UNIVERSITY OF SARAJEVO

FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

Characterization in Waiting for Godot

SUPERVISOR:
Mr. Ifeta iri

STUDENT:
Anel Hrnji
Sarajevo, November 2010

Waiting for Godot was one of the first plays to be labelled as the Theatre of the
Absurd. It has remained the most known play within this type of theatre, which has exerted an
enormous influence on the contemporary theatre. The name was coined by literary critic
Martin Esslin who published the book under the name the Theatre of the Absurd. The term
absurd was derived from an essay by the French philosopher Alber Camus a creator of the
philosophy of existentialism who claimed that our life was meaningless and absurd. The
first plays appeared in 1950s with performances in Paris and London. The most prominent
figures were Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Arthur Adamov and Jean Genet. Ionesco
called it anti-theatre:
The Theatre of the Absurd openly rebelled against conventional theatre. It was surreal, illogical,
conflictless and plotless. The dialogue seemed total gobbledygook. Not unexpectedly, the Theatre of the
Absurd first met with incomprehension and rejection. 1

Eventually, Waiting for Godot earned a name as the play where nothing happens.
Influences on the Theatre of the Absurd are very diverse including both ancient
traditions of literature and drama and contemporary trends in Europe. There are elements of
the pantomime, circus and clowning, the cross-talk comedies of music halls, nonsense poetry,
the silent movies, as well as allegorical, symbolic and ritual drama. The influence of the
contemporary European literary movements such as Dadaism, Surrealism and Avant-garde is
very prominent. Brechts social and political theatre and Strindbergs dream-like dramas also
made a big impact on the playwrights labelled as the creators of the Theatre of the Absurd.
As a result, absurd plays had a very unusual and innovative form with the goal to
shock the viewer. When compared to the most conventional plays in the narrative form, the
plays of the Theatre of the Absurd have a poetical form. They are trying to create a poetic
image or a complex system of poetic images intended to be recognised at the end of the play.
It is only when the last lines have been spoken and the curtain has fallen that we are in a
position to grasp the total pattern of the complex poetic image we have been confronted
with.2 The absurdist playwrights were concerned with the expression of incomprehension
and despair because they only found presence of the lack of cohesion and the lack of meaning
in the world. For many intelligent and sensitive human beings the world of the mid-twentieth
century has lost its meaning and has simply ceased to make sense.3 Another aspect of absurd
drama was its distrust of language as a means of communication. Absurdist playwrights
1

Jan Culik, Theatre of the Absurd, University of Glasgow, (2000)

http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm [accessed 9 November 2010] (para. 4 of 35)
2
Martin Esslin, 'Introduction to Absurd Drama, Samuel Beckett Resources and Links, (7 May 2003)
http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdEsslin.html [accessed 9 November 2010] (para 10 of 29)
3
Introduction to Absurd Drama, (para. 12 of 29)

thought that language in the 1950s had become conventionalised, stereotyped, and
meaningless, unable to express human experience and human emotions. The Theatre of the
Absurd showed language as an unreliable and insufficient tool of communication:
Absurd drama uses coventionalised speech, clichs, slogans and technical jargon, which it distorts,
parodies and breaks down. By ridiculing conventionalised and stereotyped speech patterns, the Theatre
of the Absurd tries to make people aware of the possibility of going beyond everyday speech
conventions and communicating more authentically. 4

Becketts goal was to create realistic characters through the use of the absurdity. They
are no more real than people in the mid-twentieth century whose lives are full of absurd
situations, emptiness and nothingness. Consequently, Vladimir and Estragon are both
complementary and contradictory characters unable to function without one another. Pozzo
and Lucky reflect the mind vs. body distinction with a function to confirm Vladimir and
Estragons meaningless living. Godot is not a real character but rather a symbolical
manifestation of human longing and waiting for something or someone. These five characters
will be provided with more detailed analysis using the examples from the drama in order to
determine interrelation between and within the two pairs.
Characters in Waiting for Godot may be referred as absurd and artificial where one is
tempted whether or not to call them characters in the first place. They are presented without
any background or reference, devoid of inner conflicts and emotional responses. Although
Becketts characters may seem superficial, they fall in the completely different category. The
Theatre of the Absurd rebelled against the traditional theatre conventions which included new
approach to characterization. These new characters included absurd and alienated actions and
senseless dialogues with a goal to present them as individuals characterized by nothingness.
However, these characters, their words and their actions contain numerous symbolical
meanings. The purpose of the techniques employed by Beckett presented the modern
individual along with its states of depression, disappointment and emptiness. So, although the
name suggests the opposite, characters in absurd plays are closer to reality than those in the
traditional narrative plays. What is even more significant is the fact that the Theatre of the
Absurd started to deal with certain issues relevant both in the 21st century and 60 years ago.
Vladimir and Estragon are two complementary characters dependent on one another.
At the same time, they both have contradictory nature, but all these differences eventually
transform into interchangeable relationship. Vladimir is the one who is responsible, more
logical and more intellectual. Estragon constantly relies on Vladimir and his character is
presented as more down-to-earth and more emotional. Their differences can be shown
4

Theatre of the Absurd, (para. 5 of 35)

through numerous examples from the text. When they talk about the Bible in the first act,
Vladimir is concerned with the two thieves from Christs crucifixion, while Estragon states he
got interested in the Bible because of pictures in there. While eating his carrot, Estragon says,
the more he gets used to things, the less he likes them. Vladimir thinks the opposite way.
While Estragon sleeps, Vladimir does not want to know anything about his dreams. Estragon
is trying to tell Didi his nightmare, but Didi orders him not to do that. Vladimir remembers
past events, while Estragon forgets them soon after they happen. An example can be found in
Act 2 when Estragon does not remember the tree from Act 1:
ESTRAGON: The tree?
VLADIMIR: Do you not remember?
ESTRAGON: Im tired.
They look at the tree.
ESTRAGON: I see nothing.
VLADIMIR: But yesterday evening it was all black and bare. And now its covered with leaves.
ESTRAGON: Leaves?
...
ESTRAGON: I tell you we werent here yesterday. Another of your nightmares. 5

Vladimir may be seen as optimistic since he is the one who has hope that Godot will come
and that his coming will change situation. On the other hand, Estragon is sceptical throughout
the play; he wants to leave and quit the waiting, and he occasionally forgets the name of
Godot. There is also another difference between Gogo and Didi:
Estragon is the weaker of the two; he is beaten up by mysterious strangers every night. Vladimir at
times acts as his protector, sings him to sleep with a lullaby, and covers him with his coat. 6

Their relationship could be seen as parent child relationship. Vladimir is more mature and
more responsible. He has to take care of Estragon characterized by child-like immaturity and
forgetfulness. For instance, like a parent embarrassed by a child, Vladimir is completely
ashamed when Estragon asks Pozzo for bones or for money.
Although both of them often wonder if they would have been better off alone, neither
one is capable of leaving the other. Each has too great a need for a friend and their actions
are interdependent on one another.7 This is why they have complementary natures and need
to stay together. Popular belief is that mostly Estragon depends on Vladimir for his life.
However, Beckett shows that Vladimir needs Estragon just as much because Vladimir needs a
companion; he needs to be needed. The two characters derive much of their self worth from
their companionship and what they do for one another.8 Whenever Estragon needs help,
5

Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, (London, Boston: Faber and Faber, 1979), pp. 6566.
Martin Esslin, The Theatre of the Absurd, (London: Penguin, 1993). p. 48.
7
Brandon Miller, What Makes the Characters Lives in Waiting for Godot Meaningfull?, Brandon Miller:
BizFolio, (19 October 2000) http://www.brandonmiller.net/docs/Godot.pdf [accessed 10 November 2010] (para.
9 of 11)
8
What Makes the Characters Lives in Waiting for Godot Meaningfull?, (para. 9 of 11)
6

Vladimir is always there to help. For instance, Vladimir helps him to get on his boots in Act
2. Another example is found in Act 1 when Estragon is hungry and Vladimir takes a carrot out
of his pocket as if feeding Gogo is something he normally does every day.
When analysed as individual characters, both Gogo and Didi have their own particular
features. One of these features seems to be Vladimirs contradictory nature. Initially, Vladimir
is shocked with Pozzos mistreating Lucky. Shortly after, he criticises Lucky for not being a
good slave to a great master such as Pozzo. Another interesting feature deals with Estragon.
Although he is believed to be less intellectual, he does have a habit of tossing out
unbelievably profound comments9 a few times. When Estragon suggests in Act 1 to hang
themselves, he immediately realises that the bough might not support Vladimir because he is
heavier:
ESTRAGON: This is how it is. (He reflects.) The bough... the bough... (Angrily). Use your head, cant
you?
VLADIMIR: Youre my only hope.
Estragon: (with effort). Gogo light bough not break Gogo dead. Didi heavy bough break Didi
alone. Whereas
VLADIMIR: I hadnt thought of that.

Therefore, this proves their interdependence and emphasises the fact that Vladimir also needs
Gogos companionship.
Pozzo and Lucky also represent complementary natures, even though their relationship
is on a more primitive level. Pozzo is a master, while Lucky is a slave. Pozzo is rich,
powerful, arrogant and self-centred behaving like a dictator. He exudes force and authority.
Lucky is subordinate slave who carries Pozzos luggage, dances and thinks for him.
Furthermore, Lucky taught Pozzo the values of a life such as beauty, grace, truth of the first
water.10 This presents Pozzo and Luckys relationship as the relationship between body and
mind:
Pozzo and Lucky represent the relationship between body and mind, the material and spiritual sides of
man, with the intellect subordinate to the appetites of the body. Now that Luckys powers are failing,
Pozzo complains that they cause him untold suffering. 11

This type of relationship shows the interdependence between Pozzo and Lucky in the same
manner as the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon. They are unable to function
without one another since Pozzo needs someone to master and Lucky needs someone to serve.
This obscure relationship may be seen in Act 1 when Pozzo says that Lucky does not want to
put down his bags because he wants to impress his master and show him how hard working
9

Estragon in Waiting for Godot, Shmoop: Study Guides & Teacher Resources,
http://www.shmoop.com/waiting-for-godot/estragon.html [accessed 10 November 2010] (para. 2 of 7)
10
Waiting for Godot, p. 33.
11
The Theatre of the Absurd, p. 49.

slave he is. Their complementary natures are emphasised even more in Act 2 when Pozzo
goes blind and Lucky is mute. They are still tied together and they need one another. Due to
their interrelation, Pozzo might have gone blind since Lucky couldnt speak any longer.
Pozzos blindness causes him to be completely dependent on Luckys guidance which is
demonstrated in a rope between the two of them.
When analysed as a character, the widely accepted interpretation is that Godot actually
presents God or the divine intervention. Beside the controversial debate over his name, there
are some examples from the drama showing there is something divine about Godot. Vladimir
and Estragon are waiting for his salvation and comfort. Although he is not present in the play,
both of them deeply believe he exists. All of this gives Godot omnipresent qualities, a
personal god without extension who exists outside the boundaries of time.12
Whether this notion of Godot being a supernatural agency is true or not, the
symbolical and allegorical interpretation of Godots character is more important. Therefore,
Godot stands as
the act of waiting as an essential and characteristic aspect of human condition. Throughout our lives we
always wait for something, and Godot simply represents the objective of our waiting an event, a thing,
a person, death.

The act of waiting may be related to the notion of time. In Waiting for Godot, the act of
waiting enables us to experience the flow of time in the first hand. If we are not waiting but
rather doing something, the time passes hence we are devoid of this experience. The
analogy of the flow of time and the act of waiting is reflected in the character of Godot.
Godots arrival will make the flow of time to stop which consequently might bring the new
hope for Vladimir and Estragon, but also the new hope for the human kind.
Waiting for Godot is an absurdist play that was very popular throughout the 20th
century. Its five characters are illogical and disjointed but simultaneously they are all
interdependent. As a result, they all present a mankind where no one could survive by himself
or herself. Within this mankind, there are smaller interdependent pairs such as Vladimir and
Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky, and Vladimir and Estragon as opposed to the fictional character
of Godot. They all are waiting for something or someone and the main purpose of their lives
if the passage of time.

12

Godot in Waiting for Godot, Shmoop: Study Guides & Teacher Resources, http://www.shmoop.com/waitingfor-godot/godot-character.html [accessed 10 November 2010] (para. 4 of 10)

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Beckett, Samuel, Waiting for Godot (London, Boston: Faber and Faber, 1979)

Secondary Sources
Esslin, Martin, The Theatre of the Absurd (London: Penguin, 1993).
Fletcher, John and John Spurling, Beckett: A Study of His Plays (London: Eyre Methuen,
1978).
Graver, Lawrence, Waiting for Godot: a Student Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004)
Reid, Alec, All I Can Manage, More than I Could: an Approach to the Plays of Samuel
Beckett (Dublin: The Dolmen Press, 1969).

Online Articles
Estragon in Waiting for Godot, Shmoop: Study Guides & Teacher Resources,
http://www.shmoop.com/waiting-for-godot/estragon.html [accessed 10 November
2010]
Godot in Waiting for Godot, Shmoop: Study Guides & Teacher Resources,
http://www.shmoop.com/waiting-for-godot/godot-character.html

[accessed

10

November 2010]
Culik,

Jan,

Theatre

of

the

Absurd,

University

of

Glasgow,

(2000)

http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm [accessed 9 November 2010]

Esslin, Martin, 'Introduction to Absurd Drama, Samuel Beckett Resources and Links, (7 May
2003) http://www.samuel-beckett.net/AbsurdEsslin.html [accessed 9 November 2010]
Miller, Brandon, What Makes the Characters Lives in Waiting for Godot Meaningfull?,
Brandon

Miller:

BizFolio,

(19

October

http://www.brandonmiller.net/docs/Godot.pdf [accessed 10 November 2010]

2000)