The play ends, therefore it has an ending. If you're arguing instead that it doesn't have a narrative resolution in the typical sense, then yeah, I suppose I would agree, but this in itself is quite a banal, meaningless statement that only leads to an equally banal discussion about the narrative structures that govern modern drama and how irrelevant they are to both the strands of social realism that tended to dominate the late modern period and the Absurdism that dominated European modern drama. I think for instance, a more generative question might be to consider what later realist drama (I'm thinking particularly of playwrights like Edward Bond) might gain from the Absurdist structures of Beckett and perhaps Pinter...
The play ends, therefore it has an ending. If you're arguing instead that it doesn't have a narrative resolution in the typical sense, then yeah, I suppose I would agree, but this in itself is quite a banal, meaningless statement that only leads to an equally banal discussion about the narrative structures that govern modern drama and how irrelevant they are to both the strands of social realism that tended to dominate the late modern period and the Absurdism that dominated European modern drama. I think for instance, a more generative question might be to consider what later realist drama (I'm thinking particularly of playwrights like Edward Bond) might gain from the Absurdist structures of Beckett and perhaps Pinter...
Well I was going to say SOMETHING but Arron really covered it all. Well played, good sir. Well played...
Sorry arron89 for the delay. I am not following when you talk absurdism. I would have thought Waiting for Godot is farcical rather then absurd.
Absurdism is a literary genre centring on the existential search for meaning, usually concluding that there is no inherent purpose in life and represented through meaningless actions and words. Farce is a style of comedy characterised by excessively complex plots, extravagent/extreme situations and physical humor, particularly chase scenes. Waiting for Godot is not a farce. And I didn't say the question itself was banal, only that the discussion it would provoke is inevitably banal because there's no difference of opinion provoked by it. Actually, the play is quite banal, which is one of the qualities of much Absurdist fiction, since it interrogates banal activities and rituals and finds them to be hollow and meaningless.
I would say it is a farce in the sense that it teases the idea out of you, that sort waiting for something to happen and it does not. Farcical comedy is satirical in the sense that it relies on absurdism as you call and it lingers to the point of annoyance. Farce is like a joke on behalf of the viewer or the reader. It is interesting to also address the title itself. waiting has an underlying suggestion of discomfort and irritability . No one likes to wait for something that is late or not even happening, being stood up I would call it is another interpretation of the 'waiting' Godot coud be interpreted as GOD and TO as is TOO. But this is just a play on words.
Did you not read the definition of farce I gave? There are objective features of various genres and forms--farce is not satire, and Waiting for Godot is definitely not satire. It's absurdist theatre; there really is no other definition...it's not something I made up, it's the agreed on genre of the play... The title, if you want to discuss that, refers directly back to the idea of Absurdism. 'Waiting' becomes a metaphor for life itself, something objectiveless, banal, demanding. Godot, a name Beckett insists is merely a ridiculous made up name, represents the attainment of some goal, some purpose in life. It's quite a depressing play in that regard, but a lot of the humour (albeit often very dark humour) breaks the monotony slightly and complicates such a reductive interpretation of the existential message of the play.
tI did not by any means interpret it in this way. I bear in mind the fact I first rely on my instinct when it comes to reading something before I found out about what others thought or wrote about it. I prefer to have my own take on it because everyone reads and thinks differently. critiques are just individual with their own opinions and I do not have to go with their own interpretations. Of course it is important that these opinions with regards to literay work are documentad for me to find out what other made of a piece of work and get to compare for similarities and differences. I ,by any means, do not have to agree or disagree with what was said and written about Godot. I have my formed opinions and I have by that told you what I thought about it. The impression I got from the play was that a kind of play on words and the waiting was not chasing ideals but more of a waiting game for something to happen or to arrive almost like precipitating/anticipating ahead of its time someone or something to happen. Nothing to do with ideals or demands on life. This is how I interpreted and I did feel at some stage being totally irritated by it all almost like a watching a farcical joke. A good example of farcical comedy is Mr Bean without a voice. He acts all his jokes with no voice whatsoever which is quite draining to watch. The same with Charlie Chaplin comedy without a vocie. That is what I mean by farcical.
I did not by any means interpret it in this way. I bear in mind the fact I first rely on my instinct when it comes to reading something before I find out what others thought or wrote about it. I prefer to have my own take on it because everyone reads and thinks differently. Critiques are just individuals with their own opinions (sometimes stucku and sometimes made up) and I do not have to go with their own interpretations. Of course it is important that these opinions with regards to literay works are documentad for me to find out what others made of a piece of work so that I can get to compare for similarities and differences. I, by any means, do not have to agree or disagree with what was said and written about Godot. I have my formed opinions and I have by that told you what I thought about it. The impression I personally got from the play was that it is a kind of play on words, and the waiting was not about chasing ideals but more of a waiting game/a saga if you like for something to happen or to arrive. It is almost like the play was precipitating/anticipating ahead of its time someone or something to happen. Nothing to do with ideals or demands on life and certainly not absurdism. This is how I interpreted and I did feel at some stage being totally irritated by it all almost like watching a farcical joke. A good example of farcical comedy is Mr Bean without a voice. He acts all his jokes with no voice whatsoever which is quite draining to watch at times. The same with Charlie Chaplin, comedy without a vocie. You'd think it was done on purpose because sound and radion were available at the time I am sure of it. That is what I mean by farcical.
I have never heard of Swift. But was not there something like that somewhere where a poet or a writer had written something similar when asked about Britain? Or is it the same person?
Wait a minute, you are asking us about Samuel Beckett and you've never heard of Jonathan Swift? A Modest Proposal, Gulliver's Travels, etc.? What about Daniel Defoe? Alexander Pope?
Gulliver's Travels I know off but never retain the name of the writer for some reason. Daniel Defoe I know of but not Alexander Pope. I tend to retain book titles and not writers names. But of course I learn new things as I go along.
It wasn't Britain he was writing about, it was Ireland. and Jonathon Swift is a fairly well known author. he said it.He also founded an actual Asylum in Dublin.
