Waiting for Godot

 Hello everyone, in this blog i will discuss about some questions related to one play" Waiting for Godot " written by Samuel Beckett.

Introduction

   Waiting for Godot is a play by Samuel Beckett in which two characters, Vladimir  and Estragon , engage in a variety of discussions and encounters while awaiting the titular Godot, who never arrives. Waiting for Godot is Beckett's translation of his own original French-language play, En attendant Godot, and is subtitled (in English only) "a tragicomedy in two acts".

Question:-1 What does the tree with four or five leaves signify?

Answer:-

          The tree is described as bare when the play opens, but by the secondary act, the tree has a few leaves on it. This suggests the passage of time but also the presence of life and vitality. It may also indicate a passing of seasons: perhaps from winter to spring, signifying a new beginning

          Upon his return to to scene in Arct II, Vladimir notices the tree’s new four or five leaves where before it was barren and concluded dead. His visible anxiety (shown through stage directions) about it signifies his awareness of how strange that a tree suddenly has life.

Question 2:-Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'?

Answer

         Yes, we can interpret the political reading in which Vladimir stand for Russia, Pozzo stand for Italy, Lucky stand for England and Estragon stand for France. So, we can connect this to the world war in which these all countries destroyed by Godot means Germany that is why Vladimir asked to the boy that is Godot beating? Then boy replied yes. So we connect Godot with Germany means Hitler, who destroyed many countries and killed thousands of people. And other interpretation of Pozzo and Lucky master and slave in which we connect Pozzo with England and Lucky with Ireland, so in this matter Ireland struggling a lot with England and recently we have seen Brexit pact.

Question:-3 "BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?

Answer 

VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?

How does this conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify?

Ans. Yes, there is change in both acts. In act1 Vladimir told to the boy that tell Godot that you saw us. So, here Vladimir taked about both Vladimir and Estragon while in second act Vladimir told the boy that tell Godot that you saw me, so here Vkadimir talked about his self he does not mention the name of Estragon. So, in act 2 Vladimir seems selfish.

 Question 4:-In both acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this 'Coming for night and moon' when actually they are Waiting For Godot?

Answer

        We can interpret this moon as brightness in the night so, I think Beckett want to convey through this moon's brightness in the night means though the darkness of night there is somewhat hope like the brightness of the moon. So, we should not lost our hope, every day is new day.

Question 5:-What is the meaning of the terms 'Apathia, Aphasia and Athambia' in Lucky's speech? "... divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown…"

 Answer

         To begin his speech, Lucky first paints a picture of a pious God that is “personal”. He later destroys that image in the readers mind by describing God using three words: apathia, athambia, and aphasia. Apathia means a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern. Athambia means impartibility, to be incapable of being upset or not easily excited. And lastly, aphasia means loss of the ability to comprehend or express speech. These three words characterize God as impersonal. When he uses the word divine, he is referring to God as God is often portrayed as a divine being. So he is saying that God is apathetic, meaning that he does not intervene. God is imperturbable; he has never been reached or could be reached by living human beings. And God is aphasic, meaning that he is silent and has never spoken and never will, even to prove his very own existence. The three words also represent human society as a whole. Lucky interprets that the human civilization is gradually becoming wrapped in apathy as we do not seek out others; wrapped in athambia as others are unable to reach us; and wrapped in aphasia as there is no more voice, just a bunch of meaning less words used to fill up space. 

Question 6:-'A better solution to the tramp's predicament than to wait is, suicide". Is it really so? Why they fail to commit suicide?

 Answer   

        In an absurd play, the characters generally lose their identity. In Waiting for Godot, we find tramps as characters. They lose their identity in Act II. Their relationship is in doubt. They spend the night apart. Life to them is an endless rain of blows. Estragon and Vladimir have lost their identity. The other pair of characters Pozzo and Lucky become blind and dumb respectively. Suicide is a recurrent temptation.

Question 7:-Explain: "Godot might become as image of what Sartre calls "Bad Faith".

Answer 

         In Jean- Paul Sartre's philosophy, "Bad Faith" refers to the state in which an individual denies their own freedom and authenticity, instead choosing to conform to societal expectations or to hide behind false beliefs about themselves. Here, In 'Waiting for Godot' the characters of Vladimir and Estragon are seen as embodying this concept as they spend the entirety of the play waiting for the mysterious Godot, who never arrives. Their passivity and lack of agency in the face of their existential Predicament can be seen as a form of bad faith.

Question 8:- Explain:"One hardly feels the absurdity of some things, on the one hand, and the necessity of those other things, on the other, (for it is rare that feeling of absurdity is not followed by the feeling of necessity), when one feels the absurdity of those things of which one had just felt the necessity (for it is rare that the feeling of necessity is not followed by the feeling of absurdity)"

Answer 

      This statement is discussing the idea that things that may seem absurd or unnecessary at one point in time can later be seen as necessary and vice versa. It's suggesting that one's perspective can change and that thing that once seemed absurd. Similarly, things that once seemed absurd may later be seen as necessary. It's a reminder that one's understanding of something can evolve over time.