'Waiting for Godot' as 'The Theatre of the Absurd'

The term ‘Theatre of Absurd’ was coined by Martin Esslin in his essay ‘The Theatre of Absurd’. The main exponents of this school were – Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Jean Genet. Although these writers oppose the idea of belonging to a particular school, yet their writings do have certain common characteristics on the basis of which they can be clubbed together in one category.
The term ‘absurd’ has also been linked to the mathematical term ‘surd’, which means a value that cannot be expressed in finite terms. In terms of literature, therefore, we can say that it refers to something that is irrational.
The concept of ‘absurd’ seems to have begun with Sartre’s philosophy. “The absurd is not a mere idea”, says Sartre, “it is revealed to us in a doleful illumination – getting up, tram, four hours of work, meal, sleep; Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.” The idea is similar to what Camus expressed in his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. The point stressed here is, beginning all over again as if it were a new life. The actions of the absurd hero are meaningless and illogical.
In his play ‘Waiting for Godot’ Samuel Beckett presents before us a highly absurd situation of two tramps – Vladimir and Estragon – waiting for someone called Godot, who doesn’t come. Both the tramps follow the same routine everyday – come and stand under a tree, wait for Godot, indulge in some senseless activities, keep on waiting the whole day, decide to begin afresh the next day. Moreover, Act II of the play is a mere photocopy of the first act with only one or two changes. Lucky accompanied by his master Pozzo comes in the first act but in the second the situation is reversed – Lucky is the master, Pozzo is his slave, who is blind now. A boy comes to inform Vladimir and Estragon that Godot won’t come that day but he’ll definitely come the next day. In the second act too, a boy comes to deliver the same message. When asked by Vladimir and Estragon, he says that he’s the brother of boy, who came on the previous day. Through the repetitive pattern of the play, Beckett probably wants to drive home the point to the audience (now, readers) that the absurdity in man’s life makes him incapable of performing something new.
As far as the actions of the two tramps are concerned, they too are absurd. Estragon’s removal of his shoes, for instance, is an absurd as well as a funny scene. Their conversation also is on the absurdian lines of the ‘Theatre of the Absurd’. For example,

Valdimir: Let’s go
Estragon: Let’s go
(They both don’t move.)

Sartre was of the view that man is born in a void. The same idea manifests itself in the fact that Beckett’s characters stand outside the society. Here Beckett differs from the other ‘absurd’ writers, especially Adamov. Beckett’s characters stand outside the society as if rejected. But they converse with each other. On the other hand, Adamov’s characters stand within the society as outcasts and don’t converse with anyone.
It may however, be safely concluded that although the actions, event and dialogues are absurd, they are not completely meaningless. They do have a symbolic value. The theatre of absurd by presenting before us these ‘absurd’s situations wants to convey to us the essential absurdity of man’s life. Yet there is hope that ‘Godot might come tomorrow’.

Who is Godot? in 'Waiting for Godot'

Critics have interpreted the identity of Godot in various ways, ranging from being a saviour and a god to being a rich employer. Critics have the life history of Beckett to establish the identity of Godot but Beckett's own reaction has been that if he knew who Godot was he would have mentioned that in the play. So let's interpret it ourselves. Godot symbolizes hope. It is only this wait for Godot, which is the only ray of hope for the tramps in the play.
The most popular and the strongest identity of Godot has been that of God. In the Bible God speaks to Moses, he fulfills the promises, he appears before Moses. But in 'Waiting for Godot' all this does not happen. Godot never comes, only his messengers appear - the two boys, one of them is treated fairly while the other is beaten up by Godot. So can we say that Beckett has portrayed the negative image of God in his character Godot? Godot is not just, impartial, true to his words. Beckett's Godot is the distorted version of God, so to say. Godot's not turning up even at the end of the play suggests probably the doubts in the mind of Beckett about the existence of God.

Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot'

'Waiting for Godot' by Samuel Beckett is one of my most favourite dramas. It is a typical example of an Absurd drama, although Beckett himself would have rejected that tag. The drama moves in circular motion - ending from where it all begun. The second act too is on the same pattern as the first one. The play begins with Estragon saying, "Nothing to be done." This is probably the conclusion of the play. So we have to be alive till we are dead.
Normally a play moves from point A to point B but the case of 'Waiting for Godot' is different. Another important part of any play is the characters. But there are no such characters in this play who grow, develop. Then witty dialogues like in other plays are absent here. There is repetition of dialogues, which are more like monosyllables or very short ones. There are more silences. The elaborate stage settings which are a part and parcel of any play are nowhere to be seen in 'Waiting for Godot'. There is a bare trees, country road; but no props, no stage.
Even in other absurd plays like Harold Pinter's 'The Birthday Party', Eugene Ionesco's 'Amedee', similar characteristics are displayed.