You are on page 1of 11

POSTMODERNISM IN SAMUEL BECKETTS: WAITING FOR GODOT

The term postmodernism is used to describe cultural, philosophical, historical, literary


and aesthetic changes during the 1900s, which had two bloody World Wars under its shelter.
Indeed these two devastating wars led to the everlasting question of the validity and
eligibility of the Rationality in general and Modernism in particular. Postmodernism is a
dramatic deviation of mans thought line; it is a renaissance towards breaking the chains of
the prescribed norms and notions, which have changed into economic and political
institutions. Postmodernism does not deal with any scientific rules, but it is the absolute
disbelief toward Metanarratives including religion, science, art and Marxism, which make
absolute universal and all-embracing claims to knowledge and truth. It suggests working
without rules in order to formulate the rules.
According to Rick Poyner "the products of postmodernism culture tend to be
distinguished by such characteristics as fragmentation, impurity of form, depthlessness,
indeterminacy, intertextuality, plurism, eclecticism and a return to the vernacular. Originality,
in the imperative modernist sense of making it new, ceases to be the goal; parody, pastiche
and the ironic recycling of earlier forms proliferate. The postmodern object problematizes
meaning, offers multiple points of access and makes itself as open as possible to
interpretation" (12). According to Noorbakhsh Hooti and Farzaneh Azizpour Postmodernism
relies heavily on fragmentation, paradox, and questionable narrators (16).
Postmodernism is considered to be a break from the 19th century realism. In this
concept, a story is told from an objective point of view. Technically, the postmodernist theory
deals with the turn of external reality into an inner state of consciousness. Samuel Beckett
although is considered to be a modernist writer but his play Waiting for Godot was written

during the time when modernism was being replaced by postmodernist movement and so the
play includes some elements of postmodernism. Beckett, for that matter, uses this concept
and integrates it into his major characters, Estragon and Vladimir. This means, therefore, that
Becketts use of postmodernism in his characters means that these characters unconsciously
show and manifest their inner consciousness through their dialogues.
Beckett introduces the strange world of Waiting for Godot, a mystery that is wrapped
in puzzle. Waiting for Godot was first written in French version in 1949 and then translated
into English in 1954 by Beckett himself. The two tramps wait expectantly to visit Godot,
have nothing significant to do with their lives, while waiting at a tree in the middle of
nowhere doing every possible thing, even contemplating suicide, just to keep the dreadful
silence at bay. Their waiting is interrupted by passing through of three other characters of the
play, Pozzo and his subservient slave, Lucky, and the boy who seems to be the messenger of
Godot.
POSTMODERN CHARACTERISTICS IN WAITING FOR GODOT
NON-LINEAR TIMELINE
One of the features of the postmodernism is to organize narrative time in non-linear
fashion and to present the story lines as fragmented and disrupted. The fundamental nature of
the narrative is the linear progression of action in the continuum of time and space. In each
scene, dialogues and movements weave the web of signification in conjuction with other
theatrical elements on the stage. The connection of dramatic moments in the action and
interaction of the characters is traditionally based on the principle of logic and causality. The
casual links which are in charge of the progression of action are frequently missing in
Becketts world. His scene is built with sentences with no apparent casual connectivity, all
seemingly discrete threads of string:

Estragon: A kind of prayer.


Vladimir: Precisely.
Estragon: A vague supplication.
Vladimir: Exactly
Time has little significance for Estragon and Vladimir. Both the acts are identical with
a little deviation but during their process of wait, they lose memory of time because of the
lack of any significant change in their lives. The viewpoints of the characters shifts from
present to biblical past and again to the present situation without any restriction portraying
the temporal distortion of human conditions which explains why Beckett gave less
importance to construct a beginning, middle and resolution to his play.
Without the repetitions, Vladimir and Estragon would feel overcome and disrupted by
time. Their repetitions thus seem to indicate two identities sharing the same consciousness in
one happening (of nothing) in time. In waiting for Godot, the temporal background of the
action is rather conspicuous compared with his other works. It seems that Vladimir and
Estragon have particular information about the appointment with Godot, knowing when,
where and who they are waiting for. However, their sense of time and space soon become
unstable by the intervention of another kind of time:
Estragon: You are sure it was this evening?
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: That we were to wait.
Vladimir: He said Saturday. (pause.) I think
Estragon: You think.

Beckett avoids entrapment in clock time and physical space by blurring specifics in
the background of the action. As the date of the appointment with Godot wobbles and the
certainty of the characters recedes with the onset of anxiety and skepticism, the initial
specificity of the appointment is dissolved into some universal temporality of meeting.

FRAGMENTATION OF LANGUAGE
Kenneth Tynani in his criticism observer calls the play dramatic vacuum with no
plot, no climax, no denouement; no beginning, no middle and no end (95). The recurrent
vocabulary, pronoun shifts and sound effects that creates a vacuum in the play actually
reflects the idea of fragmentation of language and underline the lack of dialectic structure
which makes the play postmodernist as it rejects the structures and metanarratives that have
constrained human activities and wiped away alternatives to modernity. It underlines the
limitations of language as a medium for expressing thoughts. The disintegration and
hesitancy in the characters speech creates a vacuum which represents the meaninglessness in
life and real communication between people. The fact that the dialogues of the characters in
the play fail to convey any meaning is highlighting the limitations of language itself.
Valdamir gropes for meaning throughout the play but his attempts are reduced by the
incoherence and silence by Estragon. Thus signifying that language as a medium has failed to
discover the metaphysical truth. Words alone are inadequate for perceiving the essence of
reality because every persons understanding of true meaning differs from the other and
Nothing to be done remains the problem of human condition. Thus there are many short
sentences in the play and we do not find embellished language.
Vladimir: ...How shall i say? Relieved and at the same time... (He searches for the word) ...
appalled... (With emphasis) AP-PALLED...

Fragmentation of language is also seen when Vladimir says When i think of it...all these
years...but for me...where would you be...
FRAGMENTATION OF CHARACTERS
The fragmentation of self is also evident in the play which suggests that man is no
longer an entity but has multiple existences within one self. Thus the four characters in the
play, Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo and Lucky represent the four different sides of an individual
Vladimir shows the rational side of humanity as he is verbal. He is eager to present a good
social image. He believes in the world of the mind and accepts a higher reality outside
himself. He acts as though loyalty to Godot will bring guidance, security, redemption,
salvation. And thinks these things can be granted from outside ones self. He will go on
waiting for Godot. Estragon one the other hand is practical and physical. He is cultured and
uses good vocabulary but at the same time he is dependent on Vladimir for security,
leadership and rational direction. Thus they are part of a divided self, Estragon as the
conscious mind and Vladimir as the unconscious mind. Pozzo on the other hand represents
the raw power marked by worldly wealth and the subservient Lucky symbolizes man who has
let himself to be reduced into mere commodity, a machine. Their relationship suggests that
may have control over certain things but at the same time he is also being controlled by
certain factors in his life. Man may sometimes become Adam, the symbol of whole
humanity, and other times his status is reduced to nothingness. All of these fragmentations, in
a way, show frustration hopelessness and futility of all knowledge, works, lives and world
itself.
DENIAL OF TRUTH
Stanley J. Grenz in A Primer on Postmodernism explains [Postmodernism] affirms
that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the

community in which we participate . . . There is no absolute truth: rather truth is relative to


the community in which we participate(8).
Waiting for Godot is a play driven by lack of truth, in other words, uncertainity.
Characters are unable to act in any meaningful way and claim this is because they are
uncertain of the consequences. Without the presence of objectivie truth, every statement is
brought into question, and even common labels (color, time, names) become arbitrary and
subjective.
Vladimir: our saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the
other...damned.(beckett p.5)
Vladimir makes this point that even things which many consider to be true are subject to
doubt. Beliefs are without rationality and no one tries to make any movements.
Estragon: Dont lets do anything. Its safer (beckett, p.11) or nothing happen, nobody
comes, nobody goes, its awful (p.27).
Due to their uncertainty, they are somehow afraid of making any movements, so they remain
still, or when Vladimir says nothing is certain when we are about (p.8). Even the most
fundamental things are not certain not even sickness and death.
Estragon: Wait! (He moves away from Vladimir.) I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't have
been better off alone, each one for himself. (He crosses the stage and sits down on the
mound.) We weren't made for the same road.
Vladimir: (Without anger) It's not certain.
Estragon: No, nothing is certain. (p. 45)
Another symbol of uncertainty is the lightening. The only lightening effect is when
days turn rapidly to night and the moon rises. The surrealistic effect of this heightened change
from day to night amplifies the theme of uncertainty. Something which was never mentioned

in the play, and can be taken into consideration is the characters age. The humorous part is
that, though it is not present as any dialogue, but it can be regarded as one of the points of
uncertainty. Even when Pozzo asks Vladimir about his age he does not respond, because he is
not sure.
Pozzo: You are severe. (To Vladimir.) What age are you, if it's not a rude question?
(Silence.) Sixty? Seventy? (To Estragon.) What age would you say he was?
Estragon: Eleven. (p. 21)
Apart from all these points of uncertainty, even there is no sense of certainty in
Godots entry time. In Act one, when Estragon and Vladimir are talking about the Godots
time of arrival, they do not even have the slightest certainty of when he appears:
Vladimir: He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think.
Estragon: You think. Vladimir: I must have made a note of it. (He fumbles in his pockets,
bursting with miscellaneous rubbish.)
Estragon: (very insidious). But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday?
(Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday?
Vladimir: (looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in the landscape). It's
not possible!
Estragon: Or Thursday? (p. 8)
The most helplessly humorous part of this uncertainty is that they do not even know whether
the person they are waiting for is named Godot or not as Vladimir says
Vladimir: To Godot? Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it. (Pause.) For the
moment.
Estragon: His name is Godot?
Vladimir: I think so. (p. 14)

But other than this, Who Is Godot? When does he come? Where does he show up?
Why does he have to come? Or even the most fundamental question: Why do they have to
wait for Godot? It is not only about Estragon and Vladimir, but also about humankind who
helplessly in each segment of life waits for a new Godot. We are searching for the meaning of
life too repetitiously and without purpose, always trying to find somebody or something that
can take the lead of our lives. This postmodern world comes into being, when salvation is
expected from an external entity.

INTERTEXUALITY
Intertexuality is also one of the important parts of Postmodernist literature. In Waiting
for Godot, also time and again we find the context of Bible.
Vladimir: Did you ever read the Bible!
"Vladimir: Do you remember the Gospels?
"Vladimir: ...one of the thieves was saved..."
"Vladimir: Our saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other...
(he searches for the contrary of saved)... dammed."
"Vladimir: I tell you his name is Pozzo.
Estragon: We'll soon see. (He reflects.) Abel ! Abel !"
"Vladimir: I beging to weary of this motif.
Estragon: Perhaps the other is called Cain. Cain ! Cain !"
Thus, it is very much connected with the Bible. The references of Jesus Christ, two thieves,
Cain and Abel show the intertexuality between Waiting for Godot and Bible, though in
minor way but it happens.
Postmodernism often profess individualism over God and country, describing the
liberty to establish personal truth and allowing each persons choice to be tolerated. This is

very much relevant here. This play is very much discussed play for one matter that either it
supports Christianity-the religion or individualism? But at some extent we find individualism
in the play. Here as the play has no specific plot, it is hard to see the characters goal, because
they are in the state of meaninglessness, yet they all have some personal, individual trait.
As Vladimir plays with hat and Estragon with boots, it is shown that Vladimir has higher
order thinking, spirituality, intellect and ambition. And Estragon (boots) is having lower order
thinking, materialistic mind and satisfaction. They both have their own thinking. Then Pozzo
is having rudeness, but he is intellectual. He can feel the things. For example
"Pozzo: When ! When ! one day is that not enough for you, one day he went dumb, one day I
went blind, one day we'll go deaf, one day we were born, one day we shall die, the same day,
the same second, is that not enough for you. (calmer) They give birth astride of a grave, the
light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."
And Lucky seems irritating when his obedience goes at its height. His slavery makes us
angry. But it is his individuality. And in act 2, when Pozzo becomes blind, then also he keeps
on to be slave of him as if he is blind about his slavery.Here each one has their own belief,
own truth and own justification (though unsaid directly). Postmodernist literature has no
ultimate truth. Here also it can be seen that though staying on the same path Vladimir and
Estragon carry different thinking and level. And yet no one is wrong. The boys character has
also its own individuality and place.
Postmodernists are mostly unconventional. Postmodernist literary writers throw the
conventions away. And here the symbolism also doesnt work in traditional way. E.g. in first
act, the setting is a piece of the rough road and a barren tree, without a single leaf. But then in
second act the tree has four five leaves. It is perhaps symbolic. But here in traditional or
conventional way we cannot say that those leaves are the symbol of hope and life because
hopelessness is still there. So, for the leaves we can say only one thing that nature is

indifferent towards human pain happiness or any other feeling. In Postmodernism nothing is
based on logical reasoning. Nothing is framed within a presupposed universal truth.
In this way it rejects universality. And it is questionable also. In this play also there no
rationality in any human being or even in nature. There is all absurdity. If there is question,
then it is unanswerable, and if there is answer, then also it is not relevant to the question.
There are truth and falsehood both remaining together

CONCLUSION:
In the light of the discussion above we can conclude that Waiting for Godot is
Becketts masterpiece about the absurdity of ceaseless waiting, repetition, the
meaninglessness, of feeling (and being) suspended in time instead of moving forward in a
meaningful direction and, about waiting for waiting and finally being imprisoned in ones
mind. It is about waiting for the responsibility of a better future that we are not quite fully
convinced will never arrive.

Works cited:
Becket, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber, 1956. Print.
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Cambridge University Press,
1995.Print.
Hooti, Noorbakhsh. Azizpour, Farzaneh. Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman: A
Postmodernist Study. Studies in Literature and Language. 2010. 15.
Poyner, R. No More Rules Graphic Design and Postmodernism. London: Laurence King,
2003. Print.
Tynan, Kenneth. Observer. Samuel Beckett The Critical Heritage. Ed. Lawrence Graver,
Raymond Federman. London: Redwood Burn Ltd, 1979. 95. Print.

You might also like