Thursday, March 4, 2010

Samuel Beckett's *Waiting For Godot* Blog Post on Act 2


This is a 20 point homework assignment.
  1. Prompt A: Post your reaction to something specific and thought provoking (for literary analysis) in Act 2 (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 noon Monday March 8th.
Prompt B due by
noon Monday March 8th.

22 comments:

Gaelle said...

part 2 was kind of annoying at a point,they kept repeating stuff over and over again. In page 38
Vladimir: I missed you..... and at the same time I was happy.Isn't that a queer thing ?
Estragon: ( shocked).Happy?
Vladimir: Perhaps it's not quite the right word.
Estragon : And now?
Vladimir: Now?.....(joyous). there you are again ......(indifferent) There we are again....(Gloomy) There I am again.
In this part it seems that both of them seem happy that they seperate from each other for a while, but at the same time they don't . Estragon seem really suprised when Vladimir said he was happy, I guess Vladimir want to take a little break from Estragon. In page 39
Estragon : Thats the way I am. Either I forget immediately or I never forget.
I'm glad he said that because since part 1 ,I notice that about him , he forgets very easily which I think is a very bad thing ,well I guess that what make it very interesting .This section they repeat a lot back and forth.
I thought this part we were going to hear from Godot but he never came so what's the point of mentioning him in the
play. I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that , but pozzo deserve what happen to him. I thought what he was doing to Lucky was harsh. It was kind of funny to me , the way estragon and Vladimir was taking advantage of him.
Vladimir: (alarmed). Mr.Pozzo! Come back! We won't hurt you!
Silence
Estragon : We might try him with other names.
Vladimir: I'm afraid he's dying.
Estragon: it'd be amusing
Vladimir: What'd be amusing.
Estragon : To try him with other names,one after the other.it'd pass the time. and we'd be bound to hit on the right one sooner or later.
Vladimir: I tell you his name is Pozzo.
Estragon: we'll soon see.(he reflects.)Abel! Abel!
Pozzo: Help!
Estragon: Got it in one!
Vladimir: I begin to weary of this motif.
Estragon: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain! Cain!
My question is that out of the all the other name they could of call him, why Cain or Abel ?

Stephany J. said...

If I thought that act one was corny, act two drove me absolutely insane. The continuous repetitions of unnecessary aspects seemed to have no purpose. As I would drift back and forth into sanity Vladimir and Estragon continued to bicker about the same subject. Gaelle was right about how act two was annoying. I read this play with anticipation and waited for something to happen, but nothing ever did. I felt that Beckett took a cheap shot with this piece of literature. Beckett overall is not one of my favorite play writers because I felt as if I wasted a portion of my life that I’ll never get back. If I had one thing to say to Beckett I would tell him to have some sort of purpose that the audience could actually relate to.

Act two did reinforce my idea of Beckett’s consistent integration of religion within the text. When Estragon and Vladimir were searching to Pozzo they called out to him with Biblical names: Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel were the sons of Adam and Eve in the Bible. Long story short, Cain offered fruits and grains to the Lord but they were rejected. While Abel offered the first-lings from his sheep to the Lord, and it was accepted. As a result, Cain became very resentful and jealous of his brother. The murder of Abel by Cain was the first social crime recorded in the Bible. He couldn’t stand that his brother was able to please the Lord and he was not. Cain then became known as the ancestor of evil and exiled by the Lord. Cain and Abel are referred to as a pair just like the thieves who murdered Jesus. I just found it odd that Beckett would use these brothers to refer to Pozzo. Pozzo’s behavior toward Lucky was primarily power hungry. He spoke to him as he wanted with little no regard for his innermost feelings. I found it ironic how in the second act Pozzo was on the one who needed assistance from Vladimir and Estragon. In the first act Pozzo was depicted to be confident, and the following act was a drastic change. I think that Beckett refers to Pozzo as Cain and Abel because it symbolizes the drastic change he undergoes throughout the text.

Vladimir: I tell you his name is Pozzo.
Estragon: we'll soon see.(he reflects.)Abel! Abel!
Pozzo: Help!
Estragon: Got it in one!
Vladimir: I begin to weary of this motif.
Estragon: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain! Cain!

Another Biblical reference is when the boy is speaking with Vladimir. As the boy continued to describe Godot, I continued to think of God more and more. Whenever people usually see illustrations of God it is of a white male with a beard. At this point I think that Vladimir was able to figure out that Godot was a “Christ-like” figure. Vladimir wouldn’t ask for mercy unless he knew that for sure. He is in fear of Godot , or more specifically---his power. All of the signs are planted directed in front of us. Due to heavy references toward Biblical texts I was wondering if Beckett was born in a heavily influenced Christian or Catholic home. Either that, or Beckett just found a kick out of using scared texts.

Vladimir
(softly) Has he a beard, Mr. Godot?
Boy
Yes Sir.
Vladimir
Fair or . . . (he hesitates) . . . or black?
Boy
I think it's white, Sir.
Silence.
Vladimir
Christ have mercy on us!

Jen said...

I agree with you guys, reading the second part was horrible, the conversation was very annoying, it was hard to keep my concentration. I didn’t really understand the ending though. Why did Pozzo become blind? What was the point in doing that? I don’t understand why nothing happen. They didn’t meet this Mr. Godot that they’ve been waiting for. The ending indicates that they’re going to keep on waiting. Why did he need help from the two, to get up, why couldn’t he do it himself? I also noticed that the whole time that he was asking for help, they kept on going back and forth on other things that had nothing to do with helping Pozzo.It says,
Pozzo: Help!
Vladimir: Or for night to fall. ( Pause.) We have kept our appointment and that’s an end to that. We are not saints, but we have kept our appointment. How many people can boast as much?
Estragon: Billions.
Vladimir: You think so?
Estragon: I don’t know.
Vladimir: You may be right.
Pozzo: Help!
It just became kind of annoying, because I could picture this guy interrupting them every few seconds, but they just kept on going with their conversations. This just goes on for a while. With this section it also reminds me of some the things that Stephany J. mentioned before. I felt like when he was saying they’re not saints, but they keep their appointments I feel like they were talking about God. Sometimes we question our faith and religions because of all the bad things that takes place in our lives we wonder if there is a God out there. I feel like that’s kind of what they were saying, that even though Godot wants holding up his end of the deal they are. And then when Estragon suggested that Billions are doing the same thing it just seems like a comparison to God’s followers.

Kellie said...

Part A

In relation to the theme I pointed out in part one, I can still see a strong resemblance in uncertainty throughout the text. Taking that uncertainty to another level, I can see what Stephany is saying about religion. Although I do not feel this story is fully focused on religion, I feel as though these two themes are important as a pair. With uncertainty being a huge theme throughout the book, religion comes into play because these two characters are waiting for this important Godot. Even if they do not know if he really exists or is coming, they remain faithful and do not move. They wait for him, as faithful followers would do. In a way, these two men act as if they are disciples of God (God being Godot).

In a way, I can see what Samuel Beckett was trying to do. I think he was trying to relate the uncertainty of life in this book. One way he does this is in the arrival of Godot. I feel like his is mocking people’s reactions to God, and the arrival of the Savior. One quote that made me see this was:

“Vladimir: We’ll hang ourselves to-morrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
Estragon: And if he comes?
Vladimir: We’ll be saved.”

This quote shows that they both see that upon Godot’s arrival, they will be “saved”, but Beckett does not tell the reader what they will be saved from. I like the fact that these two themes intertwine, but I am still confused as to why these two characters seem like they are in a relationship. It is confusing and interesting at the same time, how Beckett incorporates a religious theme while also incorporating two men that could possibly be in a relationship.

Stephanie A. said...

Hearing this play read out load in class rather then reading the play on my own was a lot different then I would have imagined. The play went by so much faster hearing it read out load and I feel like Sam P. and Jessica did a really good job at bringing the two characters to life. Contrary Stephany J. and Gaelle’s feelings towards the play, I actually really like this play. This is a type of narrative that makes you think. That’s one thing I liked about it. I like that the messages and meanings behind the characters and their story are not so obvious which gives the play many possible ways of receiving the play. I mean, I admit, the dialogue was confusing. At times, the characters made no sense, and yes they were repetitive, but none of that really mattered to me because I just enjoyed hearing the dialogue read out load in class.

I continued to love the relationship between Estragon and Vladimir. Even if they tried to depart form one another, one would come back. But as Kellie asked, why did these men seem to have such a close relationship, and where they in a relationship at all? I honestly think that their closeness was nothing more then two really good friends, like best friends I’d say. One never let the other down really and they were always there for each other, not that they really had anywhere else to go or anything to do. They’re relationship is probably nothing more then two committed friends.

To me they seemed like two old senile men who might also be hobos since they seem to be outside all the time and sleeping in no particular place. They must have been senile because they couldn’t recall things that happened to them.

Vladimir: And where were we yesterday evening according to you?
Estragon: How would I know? In another compartment. There’s no lack of void
Vladimir: (sure of himself) Good we weren’t here yesterday evening. Now what did we do yesterday evening?
Estragon: Do?
Vladimir: Try and remember.
Estragon: Oh…this and that I suppose, nothing in particular. Yes, now I remember, yesterday evening we spent blathering away about nothing in particular. That’s been going on now for half a century.
Vladimir: You don’t remember any fact, and circumstance?

And their conversation continues with them having a hard time remembering Pozzo and Lucky that whole event that happened in act one. All they seem to know for sure is that they were with one another.

At first when I was hearing this read out load in class, I started to think that the whole play was one big dream. But the beginning of this scene said “Next day. Same time. Same place.” So if Estragon and Vladimir can’t remember the whole event with Pozzo and Lucky, which doesn’t seem be an event that happens often as a part of their daily routines of waiting for Godo, then they must be senile. Or maybe, because they repeatedly do the same thing everyday that they’re lives just seem like one big blur.

Stephany J. said...

PART B

In relation to Jennifer’s statement, I’d like to address a possible reason why Beckett made Pozzo blind. Beckett may have chosen to make Pozzo blind for his refusal to see the actual truth. His previous behavior in act one was abominable when it pertained to Lucky. Lucky tried to do what his master wanted, but all Pozzo could do was to treat him poorly. Since Lucky depended on Pozzo for survival, he thought that gave him the right to treat and talk to Lucky as he pleased. In other words, Pozzo was depicted as a conceited bully. The tables quickly turn when Pozzo becomes blind and is dependent on other people. When he finally enters the final act he can barely hold himself up. Pozzo attempts to steady himself, but falls, and remains that way for a sufficient period of time. He quickly discovers that being dependent on other people is actually frightening and time consuming. Like Jennifer previously stated, “the whole time that he was asking for help, they kept on going back and forth on other things that had nothing to do with helping Pozzo”. Vladimir and Estragon’s oblivious attention toward Pozzo’s needs was meant to serve as a lesson. The way that Pozzo went through his life previously was exactly like Vladimir and Estragon’s interaction. He was so caught up in his own world that he didn’t have the time or energy to care about the needs of others. As Pozzo continued to call out for help the audience could sense his increasing exacerbation towards the situation. Pozzo’s blindness can be interpreted as his failure to see the suffering in other people. What I found interesting was how Lucky still chose to be faithful to Pozzo and lead him around instead of merely running away. After all Pozzo had put him through, he still remained by his side. If you were in Lucky’s shoes, would you make the same decision?

Vladimir: Don't go yet.
Pozzo: I'm going.
Vladimir: What do you do when you fall far from help?
Pozzo: We wait till we can get up. Then we go on. On!
Vladimir: Before you go tell him to sing.
Pozzo: Who?
Vladimir: Lucky.
Pozzo: To sing?
Vladimir: Yes. Or to think. Or to recite.
Pozzo: But he is dumb.
Vladimir: Dumb!
Pozzo: Dumb. He can't even groan.

SamP1 said...

Prompt A

The second act really won me over, despite everyone else’s opinion. It was really rather funny. But, while making me laugh, it also made me think about the relationship and mindset of both Estragon and Vladimir. Throughout the second act, I felt that Vladimir had a better sense of what was happening in their lives, whereas Estragon was completely oblivious. This makes me wonder whether or not Vladimir was okay with the way he was living. It seems that he could have been pretending to be okay with his situation for the sake of Estragon.
Vladimir: Good. We weren’t here yesterday evening. Now what did we do yesterday evening?
Estragon: Do?
Vladimir: Try and remember.
Estragon: Do… I suppose we blathered.
Vladimir: (controlling himself) About what?
It seems, as hard as Vladimir tries, he can’t seem to accept not knowing what happens to them, which tells that his mental capacity is much more than that of Estragon.

Stephanie A. said...

Prompt B

In response to Stephany J’s question, if I was Lucky, I would never stay faithful to Pozzo It does make me wonder why Lucky remained faithful to Pozzo though. I would have run away because Pozzo treated Lucky so horribly. Then again there must be a reason why Lucky didn’t want to run away. Back in act one, Lucky was trying to show Pozzo how useful he was because he didn’t want to be sold to someone else. Maybe Lucky did this because if Lucky were sold to someone else, the treatment he would receive would be a lot harsher. Maybe Lucky was afraid of being free. To me Lucky is an interesting character for not running free. But even if Lucky did run away he wouldn’t really be free. He could maybe stay free for a while but then what if he got caught? He would end up back in slavery. There really would be no way out for Lucky. I wonder what kind of message isn’t being made there. I mean, it has to be more then just saying Lucky was afraid. Is there a biblical reference behind Lucky and Pozzo like there seems to be behind everything else? I have to say, for some reason the biblical references completely flew over my head when we read act two. I didn’t notice the “Cain” and “Abel” name references, I thought nothing of it. And when Vladimir and Estragon talk about how when Godot comes they’ll be “saved,” that biblical parallel also did not phrase me at first. Thinking about all these connections, I just wonder where the possible biblical parallel is between Lucky and Pozzo. Could it be that Pozzo saves Lucky from the harshness and sins of the world? But I don’t think that’s really it since Pozzo is harsh to Lucky himself. So what is the theme behind Lucky and Pozzo?

oliviak said...

The second act was basically the same as the first, except that Pozzo somehow becomes blind. I just don't understand what the purpose of this entire play was. I know that it's a tragicomedy, and parts of it were funny, but as a whole it just doesn't make sense.
I'm thinking that's what Samuel Beckett wanted to establish. This book was published in 1954, shortly after the end of the second world war. I think that at this time, people were kind of lost and confused, and nobody knew what was going to come next or what to do in the present. The way that I would describe is it 'running in circles'. Only because they're working or doing something that isn't changing, or hearing news that's not changing. In any case, that's exactly how Beckett's play is written. The characters are going in circles and are beginning to question their purpose or what they're supposed to be doing.
I think the religious aspect to it is that Godot is some kind of savior that is supposed to make things better or give something to Estragon and Vladimir that will change their life. However, Godot, nor relief, will come and that's what Beckett wanted to show. The people can't find releief or help for their situations.
The situations of Vladimir and Estragon mirror what is going on with Pozzo and Lucky. Lucky is stuck taking abuse from Pozzo, but he won't leave because he doesn't think it could get any better. He's so used to following Pozzo around that he couldn't leave him. This is like how Estragon and Vladimir won't do anything but wait for Godot because they want something different and something to give their lives meaning. Whenever they talk about leaving or moving, they never actually move. For example, at the very end of the play:
Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?
Estragon: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.

They won't physically move because they don't know anything else. They'd rather sit around and wait for someone who won't come than change their lives themselves. They even kept bringing up suicide as an alternative. On the page before the last:
Estragon: You say we have to come back tomorrow?
Vladimir: Yes.
Estragon: Then we can bring a good bit of rope.
Vladimir: Yes.

The rope that they're talking about will be used to hang themselves from the tree.

I don't know if this play was supposed to actually have some kind of meaning like this, but I just feel like it has to have some kind of meaning because I've never heard of anything being written with absolutely no purpose. And I do not think that something like this published in 1954 would not have a meaning.

oliviak said...

Part B

I agree with Stephany J and Kelly's comments about the religious aspect that this book repetitively alluded to. In Part 1 the references to Cain and Abel, and Godot being a 'god-like' figure definitley set a theme for the rest of the play.
I like how Stephany J described Pozzo and Lucky being like Cain and Abel from the reference. It seems like a lot of Beckett's characters are people from the Bible. Not just Pozzo and Lucky, but Godot being the 'god-like' figure, or even Jesus.
I don't really know who Vladimir and Estragon would be or how they would fit in there.

I also agreed with Jen's comment about how the second part was hard to read because of the repitiveness of the events. It was hard to stay focused on the dialogues because they didn't end up going anywhere different. I felt like it just served a purpose for more confusion, especially since Pozzo suddenly is blind and we don't even know how.
I think it was just frustrating to read because we're used to stories that have a theme or a purpose and aren't just leading readers in circles.
I also liked what Gaelle said about Pozzo deserving what he got, meaning him becoming blind. He was unnecessarily rude to Lucky in Part 1 so while I wish I could understand what happened to make him blind, I feel like he definitely deserved it.
Lastly, I think that Kellie was right about the play being about uncertainty. It definitely is about indecision and not knowing what to do with life. There are a few different ideas in this play that Beckett kind of integrated into one presistent idea throughout the entire play. It's just hard to figure them out because of the stlye in which it was written.

Sandy. J said...

Prompt A

As I can tell, there are controversial feelings about this play. I don’t think it matters whether it’s corny or that we don’t like it or if it even makes sense to us. There’s obviously a purpose to those techniques, and in my opinion that’s what makes the play what it is. One thing I thought that was very interesting in the play was Estragon’s memory loss. Beckett displays it on page 39-40, Vladimir: “And Pozzo and Lucky, have you forgotten them too?” Estragon: “Pozzo and Lucky?” “He’s forgotten everything!” I thought that Beckett used his memory loss as a representation of the effect life has on the human race. Estragon’s character seems to be tired of living, he’s weary and he feels as if his existence is of no importance. Beckett shows the reoccurring idea of Vladimir and Estragon’s obsession with death, more importantly suicide when Estragon suggested that “the best thing would be to kill me, like the other”, he exhibits their want for an escape out of the dull, meaningless life that they’re living.
I was wondering why every time Estragon and Vladimir need to look for something to do, they always look to the hat. It’s as if the hat represents something, like that’s where the answers to everything lie. The hat seems to symbolize a special object that they could rely on, when Godot didn’t arrive or when they needed to “pass the time”. They always wore them, meaning that the hat is always there for them no matter what. I mentioned earlier how Estragon felt as if his and Vladimir’s existence wasn’t important, Beckett shows it through Estragon saying it himself, “we always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?” I took their feeling of non existence as them being out casts from society. As if they didn’t matter, and that everything they did went unnoticed. I felt as if Beckett uses Vladimir and Estragon as a representation of the human race. They are not the only ones who feel as they do, other humans feel the same way in society, and Beckett was showing that through their journey and their inactiveness during that journey.
Overall, I liked this play. I thought it was an intelligent way to convey a message about the human race, and the effect that society can have on an individual. Beckett cleverly used two senile simpletons to portray that idea, and it worked in so many different aspects. Although, as other students have said, the play didn’t make sense at times, and it might have provoked a feeling of dislike, Beckett did a well done job of conveying his message.

Sandy. J said...

Prompt B

In response to Sam P’s comment, it’s actually the other way around. In the first act, Vladimir was always the one who knew what was going on and what he was doing, and Estragon was in complete oblivion. It’s the same for Act II, but there is actually a part where Vladimir is the one that needs Estragon. He misses Estragon when he was gone, and fully embraced him when he came back.
Also in response to Jennifer’s question, I think that Beckett made Pozzo blind for a completely different reason. I actually think it’s to show how there are things that happen in life that are simply inexplicable, even Pozzo didn’t know how he became blind “Don’t question me! The blind have no notion of time.” It was also odd that Lucky wasn’t smart anymore; he couldn’t dance, nor think or sing. The author suggests that life is unexpected, and that things will happen and we’ll have no clue of how they came about. The repetition of one day when Pozzo was speaking shows the emphasis of what could happen in one day. All the things he mentions, such as going deaf, being born, dying are all things that happen to all of us, which brings us back to the point that the characters represent mankind, and what happens throughout this lifetime.
The fact that the last part of Act II was like the beginning of Act I shows the circle of life, and how the same things happen to us all the time. I agree with Olivia that everything happens in a circle, he suggests that life itself is a cycle. Humans are just its subjects; they’re affected by it, but can’t really do anything to change it.

SamP1 said...

Prompt B

I want to continue on Kellie and Stephany J's argument about how religion is a major theme of the play.
Stephany brought up excellent points that I never noticed throughout the text, that Godot is certainly shown as a God-like figure at the end of Act II.

Vladimir: We’ll hang ourselves to-morrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
Estragon: And if he comes?
Vladimir: We’ll be saved.

The term "saved" basically sums up what the two characters are waiting for - salvation.

But for what?

Kellie said...

Part B

In relation to what Olivia stated about the rope, I definitely did not think about the rope that much. Now that it was mentioned, I can definitely see how that would make sense. Throughout the entire book, these two characters are uncertain about what they must do, and the only thing that they seem certain about is suicide. If things didn’t go their way, they would use the rope. I really like how the rope was interpreted by Olivia because it definitely makes sense throughout the text.

Another thing I wanted to comment on was Sandy’s post. She stated that she “felt as if Beckett uses Vladimir and Estragon as a representation of the human race”. I thought this was very interesting because that would mean that the entire human race is uncertain about life, and what comes out of life. Taking that into consideration, this makes Olivia’s statement even more interesting. Maybe the author wanted the reader to realize that the entire human race is doomed. This makes me think that humans are way in over their head, and do not realize how insignificant and doomed we really. I thought that these two ideas were really interesting, especially when they were put together.

hillary said...

PART A

This second part really reminded me of the story of the Good Samaritan. It is basically about a man on the streets that needed help but was constantly neglected by passersby. This connects to Pozzo's situation and how he begged for help on multiple occasions, and yet Vladimir and Estragon continued getting distracted.

Pozzo: Help!
Vladimir: To help him --
Estragon: We help him?

The ironic thing i noticed in this play is that in contrast to all of this religious context, the two men seem to be gay, something that the church is against. This made me think that Beckett is actually questioning God and the circumstances related to being "saved." Vladimir and Estragon do not seem to be doing so well living the life of a follower of God. They are not helping people in need and they may be gay. I think they are depending on just the fact that they are giving up their time waiting for God (assuming Godot = God).

So the play doesn't need to focus on a certain setting and doesn't need a specific plot. This could occur at any time and in any dimension and the purpose would still remain the same. Beckett is going beyond the physicality of time and place. His theme is centered around something more spiritual and around human curiosity.

hillary said...

PART B

Elaborating on Sandy's observation of the hat, I think the hat symbolizes his expectations, and ultimately the human race's expectations. The hat is empty and dark. Vladimir always "takes off his hat, peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes it, knocks on the crown, puts it on again," as if expecting to find something inside each time. But he always comes up short of nothing. He does this several times while waiting for Godot. As time passes, I think he is expecting to be rewarded for waiting so long.

And then there is this fear of not waiting. Constantly, from beginning to end, Estragon and Vladimir NEVER move. After checking the hat and receiving no sign from Godot, it seems as though they would eventually give up. But they continue to stay still and wait. The idea behind this religion is that you should always wait, no matter what happens. There isn't a certainty of what you're waiting for, but it's expected. It tests loyalty and endurance.

In response to the Jennifer's question, I think Pozzo became blind to show God's wrath. Pozzo was not a good man (not to say that Vladimir and Estragon were saints), but he was a slave owner and a cruel one at that. I believe Beckett was hinting at evil ultimately becoming ruled over. All the while, Vladimir and Estragon waited patiently without harm.

Gaelle said...

Sandy

You mention something about the hat.How everytime they seem lost or looking for something ,they look at inside the hat .I def agree how you connected and see it as a symbol. In part 1,I think that happen twice and it happen again.

As for Stephany j,I really like you make a great connection with the characters. Like I said before,that never cross my mind when reading the first part of the play, but it seem to show more like you mention how estragon and Vladimir was calling Pozzo by different names.I don't know if you read my comment ,but I think you did because one of the question I had, why did they use the name Cain or Abel? I really like how you intrepet that .It make sense

Olivia
good point ,yea I understand where the other characters fit in,same here i'm lost how Estragon and Vladimir fit in this .I don't see who they suppose to be or represent.

Jen said...

Part B:
To what Kellie mentioned about the two characters being in a relationship, I was wondering if the author was going down that road, because at times the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon did seem a bit off. What stephany J said about Pozzo being blind does make sense. I feel like if the whole blindness thing was to demonstrate how this character’s refusing to see the truth, then why didn’t he do the same with Estragon. This time Vladimir remembered, but it seems like Estragon had no clue of what took place the night before. It says
Vladimir: Good. We weren’t here yesterday evening. Now what did we do yesterday evening?
Estragon: Do?
Vladimir: Try and remember.

To what Stephany A said about ‘Lucky was trying to show Pozzo how useful he was because he didn’t want to be sold to someone else.’ I thought that this part was supposed to be sarcastic. I thought that Pozzo really did know what was going on and that he was just playing dumb. I don’t think Lucky was trying to sat with him in any way, he didn’t show any proof of that. Since he’s a slave I don’t think he has a choice but to live the life that he’s been forced into.
I like how Olivia related the play to the time that it was written in, because it can be viewed as another way to get an understanding of these confusing characters. I agree with how Kellie said that the second part reminds her of the Good Samaritan story. The whole time I was reading I was thinking about how Jesus said that he’ll always be there, that he’ll come through people we know, so that we can offer him help. I think it’s written like that to see if even with all the distractions they have going in their lives, if they’ll stop and help someone in need.

Jess said...

Yeah Hillary, I was seeing the same thing. The whole time I was actually thinking that Pozzo may have been Godot. If we continue with the play on names for the characters, Pozzo sounds suspiciously similary to Poser. I think maybe it may have been Godot in disguise, and similar to the Good Samaritan story, if they had put more effort into helping him and making sure he would get on his way alright, since they had nothing better to do anyway, then maybe he would have led them where they needed to be. I think they are symbolic of all the "Christians" out there today that say they believe in God and don't go to church or do really anything even remotely Christian. (This is a completely unbiased view: I am atheist)I know there are some out there who take it to the extreme (like the Westboro Baptist Church) and believe that unless you work towards it you will not be saved in the end. Maybe Beckett was trying to send a similar message, and that if you just wait, you won't get anything. Maybe he's not even talking about religion. Maybe it's just a general message. If you wait around for your goals to come to you, then you won't really get anywhere.

Jess said...

And when it come to the discussion you are all having about Pozzo and Lucky, I honestly believe Pozzo treats Lucky the way he does because he is the one who needs Lucky. He has nothing to offer Lucky, and has too much pride to ask him to stay as company, so instead he has to make it appear as though Lucky needs him.

And Steph A, your comment that they are both old just reminded me of something else I wanted to bring up. They do say at one point that they have been friends for about fifty years. So they are obviously old men. So maybe they are in limbo? They really can't tell where they are or how long they've been there. Maybe, if we continue along the religious theme, they are waiting for GODot's judgement?

Jackie said...

Jessica, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think that a religious theme is prevalent throughout the second act and throughout the entire play. I do think that there is a possibility that Pozzo could be Godot however I think that Pozzo would be more of a Christ figure than God? Seeing as how Christ is the Messiah and he walks and lives among his people, whereas God can never actually be seen. Another thought, it seems to me like maybe this could possibly not be Christianity at all, maybe, it's Judaism, they are waiting for Godot like the Jewish are still waiting for the messiah. No matter what figures (Pozzo and Lucky could symbolize Jesus and his apostles) cross their path, they still remain faithful in waiting for Godot, the true Messiah.

Jackie said...

I really enjoyed the second act. However one thing that really stood out to me is the remark that Vladimir makes to Pozzo when Pozzo asks "What is it like?"
Vladimir: (looking around. It's indescribable. It's like nothing. There's nothing. There's a tree.
I found this small interaction interesting because it seems as though Beckett wants it to mean something more. The fact that he has Vladimir describe nothingness to man who can see nothing is ironic and also alludes to how all of the characters in this play have nothing. Pozzo has nothing because he has lost his sight, and with that his ability to analyze what goes on around him like he did in the first act. However the bigger irony is that Beckett has Vladimir that there is nothing there, that him and Estragon are waiting for nothing. The nothingness of the setting shows how they (Vladimir and Estragon) are waiting for Godot because they have nothing else in their lives, all they have is each other. However the only reason they stay together is because they have nothing else in their lives. Though they bicker and argue they always go back to each other because one is and has nothing without the other. The fact that they sit and wait for someone who has yet to come and continues to prolong their meeting for the next day shows that they do not have anything else to live for. It is this that makes me wonder about the cover/title of the play, " a tragicomedy in two acts". Is this the tragedy? That they must wait for Godot due to the nothingness in their lives? I assume that the comedy is the hilarious conversations and interactions that they have with each other and the other characters. However it does seem tragic that all they have is the hope and determination to meet this Mysterious Godot.