Waiting for Godot: Humanity’s passive disposition

Walter Sickert’s painting, Ennui, depicts idleness, isolation and weariness of thought brought on by profound boredom. The two figures in the painting are near each other but they are facing opposite directions, conveying a sense of isolation and languor, creating a heavy atmosphere. Sickert’s painting does not depict a scene but an experience ― that of ennui. The woman’s body language as she is leaning on the furniture along with the man’s pensive yet vacant expression while smoking his cigar, convey idleness as well as a surge of passivity. Similar to Sickert’s painting; Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot represents an experience by presenting how the majority of humanity is passive towards the truth. Beckett’s two protagonists choose to remain passive, in a state of mediocrity, dismissing the internal turmoil, and wasting time waiting for an external source, Godot, to provide them with meaning. It seems that Beckett, in Waiting for Godot, has created a skeleton, a dramatic framework enacting the general reaction towards ennui. Owing to this minimalist feature in the play, the observer is left with very little to be distracted by, leading the individual to be shocked out of one’s passive state.

James Eliopulos has defined Beckett’s use of the absurd as ‘the technique of Exhaustive Enumeration’ [explaining how] ‘the French have a word for this, marrant, which means both tiresome and funny’.¹ The absurd elements in this play, established in the playwright’s use of language and depiction of behaviour, ostensibly suggest that Vladimir and Estragon are suffering from a situative type of boredom. However, the decision to stick to each other and the insistence in waiting for Godot indicates that these two men are escaping their internal void. Since they use language to avoid listening to their inner silence, the fear of this inner void is heard through ‘all the dead voices [which…] make a noise like wings […] Like leaves […] Like sand’.² Vladimir and Estragon stick to one another because their state of mind depends on it. They ‘converse calmly’³ since they fear the ’horror vacui’.⁴

Martin Esslin observes how Vladimir and Estragon convey ‘an image of the interrelatedness of the elements within a single personality [an element which] is in conflict with itself’.⁵ We notice how Estragon is constantly trying to go beyond the waiting but Vladimir is there to remind him who they are waiting for. These two characters seem to form one whole personality; Estragon representing that part of the personality which yearns to go beyond the waiting, hence, he has the potential to move beyond mediocrity into superman status as Nietzsche would say. Vladimir is that part of the personality which questions life but does not take action; he questions the incongruity in the Bible and he has a tendency to be melancholic about the past, as when he mentions how they were ‘respectable […] hand in hand from the top of the Eiffel Tower’.⁶ Although he thinks about the past, he never questions it or his existence, hence, remaining in a passive state. Vladimir fears isolation and he keeps Estragon back by helping him and by putting him down. Nietzsche condemns those who ‘flee to [their] neighbour away from [themselves] and would like to make a virtue of it’,⁷ in fact, he would certainly tell Vladimir, ‘I see through your ‘selflessness’’.⁸

Critics have observed how this play recalls a Laurel and Hardy show because of the antics of the two protagonists. This play has comedic features such as when Vladimir is frequently described as ‘tak[ing] off his hat, peer[ing] inside it, feel[ing] about inside it, shak[ing] it, put[ting] it on again’.⁹ Through this absurdity, Vladimir and Estragon are trying to establish their existence. Indeed, Estragon tells Vladimir how they ‘always find something […] to give [them] the impression that [they] exist’.¹⁰ Instead of questioning the meaning of their life, they rely on each other so they can continually verify their existence. The futility of this behaviour increases the sense of emptiness in the atmosphere of the play where it stops being funny and starts to become tragic. The void is tragic in itself, and when the individual is passive then it becomes even more so. There is a moment when Estragon exclaims, ‘nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it’s awful’,¹¹ expressing despair when he lets emptiness consume him for a moment. His exclamation recalls Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, when the latter says ‘everything is empty, everything is one, everything is past!’¹² Dostoevsky’s underground man expresses how ‘it is in desperation that one finds one’s most glorious moments’.¹³ Zarathustra allows desperation to consume him, he goes beyond everything and reaches a superman status. However, Estragon remains in a state of nothingness because he chooses to dismiss the feeling of despair since the journey towards superman status involves a great deal of turmoil.

Human nature is prone to suffer from ennui but the way one goes about it depends on the individual. ‘Godot continues to be a void that interpreters (readers and performers alike) attempt to fill’.¹⁴ Critics have attempted to explain what Godot meant for Beckett but the playwright himself has admitted that if he knew, he ‘would have said so in the play’.¹⁵ Godot has been given multiple interpretations yet concretely Godot is the mechanism used by the two protagonists to evade the truth, and we witness this when Vladimir keeps telling Estragon, ‘let’s wait and see what [Godot] says’¹⁶ so as to avoid making their own decisions. Sartre states that, ‘the first act of bad faith consists in evading what one cannot evade, in evading what one is’.¹⁷ Estragon frequently hints to the reader that this evasion is starting to tire him and he asks Vladimir whether they are tied down to Godot, suggesting in the meantime that he already knows what the truth is.

The passive nature of these two protagonists is perceived in the characters of William Gerhardie’s novel, Futility, which tells the story of Andrei Andreiech’s relationship with the Vasilievich family. The three sisters of the novel, along with a surrogate mother, Nikolia’s soon-to-be divorced wife and her partner, Nikolia’s girlfriend and the latter’s extended family all depend financially on Nikolia Vasilievich, the only one who provides financial help. The characters of the novel know that Nikolia Vasilievich’s mines will never bring them more money, so their waiting is futile, but they refuse to acknowledge the truth. Instead, they rely on a false hope that the mines will set them free from Nikolia Vasilievich financially. In Waiting for Godot the protagonists go through the same futile process, expecting their ‘saviour’.¹⁸

Hugh Kenner has stated that ‘the substance of the play is waiting, amid uncertainty’,¹⁹ a statement reflecting not only the protagonists’ passive nature but humanity in general; the sceptical thought of men like Nietzsche and Camus who believed that humans are all waiting and there is nothing to wait for. Estragon is a potential superman because he is sceptical about their attending situation. There are moments in the play where he says, ‘let’s go’²⁰ but Vladimir continually reminds him that they are waiting for Godot. Estragon’s reply to Vladimir’s justification is a ‘despairing […] ah!’²¹ Beckett’s stage direction suggests that the ah should be uttered in that way to show how Vladimir is constantly reminding Estragon of the illusion of Godot; a reminder which stops Estragon from moving beyond the futility of their situation. Moreover, both Vladimir and Estragon have said about their situation that there is ‘nothing to be done’²² except to wait. They do make an effort to pass the time by attempting suicide, but Vladimir is quick to stop the operation, telling Estragon, ‘don’t let’s do anything. It’s safer,’²³ opting instead for ‘the suspense of waiting— of indefinite waiting for indefinite things.’²⁴
The idea of Godot suggests an arrival that will provide them with the meaning they need to lead a fuller existence. Their state of mind is similar to the Vasilievich’s family because the latter also believe that their ‘present was not really life at all: that life was somewhere in the future: that this was but a temporary and transitory stage to be spent in patient waiting’.²⁵ Estragon should have dismissed Vladimir’s reminder; as Nietzsche states, one should ‘not believe those who speak […] of superterrestrial hopes!’²⁶ Since Vladimir keeps reminding him of Godot, Estragon finds it hard to depart. Indeed, when Pozzo says that he is not able to depart, Estragon declares, ‘such is life’.²⁷ This life, however, is the life of the mediocre man who fears isolation and the void, and instead chooses to live a life ‘engaged in a perpetual act of waiting’.²⁸ The density of this play lies in its language; one which alludes and forms different interpretations. Among the sequence of words during Lucky’s speech a particular mantra is repeated. Lucky states how, ‘for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment…’²⁹ Despite its vagueness, this mantra is alluding to the eternal cycle, a nihilistic notion that is endured by every human being and is ignored by the majority of humanity who, like Vladimir and Estragon, fear the horror vacui.

Worton observes how,

One solution adopted by Beckett’s characters is mechanical repetition, re-enacting situations without perceiving any significance in these repeated actions […] The object of these games is not fun but defence against a world they do not and cannot comprehend or accent.³⁰

Repetition indicates the problem Vladimir and Estragon have, one which presents them as not being able to cope with ‘being-in-time’.³¹ Instead of acknowledging that they are the ones who need to take hold of their lives, they keep holding it off; hence, they are never able to live in the present. Worton interprets the repetition in ‘the Beckettian universe […] [as] the characters tak[ing] refuge in repetition, repeating their own actions and words and often those of others— in order to pass the time’.³²

At one point in Zarathustra’s journey, this superman asks, ‘must we not have been here before?’³³ and ‘must we not return eternally?’³⁴ In Waiting for Godot, Beckett has presented us with individuals who do not ask Zarathustra’s same questions because acknowledging the repetition would mean renouncing the safety niche of Godot. However, Lucky conveys a sense of resignation to the world. Colin Duckworth questions whether, ‘Lucky [is] so named because he has found his Godot’.³⁵ Perhaps he has realised it is absurd to wait for Godot and that is why he is lucky. The cyclical pattern of Lucky’s speech conveys the cyclical pattern Zarathustra acknowledges and preaches and Lucky seems to be suggesting that he too has acknowledged the cycle of his tedious life. It is ironic that Lucky is in the worst position out of the four characters because he is a slave, yet he seems to be in a better position than the rest. Indeed, Lucky is reminiscent of Camus’s Sisyphus; a man who has acknowledged the fact that he will have to endure a terrible punishment for eternity.

In this play, there is perfect symmetry in the characters’ actions since Vladimir and Estragon are continually static while Pozzo and Lucky are continually moving. Pozzo moves about but he does admit he is not able to depart the moment he stops to speak to them. This confession shows Pozzo is in his own repeated cycle— movement, and the moment he stops he finds it difficult to resume his journey. This difficulty reflects his refusal to accept that just like the rest of humanity, whatever action he takes, will not free him from the eternal cycle. Lucky can be distinguished from the other three characters because he seems to represent the intellectual part of humanity. Else, he is represented in a miserable state because he has acknowledged the nihilistic reality of life. Zarathustra was sad when the people around him dismissed what he was preaching, saying how, ‘they look at [him] and laugh: and laughing they still hate [him]’.³⁶ Lucky experiences the same sad situation since in the first act his deconstructed speech alludes to the eternal cycle and as a result the intellectual part of the play is made permanently quiet in the second act, when Beckett makes Lucky dumb.

Vladimir and Estragon’s situation appears to be more horrible than Camus’s Sisyphus or Zarathustra because they have not acknowledged the reality of life. These two men frustrate the reader because one knows their waiting is pointless. Zarathustra describes a superman as, ‘great and solitary: that is how the will of the genuine man is’.³⁷ Vladimir and Estragon’s reluctance to acknowledge ennui, their passiveness, is reflected in the absurd world they create through the mechanics of language. In the Pensées, Pascal discusses Vladimir and Estragon as they wait for Godot, saying,

Nothing is so insufferable to man as to be completely at rest, without passions, without business, without diversion… He then feels his nothingness, his forlornness, his insufficiency, his dependence, his weakness, his emptiness. There will immediately arise from the depth of his heart weariness, gloom, sadness, fretfulness, vexation, despair.³⁸

Indeed, idleness reminds the individual of what is occurring in one’s inner state; however, this is what the individual needs to be able to overcome the inner turmoil. Beckett has provided very little distractions in the play and the atmosphere reflects the inner emptiness of the protagonists. However, this void is not the result of ennui as such but it is the result of Vladimir and Estragon’s passive nature. Svendsen states how, ‘the waiting for meaning, for the moment, is endless’.³⁹ Beckett’s two protagonists should have stopped believing in the illusion of Godot, opting instead to find meaning in the present by isolating themselves and learning to hear their inner selves. Beckett has managed to create the figure of the everyman in his two protagonists, literary characters who represent man. The audience is generally frustrated by the protagonists’ idleness, yet it is this same idle state that consumes the majority of humanity.

Endnotes

¹ James Eliopulos, Samuel Beckett’s dramatic language (Netherlands: Mouton and Co. N.V., 1975), p. 63.

² Samuel Beckett, The complete dramatic works (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1986), p. 57.

³ Ibid., p. 57.

⁴ Lars Svendsen, A philosophy of boredom, trans. by John Irons (London: Reakton Books Ltd., 2005), p. 54.

⁵ Martin Esslin, The theatre of the absurd, 3^rd edn. (1861; Reading: Cox and Wyman Ltd., 2001), p. 67.

⁶ The complete dramatic works, p. 11.

⁷ Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, This spoke Zarathustra, trans. by R.J.Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2003), p. 86.

⁸ Ibid., p. 86.

⁹ The complete dramatic works, p. 11.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 63.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 39.

¹² This spoke Zarathustra, p. 155.

¹³ Fyodor Dostoevsky, Letters from the underworld (1864; London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1945), p. 11.

¹⁴ Casebook series: Beckett: Waiting for Godot, ed. by Ruby Cohn ([n.p] Macmillan Education Ltd., 1987), p. 151.

¹⁵ The Cambridge companion to Beckett, ed. by John Pilling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 67.

¹⁶ The complete dramatic works, p. 18.

¹⁷ Sartre in Martin Esslin, The theatre of the absurd, 3^rd edn. (Reading: Cox and Wyman Ltd., 2001), p. 61.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 13.

¹⁹ Hugh Kenner, A reader’s guide to Samuel Beckett (London: Thomas and Hudson Ltd., 1973), p. 32

²⁰ The complete dramatic works, p. 62.

²¹ Ibid., p. 62.

²² Ibid., p. 21.

²³ The complete dramatic works, p. 18.

²⁴ William Gerhardie, Futility (Canada: Penguin Books, 1971), p. 74.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 151.

²⁶ This spoke Zarathustra, p. 42.

²⁷ The complete dramatic works, p. 44.

²⁸ The Cambridge companion to Beckett, p. 70.

²⁹ The complete dramatic works, p. 40.

³⁰ The Cambridge companion to Beckett, p. 72.

³¹ Ibid., p. 70.

³² Ibid., p. 69.

³³ This spoke Zarathustra, p. 179.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 179.

³⁵ Casebook series: Beckett: Waiting for Godot, p. 84.

³⁶ This spoke Zarathustra, p. 47.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 127.

³⁸ Blaise Pascal, Pensées (NuVision Publications, 2007), p. 39.

³⁹ Lars Svendsen, p. 98.

Bibliography

Blaise Pascal, Pensées (NuVision Publications, 2007)

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, This spoke Zarathustra, trans. by R.J.Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2003)

Fyodor Dostoevsky, Letters from the underworld (1864; London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1945)

Hugh Kenner, A reader’s guide to Samuel Beckett (London: Thomas and Hudson Ltd., 1973)

James Eliopulos, Samuel Beckett’s dramatic language (Netherlands: Mouton and Co. N.V., 1975)

Lars Svendsen, A philosophy of boredom, trans. by John Irons (London: Reakton Books Ltd., 2005)

Martin Esslin, The theatre of the absurd, 3^rd edn. (1861; Reading: Cox and Wyman Ltd., 2001)

Samuel Beckett, The complete dramatic works (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1986)

William Gerhardie, Futility (Canada: Penguin Books, 1971)

Casebook series: Beckett: Waiting for Godot, ed. by Ruby Cohn ([n.p] Macmillan Education Ltd., 1987)

The Cambridge companion to Beckett, ed. by John Pilling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)

Be Sociable, Share!

•