Blog #3

            When we are doing close reading, we have to read and reread the text over and over in the search for the present of relation or pattern within the text. We will also pay attention to vocabulary and diction to see if there are alternative meanings on a certain word that the writers try to express. But I think I cannot do a close reading of “waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett. One of the reasons being one of the influences for this play is surrealism. This is “a 20th-century avant-garde movement in art and literature that sought to release the creative potential of the unconscious mind, for example by the irrational juxtaposition of images.”(Google definition). One of the surrealism examples in the play is the title: “Waiting for Godot”. Throughout the play, we have no explanation on whom or what is this Godot that they are waiting for; nor why they are willing to come to this location every day to wait. Normally, people do things for with a purpose and hope for a certain result. We only know that Vladimir and Estragon were there waiting. During the waiting, they talk about a lot of things. There is confess, the story in the bible and honeymoon at the Dead Sea. But they never reveal the reason of this waiting or the identity of Godot. It is difficult to understand why Vladimir and Estragon have to wait for this Godot when they are in this harsh environment; they were so hungry that they even want the bone from Pozzo, they want to hang themselves but they can’t find a single rope. If there is a single clue on why they are waiting or who Godot is, then the play will be easier to understand. Let say Godot means God, and then we will know why they been through so much just waiting for the moment that God arrive. But we didn’t know any of that information, then this seems like they are doing it meaninglessly. Even Beckett himself says that if he knew what Godot was, he will have revealed it in the play. This lead to my question: how can we search for the meaning in something that is meaningless? It is like searching for water in a dry riverbed; no matter how deep you dig, there won’t be any water.

            The other reason that I cannot do a close reading is the plot of the story. The plot is very important for a drama, it helps set up the story with background information and leads the audience slowly into the climax with a series of event. These are an indication of what we needed to pay attention during close reading. But we don’t have any of that in this play. The location and time are same throughout the play for both acts. The events are basically the same too; first is the appearance of Vladimir and Estragon, following a lengthy conversation, then comes the master and his slave, and ends with the little boy saying Godot won't come this evening but surely tomorrow. If there were act three or move, I am sure it will look almost the same as the first two act with a few minor tweaks. This gives us a pattern. But this also shows that whatever happened was not important, because it will always happen again in the next day. And the lack of climax tells us that all of the events are exactly the same as it appears, there are no meanings behind the shoe or the hat. This is just like a court’s transcript; everything is as it is, nothing more, nothing less.