Nazlpnar 1 Muzaffer Derya Nazlpnar Prof. Dr. Gnseli Snmez i Euro-American Drama 09th June 2012 Who Is Godot?

Critics have interpreted the identity of Godot in various ways, ranging from being a saviour and a God, to being a rich employer. Critics have the life history of Beckett to establish the identity of Godot, but Beckett's own reaction has been that if he knew who Godot was, he would have mentioned that in the play. So, who is Godot and what does he stand for the two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, waiting in a state of twilight, occasionally lit up by a fleeting vision of a rescuer? What we have learnt about the characteristics of Godot, based on the sayings of the messenger boy working for him is that Godot does nothing and he has a white beard (59). From all this, it may be gathered that Godot has some traits in common with the image of God with his white beard reminding the image of the old-father aspect of God. Furthermore, his irrational preference for one of the two brothers recalls Jehovahs treatment of Cain and Abel; so does his power to punish those who would dare to ignore him. In fact, the play seems to suggest that not waiting for Godot could result in some sort of punishment. When the tramps do not see a shadow of Godot by the time night falls, they think of giving up on him, but they are afraid to disobey or disrespect Godot by not coming tomorrow. At the end of the second act Estragon asks, If we dropped him? ( pause.) If we dropped him? Vladimirs reply is Hed punish us (59). Therefore, they come tomorrow to wait for Godot as Estragon asks You say we have to come back tomorrow? Vladimir Yes (60).

Nazlpnar 2 Yet, in my opinion, their waiting is not just because they have to resulting from the fear of punishment, but because they want to do it as Angela Hotaling insists: Without Godot, the men have lost the meaning to their days. What is the punishment for dropping Godot? It is essentially the loss of meaning (4). Indeed, whoever Godot is seems to be an important part of the tramps lives, perhaps the only hope of their lives that will bring purpose and meaning. This is the reason that they waited so long, fifty years maybe (35). It is certain that Godot has a vital power over the tramps as Pozzo has claimed when the tramps are going to leave: What happens in this case to your appointmentwith this GodetGodot Godin anyhow you see who I mean, who has your future in his hands (19). This constant repetition of Godots name contributes nothing to the materialization of Godot, which remains an elusive and empty signifier throughout the play. He is explicitly vague and merely an empty promise. Gradually, waiting for Godot has become a habit with the two tramps and an adaptation to the meaninglessness of life. However, as far as there is absence, there exists infinite hope.

Nazlpnar 3 Moreover, the possibility that Godot might represent tomorrow also could be reasonable way of interpreting who he is. It is obvious that the tramps in Waiting for Godot have been waiting for Godot for a long time, even though the person didnt say for sure hed come (10). They are hoping that if Godot does not come today then he may come tomorrow, but when tomorrow arrives, it is the same hope once again, and it is again tomorrow which will never arrive. Therefore, the illusion of tomorrow reflects Godot although the tramps may not be ready accept the fact that Godot is an illusion, and that he may only be a fictional figure in the mind of Vladimir. However, this cannot be certain, as the tramps are going to be waiting tomorrow for Godot, he may appear tomorrow denying all the arguments. I think who Godot is and what he symbolizes can be interpreted in many ways by the audience in the darkness or the reader(s) enjoying the text. The fact that there are so few details of one of the main characters makes it difficult for us to figure out what sort of character we are waiting for. On the other hand, this purposefully made lack of knowledge may help us apply our own hopes and expectations to Godots identity. These ideas can also be seen in Anthony Chadwicks opinion for the possibilities that Godot might represent: He (Godot) is simultaneously whatever we think he is and not what we think he is: he is an absence, who can be interpreted at moments as God, death, the lord of the manor, a benefactor, even Pozzo. But Godot has a function rather than a meaning. He stands for what keeps us chained to and in existence. He is the unknowable that represents hope in an age when there is no hope, he is whatever fiction we want him to be as long as he justifies our life-as-waiting. To sum up, Godot is happiness, eternal life, love, death, silence, hope, time, God and many
other things. Indeed, it seems Godot is everything, at the same time he is nothing. For me, the identity of Godot is like listening to a blind man who is asked to describe an object or person.

Nazlpnar 4 Work Cited

Beckett, S. Waiting for Godot. London: Samuel French. 1957. Chadwick, Anthony. Waiting for Godot 30/05/2011. <http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/waiting-for-godot/>. Cohn, R. Back to Beckett. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1973. Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Methuen Publishing Limited. 1961. Hotaling, Angela. Camus and the Absurdity of Existence in Waiting for Godot. 30/05/2011. <http://organizations.oneonta.edu/philosc/papers09/hotaling.pdf>.