Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two Acts Reviews

• "Nothing happens, twice".

  
  By AXQ8T2D9IT6UG on 2005-01-12
  "Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!". That phrase, said by one of the main characters of "Waiting for Godot", somehow sums up the whole plot of this short tragicomedy in two acts. Strange??. You can bet on that!!!. So much that a well-known Irish critic said of it "nothing happens, twice".
  
  The play starts with two men, Vladimir and Estragon, sitting on a lonely road. They are both waiting for Godot. They don't know why they are waiting for him, but they think that his arrival will change things for the better. The problem is that he doesn't come, although a kid does so and says Godot will eventually arrive. Pozzo and his servant Lucky, two other characters that pass by while our protagonists are waiting for Godot, add another bizarre touch to an already surreal story, in which nothing seems to happen and discussions between the characters don't make much sense.
  
  However, maybe that is exactly the point that Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) wanted to make. He was one of the most accomplished exponents of the "Theatre of the Absurd", that wanted to highlight the lack of purpose and meaning in an universe without God. Does Godot, the person that Vladimir and Estragon endlessly wait, symbolize God?. According to an irascible Beckett, when hard-pressed to answer that question, "If I knew who Godot was, I would have said so in the play." So, we don't know. The result is a highly unusual play that poses many questions, but doesn't answer them.
  
  Ripe with symbolism, "Waiting for Godot" is a play more or less open to different interpretations. Why more or less open?. Well, because in order to have an interpretation of your own, you have to finish the play, and that is something that not all readers can do. "Waiting for Godot" is neither too long nor too difficult, but it shows a lack of action and purpose in the characters that is likely to annoy many before they reach the final pages, leading them to abandon the book in a hurry. That is specially true if the reader is a student who thinks he is being barbarously tortured by a hateful teacher who told him to write a paper on "Waiting for Godot" :)
  
  My advice, for what it is worth, is that you should persist in reading it. If it puts you to sleep, try reading it aloud with some friends, and discuss with them the implications of what happens with the characters. This play might not be thoroughly engaging, but it changed theatre and the possibilities opened before it forever. In a way, it provoked a blood-less revolution, and because of that it deserves at least a bit of our attention.
  
  Belen Alcat
  
  
  

• Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

  
  By A3PM7CTXMNLMBC on 2008-03-24
  Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...
  
  Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts
  
  Written in: 1949
  
  Premiere in: 1953
  
  By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)
  
  Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.
  
  This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.
  
  There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.
  
  They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.
  
  The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.
  
  The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?
  
  The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.
  
  Waiting for Godot
  
  Krapp's Last Tape
  
  Endgame and Act Without Words
  
  
  
  I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

  
  By A3PM7CTXMNLMBC on 2008-03-24
  Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...
  
  Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts
  
  Written in: 1949
  
  Premiere in: 1953
  
  By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)
  
  Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.
  
  This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.
  
  There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.
  
  They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.
  
  The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.
  
  The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?
  
  The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.
  
  
  
  Waiting for Godot
  
  Krapp's Last Tape
  
  Endgame and Act Without Words
  
  
  
  I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.
  
  
  
  
  

• Waiting for the Point

  
  By A2XNYCCKP8362A on 2007-03-17
  Reader 1: It's going to come, I know it is.
  Reader 2: Yes, I just know that it will come, and when it does, then we can move on.
  R1: Yes.
  R2: Right.
  R1: I just wish the point would come.
  R2: Maybe that is the point, that when it comes it will bring meaning to our lives.
  R1: Perhaps.
  R2: Yes, perhaps, but if there's no point, then why are we waiting?
  R1: Maybe that's the point.
  R2: It could be, but I still think we should just wait for the point. It definitely will come. I know it, I just feel it.
  R1: But that, too, could be the whole meaning.
  R2: Of the point?
  R1: No, it's the waiting.
  R2: Waiting for the point.
  R1: What else could it be?
  R2: But if the point has no meaning...
  R1: Then maybe that's the point.
  R1 & R2: Yes!
  R2: But then, how can we be so sure?
  R1: Maybe that's the point.
  R2: Lots of other people think there's a point.
  R1: True, but does that mean there's really a point?
  R2: What other point could there be?
  R1: Maybe that's the point, that people love things without a point.
  R2: Could be.
  R1: Is there any other possibility.
  R2: No, but I still think that we should wait.
  R1: Maybe that's the point.
  
  

• A question to the potential reader:

  
  By AUBIF50IF7CMP on 2000-08-14
  What is your perception of the VOID ? The vacuum ? If you ever had the chance to feel the absolute void, the true nothingness, would you consider it to be beautifull ? Would you consider it to be God ? Or would you be scared and turn away ? To get a feeling of what other people felt just read the previous reviews. Some of them thought it was majestic, some of them thought it was God and some of them fled away, scared, and because they got scared they thought that it was something ugly.

  Since we do not have the chance to perceive the real void because the natural law forbids it, the closest thing available is Waiting for Godot. The words are misleading. There should be no words, but Becket had no other choice in the material world that we live. So if you are curious to see in what category you belong just read it.

  As for me, I thought it was beautifull. One of the most beautifull things I have ever experienced....
  
  

• Sleepy little classic
  By AF3X7J0XC391L on 2006-12-17
  This classic of the absurd tragicomedy must be given its due respect though I have to admit, I found it a bit of a sleep-inducer. The story follows a conversation about a character wasting his time awaiting the arrival of his friend. The friend, it seems, is never going to arrive and so the plot is really a roller-coaster ride of emotions from excited anticipation to boredom to utter hopelessness and dispair. But, sadly, its an anti-climactic end with nothing - which is, in essence, the message of the play. Read it for it's historical and social significance but do not expect more than what it can give. Risking negative votes on my review I have to add, at least it is short and Beckett does not make the mistake of attempting to belabor a very tired point.
  
  
• The Most Important Play of the 20th Century
  By A2EQ1MRSDNTI8B on 1999-09-22
  Ah... Waiting For Godot. Where do I even start?

  This play, one of the finest plays by the most important playwright to write in English (I know he originally wrote it in French) since Shakespeare (Feel free to argue with me) finds a outlet and a means to express the longings and emptiness of modern man.

  For all those who don't like it, get a friend and read it out loud together. That might change your mind.

  To all the reviews which seem to find that the whole "point" of the play can be found in the name Godot (which as a mixture of English and French could mean "Little God"), I think you are simplifying the play to a great extreme. One of my favorite quotes by Beckett on this subject was that if he had known who Godot was, he wouldn't have had to write the play. Frankly, all of you trying to find "meaning" or solution to the play are looking in the wrong places. Which isn't to say there isn't a lot there. Juggle it all round in your head, but don't ever really grab on to something as the key: you're probably wrong.

  To the review who complained that Beckett didn't adequately give the time period or location for his play, I argue that he did: "A country road. A tree. Evening." That is all you need, and according to the man himself, all that should be on stage, scenery-wise.

  A Civil War play? You must be joking.

  But anyway, to summarize, Beckett finished what Hemingway began: distilling the language of literature into a tangible, true format with which we can truly explore the nature of human existence. Centuries from now they will remember Hemingway, Joyce, and Beckett when they talk about 20th century literature.

  So there.
  
  

• A Lot About Nothing At All
  By A9YHAIHW2R63 on 2006-01-20
  Some think Waiting for Godot is an argument for existentialism. Others believe it is about man's eternal struggle for the answer to the ultimate question. Neither seem correct.
  
  In short, this is a play for those who prefer to strip everything down to the most basic form of language, to strip life down to a mere game of waiting. That is, in essence, what this is all about. We have two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who both wait for a man who may or may not ever show up. They don't know why. They don't know exactly when he will be there. Still they wait, eternally, by the tree, by wherever they think he said he would show.
  
  This isn't an absurdist play, although it has been labeled as such. Absurdism, though, seems such an insulting way of labeling such a masterpiece. We oftentimes go thorugh our readings with the idea that everything has to be complex, that there has to be a theme placed deep within a convoluted story, but with Waiting for Godot, we have a simple theme: waiting.
  
  The two characters symbolize nothing. They are, quite simply, not waiting to be analyzed. They become, in effect, victims of Samuel Beckett's own game: they are his quotation, and he only says what needed to be said at the time, and so he wrote it, whether people would catch on or not, whether they would label it absurdism or not.
  
  If you were to take every line of this play and utter it aloud, very slowly, word by word like a robot in a very monotone fashion, you would probably capture the idea. If it's any indication, he wrote everything in French first--his second language--and then translated it in to English, just so it can be simple. I don't assume, of course, that this work should be cherished simply because it's an exercise in simplicity. But I submit that it should be cherished because it's a genuine, themeless--somehow--masterpiece about two people waiting for the most unimportant, unknown thing that may or may not ever come. It is frequently hilarious and constantly frivolous, but somehow, it manages to charm. It is like one of those songs that you can listen to over and over again, and it has no lyrics, and no meaning--as far as you know--but it still makes you feel good under glaring adversity.
  
  
• Leave Room In Your Life For The Absurd
  By A1AT0GONN4A9NA on 2006-10-25
  Most of the reviews that I have written for Amazon are based on the books, the DVDs, and the CDs that I already own. I occasionally buy a new product via Amazon, but I mostly review the stuff that I already own.
  
  I own this book...this play because I read it while in a Humanities course in college. I went to college rather "late" in life...whatever that means...and yet I derived more from the experience than I probably would have had I gone right after High School. I am one of those people who believe that it's not college that makes a "well-rounded" indivividual, but life experience. If colleges and universities handed out degrees based on Life Experience, I'd probably have a doctorate three times over...
  
  We were given the assignment of reading this play and seeing the live production that the college I was attending just so happened to be putting on. With my primary focus being on philosphy, I embraced the Existentialism Unit that we were now focused upon. My best friend, who was/is an "atheist" was less receptive of these Existentialist ideas he considered strange and elusive. You think he, being an atheist, would have been more open to them than I who had already been bitten by the Metaphysics/Spirituality plague. Truth be told I think the only reason he says he's an atheist is because he's a cheapskate and doesn't want to shell out extra money for Christmas gifts.
  
  So we go see this play and people were getting pretty agitated. In this play everything goes round and round but never arrives at any final conclusions and I noticed how we, as a society, love our answers. We are not soothed by questions and proposistions and "what if?" scenarios. We feel the need to latch onto something because something is better than nothing.
  
  Isn't it?
  
  The Existentialists believe that the universe is random, chaotic, and ultimately meaningless and so in a sense they "give" meaning to meaninglessness. Just like an atheist believes in non-belief. You see, the human species cannot not give meaning to his/her life...we cannot not believe...we can "pretend" that life is without meaning and that we don't believe but everything that falls onto the screen of our perception, will take on the shape of our perceptions.
  
  I loved this play. I loved the merry-go-round type dialouge. Isn't this what we all do? We get a belief so engrained in our heads and we think that it is the only way to believe and so we spend a lot of time trying to convince someone who may not be as receptive to our point of view as to why it's valid. What I have learned over the years is that the only reason why a belief is valid is because we are the ones who validate it. It doesn't make us "more right" than the person who doesn't believe it, it just makes us believers of the belief. And contrary to popular opinion, the more people you have who also believe the same way you believe does not prove that it's any more valid than if only one person believed it.
  
  This play did not dissolve me into a puddle of desperation and futileness, in fact it added more meaning to my life which would probably make Samuel Beckett gag. It made me fall in love even more with this crazy life that only I can live. Nobody lives by proxy. Each of us are liberated and imprisoned by our beliefs. The best we can ever hope to be is determined by what we are willing to believe at any given time. This is why it's a good practice to sit down and journal about your beliefs from time to time and question why you still believe what you believe. You may have outgrown certain beliefs, certain ideas, certain ways of being in the world but don't be like the two "bums" in the play, don't keep postponing what it is that you eventually desire to see; see it now, live it now, be it now. If you are going to be an atheist, be the best atheist you can be. If you are going to be a Christian, be the best Christian you can be. If you are going to be an Anarchist, be the best Anarchist you can be. Just don't think that everyone is going to believe exactly as you believe and don't make others wrong simply because they may have another point of view. In the end, none of us truly know what's on the other side. Yes, we've had people with Near Death Experiences, but nobody has ever come back after being completely dead with a report, we just have reports from people who have been "mostly dead".
  
  Take life with a grain of salt and enjoy the ride.
  
  Peace & Blessings.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• A classic, but best for those who dig absurdism
  By A1OB5L3WMHJAD9 on 2007-02-05
  Fifty years after its premiere, Samuel Beckett's play WAITING FOR GODOT has achieved classic status, yet it is a play more talked about than read or performed. Many people could tell the vague plot of two hobos waiting on a roadside for a man who never comes, a metaphor for the "waiting for God" that forms the duration of human existence, but much of the play remains unknown. Reading the play shows a different side of the play than popular imagination, though it will not be a rewarding activity for all.
  
  The stage is simple. "A country road. A Tree". So is the casting. The repartee of hobos Vladimir and Estragon forms the bulk of the play's dialogue. Two other men, Pozzo and Lucky, twice stop by. Finally a Boy appears as a messenger from the mysterious Godot. Pozzo and Lucky are left out of most popular references to the play, but they form a vital part of its action. When we first meet Pozzo, he is a rich man, smoking a pipe, feasting on a whole chicken... and leading his servant Lucky around with a rope and barking orders at him. The choreographical duties imposed on Lucky are a tour de force of stage writing.
  
  While drama is written to be performed, the text of WAITING FOR GODOT allows one to pick up on various subtleties missing from performance. One is amusing stage directions. When Vladimir says "I don't understand" and Estragon replies, "Use your intelligence, can't you?", there follows the direction "Vladimir uses his intelligence." In the theatre, many of the play's most profound comments come too quickly to be properly reflected upon and digested by the audience, but reading the play lets one proceed through Beckett's musings at one's own pace. Finally, reading the play lets one spot oddities about Beckett's own translation of the play from the original French, many slightly peculiar turns of phrase in English.
  
  While the play's meagre plot of waiting for a God who never reveals himself is often seen as existentialist, reading the play reveals instead an absurdist perspective. Unlike those writers who felt that the absence of God forces Man to determine his purpose on his own, Beckett sees little possibility of purpose. Because of the lack of hope and the frustrations that fill the dialogue, WAITING FOR GODOT can be depressing and inexplicable to many. One's enjoyment from reading the play is dependent essentially on how comfortable one is with absurdism. Nonetheless, I'd recommend at least trying.
  
  
• truly idiotic
  By A3QVAKVRAH657N on 2000-11-18
  VLADIMIR: To every man his little cross. Till he dies. And is forgotten. -Waiting for Godot

  The American director Alan Schneider first met the Irish playwright Samuel Beckett in 1955, after being hired to direct the United States premiere of ''Waiting for Godot'' in Miami. Schneider had come to Beckett's Paris apartment bursting with preproduction questions, especially regarding the identity of the title character. To Schneider's initial query, ''Who is Godot?,'' the laconic playwright famously replied, ''If I knew, I would have said so in the play.''

  Henceforth, Schneider was to devote most of his career to realizing Beckett's stated intentions in his plays. But despite his fidelity to every letter of Beckett's text, and despite the participation of such popular clowns as Bert Lahr and Tom Ewell, the Miami production of ''Waiting for Godot'' was a resounding flop. Baffled by the metaphysical reverberations of a work that had been billed as ''the laugh riot of two continents,'' a third of the audience left at intermission. Others lined up at the box office not to purchase tickets but to ask for refunds. -from Robert Brustein's NY Times review of The Correspondence of Samuel Beckett and Alan Schneider

  To read Waiting for Godot is to bitterly envy those lucky folks who actually had the privilege of walking out and demanding their money back. In a more just world they would have hunted down the playwright and horsewhipped him.

  Here is the play in its entirety: Two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, wait by a tree for two days, expecting the imminent appearance of Godot. Instead they are visited by a master and slave, Pozzo and Lucky, and a boy who brings them a message that Godot will soon be there. The curtain falls. The crowd hisses.

  That's it. Godot is obviously supposed to be God (though Beckett relentless fought against others finding meaning in the work) and the play presumably demonstrates the futility of human existence: waiting around for the God who never shows. Of course, this message is nothing new. In fact, it is central to the story of Christ. When he was being crucified, Jesus wailed: "Oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is in this moment that God/Christ came to understand man's despair and Christ then admonished: "Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." So 2000 years ago, it was said better in a far superior drama; why sit through this piece of crap?

  One delightful irony that I found is that Beckett was adamant that production of this play--which is supposed to show the folly of existence, the impossibility of communication, etc.--follow the strict guidelines that he envisioned:

  In his autobiography, the American director Alan Schneider recalled his attendance with Samuel Beckett at the first run of Waiting for Godot in London in 1955. Whenever a line was misinterpreted or an extra piece of stage business was added, Beckett would clutch Schneider's arm and exclaim, in a clearly audible stage whisper, "It's ahl wrahng! He's doing it ahl wrahng!"1 That loud whisper still sounds in the ears of those who stage Beckett's plays now. No other dead dramatist remains such a daunting admonitory presence for his directors and performers. Where most great playwrights were content to write the text of a play, Beckett wrote the entire theatrical event. He specified, not just the words, but the rhythms and tones, the sets and the lighting plots, and these specifications are preserved in the remarkable series of notebooks whose publication by Faber and Faber is now completed with S.E. Gontarski's exemplary edition of Beckett's ledgers for productions of his short late plays.

  Where most plays invite the active participation of actors, directors, and designers in determining the meaning of the work, Beckett's work demands that the meaning remains indeterminate. Where theater artists think of themselves as interpreters, any interpretation of a Beckett play is necessarily a reduction. With these plays, creative intervention seems like crass interference. The director is haunted by the playwright's stern ghost, frowning, clutching his arm, whispering at every deviation, "It's ahl wrahng!" -from Game Without End by Fintan O'Toole (NY Review of Books)

  I mean that's just beautiful. Life is pointless, but it's my way or the highway. You've gotta love it. These poor existentialists have such a hard time keeping their story straight, you can sometimes almost feel sorry for them.

  I took a Humanities class in High School and absolutely loathed it (some of you may recall my discussion of Ragtime which a teacher suggested I read for the class--see Review). This was one of the things we read and even as a callow youth of 15 or 16, I was flabbergasted at what a crock it was. Now that I'm older, crustier and, hopefully, wiser, I have even less patience with idiocy and this play is truly idiotic.

  GRADE: F
  
  

• Absurdity
  By A19NQ19N2DMOIB on 2005-12-08
  I'm not a big fan of existentialism to start out with, but I began this play expecting at least to find an interesting theme or philosophy concerning the nature of life and existence. This work, however, is pure tripe. Critical appraisal should not even be attempted for this drivel- it's akin to the random scribblings of a two-year old or a mud-splattered canvas. The drawing on the front cover has more artistic value than this play. In my mind, it doesn't merit serious consideration and analysis, because it is by nature pure absurdity and nonsense. Beckett sure accomplished his goal though- look how many reviewers commented on the "extremely difficult themes" and "brilliant artistry" of the play.
  
  
• Powerfully Absurd
  By A1TUS1OG7DYZN6 on 2006-12-04
  This play is completely absurd and that is the powerful point that the writer is trying to make about existence and all that comes with it.
  
  highly recommended for those who are interested in Philosophy, theater and the non traditional.
  
  
• The Best Play of the 20th Century
  By A1QXTMGFN2T6U9 on 2006-09-19
  Samuel Beckett's play seems to endlessly perplex reviewers: they want to see in it concrete associations that it generally denies them. Is Godot God? Are Didi and Gogo heroes for their seemingly indefatiguable faith he will arrive, or fools for hinging all their hopes and dreams on a man who never seems to arrive to help alleviate their suffering?
  
  Waiting for Godot, in proper Modernist fashion, strips away all the layers of narrative and form and leaves nothing but the naked husk of a play, which Beckett no doubt felt revealed the human condition at its most basic. But the play's power doesn't really come from that. Rather, what makes Waiting for Godot so compelling is its wide applicability: it's a story about random oppression, brutality, and dreams deferred by harsh realities. It has been performed as an allegory of apartheid South African, the Jim Crow South, the horror of the war in Bosnia and about every other possible situation imaginable. Why? Because as Benjamin Kunkel pointed out in a piece in The New Yorker not so long ago, "[N]ot everyone has a God, but who doesn't have a Godot?"
  
  Beyond the metaphysical implications of the play, though, it's popularity stems from its near-perfection: for all the philosophical meaning people see in it, the action progresses with virtually no direct reference to it, and every line which seems to suggests some sort of grand significance has a very concrete meaning in the action. Take the infamous opening: Estragon, the first of the tramps, struggles to pull off his boot to relieve his swollen foot. Unable to get it off, he gives up and announces "Nothing to be done." Vladimir, wincingly wandering onto the stage and grasping at his crotch (precious few readers and actors for that matter seem to grasp that one of the play's running jokes is Vladimir's venereal disease, which causes him immense pain when urinating), thinks Estragon is commenting on his own ailment, and announces, "I'm beginning to come round to that conclusion myself. All my life I've put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything! And I resumed the struggle."
  
  On the one hand, the lines relate concretely to the action of the play; on the other, they have become representative of modern man's ambivalence towards a cruel and uncaring world, and such clever cynicism has linked Beckett to the French Existentialists in whose circles he moved after the Second World War. But seen merely as declamatory statements of world-weary cynicism, the lines lose all their power; Beckett's achievement comes from his ability to link such nihilistic sentiments to extremely comic moments, and it is the humor that carries the reader or the theatergoer through what would otherwise be an unbearably cynical play. Steve Martin, who played Vladimir in a famous 1982 production at the Lincoln Center in New York, put it best when he said that he sought to serve the humor of the play, because the meaning could carry itself but the humor could not. That's a lesson which, sadly, precious few theater directors seem to grasp, but which the careful reader discovers in Beckett. Definitely a must-read, but read it before seeing it, because few productions do it justice.
  
  
• keep trying, it's worth it
  By on 2001-10-14
  The first time I picked it up I read 20 pages and put it down, unable to understand a thing. The second time I read half the book and gave up. Because I heard so much about it, I tried again and the third time I loved it. It's an incredible mix of sad hopelessness and almost slapstick style humor, at times I laughed aloud. A frighteningly stark look at the human condition. From the first, almost every line of the play can be interpreted on at least 3 levels.

  One, on the shallow level of the daily lives of the two main characters, about the banal objects of their existence, their shoes, games, desires, and stories, etc.

  Two, on a deeper level, about the deeper meaning of their existence, the search for a frame of reference (Godot), the hopelessness, the hope that is always dangled in front of them, forcing them to stay in the cosmic game, yet never attaining the things hoped for.

  And on a third level, as 2 actors on a stage, wasting time, trying to think up lines to fill the time until the end of the play (note the part where one of the actors directs the other off stage to the restroom, to relieve himself), thus forcing the audience (or reader) into the exact position portrayed by the two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, to wait for meaning, for some sort of overall sense that will give rationale to their puzzling existence (or this puzzling play).

  Tragic, comic, sad, terrifying, poignant, and at times, oddly enough, hilarious. The best play I've read yet.
  
  

• The Tragicomedy
  By A1870A8UO9PHI4 on 2006-10-13
  Waiting for Godot was dubbed a "tragicomedy" and there doesn't seem to be any other word better suited to describe this play. The random and wandering personalities of Vladimir and Estragon, the main characters, lend an amusing air to the entire work. However, their inability to accomplish anything or even grasp what is really going on around them inspires some sympathy (and irritation), though it may be weaker or stronger depending on how strange the book strikes the you. Unless one goes into Waiting for Godot expecting the existentialism it can be somewhat confusing, and may seem a bit more pointless than it is meant to be. Knowing a little bit about Beckett and his beliefs will probably make it more enjoyable, but it is interesting and well written enough to stand on its own. What I love the most about this book is Beckett's ability to make the absurd seem so close to reality. Vladimir and Estragon are most certainly not your average Joe, but a lot of what they say seems familiar and most of the time rather humorous. Waiting for Gogot is really what you make it, because while at its core it is a just a story of two confused homeless men, it is also a meaningful and slightly endearing tale. Go in looking for a meaning, and knowing how Beckett means to get things across, and I think that this play will end up reading much better than if one goes in just cold. A short read, and worthwhile, I would say, at least for its originality and humor.
  
  
• i'm still waiting .....
  By A1EG7RYVJXJPD1 on 2001-10-15
  this past week i've had the good fortune to work backstage at a production of "Waiting for Godot." During that time I heard and saw this play many many times, and I've had a lot of time to think about the characters. Truth be told, this is one of the most intricate, deep works of literature i've ever come into contact with. It has so much relevance, and so many valid interpetations.

  The production that I was a part of was very good, and extremely well acted. This is definitely a play that needs to be seen, not read. There IS a lot of humor in the acting that is lost just reading stage directions.

  I would now like to talk about the characters and symbols of this play. If you're not interested, you can stop here.

  Some see it as a play about the inability of man to give meaning to his own life. Others see it as a poignant treatise on god's non-involvement with human affairs. As for myself? I found each of these views valid, but what intrigues me the most is the idea that Gogo and Didi are stuck in purgatory and are waiting for the end of the world. This is not far fetched, as Samuel Beckett was an Irish writer, and would have been very familiar with Catholic dogma. Also, the character of the "boy" uses symbols from the book of Revelations. He says that he takes care of the "goats" and that his brother takes care of the "sheep." These are symbols for the unsaved and saved souls, respectively. In this interpetation, Gogo and Didi are both unsaved.

  There are symbols in the nicknames of the characters as well. There's alot to be said for the names "Gogo" (a command and concerned with the future) and "Didi" ('i did' backwards, a name of authority and commmandING, and concerned with the past). The relationship of Pozzo and Lucky parallels that of Gogo and Didi as well, but in exaggerated form. Pay close attention to this. It says a lot about their characters.

  There are very specific reasons that the two main characters are eternally stuck. Didi's problem is that he's conceited and he's never satisfied. This can be seen in his very first statement, and in the treatment of his hat. In other words, there is nothing to be done b'c anything he can do is 'beneath' him. Gogo's vice is that he's too stuck on self-interest. He's always concerned with the pain in his legs, food, and ways to take advantage of a situation. For him, there's nothing to be done b'c he has no care for anything that does not immediately effect him.

  Finally, I would like to mention that there ARE scenes where Gogo and Didi have memories that go very far back in their lives. They're usually muddled or ignored by the other character, though, so the memories become useless.
  
  

• A brilliant piece of Existentialist and Absurdist literature
  By A2IHBR3S8IJDU on 2003-07-28
  Waiting for Godot centers around two bums: Estragon and Vladimir. Estragon has an incredibly short memory and relies on Vladimir to remember for him. As a result, Estragon is extremely impatient and constantly suggests that the two would be better off if they parted. However, Estragon needs Vladimir and Vladimir needs Estragon, so they never do part. Vladimir, due to Estragon's lack of memory, is unsure of his own memory. Vladimir enjoys the company of Estragon, for it allows him to recall past events. Together, they spend their time devising ways to pass the time until 'Godot' arrives. Neither Estragon and Vladimir or the reader surely know what Godot is or looks like or whether he will ever arrive. On two occasions, they meet Pozzo and Lucky. Pozzo is Lucky's master and decides to stop and talk to Estragon and Vladimir for a bit of company. Pozzo hardly listens to what the other characters in the play say and frequently launches into melodramatic prose. Lucky is Pozzo's slave, tied to Pozzo via a rope around his neck. Lucky only speaks twice during the entire play. His monologue, which is delivered upon Pozzo's order of 'Think', is completely incoherent - a mix of half-finished words and sentences. Lucky is very obedient to Pozzo and rather violent and hostile to strangers, especially Estragon, who he bites. In the second act, Pozzo and Lucky return again, this time Pozzo is blind and Lucky is mute. They have no memory of ever having met Estragon and Vladimir. The play ends in the same way Act One ends - Estragon and Vladimir are still dependent on eachother and remain waiting for Godot.

  Waiting for Godot is a classic text of existentialism and Absurdist literature. The very ambiguous nature of these two strands of thought and literature makes Waiting for Godot extremely difficult to understand and extract. However the questions, confusion, anger and melancholy that arise from the lack of explanation, meaning and answers is one of the very themes of the play. The large amount of speculation people have made upon Godot (the most popular one being that Godot symbolizes God) is entirely misdirected and a waste of energy. Beckett himself ignored such claims and interpretations, stating that the emphasis should be upon the 'Waiting for...' section of the title. Religious interpretations see Estragon and Vladimir as humanity waiting for the return of the messiah (Godot). Pozzo represents the Pope and Lucky is the faithful. Marxist interpretations see the relationship between Pozzo and Lucky as that between a bourgeosie and a proleteriat - Pozzo being blind to the injustice he causes and Lucky unable to protest against his treatment. Another interpretation claims that Lucky is granted his name because, in the context of the play, he is unduly lucky. This is because the other characters of the play are constantly searching for ways to pass the time, while Lucky's actions are fully determined by Pozzo. Other interpretations posit Estragon as the body without the intellect and Vladimir as the intellect without the body.

  Overall, Waiting for Godot is a superb and though-provoking play. It should not be shunned for its ambiguity - for that is the very beauty and theme of it. Despite all this, it certainly calls for multiple readings. It is a remarkable insight into the nature of the individual and society in a meaningless, unexplainable world. Waiting for Godot does not propose any solutions or consolations - rather it paints a picture of the current predicament and man's reaction. Nearly every human being is waiting for their Godot and is employing some means of wasting the time until its arrival. I highly recommend this classic - it cannot and will not be ignored.
  
  

• POSSIBLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT WORK OF THE 20th CENTURY
  By A1JBLJ1KL1I9S2 on 1999-04-12
  Samuel Beckett's classic work is possibly the most important work of the 20th century. He defies many dramatic traditions within the work as he drives home the play's minimal, yet powerful theme. If one reads or views the play, then asks himself "Who is Godot?", then one has missed the entire point. Godot is irrelevant. The play is about Gogo and Didi waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting. What do we, as humans, do everyday? We wait. We wait to wake up, we wait to go to work, we wait to go to lunch, we wait to get off work. We all live in a repetitive structure of waiting, but what are we really waiting on? What? Nothing? Who knows? We involve ourselves in these repetitive structures to avoid the questions of nothingness. Gogo and Didi's games are an attempt to avoid nothingness. As one reviewer once said, "The play is about two men in search for the meaning of life and finding meaninglessness." The play can be utterly hilarious, but just when you're at the peak of your laughter, a character says or does something that makes us realize their predicament, our predicament, and it crushes you. It is a masterpiece. Sadly, it is a hard read and good productions are rare, but if you do catch a good one, it might make you see many aspects of life in a different light, for better and for worse.
  
  
• Absurdism at its best; literature at its worst.
  By on 2001-12-02
  I'll say this very simply: If you are interested in existentialism, philosophy in general, or the theater of the absurd, read this book. If you are looking for a book with any plot or deeper meaning, look elsewhere. If you choose to read this, a word of warning: though it is a short book, it is the opposite of a page-turner. You can barely finish a page before you have to put the book down and think about something else. Also, it will most likely depress you.
  
  
• "Yes, let's go. (They do not move)"-- Waiting for Godot
  By A2EHCO4NBOLJ47 on 2005-01-05
  Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot is a play of subtle beauty and truth of humanity's search or lack of search for meaning. Beckett uses minimalist techniques such as one set for the two acts to achieve the idea that merely letting life pass one by is absurd. The play takes places on a road where is little scenery besides one tree, alluding to the tree of knowledge. However in the first act, the tree is leafless, symbolizing that knowledge is dead; thus, life is chaotic and absurd. Contrastingly in the second act, the tree has leaves illustrating that there is still some hope. However, Vladimir and Estragon do not utilize this hope since they never leave this area. They wait for Godot to come to them. This lack of action demonstrates that if meaning is to be found one cannot wait for knowledge or life to come to him, it must be sought out. Furthermore, the two men's inability to leave their situation illustrates the difficulty humans have in searching for meaning. Moreover, Beckett does not suggest that the searching for meaning is worthless but a struggle. For instances, the leaf filled tree signifies the existence of knowledge and the characters talk of other places to flee to; they are not bound to their area. However, they do not leave. They wait for Godot to come them and once he has not come they do not move. In Waiting for Godot the absurdity of life lies in its characters inability to search for meaning since they hope it will come to them eventually. Consequently meaning or knowledge never comes to a person, which explains the ludicrousness in the two men's worlds where they no longer have a grasp of reality. They are bound to a world of chaos by their choice.
  
  
• The definitive Intro to Metatheatre
  By A1D3K6AD0OJ7T6 on 2001-05-13
  Waiting for Godot is perhaps the most brilliant peice of theatrical genius I have come across in my varied, albeit brief, carreer in modern and classical drama. The play that launched the metatheatricallity movement will undoubtedly be understood by very few of those who read it their first, second, even tenth times. Yet the symbolism in this play, once found, makes the reader want to jump to his feat and scream "NOW I get it!"

  The dialogue is so disjointed and repetitive that it will seem to make no more sense than...well, for lack of a better example, the Bush v. Gore decision written in Sanskrit. But every line, every action, every direction in the play was placed with an enormous amount of thought. My director once told me it is impossible to cut anything out of this play because everything is so important.

  I don't want to give away the excitement of the play by telling about the symbolism in any great detail, but the play's original title lends greater sense to the meaning. <> translated literaly means "While Waiting for Godot" which can lead to a greater sense of what the play is truly about. Second, as a real treat, Lucky's monologue in Act One is not the gibberish it seems to be. There is something extremely and frighteningly coherent about it: but that's something for you to find on your own (I'm certain any Cliff's Notes or similar text would reveal the secret if you're unsucessful). In short, this is my favorite straight play of all time, and I strongly suggest it those who want a truly theatrical adventure.
  
  

• Nothing to be done
  By AJ9W09EUQPAKE on 2005-03-24
  Almost every work of Literature is famous for telling an interesting story, perhaps a masterful insight into human sexual relations, a gripping portrayal of a power struggle, a gasp inducing twist in the climax. In short, in the majority of Literature, something actually happens.
  
  Waiting for Godot, along with certain other works by Beckett such as his Sartre inspired drama 'Endgame' pretty much stands alone as an exception to this. It is one of the most famous, and controversial plays of the 20th Century. As everyone knows, it focuses on the ruminations of two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon who stand on a road by a tree waiting for Godot. After two days (and two and a half hours of stage time), Lucky and Pozzo have appeared and performed an absurdist farce, a boy has asked what message he should relay to Godot but Godot himself never appears. By the end of the play, the two tramps are no further forward, only the passing of time has elapsed and a few leaves on the tree have sprouted.
  
  That, in a nutshell, is the human condition. We exist, time passes, things happen to us which, looking at it from the grand scheme of things are absurd and meaningless then we die. Who is Godot? God himself - in whom belief in his existence is a futile fallacy? People speculate as such but it is essentially futile. Beckett himself was notoriously reticent when it came to divulging what meaning there was in the play. He once said he just 'liked the shape of it'. That's about it.
  
  Towards the end of the first act, Estragon exclaims 'Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful!'. This line was apparently greated with a hearty 'hear hear' from an audience member when it first opened in London.
  
  Beckett was astonishingly well read in Literature, theatre, languages (most of his major works were originally written in French as he wanted the discipline of writing in an acquired second language), philosophy and psychology. His detractors demean his work on the grounds that it says nothing. Beckett, on the other hand, considered that after a lifetime of scholarship (and depression), that nothing was the most valuable insight to offer. Just before he died, he said that he could no longer bring himself to write as he considered every word to be 'an unecessary stain on silence and nothingness'. Following his advice, I too shall stop.
  
  
• Masterpiece of Nothingness
  By A3LKWMM12AF0PU on 2007-09-19
  Many parts of this play are comically driven - many are not. And, the majority are neither - or so Beckett may have said as part of his stylistic prank on the reader. Beckett had a target, and he would smile at his target as much as permitted. His dripping dialogue is often interpreted with misinterpretation, misidentification, miscue. That part of the play is resoundingly great.
  
  To not have read this, but experienced it the first time as a member of the audience, may be asking too much of the auditory skills- asking them to constantly respond to clever and contrarian statements which spill off the characters' tongues almost every third or fifth line. One favorite discourse which evidences how fast and clever it can be: "We're in no danger of ever thinking any more." "Then what are we complaining about?" "Thinking is not the worst." "Maybe not. But at least there's that" "That what?" "That's the idea, let's ask each other questions." "What do you mean, at least there's that?" "That much less misery."
  
  Reading thickly carved conceptions like that recited above can easily make one receive and learn more with each reading. This is one of those plays that I could read over and over again, and each time realize something totally new with each reading. This is a "deep" thinking piece of literature.
  
  So who is Godot? Who knows. What does he represent? Who knows. What is the reason that Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot? Who knows. Are there religious interpretations? Yes. Is God recreated in Godot? After all, Estragon has a nickname - Gogo. Vladimir has a nickname - Didi. Is God a nickname for Godot? If you want to believe such, so believe. Possible religious interpretations are infinite. They absolutely exist. The book starts with discussion of the Bible, and reading of it and some misinterpretation of a proverb. But, beware. Beckett is a master of literary illusion - are the words delivered to portray their nothingness, or by their juxtaposition can the meaningless became most meaningful? Is the Bible part of that "nothingness?"
  
  Sounds almost mean as much as words. The sound of Godot - pronounced the same in English as the original French (Irish Beckett lived in France and wrote in French) - is one example of sound perhaps trumping meaning or definition. One character - Pozzo - is called Bozzo (we grew up watching his cousin Bozo) and later Gozzo. Great inflection of sound. And, sound often is the core of comic reaction - some sounds are funny. Pozzo sounds funny, so does Bozzo, so do many other words in the play.
  
  Admittedly, this is one book you need to read about after having been read. And, to do it justice, I will review this analysis by myself years down the road after I read it again. This could be fun. I can not fathom what it will mean to me then. Who knows.
  
  
• "We are all born mad. Some remain so" - Waiting for Godot
  By A1GHX2LY3ZU8O8 on 2000-03-27
  I read this book a couple of days ago, and came here to see what others thought. I saw several reviews with just one star, and another with five and a quip about Americans being unable to think about what they read. I thought it was an excellent play and happen to be an American, so I just thought I'd stick that out and stand up for Beckett and the United States. Because this is, in fact, an excellent book. It is not tedious or slow; it is complicated without action. It's about the meaninglessness (hope that's a word) of life, about not waiting for life to pass you by, and about going out to find your destiny for yourself, instead of waiting for another to bring it to you. It's an awesome piece of work; I recommend it to anyone who likes to read, and anyone who has ever wondered why.
  
  
• Who is waiting for whom?
  By A3V82ULC4L9VFA on 2000-03-11
  It is not very clear whether the two tramps are more interested in Godot or we are.We wait for Godot along with the two tramps with a lot of patience, impatience, hope and hopelessness.For three hours at least we think that the two tramps may finally come-it is a unique opportunity for Catharsis-we want to atone for our lack of humane feelings for others-what if two poor tramps are in the void and have to drag a painful existence, we are at least happy and full of hopes. We should remember that waiting is astrong metaphor in the play-to wait is to exist and to exist we have to wait for something.Beckett is forcing us to live the Holocaust of our conscience, the bombing of our beliefs, the destruction of our faith in God.We wait for the play to proceed-we want to draw meaning from it-why should we?We wait for the tramps to act or we expect something miraculous to occur-much of the waiting is done by us-the tramps are enjoying themselves-you and me we are desperataly looking for meaning in it-does your life have any meaning, any logic?Then why do you want the tramps to have any? The play takes us deep within ourselves-it is an introspection in the remote recesses of our conscience.It is a rethinking process-who are we?We are a mixture of Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo, Lucky and even Godot-we have been marginalised by our own conscience, we are travellers ,looking for better prospects, we carry others'burden without realising that we have been enslaved be our senses and desires.We are like Godot-we promise and do not keep our words. Threatrically speaking the play is revolutionary.Broken sentences,regular confusions by the tramps, the long diatribe by Lucky remind us of serious devaluation of language in our world-the two world wars have not totally killed humanity but have left them grovelling, we are like Sysiphus, we are condemned to wait. Watching the play brings us closer to our own existence.
  
  
• Suggestions
  By on 2000-05-14
  I skimmed through most of these reviews, and I found a lot of assumptions about this play. On the other hand, I found a lot of vague speculation, which seems the most modest and reliable perspective in approaching this play. To read Beckett is to not find that definite line-- especially in the word "Godot"--which will define the entire play. In the "Preface to Shakespeare," Johnson said, "when he offered his house to sale, [he] carried a brick in his pocket as a specimen"; in other words, it is wrong to find too much meaning in selected passages of a single work, but instead grasp the entire philosophy of the book. One must grasp, first, a general meaning of the play retrieved from various stimuli.Such stimuli can be found in the following: "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus, possibly followed by his novel, "The Stranger". When the concept of "absurdity" is understood, then proceed in reading "Waiting for Godot". This will be an easy climb to a higher understanding, and a potentially unique and intellectual opinion of this tragicomedy play on existentialism, or the absurdity of life.

  Further stimuli: Jean Sartre, Heidegger, Kafka, and (to jog your creativity) Borges.

  I am aware that I haven't given any personal opinions or guidance of this play, but I feel that I would be doing a great disservice to you if I had. This book is an excellent book; however, it is not a book for the wreckless reader, but instead it is for the sagacious ones who will suffer a little research to truly understand the philosophy, which can not be done in a 1,000 words, or explained as well as those great minds who unveiled these philosophical jewels--hearsay will, in other words, diminish the mind-expanding effect.
  
  

• Waiting for Godot
  By A2MM8RWKBNU39G on 2001-10-03
  Samuel Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot, was surprising entertaining,
  though nothing happened throughout the two acts. The two protagonists of the play,
  Estragon and Vladimir, two hobo looking men, are waiting on a country road by a tree.
  The setting is bare and dark. The two men discuss matters of life and religion while
  waiting for a man named Godot who was to meet them there. During the play, they are
  visited only by three others, a messenger boy who works for Godot, and Pozzo who has a
  servant named Lucky. While Estragon insists numerous times that they leave the place,
  Vladimir reminds him they are waiting for Godot. The men remain there for what appears
  to be the changing of a season because leaves have grown on the once barren tree;
  however, Godot never comes.
  While the two men represent all mankind, Vladimir is the more philosophical of the
  two. He understands the constant struggle of man to give his life meaning and he knows
  that we do not have that power; he knows that they must wait for Godot to tell them what
  to do. He grasps the idea that men never accept their own faults and often blame their
  society. On the other hand, Estragon, or Go-Go as his friend calls him, is the more
  materialistic of the men. When asked if he remembered reading the Bible, he replied that he
  remembered the pictures. Both are well-developed, complex, and plausible characters.
  Religious themes are often brought into Waiting for Godot. The tree which they

  wait beside is a reminder of the two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life and the
  Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The road on which they stand symbolizes a
  purpose or direction in life, somewhere to go. The general tone of the play is one of
  isolation, despair, and loneliness. One of the first conversations between our protagonists
  is about Estragon being beaten at night. He says no one was there to help him. There was
  no good Samaritan; we do not get much help from our fellow man. Man's inhumanity to
  man is constant. Vladimir ignites a conversation about four Evangelists in the Bible of
  whom only one spoke of one of two thieves being saved. The two thieves are an ironic
  parallel between the two hobos, Vladimir and Estragon.
  Waiting for Godot ventures into the universal human conditions of life. Beckett's
  Christian Existential beliefs shine through in the essential idea of his play: there is nothing
  to be done. Humans do not have the power to give their lives meaning. It is a play about
  hope, waiting, and meaning in our lives, mixed with irony (the existence of the name God
  in Godot) and humor. Although Beckett never discredits God, he does discredit human
  theories for explaining the existence of God. Our lives are unfinished. We can never
  come to a final conclusion about God because language and reason fall short of
  explanation. We may have certain assumptions about God, but we can never come to
  logical conclusions. Nothing is ever established beyond all doubt and we must live with
  doubt. Doubt becomes a motif of the play. Beckett also touches on the point that life is
  short. We can never be sure of anything.
  Reading Waiting for Godot is an eye opening experience. Because of the things
  our society has taught us for so long, we have excepted them as truths when in reality,
  there are no truths. Men were born sinners. The play's themes are both well-developed
  and implied. Beckett's original, interpretive fiction deals with more than just human
  conditions, it explores the consciousness of man as well as concerns beyond man.
  
  

• What is there to get from Waiting for Godot
  By on 2004-06-10
  I thought the play beautifully expressed in laconic dialogue how some individuals deny reality, the human condition, and mortality by distracting themselves with meaningless activies. I don't know if Beckett saw life as meaningless. The mystery of life makes all of us story tellers. It's our responsiblity to find a story, activity, purpose, gift, belief that gives our lives fullness as opposed to emptyness.
  
  
• But the night won't fall...
  By A1F52F51KIRVYL on 2004-08-10
  This is truly one of the most impactful and meaningful pieces of literature I have ever read. I've been through it and through it and through it, and I never tire of the thought is provokes. While it seems to be one of those works that you either totally love, or totally hate, anyone with an interest in existentialism will find this to be an utterly delightful non-story.
  
  I've noticed many reviewers state that this book is laced with Christian themes, that Godot is symbolic of God. This is not entirely correct, and should not really be dwelled upon. While Beckett himself denies the book's apparent biblical themes (He claims that the play is about shoes, and that the naming of the saviour comes from a road near his house, "Godot St."), one can almost declare that it doesn't matter who or what Godot is - you will find the story (Or lack thereof) to be much more profound if you focus not on the fact that Didi And Gogo are waiting for Godot, but merely that - much like all of us - they are waiting - and wait on.
  
  

• Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
• The Stranger
• No Exit and Three Other Plays
• Hamlet (The New Folger Library Shakespeare)
• Heart of Darkness (Dover Thrift Editions)