Name : Khadija Khan Tareen Roll No : 2022204

Subject : Modern Drama Topic: "Waiting for Godot"by Samuel Beckett

1. Samuel Beckett as an absurdist playwright

The Theatre of the Absurd:The Theatre of the Absurd is the kind of drama that presents the
absurdity of human condition and that combines characteristics such as silences,repetitions,
unconventional dialogue, no recognizable decor, no story, no progression and no resolution.
Absurdist plays ignored formal conventions, like unity of time and action, and frequently
disregarded complicated characters in favor of metaphorical figures. Absurdity is the view of
existentialist philosopher that human existence in this universe is ambiguous and chaotic. In
literal sense absurdity is meaninglessness, bizarre, silly, ridiculous and strange. Though it was
Beckett who is well known for the theater of the absurd but basically the word absurd was
coined by “Martin Esslin” in his book” The Theatre of the Absurd”.

Absurdity which is, according to Beckett, the essence of human existence, is the main way he
uses in order to depict the emptiness an alienation in the modern world

Samuel Beckett as an absurdist playwright:Samuel Beckett is a famous dramatist and a

unique playwright who invented a new kind of play,an absurd play. He is perhaps the most well-
known of the absurdist playwrights. He experimented with the stage and blew a new soul into it.
His plays are completely different from those of traditional writers. Mostly, dramatists of his era
mainly focused on the action of the play. Thus, action was a vital element of every drama.
Samuel Beckett ignored the concept of action. He proved that there can be drama without
action. There is no action in his play even the audience feels pleasure in watching it. His
contribution to this particular genre allows us to refer to him as the grand master, or father, of
the genre.

The theme of Bordem in his Plays:In addition, he added the theme of boredom in his plays.
His plays are not just watched but experienced. The audience needs to know the deep meaning
of every dialogue in the play. Every word and dialogue is full of symbols, therefore, more
knowledge is required to understand them. Moreover, the audience has to feel his plays instead
of just watching them. It was a new experience for the audience to watch such types of drama
on stage. Samuel Beckett became famous by doing so. He is still remembered because of his
contribution to the theatre of the absurd. He enlarged the scope of theatre, therefore, his
contribution, in this context, can never be underestimated.

Lack of Characterization:The plays by dramatist/playwright Samuel Beckett lack plot and

characterization. There is no story in them. He is not a storyteller nor has he had any
experience in sketching characters. Usually, the Focus of the audience remains on the
characters and story of the plays but Samuel Beckett skips these two important ingredients.
Hardly, do we know any character in Beckett’s play, whom we identify by his actions. He does
not reveal their real identity. Many playwrights have gotten fame due to their art of
characterization but Beckett is famous for hiding the identity of his characters.
No Development in the Plot:In addition, there is no plot development in Beckett’s plays. They
start with a problem and end with the same. “Waiting for Godot” is a remarkable example of it.
We see Estragon and Vladimir standing and talking on the stage without doing anything. Only
the delivery of dialogues can be seen on the stage. Nothing else is available in the play. The
meaning and interest of the play lie in its dialogues. In Act-1 we find them standing near a tree.
In Act-2 we find no movement in their position. The play goes on like this and ultimately ends
with the same situation.

Hence, there is no plot in his plays. No one can figure out the story of “Waiting for Godot”. It is
just about a situation. Similarly, we don’t know the background of Estragon and Vladimir. Both
are not completely introduced to us. Very less introduction to these characters has been given
by the dramatist in this play. Thus, it is an entirely new concept of writing plays without plot and
characterization.

Unique Language:Beckett’s use of language is absurd .Being and dramatist and a unique
playwright, Samuel Beckett uses interesting yet simple language in his plays. Hardly, any useful
line can be found. There may be very rational and symbolic dialogues yet they apparently do not
seem useful. Every word is a symbol, therefore, great attention is required to dig for their
meanings. He does not define the meanings of dialogues; rather it depends on the audience to
perceive the meaning of dialogues.

Furthermore, the dialogues of the play are short. However, speeches are exceptional. It seems
that the characters are not giving any message to the audience but passing time while talking to
each other. Dialogues of the plays are argumentative. In “Waiting for Godot” both major
characters pass the ball. They talk but most of the time their dialogues have no meaning. Most
of the time, dialogues do not serve any purpose.

Numerous dialogues are there in the play that were not necessary. There are some words in the
play that have been invented by the dramatist. They are not even found in the dictionary.
Hence, Beckett’s language is somewhat unique. His plays are rational but the language and
behaviour of the characters are irrational. Moreover, Samuel Beckett uses uncivilized language
as evident in “Waiting for Godot”.

Illustration of Reality:It is also one of the major characteristics of a dramatist/playwright of the

theatre of the absurd that he presents reality in his plays as Samuel Beckett sketches in Waiting
for Godot. Beckett does not use fancy words. He likes to depict life, which is reality. In fact,
realism is the fundamental ingredient of his plays. He remains close to reality while describing
any situation. Again, the example of “Waiting for Godot” is worth mentioning. The entire play
shows the reality of life. It shows a situation viz. waiting. Characters come on stage and portray
the reality of life. Even the themes of the play are real. Hope, death, boredom and pessimism
are part of life. Thus, Beckett’s plays are entirely about reality.

Gloomy Themes:Beckett presents pessimistic themes. There is very less hope in his plays. In
fact, every play that belongs to the theatre of the absurd has this common theme in it. As
mentioned above, Beckett presents reality and pessimism is also a reality. In fact, it is part of
life; therefore, Beckett’s approach in most of his plays is pessimistic. For instance, every act of
“Waiting for Godot” ends with despair. Eventually, the play itself ends with hopelessness.

Complexity in Becket’s Plays:There is also an element of complexity in his plays. Being a

dramatist/playwright of the theatre of the absurd, he does not make anything clear. In “Waiting
for Godot”, we don’t know who is Godot. From the start of the play, the audience along with the
characters waits for Godot but till the end, he does not appear. Samuel Beckett ignores the
concept of clarity. He has nothing to do with lucidity. The meanings of his plays are entirely
dependent on the rationality of the audience. In “Waiting for Godot”, it depends on the audience
how it perceives the meaning of Godot. Samuel Beckett himself has also no acquaintance with
Godot. In an interview, when he was asked; “who is Godot”. He replied; if I knew I would have
told it in my play. Thus, an element of complexity is also there in Samuel Beckett’s plays.

Conclusion:In a nutshell, Samuel Beckett is not only a dramatist or playwright but also an
innovator. He wrote dramas which could not even be imagined by a prudent mind. He did not
only write them but made them successful. The audience witnesses a lesson on the stage
instead of a story. His plays involve the eyes, the ears, the intellect, and the emotions, all at
once, which may be described as “total theatre”.

2. Existentialism in Waiting for Godot

What is Existentialism:Existentialism which carries different themes and meanings is a

twentieth century philosophical movement that began and flourished after World War II in
France. The first existentialists with whom this philosophical movement can be related are
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. They were not existing when the actual existentialism started in the
twentieth century. Though existentialism got different connotations but basically its focus was on
individual and his relation to God that why people exist and what role this existence has got. It
says that man’s life is full of unease, restlessness, awkwardness, apprehensions, worries,
angst, and fear and with no meaning in life. In this regard Marshall (2006) while presenting all
the negative aspects of life states that it is concerned with homelessness, facelessness,
meaninglessness and solitariness.

There are two views about existentialism i.e., atheist and theist existentialism. Atheist
existentialism is the belief that life is meaningless with no purpose. It is just existence with no
ultimate truth. This view is shared by Camus and Samuel Beckett etc. On the other hand, theist
existentialism believes that it is not the fact that life is without any purpose and meaningless but
it is we people that cannot understand this phenomenon. This includes Kierkegaard’s
philosophy about existence who turns to Christ for salvation (Blackman, 1952).

To make this meaningless life more dignified and decorous, choices are to be made. This does
not mean that these choices are meaningless. These choices are supposed to be rational and
not irrational like the world, man lives in with no purpose. In this regard Neitzsche (quoted in
Maurice Natanson, 1973, p. 2)) says “God is dead and men are faced with the profound
responsibility of deciding for themselves, choosing for themselves, acting for themselves, and
being themselves; i.e., choosing authentic existences rather than “losing” themselves in the
crowd, being coming a “non-entity,” escaping reality”. It means that they are of the view that do,
what you want to because after death only your existence will come to an end and there will be
no future about which you are to be worried.

Existentialism in the Play:The play Waiting for Godot is a play based on the philosophy of
existentialism which means that human being must be doing something to find the purpose of
their lives, which even after their best, they are unable to find and so utter out, “Nothing
happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, It’s awful”.

The play begins with the introduction of two characters, Estragon and Vladimir, who are found
waiting for Godot to come and solve their problem. They have nothing else to do while they are
waiting. These two characters prove that they are together in their misery and become the
complements of each other while waiting for Godot. They first attempt to remove boots of
Estragon and then Vladimir removes and wears his hat back. They spend their whole day doing
nothing other than waiting.

During their wait, they think of attempting suicide by hanging themselves with the dried and
weak tree on the stage but very soon realize that they don’t have strong rope to hang and the
tree would snap with their load. So, they abandon the idea of hanging themselves and decide to
wait for Godot till a boy comes and tells them that Godot is not coming to meet them at that day
and that he would come the next day.

Prior to the arrival and disappearance of the boy, two more characters, Lucky and Pozzo are
injected on to the stage. Lucky is tied with a rope controlled by Pozzo. It is only Pozzo who
speaks while Lucky remains silent, though he is carrying load of bags. Lucky acts as the slave
of Pozzo and Pozzo too demonstrates his authority on him. He even jerks him and makes him
speak, think and move. They too disappear after the information brought by the boy about
Godot’s not coming. Pozzo seems to be in control and Lucky silently obeys him to the letter and
spirit. Though Pozzo too does nothing other than ordering Lucky and offering bones and
vegetables to Estragon. Lucky is the suffering humanity not only because of the adverse
scheme of nature but also because of the oppression and cruelty of capitalism or the other
human controlling forces.

The second act of the drama also begins with the same scene and same characters with only
two changes. Firstly, that there are a few leaves grown out on the tree. Estragon and Vladimir
spend some time in finding how it has happened. Secondly, the role reversal takes place when
we see Lucky controlling Pozzo now and doing the same as was done by Pozzo to him.
Estragon and Vladimir spend their waiting-for-Godot-time by abusing each other, by playing with
each other and by trying to think about their life. They keep on looking for Godot but find that he
has not appeared so far. Ultimately, they receive information that Godot is not coming today.
And so, nothing comes out of nothing.

The above description shows that not only some choice of not doing is there on the part of the
characters but also, they are found doing nothing. So, the play is an amalgamation of
existentialism and Nihilism because the play begins with nothing, the characters do nothing and
nothing is done as a whole but the same characters appear to be waiting also. The characters
are trying to find a purpose of their life. They are also waiting for Godot to come and solve their
issues. So, while doing nothing, the characters of the play are doing something, which means
nothingness is glued with something and neither of these two is capable of handling the
situation single handedly.

3. "Waiting for Godot" a modernist play

Samuel Beckett:

Samuel Beckett was a well-known Irish modernist writer in the 20th century. Beckett lived in
Paris, France for most of his adult life and he published creative work in both French and
English. Beckett wrote fiction, nonfiction, plays, poetry, and literary translations.

"Waiting for Godot" a modernist play:

The play “Waiting for Godot” was written by Samuel Beckett . The play embraces elements of
modernism, even though it was published in 1952 which is towards the end of the modernist
period in literature. It presented the life of the modern man in certain ways. It reflects the
existential anxieties and uncertainties of the modern age. Here are some elements of the
modern age that can be observed in "Waiting for Godot":

1. Absurdity: Firstly, Beckett in this play presented the absurdity in modern man’s life, which
emerged as a reaction to the chaos and disillusionment experienced in the aftermath of World
War II. Absurdity was the main focus of writers associated with Modernism and post-
Modernism. Beckett laid incorporated this notion in several ways. This play “Waiting for Godot”
started with both Estragon and Vladimir struggling with Estragon’s boot. They were even seen
smelling Estragon’s boot in the first act.

Similarly, the repetition of words and actions, and the element of forgetfulness also added to the
meaninglessness of modern man’s life. The phrase “Nothing to be done” highlighted the main
theme of the play. Beckett in this play rejected all the grand notions and traditions of the past to
show the helplessness and purposelessness of modern life. Estragon and Vladimir are both
waiting for Godot without knowing who he was. As they waited, Vladimir and Estragon found
themselves engaging in absurd and nonsensical conversations, attempting to pass the time and
distract themselves from the emptiness of their situation. Their interactions were filled with
humor, confusion, and moments of profound philosophical contemplation. They were even
oblivious of the fact that what they had asked him for:

“What exactly did we ask him for”.

All the characters in the play are entrapped repeating the same monotonous routine. The
playwright depicts this notion of absurdity at its peak when one of the main characters, Estragon
in the first act suggests hanging themselves:

“Let’s hang ourselves immediately”.

Martin Sealing in his book “The Theatre of Absurd”, presented the idea that how the plays
written between the 1940s and 1960s highlighted the theme of absurdity. Absurdity in general
deals with the sense of being illogical and unreasonable and is often defined as “out of
harmony with reason and propriety; illogical”. Beckett like the other writers associated with
the Theatre of Absurd presented “a sense of metaphysical anguish at the absurdity of
human life”. He presented life as an absurd, illogical, and irrational phenomenon in which all
the humans are waiting for their own Godot.

2. Existentialism: The playwright incorporates existentialist and nihilistic approaches in

presenting the purposelessness of modern man’s life. Estragon and Vladimir in the play are
waiting for Godot throughout the whole play but while waiting for Godot they are involved in
numerous meaningless actions. In fact, their action of waiting for, itself is meaningless as they
have no idea why they are waiting for Godot.

The play explores existentialist themes such as the search for meaning and the concept of
existence precedes essence. The characters, Estragon and Vladimir, find themselves trapped in
a world devoid of meaning, constantly questioning their purpose and existence. They
questioned the nature of time, the meaning of life, their own existence and the futility of their
waiting. Each encounter with other characters, such as the eccentric Pozzo and his mistreated
servant Lucky, presented further absurdity and existential questioning.

3. Timelessness and Fragmentation: Modernist literature often celebrates experiments in form

and prioritizes language and thought above plot or any other narrative action."Waiting for
Godot" lacks a linear narrative. In fact, the play has hardly any plot. There is no orderly
sequence of events taking place like, the tree which was barren one day is covered with leaves
the next, the two of them return to the same place every day to wait for Godot but don’t
remember exactly what happened the day before. Night falls instantly, and Godot never comes.
It is characterized by a fragmented structure with repetitive and circular scenes. This reflects the
fragmented nature of modern life and the sense of timelessness that often accompanies it.

4. Alienation and Isolation: Alienation and isolation from the rest of the world are also
considered as the plights of modern man’s life. The modern man after witnessing the horrors
caused by the World War’s became isolated and alienated from the rest of the world. The
characters in Becketts’s play “Waiting for Godot” are also alienated from the rest of the world
and sometimes from one and another. Both Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for Godot in the
outskirts, separated and alienated from the world.

They have absolutely no idea of time, place, and even why they are waiting for Godot. Similarly,
other than being cut out from the rest of the world, they are isolated from one and others as
pointed out by Estragon:

“I feel better alone too”.

Estragon sleeps in a ditch every night and is beaten up by mysterious people without having
any recollection of the last night. Though these characters long from companionship, they are
unable to communicate their feelings. As Pozzo pointed out his belief regarding communication
that even meeting the “meanest creatures” is a blessing as one becomes “wiser, richer and
more conscious of one’s own blessings”. Despite their longing for company, these
characters are unable to communicate. The writer very beautifully presents a lack of
communication through the use of short, repetitive, colloquial, absurd, and elliptical phrases and
sentences. This inability of the characters to communicate with one another highlights the inner
disorder and disorientation.

5. Loss of traditional values: "Waiting for Godot" depicts a world in which traditional values and
structures have lost their significance. The play challenges traditional notions of religion,
morality, and societal norms, highlighting the erosion of these values in the modern age.

6. Language and Communication: The play explores the limitations of language as a means of
communication. The characters often engage in circular and nonsensical conversations,
struggling to convey their thoughts and desires effectively. This reflects the breakdown of
communication and the difficulty of expressing oneself in the modern world.

7. Hopelessness: Lastly, hopelessness forms the basic theme of the play. Both Estragon and
Vladimir as a representative of modern man is hopeless as pointed out by Vladimir:

“Hope deferred make the something sick”

Both these characters Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot not out of hope but habit.
They just like a modern man are repeating their monotonous routine which according to the
writer is a great deadener:

“Habit is a great deadener”.

Overall, "Waiting for Godot" reflects the existential angst and disillusionment characteristic of
the modern age. It explores themes of meaninglessness, alienation, and the breakdown of
traditional values, offering a bleak and absurdist commentary on the human condition in the
modern world.

In conclusion, one may say that the play, “Waiting for Godot” basically represents the plight of a
modern man in this world who longs for companionship, meaning, and hope in his life but is only
given a monotonous life surrounded by absurdity and nihilism. This complaint against God was
presented by Lucky’s speech very artistically by the writer as:

“God loves us dearly but with few exceptions”.

4. Character Analysis of “Waiting for Godot”:

There are six characters in “Waiting for Godot”. One of them is just a messenger, who is not as
important as other characters. Remaining every character of the play is very necessary to
understand purpose of playwright behind “Waiting for Godot”, which are:

● Vladimir

● Estragon

● Pozzo
 ● Lucky

● Godot

● Boy (Messenger)

Vladimir Waiting for Godot Character Analysis:

He represents the intellectual side of human. It is an imaginative, hope-oriented creation that

values human dignity. He has time consciousness. Vladimir’s intellectual discomfort is
determined by constantly taking off his hat and checking his inner self. It is Vladimir who tries to
find out if there is an essence of “existence” that tries to remember the past. He read the Bible,
and tells stories from the Bible as if he wanted to prove that he knew the Bible well.

Samuel Becket has presented two types of relationships in the play. One in the form of Vladimir
and Estragon whereas the second is of Pozzo and Lucky. No one can understand the character
of Vladimir without comparing it with Estragon. Hence, Estragon is necessary to be discussed
along with this major character of the play.

Vladimir thinks logically and takes the decision on the basis of reasoning, hence, we may say
that he is the strongest of all. Despite his odd nature, he is loved by the audience as he thinks
more than any other character of the play. He has more knowledge than Estragon that makes
him a sober and intellectual personality. He time and again tells Estragon that they should wait
until Godot arrives. Vladimir also reveals that he once met Godot still he does not remember
how exactly Godot lookalike. He also gives hope to Estragon and boosts his moral due to which
Estragon agrees to wait for Godot.

Vladimir is not selfish at all. He does not want that Pozzo should sell Lucky. When he realizes
that Pozzo is going to sell Lucky, he expresses his deep condolence with him and advises
Pozzo not do so. Not only he expresses his sympathy with Lucky but also expresses sharp
disapproval and suggests that Lucky should not leave his good master.

No matter what may be the situation, Vladimir does not leave hope. He is an optimist still he is
in anguish because of his habit of deep analysis of every other character of “Waiting for Godot”.
He thinks about life, about people, about their situation and also consistently tries to find
meaning in his life. Vladimir is among those psychological characters of Waiting for Godot, who
make an opinion of other characters in mind. He does not only think about himself but also
about other people, who are residing around him. While forgetting his own pains, he gives more
time to the pains of other people.

Vladimir reads the Bible and gets instructions from it. He has thirst for knowledge. He does not
physically suffer but mentally. There is no cavil in the proposition that each and every problem
of Vladimir is psychological in nature. His sufferings are inner and emotional.

Vladimir’s Hat is his Problem:

He has problems with his hat as Estragon has with his boots. It symbolizes that his overthinking
is the main problem of his life. He has a God gifted habit of thinking and opining about the
matter. He time and again peers into his hate as he looks for something in it. It means that
whenever this major character (Vladimir) of “Waiting for Godot” starts a discussion he does an
analysis of it and then explains it to Estragon. His mind never remains free nor does it stop
thinking. Overthinking is one of the most discussed psychological problems of the modern era
and so as of Vladimir. He creates problems with the help of his mind, hence, his head has been
named “Charnel House”.

It cannot be disputed that Vladimir is a better friend than any other character in “Waiting for
Godot” no matter how much analysis we do. He helps Estragon on every occasion and also
considers it his duty. As compared to Estragon, he is calm like a child which is a symbol that
knowledge always forces a person to think calmly.

Character Analysis of Estragon in “Waiting for Godot”:

This character reflects the instinctual side of man. Estragon doesn’t remember the past. It does
not ponder human values. His mind is either in his stomach or his feet. He represents the
instinctual body needs of humans. The reduction of Estragon’s existence to its physical position
is determined by the constant wearing of boots that it cannot comfort its feet in. Estragon has an
attitude that ignores everything except physical requirements. The reason why he was held
captive by Godot was that he could not leave Vladimir.

The playwright has put Estragon in juxtaposition to Vladimir. Only one thing is common between
them; they are “Waiting for Godot”, whom about they do not know anything. As Vladimir cannot
be judged without Estragon similarly, analysis of Estragon is not possible without judging the
character of Vladimir in “Waiting for Godot”.

We hardly find any logic in Estragon’s actions and dialogues. However, whenever he talks, the
audience finds a chance of laughing. He is the most stupid character in this play. He can’t think
and lacks the skill of making decisions. Estragon is alive only because he is living with Vladimir
otherwise, he would have died. He repeatedly asks a question that what are they doing here
and Vladimir tells him that they have to wait until the arrival of Godot.

Estragon insists that they should go but he does not know where the symbolic analysis of which
is that he does not know his destination like everyone in the world is unknown about his
objective. He can’t control himself and leaves hope again and again. His moral decreases every
single second pass. He has no concern whatsoever with the life of any other person because he
is selfish. When Vladimir takes time to advise Pozzo and Lucky, he tries his best to find food for
himself. It is also a symbol that selfishness prevails kindness when hunger knocks the stomach.

Like Vladimir, he also reads the bible but not for obtaining instructions from it but to see maps of
the Holy Land. He suffers physically but not mentally. He is beaten by unknown persons every
night about whom he knows nothing. Hence, it can’t be denied that his struggle is real and his
problems are physical as he is tortured physically every time.

Estragon’s Boots are his Problem:

Estragon struggles with his boots, analysis of which is that “Waiting for Godot” is not the only
problem of this second important character of the play. The dramatist shows that everyone like
Estragon struggles with his life every day but in the end, it makes no difference at all. It is
useless.

Comparison of Major Characters Estragon and Vladimir in Waiting for Godot:

It has already been made clear that these two main characters of Waiting for Godot are are
opposite to each other. One is calm; the other is restless. One’s problems are mental; other’s
are physical. One is kind; other is selfish. One is optimistic other pessimistic. One is a best
friend; other just needs him. One tries to give his life meaning; other just don’t know what is he
doing.

In spite of all these differences, both of them are good friends. Vladimir tries his best to give
hope to Estragon even at that time when Estragon completely forgets for whom they are
waiting. He even sings a song for Estragon so that he may fall asleep. Vladimir does not like
funny stories whereas Estragon forcibly tells him but despite so much contrast, they are best
friends of all time.

Character Analysis of Pozzo in “Waiting for Godot”:

Pozzo represents colonial sovereign powers. He is in need of Lucky to earn more money. He
gets blind in the second act of the play.

The dramatist has shown characters of Pozzo and Lucky as master and his slave respectively in
“Waiting for Godot”. Pozzo is totally dependent on his slave. He is physically blind but not
mentally, however, his nature is somewhat arrogant. He is the one who controls Lucky. It is not
wrong to say that the playwright in Waiting for Godot has illustrated that both these characters
cannot live independent though Pozzo repeatedly says that he wants to sell Lucky. Vladimir and
Estragon are living together with the freewill but Pozzo and Lucky have no other choice.

Pozzo and lucky appear twice in the “Waiting for Godot”; firstly in Act-I and in Act-II for the
second time, however, they do not remember that they ever met with Vladimir and Estragon.
They react as they are meeting for the first time in their lives perhaps due to the lacking of the
unity of time and place in the play.

From the analysis of the character of Pozzo in “Waiting for Godot”, it is noticeable that the
playwright has used him as a symbol in this play. First thing first, he is symbolized as a God
because of his attitude towards Lucky and the remaining characters of Waiting for Godot.
Samuel Becket has also shown him the cruellest human being. In spite of such good behaviour
of Lucky, he does not like him. He also symbolizes feudalism. It is often said that Pozzo is a
colonizer whereas Lucky is colonized. In addition, Pozzo and Lucky are in fact two common
human races. There are two types of human races in every country. We may call it
establishment or demolition; feudalism and serfdom; rich and poor; bad and good, whatever we
call it, we are obvious that Pozzo and Lucky are two distinct characters of Waiting for Godot.

Character Analysis of Lucky in “Waiting for Godot”:

Lucky symbolizes the intellectual and physical labor. He is like a slave of Pozzo. He becomes a
dumb in the second act of the play.

Lucky is just like a human being living in the Greek’s era. It is believed that gods in that era were
much cruel. They controlled humans and punished them without giving them any freewill. Lucky
is just a puppet in the hands of Pozzo despite the fact that Pozzo cannot go anywhere without
him. It is also astonishing that Pozzo is entirely dependent on Lucky yet he hates him and calls
him a “pig”. The dramatist has shown Lucky’s condition much miserable. The most important
symbol in “Waiting for Godot”, which is evident from the analysis of Lucky ‘s character is
“Colonization”. We are well aware of the fact that colonizer countries expanded their territory
through colonization, which was apparently for the welfare of humanity yet it was the result of
greed and gaining more and more wealth from poor countries.

Besides, Lucky symbolizes a race of human being which has no fault of his own still it is living a
life worse than animals. Lucky carries Pozzo’s luggage even the whim, with whom Pozzo beats
him. It means that how feudalism is controlling the labour, enjoying fruits of their hard work but
hates them due to the reason unknown to us.

It is also argued that Lucky and Pozzo are like body and minds. Pozzo is the mind that controls
the body and no matter how good or bad is the body, it has to follow the brain. It is a universal
truth, which should be acknowledged by everyone that without mind, the body is useless. A
disease of paralysis is an example of it. If a sound body loses contact with the mind, it becomes
useless.

Lucky is intellectual as compared to Pozzo. His speeches are very much important and often
interpreted on various occasions in English literature, however, like every other character of
“Waiting for Godot”, Lucky does an analysis of life and tries to find meanings of it. Nevertheless,
In form of Lucky’s character, the dramatist has shown a human race that no one can dare to
show.

Character Analysis of Godot in “Waiting for Godot”:

Godot remains a discussion for years between critics. Once, Samuel Beckett was asked, “Who
is Godot”. He answered, “If I knew, I would have told it in the play”. No matter how much time
we watch this play, we can’t find who Godot is because he never appears on stage not even for
a single second. Only a message comes through a boy (messenger) that Godot is unable to
come today, however, his visit is expected tomorrow. Both the acts end in the same manner.
Nonetheless, there are some interpretation which can be easily perceived to know about the
character of Godot in “Waiting for Godot” if we do a deep analysis of the play.

Many eminent critics have defined Godot as hope. Estragon and Vladimir come every day with
an optimistic approach and think that someone would come and give meaning to their lives. The
second act is a copy of the first act with minute changes. We do not remember the time
between the first act and the second act. It may be true that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting
for Godot since long. Every day they come at that place and wait for him but he does not
appear. Perhaps there is a difference of many months between the first act and the second act.
It is, therefore, Pozzo does not remember meeting them. They continue their exercise every
day, however, it is shown to us only two times. Hence, it seems definite that both these persons
are hoping for something better in their lives.

It has often been discussed that Godot symbolizes death. Both the tramps Vladimir and
Estragon are waiting for death, which does not approach them as their time has not come yet,
therefore, they wait for it every day. They may do efforts of committing suicide but they have to
wait for death in order to escape from the hardships of life. We know that the play is all about life
and life is the second name of nothingness. Characters in Waiting for Godot do nothing still they
are doing something and that is “wait”.

Every day, they come and wait for something but their wait is useless. Life is all about the wait.
It is true that not every single time everyone waits for death, however, at least once in a day our
mind reminds us about death. It is totally wrong if someone says that he has never thought
about death in his life. No doubt, like Estragon and Vladimir we forget it for the time being but
after a few seconds, we ask ourselves “what we are doing here”? and an answer comes:
Waiting for Godot.

Another symbol of Godot is Christ or God. It would be easier for us if Godot has been shown on
stage to the audience but the dramatist has willfully not shown it. It is on our minds how we
perceive Godot. Critics have given Godot two other names “Christ” and “God”. Analysis of
critics’ views about Godot is that every character is waiting for God and Christ’s help.

Suffice is to say that even deeper analysis of Godot’s character remained failed to point out the
exact purpose of the dramatist portraying this invisible character in “Waiting for Godot”.