When confronted by this predicament of absurd human situation, the audience is surprised into critical detachment from the stage situation and associates this human predicament with its own situation in the (post!?) modern world.
Both the language and the plot mechanism are very unorthodox, and can both be seen as metaphorically motivated. Often it is the form not the content which conveys most meaning within this play, and this is the case in terms of plot structure.
‘Beckett provokes the audience’s detached awareness of human tragedy through the use of his new dramatic form, / the tragic theme of man’s existential boredom in the uncertain world is revealed through the main characters’ static situation’
This plot device is extended further as the ‘plot pattern takes on a circular structure’ as Act II appears to repeat the actions of Act I. It is this ‘repeated contradiction between the audience’s expectation of Godot’s arrival and his failure to appear’ which creates meaning, and impacts on the audience.
This idea can be understood within the historical context of post-modernity (all style no content) it is the vehicle of meaning which is of interest not necessarily the words or what is actually happening. This plot device is designed to help convey the meaninglessness of existence whilst at the same time the need for hope. Indeed without this hope there would be nothing but death. It is only the hope that he will turn up tomorrow which stops, them committing suicide. A parallel can immediately be drawn by the audience to real life, as when something bad happens it is the knowledge that life goes on and that another day will come, hopefully lessening the pain, which allows us to cope with the most horrific events.
The characters around whom the play revolve, at the start of the play, talk comfortably about there past experiences, quote from the bible and also pass comment on the tree under which they are waiting for Godot. As the plot develops they become less and less in touch with the past, their memories fading away, and they talk less and less, ‘they are more conscious of their activities as pastimes, or play’. (A greater understanding of this development can be gained within the historically valid context of existentialism, which I will be talking about in more detail later on.) There is no meaningful content in comparison to ‘normal’ plays where what is said and what is done is seen as the most important part, in fact it would be absurd to think any other way. It is in nothingness that Beckett finds his meaning. ‘Nothing more is needed than nothing’ It is in language that the created meaning and ideology (culture) of individuals, communities, nation states and ethnic groups is enshrined. Language creates a seemingly solid and immutable meaning for everything around us. Yet, meaning is ‘unstable’ and in a constant state of flux, unlike language which is stable and clings on to meaning like an old friend. Whilst the conception and understanding of the individual may be far exceeding the boundaries that language sets us. This point is made graphically by Beckett through playing with language; not taking it as seriously as is expected when writing a play. A lot of the dialogue comes out as wihtout any final meaning as they go round and round in circles, playing games with words, confusing meaning, but still creating meaning from the audiences’ perspective; illustrating the absurdity of language holding meaning in place.
Within the historical moment, this point can be seen as prophetic, or even inspirational of what was to come, as post-modernists such as Derrida, proclaimed ‘There is nothing beyond the words’ – Although I do not believe this to be true, this bold statement does make a valid point. Derrida writes of meaning ‘resulting from the contacts between signifiers in the network of language, not from the relationship between words and concepts or concepts and objects’. Here we see another example of how important it is to read a play like ‘waiting for Godot’ within a historical context, understanding the historical moment it was written in, in terms of the past – ‘God is dead’, ‘Being and Nothingness’- and the future – ‘Post Modernity’.
There are many areas of post-modernity that are highlighted in Beckett’s play. Post-structuralist ideas of the relationship between language and meaning (see above), the crisis of representation – brought about by the instability of meaning, and the related crisis of value, which is brought about by the end of certainty in systems of representations. Also, in terms of post-modernity and existentialism - something which was touched upon earlier – the process of the characters losing their need to talk about their past and becoming more involved with their surroundings, can be linked to the idea that,
‘meaning of people is also ephemral, contingent and unstable / This means that it is wrong to speak of individuals possessing innate or intrinsic meaning. The nature of individuals is not fixed essence or property, which dwells within, but is socially and culturally constructed.’
This idea is also illustrated throughout absurdist dramas, with the lack of strong characteristics defining the characters as separate or different, meaning is not created in absurdist drama in this fashion. Rather through its signified difference to the norm.
As a metaphor for the future of human existence this play was a stoke of genius, predicting many common threads of post-modernity whilst at the same time helping people understand the absurdity which is left behind as the physical manifestation of God leaves us. Without the meaning enshrined in organised religion we are left to ‘wait for Godot’ on our own.
The role of absurdist theatre is to ‘confront (the audience) with the bitter truth that most human endeavour is irrational and senseless, that communication between human beings is well-nigh impossible and that the world will forever remain and impenetrable mystery. At the same time, the recognition of all these bitter truths will have a liberating effect: if we realise the basic absurdity of most of our objectives we are freed from being obsessed with them and this releases expresses itself in laughter’
So, in understanding ‘Waiting for Godot’, it is imperative to understand the historical moment (in terms of past and future) , and to understand how art is used as a tool for cultural change. Therefore the play can be seen as a reflection of society at the time, as a reaction against the idea that society and culture are rational products of the individual. Plays which enforce this view would have regular plot lines, with strong characterisation – enshrining the current ideology as the ‘norm’- plays which exist to entertain and comfort rather than challenge and evolve. Yet, ‘Waiting for Godot’ has no ‘grand narrative’, just as the foundation for the abstraction of post-modernity was built on Lyotards ‘incredulity to meta-narratives’, there is no grand scheme, no answers for life, just a reflection of our own absurdity.
In conclusion, it makes sense to locate this play within a historical moment, but only because it makes no sense not to.
