There's a lot to be said about this topic, so I figured I'd start some random thoughts before we begin discussing it in class tomorrow.
I read a couple of opinions on Waiting for Godot which suggest that the charactors have no meaningful relationships at all. The non-main charactors all forget about the main charactors once they are out of sight. Lucky, Pozzo, and the boy (messanger boy) don't remember interacting with the two main charactors the day before. It seems like only Estragon and Vladimir have any vague form of memory.
This kind of reminds me of Berenger in Rhino. I felt as if he was the last fighting force, the last person with a memory who remained. I could be totally on the wrong page with this (which I usually am- it's absurdism!), but it reminded me of the link between the loss of memory and the loss of identity.
I had a question about the importance of Pozzo and Lucky's relationship. I read somewhere that this relationship isn't as important as the men's reaction to it. They don't agree with the "slavery", but don't really do anything to stop it , showing the inaction of mankind?
I don't really know where this absurd post is going.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
AGGH so I just wrote a ridiculously long comment and it failed to post. Let's try this again...
In the article that Laz gave us, I found a lot of stuff about the relationships of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and Gogo and Didi (in the section entitled A Reservation: The Question of Friendship). This section talks about how R&G contains one crucial element that is missing from both Godot and "Prufrock" -- friendship.
While Beckett makes it clear that Gogo and Didi have known each other for some time, he also makes it clear that they have no affection for each other. Rather, their relationship is more self-serving; they need each other to quell the deep anxiety of being alone, not for any positive value like friendship. Although Prufrock seems to have many aquaintances, he makes no indication that he has any actual friends. On the other hand, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem to have a certain comraderie and genuine affection for one another. Their acceptance of each other "couners somewhat the absurdity of their situation" (though this is infinitesimally small). "They do have something of value in their lives" because of this friendship.
The article also says that one of the major differences between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and Gogo and Didi is their identities. While Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are searching for their idenities, we do know they are Elizabethans and that the other characters that they come in contact with have a similar background. This establishes a historical/cultural identity that is missing from Godot. Gogo and Didi's origins are not specified and all the characters that they encounter have nothing in common with them.
On another note, I found an excellent website:
http://samuel-beckett.net/Penelope/Godot.html
To answer your question Anisha, I'm going to reference one of the articles I found on that website:
Beckett based the characters of Lucky and Pozzo on "the famous image of the pair 'master and servant' from Hegel's Phaenomenologie ds Geistes." This image became such an important subject to the French intellectuals of the 1930s (like Beckett), that "it has become the image of man in general... 'Man' is now seen as a pair of men; that the individual has now been replaced by men who fight each other for domination." This is based on Marx's theory of class struggle (I found the Marxism Theresa!). Lucky and Pozzo are actually the image of one man and the struggle for power between them as a result of their differing social classes is similar to the internal struggle that man undergoes. I know that this is hard to wrap your head around and I probably didn't do the greatest job explaining it, but the article is on the Beckett website if you want to read it.
Liz,
I liked your explanation of the information regarding Lucky and Pozzo, but let me pose another question.
Do you think there is any significatnce in the changes in Lucky and Pozzo on the second day?
I feel like all I'm doing is asking questions.
well asking questions is the only way you'll get answers :P
In regards to your second question, how exactly did Pozzo and Lucky change? Pozzo went blind but that's all I remember.
Good question Anisha. I'm sure it is significant that Lucky and Pozzo underwent overnight, otherwise Beckett would not have included these changes. I'm not exactly sure what that significance is, but I'll take a stab at it. By having Pozzo and Lucky change so radically, it throws Gogo and Didi off even more. At the beginning of Act 2 they aren't sure if they are at the same place to wait for Godot or even if they waited for Godot the day before. Then Pozzo and Lucky enter and Gogo and Didi feel like they have met them before, but aren't sure because the changes they underwent were so drastic. Thus the state of confusion becomes even greater.
Maybe that helped... anyone else have anything to say on that?
Also, "Prufrock." I've read the poem a couple of times and it makes some sense (as much as Absurdism can I guess). But I still just don't get it... can someone explain how it is Absurd/what it means?
And in case anyone is wondering... if you are planning on using the Branagh film for your essay, the scene is on Youtube.
Post a Comment