noticed that everything these characters did something more than once in the same section, a little more detail was added, by the next time the sentence was mentioned. For example on page eight it says,
Vladimir; Sometimes I feel it coming all the same. Then I go all queer. ( He takes off his hat, peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes, it puts it on again.) How shall I say? Relieved and at the same time…( he searches for the word)… appalled. ( With emphasis.) AP-PALLED. ( he takes off his hat again peers inside it.) Funny. ( he knocks on the crown as though to dislodge a foreign body, peers into it again, puts it on again.) Nothing to be done. ( Estragon with a supreme effort succeeds in pulling off his boot. He peers inside it, feels about inside it, turns it upside down, shakes it, looks on the ground to see if anything has fallen out, finds nothing, feels inside it again, staring sightlessly before hi.) well?

Gaelle said...

I agree with all you guys about how the play is funny and interesting . So far I really like this play ,I like both characters Estragon and Vladimir ,they make the play seem more interesting. What I notice throught out the whole play is how close they are ,they seem very attach to each other like one can't live without the other .they seem very childish . In this part
Estragon:(step forward ) .you're angry? (silence.step forward .) Forgive me . (Silence.Step forward.Estragon lays his hand on Vladimir's shoulder.)come ,Didi (silence.) give me your hand.(Vladimir half turns.) Embrace me !(Vladimir stiffens .) Don't be stubborn!(Vladimir softens.they embrace .Estragon recoils.) You stink of garlic!
This part to me was pretty funny,to me it seem like they don't act their age ,they act like this little kids arguing over stupid little things .But going back to the beginning of the book ,they were having a little argument .
Vladimir : (angrily).No one ever suffers but you.I don't count.I'd like to hear want you'd say if you had what I have .In this part Vladimir was getting mad or had enough of Estragon.this part kind of show that Estragon is the type to complain a lot ,maybe that's why Estragon was getting mad.

Stephany J. said...

PART A

Unlike Jackie, this play isn’t one of my favorites. I don’t hate it, but it’s not my cup of tea either. I find it to be absolutely random with sporadic corny lines. I guess that just my taste in literature. Yet, Beckett cleverly integrates religion throughout the first act. I’m wondering if any of you guys caught the name God within Godot’s name. Whenever I had to say or heard a line in class with his name in the line, I would wonder why Beckett would integrate the two together. Was the author insinuating that Vladimir and Estragon were “waiting for god”? In that case, it would make perfect sense how they waited numerous days in anticipation for his return. Everyday they wait for Godot to show up, but he never returns. As the first act continues Godot never enters the scene. In Biblical texts it is said that the return of God would be unexpected, so their waiting for Him was ironic and clever. Obedient servants of God anticipate his return to earth as well. As a result, Vladimir and Estragon can be compared to the rest of society. Another example of Biblical reference is when Vladimir was speaking with Lucky, Pozzo’s servant.

VLADIMIR
(to Lucky) How dare you! It's abominable! Such a ... good master! Crucify him like that! After so many years! Really!

In this quote Beckett used Vladimir to indirectly compare Pozzo and Jesus with the word “crucify”. Followers of Christ would have the same viewpoint of Vladimir. They would believe that Christ has done many things for their lives, so crucifying him would be heartbreaking and shameful.

ESTRAGON
What exactly did we ask him [Godot] for?
VLADIMIR
Were ... you not there?
ESTRAGON
I can't have been listening.
VLADIMIR
Oh . . . Nothing very definite.
ESTRAGON
A kind of prayer.
VLADIMIR
Precisely.

In this exchange between Vladimir and Estragon, Vladimir seems to have prayed to Godot. This is another example of how Beckett indirectly suggests that Godot is actually God. Followers of God pray to him during all aspects of their lives, especially when they are in need. What I found odd was how Vladimir says that he prayed for “nothing very definite”. If he was praying I would think that it would be for a specific reason and not for the heck of it.

Gaelle said...

Did anyone wonder why Were Estragon and Vladimir talking about Jesus and the thieves that were being crucified . What was the whole point of that,what there a point behind this , well if they was , I have no clue.There's a point of the book , I feel like that had bad memorie of things
Estragon: (very insidious).But what Saturday ? And is it Saturday?Is it not rather Sunday? (pause). Or Monday?(pause) or Friday?
(looking widly about him ,as though the date was inscribed in the landscape).it's not possible !
estragon :Or Thursday ?
Vladimir : what 'll we do?
I don't know if they were messing around or not . how could they nor remember if they were in a place or not.At lest they should have of where they went and when ,but they seem they can't remember.I thought it was very harsh and bad the way Pozzo treat his slave,he abuse him badly,huts for no reason ,at a point he even made the slave dance.
Pozzo: He refused once.(Silence.) Dance ,misery! Lucky puts down bag and basket ,advances towards front,turns to pozzo. Lucky dances.He stops.
Estragon : is that all?
Pozzo:Encore!
Lucky executes the same movements ,stops .
I thought that there was no reason for them to take advantage of the slave like that ,his has been doing to much ,it's like his a little puppet ,which is sad.

Gaelle said...

Stephany J

Going over your comment , I notice you said that you mention Vladimir view Godot as God.I never though of that ,actually it never cross my mind. First of all ,God love everyone ,God would not hurt anyone just for the fun of it, what Godot was doing was not a work of God ,that was the work of the devil. I see were you going with this but I don't agree to it at with Godot being God

Sandy. J said...

Prompt A

The play “Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett is entertaining to say the least. It is such a simple play that one would think that the author is speaking of nothing, and that this is a scene with meaningless characters and the plot means nothing. One thing I liked about the play is the religious aspect of it and the biblical references that it contained. The author does not give any implications that the two friends are religious, but their views can at times be religious, and they have knowledge of events that occurred in the bible. I thought it was very interesting how Estragon compared himself to Christ, he said “All my life I’ve compared myself with Christ”, I think that the author alluded to show what Estragon perceived him as. Estragon can possibly see himself as Christ because of the deeds that he did while he was alive, but also how a lot of people hated him and wouldn’t recognize him as somebody of importance. The most important reason he was drawing parallels between him and God was because Estragon has thoughts of suicide. He repetitively refers to ropes, and he even suggested that he and Vladimir hang themselves. According to Estragon, where Christ and his people lived “they crucified quick”. Estragon has an admiration for death, one especially with being hanged on something, such as a cross or a tree.
Estragon and Vladimir alluded to Christ in the beginning of the play, (pgs 8-10), Vladimir was telling him the stories about the two thieves that were also crucified with Christ, and how they only spoke of one being saved. I thought all this talk about Christ and crucifixion was a way for the author to display Vladimir and Estragon’s thoughts and theories about life. They both have an interesting way of expressing their opinion and the society around them. It shows that they are senile, and they use the allusions as proverbs to explain life, just as Jesus used to do. They used that specific allusion to comment on how “people are bloody ignorant apes”. I also noticed that the word “Godot” has God in it, I’m not sure if Beckett did that purposefully or if it is a mere coincidence. Through the biblical allusions, the author suggests that Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for some sort of divinity from above; “waiting for Godot” can mean waiting for something celestial that “Godot”is going to give them.

Sandy. J said...

Mr. Gallagher i hope I get credit for this, because before I wrote my prompt I did not see that.

Stephany J. said...

PART B

In response to Jen, I agree with the observations that you made while reading this play. Beckett introduces information in a simplistic manner that can easily misguide the reader.
If the reader is not tentative with Beckett’s comparisons they will miss the entire meaning of the play. When we were reading in class I really did not understand what in the world Beckett was trying to accomplish. It wasn’t until I was able to shut myself away in my room with my book that I was able to focus and pick up the author’s hints. I believe that the author does this purposefully to create a variation of responses that can come from reading his literature. At the beginning of the play I thought that Vladimir and Estragon were wasting their time waiting for a friend who was never going to come. It wasn’t until my brother walked by and said hey stupid look ! while coving his thumb over the ot of Godot. That is when everything started to make sense, and all of Beckett’s little tidbits began to mesh. That is when the whole idea of religion made an impact on me.

I also noticed how repetitive simple aspects became. I am still unsure why Beckett chooses to do this. I am guessing that he wishes to illuminate these situations. Yet, the situations with repetitions do not seem to be very important. They’re the type of situations that make you want to just yell just do it already!. Too bad yelling at inanimate objects makes people look creepy. Darn you modern day society.

In response to Gaelle, I understand what your saying but I’m still not sure. Whether it be God or the Devil--it has something to do with Biblical polar opposites. At this point in the novel I’m not very certain about either. Hopefully Act 2 will be able to straighten certain ideas out regarding this topic.

Sandy. J said...

Prompt B

I agree with you Gaelle, that Lucky was treated very harshly, though while I was reading the book, I thought of Lucky symbolizing something. The first thing that I noticed was the name “Lucky”, and I thought that it was very ironic because the way he was being mistreated, he was the farthest thing from being “Lucky”. I thought that Lucky represented the way humans are treated at times. The reason I had the inference and connection to actual humans was because Lucky was thinking out loud and he talked. That scene actually reminded me of Animal Farm, and how they used the animals to represent the people in corrupt governments in different countries. In the scene where he was thinking, reminded me of James Joyce’s Ulysses, simply random thoughts with no punctuation. Anyhow, after the thinking scene, Lucky could not get up, he was unable to stand on his feet, Estragon and Vladimir had to help him. I thought that Beckett was making a social commentary about humans, and how when they think, they get restless. Although Lucky is being treated like a meaningless creature, Beckett dies thing in a satirically, comical manner. The pig displays man’s weakness, and how sometimes, man lets himself be defined and preyed on by others. Jennifer and Stephany, I agree with the both of you that the story is a bit random, and that at times it doesn’t make sense, but I think Beckett does that purposefully. He might be implying that life itself doesn’t makes sense, and is very random at times, it’s up to us to decide what we want to make of it.

Sandy. J said...

(Last sentence, in response to Jennifer and Stephany).

SamP1 said...

I would have to agree with Olivia and Stephany Jean as far as my opinion of the play goes – it has its funny moments, but not really my style. It is also kind of hard to follow at times. Overall though, the friendship that Beckett creates between Vladimir and Estragon is unique and unorthodox. In the opening scene, the two argue like an old married couple. They have nicknames for each other – “Didi” and “Gogo”. It’s adorable. It seems as if Beckett made their friendship this way because they needed each other to be able to understand the world. Somebody’s post mentioned earlier that the two characters at the beginning just seemed like “simpletons” and changed the subject whenever one of them didn’t understand. Their friendship seems as if it would be a coping mechanism to deal with the world beyond their world. When Pozzo enters, they don’t even seem to know how to speak with him or Lucky without one another. A specific instance is on page 23.

Estragon: (to Vladamir.) Does he want to replace him?
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: Does he want someone to take his place or not?
Vladimir: I don't think so.
Estragon: What?
Vladimir: I don't know.
Estragon: Ask him.

The two have an extremely close friendship, which makes me believe that meeting Godot is something that has to do with their fate.

hillary said...

PART A

I don't understand this play. I am thinking that it's not meant to be figured out and understood anyway. It must be one of those instances where this story could mean anything and it's all up to interpretation. It's not funny to me either...

One thing I noticed was the hypocrisy that Estragon and Vladimir displayed. Pages 18 and 19 shows Vladimir's distaste towards slavery.

VLADIMIR: (stutteringly resolute). To treat a man...(gesture towards Lucky)...like that...I think that...no...a human being...no...it's a scandal!

ESTRAGON: (not to be outdone). A disgrace!

This contrasts with page 28 where they get entertained by his dancing and think alouds.

This could be a result of their childish behaviors. I am assuming that they are grown men, but even when Pozzo asks Estragon how old Vladimir was Estragon answered "Eleven" (p.19). The two men get distracted and tricked quite easily. How can their opinion of slavery change so quickly by Pozzo's obvious act of victimization? I think Beckett may be making a commentary on how humans tend to fall for easy traps. We often get distracted and tricked by "the devil" (referring to this idea of God versus the Devil, Gaelle's comment). Beckett may just be commenting on the ridiculousness of hypocrisy in general.

Stephanie A. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephanie A. said...

I’m not sure if this play sounded different when it was read out load in class today but reading this all by my self sounded pretty confusing and from what I can tell from what you all have said so far, the play sounded pretty confusing in general at times. It’s hard to know what Vladimir and Estrogen are waiting for and what they are talking about and who this mysterious Godot person is. I found this play to be really cute at first with the relationship between Vladimir and Estrogen. It reminded me of the relationship I have with some of my friends. We can be sitting anywhere not doing much and have a conversation like that where we’re just annoying each other just because. And it made me smile at certain parts that sounded like a conversation me and my friend would have.

Estrogen: I was asleep! Will you never let me sleep?
Vladimir: I felt lonely.
Estrogen: I had a dream.
Vladimir: Don’t tell me!
Estrogen: I dreamt that-
Vladimir: DON’T TEL ME!

I am so serious me and my friend do that to each other all the time. Well, I happen to always be the role of Vladimir in that part. And when Vladimir said “clam yourself” to Estrogen that just made me laugh out load because I always say that to my friends. I loved how similar this sounded to my friends and I.

As Sam P. said they seem to not know how to go on or continue a thought without one another which shows how close they really must be. All this was cute to me until Pozzo came into the picture. Sitting here reading all of Pozzo’s actions and quick commands with Lucky made me believe that Lucky was a horse or a dog. But I started to wonder because he kept on calling Lucky names you’d call a pig. Once Pozzo asked Lucky to bring him something I realized Lucky had to be a servant and I instantly forgot about Estrogen and Vladimir’s cute relationship. Pozzo was just so weird to me and made me like Estrogen and Vladimir more because they were actually concerned about Lucky’s treatment and it definitely made things about this play more clear. 1) This play clearly takes place when they had slaves, 2) it must be in the south, and 3) Vladimir and Estrogen must be white males if Pozzo is a slave owner and takes the time to have a conversation with them.

As everyone else, I just wonder why Vladimir and Estrogen are waiting for this mysterious Godot person. Have they really been waiting for more then one day, because at one part even they sounded confused as to where they were suppose to wait, what day, and when. They seem to not even know this person they are waiting for. Before, I thought they might be looking for a way out of something, like escaping, but then I figured that might not be it since they’re not slaves, or at least that’s what I’m assuming. But what ever it is, seems like Vladimir and Estrogen are going to stick together.

Kellie said...

PART A

One thing that I picked up on that most everyone mentioned was the fact that this play is very confusing. I agree, but I think that there is a reason behind the confusion. One thing I noticed Samuel Beckett using was stream of consciousness within each character and their conversations. I feel as though he did this because he wanted to give the story a more realistic feeling rather than formulated. Also, one theme I picked up on was uncertainty. I am not sure if this will come up later in the play as well, but I could find a lot of uncertainty in this first part within the main characters and their actions. One memorable moment I felt was at the very end of the first part:

Estragon: Well, shall we go?
Vladimir: Yes, let’s go.
They do not move.

These characters are so indecisive that it is somewhat hilarious throughout the play. They are two friends who have no idea what they want. Their uncertainty adds humor and makes them seem even more ditsy than anything. This idea of uncertainty can relate to the entire text as a whole as well. From what we know so far, the main focus of these two characters is to meet Godot. Not once in the story is the reason or history behind this mystery character explained. At times, the reader even thinks that the two main characters do not know why they are meeting Godot either. The fact that these two characters can wait for so long without knowing where Godot actually is or why they need to meet him makes the entire story uncertain now. I think that this situation can relate to life in general too, because life is just a big uncertain event waiting to happen, just like the encounter with Pozzo. I felt as though the author was trying to poke fun at the realities of life, by mocking the idea of uncertainty and how people so often give in to things they are unaware of, just as these two characters did by meeting Godot.

Stephanie A. said...

Part B

I really liked what Stephany J. was saying about how Vladimir and Estrogen were like obedient servants of God. It makes so much sense the more I think about it. They sat there waiting never really never really giving up and they supported each other in the wait. They mentioned the story in the bible which seems like a pretty big give away that there has to be some biblical parallel within this story. I would have said that maybe Stephany J. was looking way to into the name “Godot” saying how it sounded like “God” but I feel like she’s right on track with what she’s saying and I agree completely. And how clever to think to say how it’s similar that God’s return is unknown and so is this “Godot” character.

But to respond to the last sentence of Gaelle’s response to Steph Jean’s first comment when she said didn’t agree “with Godot being God”. I think that as parallel as the whole situation may seem, I don’t believe Godot was suppose to be exactly be God. In a lot of stories, there are “Christ” figures as we learned in that How to Read like a Professor book, but just because they are Christ figures, doesn’t mean they are exactly like God or suppose to be a God. The situation of Godot being a Christ figure could just be insinuating a different message.

Or maybe, we’re all looking way to into the story and Godot a mob boss like in movies, and Vladimir and Estrogen are going to borrow money, or they owe money. Think about it, they are waiting in a random location. You never know. Then again, I don’t think there was stuff like that back in the day of slave trades. Anyways, my original point was, I don’t believe Godot is suppose to represent God, there’s just a parallel between the storyline.

Jess said...

I agree with Steph J, this play doesn't really seem to be for me, but hopefully the second act will redeem it for me. In any case:

Part A:
Maybe I'm the only one who noticed it, but it appears to me that either Estragon and Vladimir are very very close friends, or they are a gay couple. Like Sampy said, the nicknames are very cute too. They bicker all the time but clearly care about each other. Like on page 12 (well, the page marked 12, but really page 24?) where Estragon gets on Vladimir's nerves and then they hug and make up, but Estragon recoils because he smells like garlic. Also, when Estragon talks about the Dead Sea: "That's where we'll go, I used to say, that's where we'll go for our honeymoon. We'll swim. We'll be happy." The author never mentions a female character either. And also, the carrot scene put the final nail in the coffin for me. I don't know if you guys can see it, but I think from this perspective it adds a lot more depth to the relationship of these two older vagrants.

oliviak said...

Part B:

I liked what Sandy had to say about the characters alluding to God a lot throughout the play. It gives a little more depth into some kind of a story-line or idea to this work. Estragon does say that him and Vladimir should hang themselves from the tree. The way they talk about this conversation is so casual too, it's like they're talking about a movie they've just seen or something. It seems from the way they discuss suicide that they really don't care for their lives. They just seem to waiting aimlessly for some man that they don't know to come.
And like Stephanie A. wrote, we don't know what business they have with Godot. They could be doing anything.


In response to Jess' comment, I thought the same thing about their sexuality when I read the play. They are older men and so the way they act with each other isn't very common for male friends to do. It's not very helpful for them to be together though because while Vladimir usually has more of a clue than Estragon, they both still seem to be very lost.

SamP1 said...

Prompt B

To build off of what Hillary mentioned about the childish behavior of Vladimir and Estragon, I think that their contradiction of being against slavery versus enjoying bossing Lucky around does enforce their behavior, but I believe that the characters both have no idea about how to act in society, nor do they ever remember their previous actions. This is proven by their repeated conversation:

Estragon: Let's go.
Vladimir: We can't.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We're waiting for Godot.
Estragon: Ah!

Estragon, at least, never seems to remember what he has experienced or what he believes, therefore making it seem that their views mean nothing.

Jen said...

Part B:
I ’m not really sure that I like the play, because at times it gets confusing, and their arguments seem silly and gets very annoying, but at the same time some of it is really comical. To what Stephany said about the name Godot and how they may be waiting for God never crossed my mind. I can see that, the way human kind keep waiting for the day that He will come, and save us all. I noticed that they kept talking about how Mr. Godot will save them once he comes to this meeting, so I can see the relation. I thought that they were waiting for some type of thing that would indicate that they’re significant in this life. When the boy came for the meeting one of the characters kept asking the boy if he really saw them, as to an assurance to their existence. On page 34 it says,
Boy: what am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?
Vladidmir: Tell him…( he hesitates)… tell him you saw us. (pause.) You did see us didn’t you
Boy: Yes Sir.
For what Gaelle said about how they were confused about the day and how many times they’ve been there, I thought that it was to demonstrate how in waiting life passes them by. They never get to do anything important with their lives because they keep on waiting for this Mr. Godot to show up.
With Lucky I thought the whole scene that included him was ironic also. It was ridiculous how was being mistreated than Pozzo went on to say how he’ the one being mistreated by Lucky. I was wondering what that was when they asked him Lucky to think, and he started rambling on, what he was saying didn’t really make any sense to me.
I also thought these two characters were there to show a love and hate relationship, just because it seems like that’s how they kept bouncing back and forth with each other even though it wasn’t real hate. I think it’s his way on commenting on human connection, and their interaction with one and another. Even though at times they seem to be annoyed by each other they are both needed by the other.
I’m thinking that this might be so simple to show how when it comes to humans in general, in the end it’s very simplistic. That it may not be that hard to understand why we do the things we do, even though things seem to be very confusing like the play, when comes down to it everything’s simple ,and basic..

Kellie said...

Part B

I really liked what Jess had to say about the two main characters being a gay couple. It could be true that they are really good friends, but I would lean more along the lines of a gay couple because of all of the bickering and couple-like mannerisms of each. I didn’t even think about what the carrot could have meant until Jess mentioned it, which then started to make so much sense to me.

To Stephanie, I also thought that Godot was some type of Mafia Mob Boss because he was so mysterious. The fact that he never even shows up contributes to the themes of uncertainty in life. Even the fact that the author refrains from informing the reader about their relationship contributes to this uncertainty that shadows the entire book.

hillary said...

PART B

Another thing I noticed was how careless they were about suicide. This could be another example of how childish the men are. This could also reflect their ages. I think once you get to a certain age life feels already lived and done with. This supports the idea of the men actually having a core instead of just having a careless and childish exterior. Thinking about this idea makes me respect that play a little bit more. It's not all nonsense afterall.

I really enjoyed the many points in Sandy's PART B comment. I also found irony in Lucky's name, but wondered what the purpose of this was. It seems like that literary technique where something is named the complete opposite of its personality. I forget what it's called. I think this added to the intended humor of the play. There was noticeable use of sarcam and irony throughout.

However, I had not thought of how the pig names were so similar to how Animal Farm alluded to people in governments through animals. It doesn't seem relevant to Lucky's character but it was an interesting thought. But I do love the idea of the pig being representative of "man's weakness" (Sandy) and it being an easy prey.