Waiting for Godot
Waiting for Godot (/ˈɡɒdoʊ/ ⓘ GOD-oh or /ɡəˈdoʊ/ ⓘ gə-DOH[1]) is a tragicomedy play by Irish playwright and writer Samuel Beckett, first published in 1952 by Les Éditions de Minuit. It is Beckett's reworking of his own original French-language play titled En attendant Godot, and is subtitled in English as "A tragicomedy in two acts." The play revolves around the mannerisms of the two main characters, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), who engage in a variety of thoughts, dialogues and encounters while awaiting the titular Godot, who never arrives.[2] It is Beckett's best-known literary work and is regarded by critics as "one of the most enigmatic plays of modern literature".[3][4] In a poll conducted by London's Royal National Theatre in the year 1998, Waiting for Godot was voted as "the most significant English-language play of the 20th century."[5][6][7] The original French text was composed between 9 October 1948 and 29 January 1949.[8] The premiere, directed by Roger Blin, was performed at the Théâtre de Babylone, Paris, in January 1953. The English-language version of the play premiered in London in 1955. Though there is only one scene throughout both acts, the play is known for its numerous themes, including those relating to religious, philosophical, classical, social, psychoanalytical, and biographical settings. Beckett later stated that the painting Two Men Contemplating the Moon (1819), by Caspar David Friedrich, was a major inspiration for the play. In Waiting for Godot, the two main characters spend their days waiting for someone named Godot, who they believe will provide them with salvation. They pass the time with conversations, physical routines, and philosophical musings, but their hope fades as Godot never arrives. They encounter two other characters, Pozzo and his servant Lucky, who serve as examples of the absurdity of human existence and the power dynamics within it. As the play unfolds, the repetition of actions and dialogue suggests the cyclical nature of their lives, and though Godot is promised for "tomorrow," he never appears, leaving the characters in a state of existential uncertainty. Critics have noted that since the play is stripped down to its bare basics, it invites a wide array of social, political and religious interpretations. There are also several references to wartime contexts, and some commentators have stated that Beckett might have been influenced by his own status as the play was written after World War II, during which he and his partner were both forced to leave occupied Paris, due to their affiliation to the French Resistance. Dramatist Martin Esslin said that Waiting for Godot was part of a broader literary movement known as the Theatre of the Absurd, which was first proposed by Albert Camus. The play has received widespread acclaim. Due to its popularity, significance, and cultural importance to modern literature, Waiting for Godot has often been adapted for stage, operas, musicals, television, and theatrical performances in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Poland, and France, among other countries. As one of the foundational works of theater, the play remains widely studied and discussed in academic circles.  PlotAct IThe play opens with two bedraggled acquaintances, Vladimir and Estragon, meeting by a leafless tree. Estragon notifies Vladimir of his most recent troubles: he spent the previous night lying in a ditch and received a beating from a number of anonymous assailants. The duo discuss a variety of issues at length, none of any apparent significance, and it is finally revealed that they are awaiting a man named Godot. They are not certain if they have ever met Godot, nor if he will even arrive. Subsequently, an imperious traveller named Pozzo, along with his silent slave Lucky, arrives and pauses to converse with Vladimir and Estragon. Lucky is bound by a rope held by Pozzo, who forces Lucky to carry his heavy bags and physically punishes him if he deems Lucky's movements too lethargic. Pozzo states that he is on the way to the market, at which he intends to sell Lucky for profit. Following Pozzo's command "Think!", the otherwise mute Lucky performs a sudden dance and monologue: a torrent of academic-sounding phrases mixed with pure nonsense.[9] Pozzo and Lucky depart, leaving the bewildered Estragon and Vladimir to continue their wait for the absent Godot. Eventually, a boy shows up and explains to Vladimir and Estragon that he is a messenger from Godot, and that Godot will not be arriving tonight, but surely tomorrow. Vladimir asks for descriptions of Godot, receiving only extremely brief or vague answers from the boy, who soon exits. Vladimir and Estragon then announce that they will also leave, but they remain onstage without moving. Act IIVladimir and Estragon are again waiting near the tree, which has grown a number of leaves since it was last seen in Act 1. Both men are still awaiting Godot. Lucky and Pozzo eventually reappear, but not as they were previously. Pozzo has become blind and Lucky is now fully mute. Pozzo cannot recall ever having met Vladimir and Estragon, who themselves cannot agree on when they last saw the travellers. Lucky and Pozzo exit shortly after their spirited encounter, leaving Vladimir and Estragon to go on waiting. Soon after, the boy reappears to again report that Godot will not be coming tonight, but surely tomorrow. The boy states that he has not met Vladimir and Estragon before and he is not the same boy who talked to Vladimir yesterday, which causes Vladimir to burst into a rage at the child, demanding that the boy remember him the next day so as to avoid repeating this encounter once more. After the boy exits, Vladimir and Estragon consider suicide, but they do not have a rope with which to hang themselves. They decide to leave and return the day after with a rope, but again they merely remain motionless as the scene fades to black. CharactersBeckett refrained from elaborating on the characters beyond what he had written in the play. He once recalled that when Sir Ralph Richardson "wanted the low-down on Pozzo, his home address and curriculum vitae, and seemed to make the forthcoming of this and similar information the condition of his condescending to illustrate the part of Vladimir ... I told him that all I knew about Pozzo was in the text, that if I had known more I would have put it in the text, and that was true also of the other characters."[10] Vladimir and Estragon When Beckett started writing he did not have a visual image of Vladimir and Estragon. They are never referred to as tramps in the text, though they are often performed in tramps' costumes on stage. Roger Blin advises: "Beckett heard their voices, but he couldn't describe his characters to me. [He said]: 'The only thing I'm sure of is that they're wearing bowlers.'"[11] "The bowler hat was of course de rigueur for men in many social contexts when Beckett was growing up in Foxrock, and [his father] William Beckett commonly wore one."[12] The play does indicate that the clothes worn at least by Estragon are shabby. When told by Vladimir that he should have been a poet, Estragon says he was, gestures to his rags, and asks if it were not obvious. There are no physical descriptions of either of the two characters; however, the text indicates that Vladimir is the heavier of the pair: the contemplation-of-suicide scene tells us exactly that. The bowlers and other broadly comic aspects of their personae have reminded modern audiences of Laurel and Hardy, who occasionally played tramps in their films. "The hat-passing game in Waiting for Godot and Lucky's inability to think without his hat on are two obvious Beckett derivations from Laurel and Hardy – a substitution of form for essence, covering for reality", wrote Gerald Mast in The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies.[13] Their "blather", which includes Hiberno-English idioms, indicated that they are both Irish.[14] Vladimir stands through most of the play whereas Estragon sits down numerous times and even dozes off. "Estragon is inert and Vladimir restless."[15] Vladimir looks at the sky and muses on religious or philosophical matters. Estragon "belongs to the stone",[16] preoccupied with mundane things such as what he can get to eat and how to ease his physical aches and pains; he is direct, intuitive. The monotonous, ritualistic means by which Estragon continuously sits upon the stone may be likened to the constant nail filing carried out by Winnie in Happy Days, another of Beckett's plays, both actions representing the slow, deliberate erosion of the characters' lives.[original research?] He finds it hard to remember but can recall certain things when prompted, e.g., when Vladimir asks: "Do you remember the Gospels?"[17] Estragon tells Vladimir about the coloured maps of the Holy Land and that he planned to honeymoon by the Dead Sea; it is his short-term memory that is poorest and suggests that he may, in fact, be suffering from Alzheimer's disease.[18] Al Alvarez writes: "But perhaps Estragon's forgetfulness is the cement binding their relationship together. He continually forgets, Vladimir continually reminds him; between them they pass the time."[19] Estragon's forgetfulness affords the author a certain narrative utility also, allowing for the mundane, empty conversations held between him and Vladimir to continue seamlessly.[original research?] They have been together for fifty years but when asked by Pozzo they do not reveal their actual ages. Vladimir's life is not without its discomforts too but he is the more resilient of the pair. "Vladimir's pain is primarily mental anguish, which would thus account for his voluntary exchange of his hat for Lucky's, thus signifying Vladimir's symbolic desire for another person's thoughts."[20] These characterizations, for some, represented the act of thinking or mental state (Vladimir) and physical things or the body (Estragon).[21] This is visually depicted by Vladimir's continuous attention to his hat and Estragon to his boots. While the two characters are temperamentally opposite, with their differing responses to a situation, they are both essential as demonstrated in the way Vladimir's metaphysical musings were balanced by Estragon's physical demands.[22] The above characterizations, particularly that which concerns their existential situation, are also demonstrated in one of the play's recurring themes, which is sleep.[23] There are two instances when Estragon falls asleep in the play and has nightmares, about which he wanted to tell Vladimir when he woke. The latter refuses to hear it since he could not tolerate the sense of entrapment experienced by the dreamer during each episode. This idea of entrapment supports the view that the setting of the play may be understood more clearly as a dream-like landscape, or, a form of Purgatory, from which neither man can escape.[original research?] One interpretation noted the link between the two characters' experiences and the way they represent them: the impotence in Estragon's nightmare and Vladimir's predicament of waiting as his companion sleeps.[23] It is also said that sleep and impatience allow the spectators to distinguish between the two main characters, that sleep expresses Estragon's focus on his sensations while Vladimir's restlessness shows his focus on his thoughts.[24] This particular aspect involving sleep is indicative of what some called a pattern of duality in the play.[25] In the case of the protagonists, the duality involves the body and the mind, making the characters complementary.[24] Throughout the play the couple refer to each other by the pet names "Didi" and "Gogo", although the boy addresses Vladimir as "Mister Albert". Beckett originally intended to call Estragon "Lévy" but when Pozzo questions him he gives his name as "Magrégor, André"[26] and also responds to "Catulle" in French or "Catullus" in the first Faber edition. This became "Adam" in the American edition. Beckett's only explanation was that he was "fed up with Catullus".[27] Vivian Mercier described Waiting for Godot as a play which "has achieved a theoretical impossibility – a play in which nothing happens, that yet keeps audiences glued to their seats. What's more, since the second act is a subtly different reprise of the first, he has written a play in which nothing happens, twice."[28] Mercier once questioned Beckett on the language used by the pair: "It seemed to me...he made Didi and Gogo sound as if they had earned PhDs. 'How do you know they hadn't?' was his reply."[29] They clearly have known better times, such as a visit to the Eiffel Tower and grape-harvesting by the Rhône; this is about all either has to say about their pasts, save for Estragon's claim to have been a poet, an explanation Estragon provides to Vladimir for his destitution. In the first stage production, which Beckett oversaw, both are "more shabby-genteel than ragged...Vladimir at least is capable of being scandalised...on a matter of etiquette when Estragon begs for chicken bones or money."[30] Pozzo and LuckyPozzo and Lucky have been together for 60 years.[31] Pozzo controls Lucky by means of an extremely long rope, which he jerks and tugs if Lucky is the least bit slow. It has been contended that "Pozzo and Lucky are simply Didi and Gogo writ large", unbalanced as their relationship is.[32] However, Pozzo's dominance is superficial; "upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that Lucky always possessed more influence in the relationship, for he danced, and more importantly, thought – not as a service, but in order to fill a vacant need of Pozzo: he committed all of these acts for Pozzo. As such, since the first appearance of the duo, the true slave had always been Pozzo."[20] Pozzo credits Lucky with having given him all the culture, refinement, and ability to reason that he possesses. His rhetoric has been learned by rote. Pozzo's "party piece" on the sky is a clear example: as his memory crumbles, he finds himself unable to continue under his own steam. Little is learned about Pozzo besides the fact that he is on his way to the fair to sell his slave, Lucky. From Beckett's own life experiences in Ireland and wartime France, commentators such as Hugh Kenner have identified Pozzo as representing German behaviour in occupied France, or alternatively as a bullying and conceited Protestant Ascendancy landlord.[33] When translating his original French dialogue into English, Beckett took pains to introduce Irish idiom (specifically, Dubliners' idiom): Pozzo's pipe is made by Kapp and Peterson, Dublin's best-known tobacconists (which he refers to as a "briar" but which Estragon calls by the dialect word dudeen). Not only is his Hiberno-English text more colourful than the French original, but it emphasizes the differences in the characters' social standing.[34][35] Pozzo confesses to a poor memory but it is more a result of an abiding self-absorption. "Pozzo is a character who has to overcompensate. That's why he overdoes things ... and his overcompensation has to do with a deep insecurity in him. These were things Beckett said, psychological terms he used."[36] Beckett's advice to the American director Alan Schneider was: "[Pozzo] is a hypomaniac and the only way to play him is to play him mad."[15] "In his [English] translation ... Beckett struggled to retain the French atmosphere as much as possible, so that he delegated all the English names and places to Lucky, whose own name, he thought, suggested such a correlation".[37] Lucky appears to be the subservient member of their relationship, at least initially, carrying out every task that Pozzo bids him to do without question, portraying a form of "dog-like devotion" to his master.[38] He struggles with a heavy suitcase, falling on a number of occasions, only to be helped and held up by Estragon and Vladimir. Lucky speaks only once in the play and it is in response to Pozzo's order to "think" for Estragon and Vladimir. The ostensibly abstract philosophical meanderings supplied to the audience by Lucky during his speech have been described as "a flood of completely meaningless gibberish" by Martin Esslin in his essay, "The Theatre of the Absurd".[39] Esslin suggests that this seemingly involuntary, philosophical spouting is an example of the actor's working "against the dialogue rather than with it",[39] providing grounds for Esslin's claims that the "fervor of delivery" in the play must "stand in a dialectical contrast to the pointlessness of the meaning of the lines".[39] Jean Martin, who originated the role of Lucky in Paris in 1953, spoke to a doctor named Marthe Gautier, who was working at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. Martin asked if she knew of a physiological reason that would explain Lucky's voice as it was written in the text. Gautier suggested Parkinson's disease, which, she said, "begins with a trembling, which gets more and more noticeable, until later the patient can no longer speak without the voice shaking". Martin began incorporating this idea into his rehearsals.[40] Beckett and the director may not have been completely convinced, but they expressed no objections.[41] When Martin mentioned to the playwright that he was "playing Lucky as if he were suffering from Parkinson's", Beckett responded by saying "Yes, of course", and mentioning that his own mother had Parkinson's.[42] When Beckett was asked why Lucky was so named, he replied, "I suppose he is lucky to have no more expectations..."[43] The Boy The cast list specifies only one boy. The boy in Act I, a local lad, assures Vladimir that this is the first time he has seen him. He says he was not there the previous day. He confirms he works for Mr. Godot as a goatherd. His brother, whom Godot beats, is a shepherd. Godot feeds both of them and allows them to sleep in his hayloft. The boy in Act II also assures Vladimir that it was not he who called upon them the day before. He insists that this too is his first visit. When Vladimir asks what Godot does, the boy tells him, "He does nothing, sir."[44] We also learn he has a white beard – possibly, the boy is not certain. This boy also has a brother who it seems is sick but there is no clear evidence to suggest that his brother is the boy who came in Act I or the one who came the day before that. Whether the boy from Act I is the same boy from Act II or not, both boys are polite yet timid. In the first act, the boy, despite claiming to have arrived while Pozzo and Lucky are still about, does not announce himself until after Pozzo and Lucky leave, saying to Vladimir and Estragon that he waited for the other two to leave out of fear of the two men and of Pozzo's whip; the boy does not claim to arrive early enough in Act II to see either Lucky or Pozzo. In both acts, the boy seems hesitant to speak very much, saying mostly "Yes Sir" or "No Sir", and winds up exiting by running away. GodotThe identity of Godot has been the subject of much debate. "When Colin Duckworth asked Beckett point-blank whether Pozzo was Godot, the author replied: 'No. It is just implied in the text, but it's not true.'"[45] Deirdre Bair says that though "Beckett will never discuss the implications of the title", she suggests two stories that both may have at least partially inspired it. The first is that because feet are a recurring theme in the play, Beckett has said the title was suggested to him by the slang French term for boot: "godillot, godasse". The second story, according to Bair, is that Beckett once encountered a group of spectators at the French Tour de France bicycle race, who told him "Nous attendons Godot" – they were waiting for a competitor whose name was Godot.[46] "Beckett said to Peter Woodthorpe that he regretted calling the absent character 'Godot', because of all the theories involving God to which this had given rise."[47] "I also told [Ralph] Richardson that if by Godot I had meant God I would [have] said God, and not Godot. This seemed to disappoint him greatly."[48] That said, Beckett did once concede, "It would be fatuous of me to pretend that I am not aware of the meanings attached to the word 'Godot', and the opinion of many that it means 'God'. But you must remember – I wrote the play in French, and if I did have that meaning in my mind, it was somewhere in my unconscious and I was not overtly aware of it."[49] (Note: the French word for 'God' is 'Dieu'.) However, "Beckett has often stressed the strong unconscious impulses that partly control his writing; he has even spoken of being 'in a trance' when he writes."[50] While Beckett stated he originally had no knowledge of Balzac's play Mercadet ou le faiseur, whose character Godeau has an identical-sounding name and is involved in a similar situation, it has been suggested he may have been instead influenced by The Lovable Cheat,[51] a minor adaptation of Mercadet featuring Buster Keaton, whose works Beckett had admired,[52] and whom he later sought out for Film. Unlike elsewhere in Beckett's work, no bicycle appears in this play, but Hugh Kenner in his essay "The Cartesian Centaur"[53] reports that Beckett once, when asked about the meaning of Godot, mentioned "a veteran racing cyclist, bald, a 'stayer', recurrent placeman in town-to-town and national championships, Christian name elusive, surname Godeau, pronounced, of course, no differently from Godot." Waiting for Godot is clearly not about track cycling, but it is said that Beckett himself did wait for French cyclist Roger Godeau (1920–2000; a professional cyclist from 1943 to 1961), outside the velodrome in Roubaix.[54][55] Of the two boys who work for Godot only one appears safe from beatings, "Beckett said, only half-jokingly, that one of Estragon's feet was saved".[56] The name "Godot" is pronounced in Britain and Ireland with the emphasis on the first syllable, /ˈɡɒdoʊ/ GOD-oh;[2] in North America it is usually pronounced with an emphasis on the second syllable, /ɡəˈdoʊ/ gə-DOH. Beckett himself said the emphasis should be on the first syllable, and that the North American pronunciation is a mistake.[57] Georges Borchardt, Beckett's literary agent, and who represents Beckett's literary estate, has always pronounced "Godot" in the French manner, with equal emphasis on both syllables. Borchardt checked with Beckett's nephew, Edward, who told him his uncle pronounced it that way as well.[2] The 1956 Broadway production split the difference by having Vladimir pronounce "Godot" with equal stress on both syllables (goh-doh) and Estragon pronounce it with the accent on the second syllable (g'doh).[58][59] SettingThere is only one scene throughout both acts. Two men are waiting on a country road by a tree. The men are of unspecified origin, though it is clear that they are not English by nationality since they refer to currency as francs, and tell derisive jokes about the English – and in English-language productions the pair are traditionally played with Irish accents. The script calls for Estragon to sit on a low mound but in practice – as in Beckett's own 1975 German production – this is usually a stone. In the first act the tree is bare. In the second, a few leaves have appeared despite the script specifying that it is the next day. The minimal description calls to mind "the idea of the lieu vague, a location which should not be particularised".[60] Other clues about the location can be found in the dialogue. In Act I, Vladimir turns toward the auditorium and describes it as a bog. In Act II, Vladimir again motions to the auditorium and notes that there is "Not a soul in sight." When Estragon rushes toward the back of the stage in Act II, Vladimir scolds him, saying that "There's no way out there." Also in Act II, Vladimir comments that their surroundings look nothing like the Macon country, and Estragon states that he's lived his whole life "Here! In the Cackon country!" Alan Schneider once suggested putting the play on in the round – Pozzo has been described as a ringmaster[61] – but Beckett dissuaded him: "I don't in my ignorance agree with the round and feel Godot needs a very closed box." He even contemplated at one point having a "faint shadow of bars on stage floor" but, in the end, decided against this level of what he called "explicitation".[62] In Beckett's 1975 Schiller Theater production in Berlin, there are times when Didi and Gogo appear to bounce off something "like birds trapped in the strands of [an invisible] net", in James Knowlson's description. Interpretations"Because the play is so stripped down, so elemental, it invites all kinds of social and political and religious interpretation", wrote Normand Berlin in a tribute to the play in autumn 1999, "with Beckett himself placed in different schools of thought, different movements and 'isms'. The attempts to pin him down have not been successful, but the desire to do so is natural when we encounter a writer whose minimalist art reaches for bedrock reality. 'Less' forces us to look for 'more', and the need to talk about Godot and about Beckett has resulted in a steady outpouring of books and articles."[5][63] Throughout Waiting for Godot, the audience may encounter religious, philosophical, classical, psychoanalytical and biographical – especially wartime – references. There are ritualistic aspects and elements taken directly from vaudeville,[64] and there is a danger in making more of these than what they are: that is, merely structural conveniences, avatars into which the writer places his fictional characters. The play "exploits several archetypal forms and situations, all of which lend themselves to both comedy and pathos."[65] Beckett makes this point emphatically clear in the opening notes to Film: "No truth value attaches to the above, regarded as of merely structural and dramatic convenience."[66] He made another important remark to Lawrence Harvey, saying that his "work does not depend on experience – [it is] not a record of experience. Of course you use it."[67] Beckett tired quickly of "the endless misunderstanding." As far back as 1955, he remarked, "Why people have to complicate a thing so simple I can't make out."[68] He was not forthcoming with anything more than cryptic clues, however: "Peter Woodthorpe [who played Estragon] remembered asking him one day in a taxi what the play was really about: 'It's all symbiosis, Peter; it's symbiosis,' answered Beckett."[69] Beckett directed the play for the Schiller-Theater in Berlin in 1975. Although he had overseen many productions, this was the first time that he had taken complete control. Walter Asmus was his conscientious young assistant director. The production was not naturalistic. Beckett explained,
Over the years, Beckett clearly realised that the greater part of Godot's success came down to the fact that it was open to a variety of readings and that this was not necessarily a bad thing. Beckett himself sanctioned "one of the most famous mixed-race productions of Godot, performed at the Baxter Theatre in the University of Cape Town, directed by Donald Howarth, with [...] two black actors, John Kani and Winston Ntshona, playing Didi and Gogo; Pozzo, dressed in checked shirt and gumboots reminiscent of an Afrikaner landlord, and Lucky ('a shanty town piece of white trash'[71]) were played by two white actors, Bill Flynn and Peter Piccolo [...]. The Baxter production has often been portrayed as if it were an explicitly political production, when in fact it received very little emphasis. What such a reaction showed, however, was that, although the play can in no way be taken as a political allegory, there are elements that are relevant to any local situation in which one man is being exploited or oppressed by another."[72] Political"It was seen as an allegory of the Cold War"[73] or of French Resistance to the Germans. Graham Hassell writes, "[T]he intrusion of Pozzo and Lucky [...] seems like nothing more than a metaphor for Ireland's view of mainland Britain, where society has ever been blighted by a greedy ruling élite keeping the working classes passive and ignorant by whatever means."[74] The play was written shortly after the beginning of World War II, during which Beckett and his partner were forced to flee occupied Paris to avoid arrest, owing to their affiliation with the French Resistance. After the war, Beckett volunteered for the Red Cross in the French city Saint-Lô, which had been almost completely destroyed during the D-Day fighting. These experiences would have likely had a severe impact on both Beckett's personal politics, as well as his views on the prevailing policies that informed the period in which he found himself.[75] Some academics have theorized that Godot is set during World War II, with Estragon and Vladimir being two Jews waiting for Godot to smuggle them out of occupied France.[76] PsychologicalFreudian"Bernard Dukore develops a triadic theory in Didi, Gogo and the absent Godot, based on Sigmund Freud's trinitarian description of the psyche in The Ego and the Id (1923) and the usage of onomastic techniques. Dukore defines the characters by what they lack: the rational Go-go embodies the incomplete ego, the missing pleasure principle: (e)go-(e)go. Di-di (id-id) – who is more instinctual and irrational – is seen as the backward id or subversion of the rational principle. Godot fulfills the function of the superego or moral standards. Pozzo and Lucky are just re-iterations of the main protagonists. Dukore finally sees Beckett's play as a metaphor for the futility of man's existence when salvation is expected from an external entity, and the self is denied introspection."[77] Jungian"The four archetypal personalities or the four aspects of the soul are grouped in two pairs: the ego and the shadow, the persona and the soul's image (animus or anima). The shadow is the container of all our despised emotions repressed by the ego. Lucky, the shadow, serves as the polar opposite of the egocentric Pozzo, prototype of prosperous mediocrity, who incessantly controls and persecutes his subordinate, thus symbolising the oppression of the unconscious shadow by the despotic ego. Lucky's monologue in Act I appears as a manifestation of a stream of repressed unconsciousness, as he is allowed to "think" for his master. Estragon's name has another connotation, besides that of the aromatic herb, tarragon: "estragon" sounds similar to estrogen, the female hormone (Carter, 130). This prompts us to identify him with the anima, the feminine image of Vladimir's soul. It explains Estragon's propensity for poetry, his sensitivity and dreams, his irrational moods. Vladimir appears as the complementary masculine principle, or perhaps the rational persona of the contemplative type."[78] PhilosophicalExistentialBroadly speaking, existentialists hold that there are certain fundamental questions that all human beings must come to terms with if they are to t | ||||||||||||||||||
