“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett can easily be categorized as a piece that is not a closed reading because it is often identified as absurdist. It is for this very reason that the play allows for a deeper understanding of what seems to be a pointless act of waiting. Since both Vladimir and Estragon cannot find the meaning to life, the wait for Godot is what classifies this work as absurd. As a result, “Waiting for Godot” can be a closed reading by analyzing lines from both Act I and Act II that reflect their reasoning for this never ending continuum.
For instance, Act I mainly describes their wait and how there is no clear evidence of the existence of Godot, but still remain by the tree until his coming. This implies that the character’s drive relied solely on hope despite the lack of evidence, creating a plot that was centered around their actions. This reflected Vladimir’s and Estragon’s relationship, in that, Vladimir seemed to have had a stronger desire to wait for Godot compared to Estragon because he would constantly have to remind Estragon that “[They are] waiting for Godot.” But in fact, the two seemed to balance each other out as Estragon represented the soul and Vladimir the mind. This balance allowed them to maintain their hope to something that seemed to never come. Vladimir kept the both in check reminding him what their purpose of waiting was for meanwhile Estragon helped to pass by time throughout their long wait. Godot in Act I begins to demonstrate his symbolism for something greater, but it is uncertain at this time.
Godot’s significance is slightly revealed in Act II as Estragon refers to religion when he states “Do you think God sees me?” implying that Godot serves as their saviour - more specifically God. This refers back to the underlying meaning of Vladimir’s and Estragon’s actions referencing to religion. It can come across as meaningless to wait, but they actually represent followers of God that did the same. The two protagonists have finally managed to find some meaning to life that is to serve God despite the troubles. Even though they don’t know exactly what it is by analyzing Act II it confirms the role they played in life and the importance it becomes to them as they stayed in place throughout both Act I and II. Not only can this be inferred by in the actual play but in the name itself by having “God” incorporated in the name. Act II shows that both characters found an importance to life through the worship God despite the their troubles, in this case boredom.
Therefore, this play can be considered a closed reading in that it relates religion with the idea of absurdism to convey a biblical story. It may be difficult to follow because not much happens where the plot provides a clear understanding, but the patterns within the lines guide the to from one point to another that make the connection that this play could be based on religion.
Good work on being able to organize your paper properly with only 500 words. You gave us your introduction, analyzed Act I, analyzed Act II, and ended it with a brief conclusion. I also agree on how it relates religion with absurdism. However. there are some points you could've extended to make it easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction was quite confusing for me. You started out arguing that you can not do a close reading of the play and then ended with that you can. I assume you were trying to argue that some people believe you can’t do a close reading, but you’re arguing that you can. However, personally the transitions in the paragraph did not quite set that up enough. As a result, this also made your argument a little confusing. That said, you did a great job in your body paragraphs with using quotes as evidence and giving a detailed explanation and analysis of why that quote is relevant. Your conclusion did a better job of laying out your argument, but it felt a little rushed. Possibly try breaking it down further into multiple sentences to make it even clearer.
ReplyDelete