3.

3 Waiting for Godot

3.3.1 About the play

The play Waiting for Godot was conceived of between 1948 - 1949, originally
written in French En attendant Godot, as Beckett forsook his native language.
Waiting for Godot was the play which brought him worldly recognition. The play was
premiered on the 5th of January, 1953, at The Theatre de Baylone 1 and it was highly
acclaimed Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, its awful. This line spoken
by one of the characters in the play, provides its best summary. Godot is a masterpiece
that will cause despair for men in general and for playwrights in particular2
Instead, it was not as well received in London or Spain, due to major cuts and
amendments of censorship system. But as time passed, however, Waiting for Godot
became an international success and brought Samuel Beckett the International Publisher
Formentor Prize in 19613. It was voted "the most significant English language play of the
20th century"4
Critics described Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" as a mystery wrapped in
an enigma, a tragicomedy in two acts5. The fact that his play is as much a drama as a
comedy is given by Becketts basic philosophy defiant and despiteful of any delusion
1 Lawrence Graver - Beckett Waiting for Godot, 2nd edition, p. 23
2 Graver and Federman, p. 92
3
4

Berlin, N., "Traffic of our stage: Why Waiting for Godot?" in The Massachusetts Review, Autumn 1999

Ackerley, C. J. and Gontarski, S. E., (Eds.) The Faber Companion to Samuel Beckett (London:Faber and Faber, 2006), p. 620.

about the ultimate truths of human existence on Earth - but also by his refined and subtle
humour; he is always able to see the funny side of things. Therefore, he gracefully
managed to infuse his play with the radiance of refined poetry6.
As for his style, scholars say that it is the exquisite meeting of Sartre and Joyce
bleak, dark, disgusted, yet pungent and fabulous. And that is because his play has no
simple meaning; through the means of this drama and its strange power and impact it has
on audiences, Beckett revealed some powerful truths about the hopeless destiny of the
human kind7.
Becketts first play challenged the conventions of theatre and raised many
eyebrows regarding the meaning underneath the apparent static situation. There is no plot
just two people waiting for Godot, while nothing happens. Audiences wait for a twist, a
turn, just like Vladimir and Estragon, the main characters, are waiting for Godot to arrive.
Beckett himself expresses this nothingness in the first words of the play: Nothing
to be done. But the fact that the two main characters wait for something to happen in
their lives makes the audiences expect for something to happen in the play as well,
whereas, to my mind, something rather happens inside every individual.
The opening of the play sets the scenery: A country road. A tree. Evening. The
naked stage shows the audience the main two characters, named Estragon, reffered to as
Gogo, and Vladimir, reffered to as Didi. They make small talk, discuss about things in
general, but sometimes they touch deeper subjects, which express both anguish and hope,
as they wait for an unknown person named Godot. Durind their waiting, two other
6 http://www.english.fsu.edu/jobs/num01/Num1Esslin.htm
7

characters arrive - Pozzo, who cracks a whip, and his servant Lucky, with a rope tied
around his neck. But still nothing happens, just more talk, and then Pozzo and Lucky
leave the stage. Just before the end of Act I, another character is introduced; a young boy
who comes to inform Didi and Gogo that Godot is not going to arrive tonight, but surely
tomorrow. After hearing the news, Gogo and Didi decide to leave and openly express it
by saying Yes, let's go. Once again, nothing happens, they do not move, just the fall of
the curtain. The second and final Act of the play, the action, or rather, the inaction takes
place once again. Didi and Gogo, waiting for Godot, while talking, Pozzo and Lucky
arriving again - this time, Pozzo is blind and Lucky turned dumb - they leave. The young
boy arrives again with the same message Godot will not come tonight. The two main
characters once more decide to leave but they do not move, just the curtain, which
announces the end of the play. A significant detail is the fact that Godot wont come,
rather than cant come.
According to the specialists, Godot, as the main authority in the play, allows an
endless waiting of Vladimir and Estragon. Their fate is like Sisyphus punishment8.
The play leaves the audiences with thousands of questions unanswered, but
maybe the most puzzling one is Who is Godot?; the identity of the unknown Godot has
been the subject of heated debates. Beckett himself, whe answered this question,
responded: If I knew, I would have said so in the play, adding Why people have to
complicate a thing so simple I can't make out'9.

8 Rachel Weiss Becketts plays, p. 25

9

Colin Duckworth's introduction to En attendant Godot (London: George G Harrap & Co, 1966), lx. Quoted in Cohn, R., From
Desire to Godot (London: Calder Publications; New York: Riverrun Press, 1998), p. 150

If Godot stands for God that we will never know for sure, but from the play one
can see that even though the main characters lost almost entirely their faith in God
(Godots arrival), they still hold on to an illusion, being unable to entirely forswear it.
What is certain is that Becketts Waiting for Godot is a powerful allegory for the search
of a deeper meaning of life and a salvation that may never come, yet the shred of faith
and hope will never die.
Although "Waiting for Godot" is an uneventful, maundering, loquacious drama,
to make the story interesting and theatrical, and touching, too, "Waiting for Godot" is all
feeling. Perhaps that is why it is puzzling and convincing at the same time10.
3.3.2 Censorship of Waiting for Godot in Spain vs. in Britain

As specialists agree, unlike other playwrights, like German dramatist, Bertolt

Brecht, Beckett managed to do so without a political aim; he had no intention to
determine his audience to discuss the current political issues 11. Beckett wanted his plays,
especially Waiting for Godot, to touch the audiences emotions, rather than their
intellects, he wated to make them wonder, question the meaning of life and human
nature12. But even without bringing to attention any political issues, Waiting for Godot
was highly censored both in Spain and in the United Kingdom, mostly on the motivation
of obscenity and blasphemy.

10 http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-godot.html
11 The plays Of Samuel Beckett Katherine Weiss, p. 1
12 The plays Of Samuel Beckett Katherine Weiss, p. 2

Waiting for Godot Esperando a Godot premiered both in London and in

Madrid in 1955. It was Becketts first play to be performed in Spain and it was performed
before the one in the United Kingdom.
The main reason was the difference between the two censorship systems. In the
United Kingdom, the request for the licence of Waiting for Godot was made a year
before it was issued, while in Spain the licence was issued after a month the script was
submitted.
On 25th of March, 1955, Trino Martinez Trives submitted the script of Waiting
for Godot for censorship. He translated it from French to Spanish, after attending the
highly acclaimed Paris premiere. In April, just a month later, the licence was issued.
There was no delay, because the translator and director, Trino Martinez Trives had no
other choice than to accept the changes imposed by the Spanish censorship system. The
amendments, cuts, and changes could not be negotiated, as they were imposed; they
could not be discussed or questioned. He had to find a venue and the play Esperando a
Godot took place on May 26, 1955, at the University of Madrid, in the College of
Philosophy and Arts13.
The English premiere of Waiting for Godot followed a few months later, in
London. The application for licence was done a year earlier. This delay in the United
Kingdom happened because of the negotiatios between the writers and officers of Lord
Chamberlain regarding the amendments of the play. Unlike in Spain, writers and
managers had the opportunity to submit alternative options, in order to diminish the
impact of the original text. The whole process of changing, altereing and rewriting of the
13 Nuria Fernandez Quesada, p. 197 - 199

text took a lot of time, so the licence for Waiting for Godot in Britain was issued a year
after its submission. In Spain this was not possible; pre-licensing consultation was
unacceptable and managers and translators themselves censored the plays and they were
willing to accept amendments and restrictions just to have to opportunity to stage the play
at least once14.
Moreover, Beckett himself opposed to some alterations of the original text. Lord
Chamberlains Officers cut out 12 passages, passages considered by Beckett to be
essential for the play to be truly understood. Therefore, he did not agree to their omission,
because the very core of his play would have been lost. After long negotiations, Beckett
managed to keep what he considered vital the first 15 lines of Luckys tirade and the
following passage at the end of Act 1. He said that I consider their interdicition wholly
unreasonable. I am afraid this is quite final. Until these two passages are reinstated as
they stand there is no point in my submitting amendments of others. Finally the permit
was issued ad the play premiered on September 12, 1955 at the Criterion Theatre15.
In spite of the fact that the censorship systems in the two states were different
hence the time for issuing the licences and the whole process of negotiation that took
place in Britain - there are obvious similarities regarding the subjects of censorship. In
both states, massive cuts were made regarding apparent obscene and blasphemeous
passages. We can conclude that the issue with Becketts Waiting for Godot was not
political, but moral and religious.

14 Nuria Fernandez Quesada, p. 197 - 199

15 Nuria Fernandez Quesada p. 198 - 199

The main motivation behind the severe censorship of this play was not an attack
against the regime and the government, but one against morality and religion. On one
hand, in Spain, the national identity of morally pure citizens could not reconciliate with
the so-called obscenity and blasphemy of the play, while in Britain, the conservative
value and the prudery of the democratic rulers was not compatible with Becketts
message.
Moreover, both censorship systems played an important part in the protection of
religion and the Church, altough in different degrees. In Spain, this was more of a duty of
the censorship system, given that the Catholic Church majorly supported the existing
regime. In Britain, even if the liasions with the Church were not as tied as in Francoist
Spain, still, any blasphemy and obscenity was cut out16.
But the similarities end here even if the subject, obscenity and blasphemy were
the main reason for censorhip, what is different is how censors imposed on the religious
aspects in Spain and in Britain. For example, in the United Kingdom, writers did not have
the permission to question the Christian Faith, to use Christ and Jesus as expletives, or
any other personification of Christ and God.
Vladimir: But you cant go barefoot!
Estragon: Christ did.
Vladimir: Christ! What has Christ got to do with it. Youre not going to compare
youself with Christ!
Estragon: All my life Ive compared myself to him.
Vladimir: But where he lived it was warm, it was dry!
16 Nuria Fernandez Quesada p. 198 - 199

Estragon: Yes. And they crucified quick!

The Spanish authorities, on the aother hand, cut out the line which questions a
passage from the Bible. Vladimir obsesses over the fact that from the four Evanghelists,
only one accounts in his Gospel about a thief being saved.
Vladimir: One out of four. Of the other three two dont mention any thieves at all and
the third says that both of them abused him.
Estragon: Who?
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: Whats all this? Abused who?
Vladimir: The saviour.
Estragon: Why?
Vladimir: Because he wouldnt save them.
Estragon: From hell?
Vladimir: Imbecile! From death.
Estragon: I thought you said hell.
Vladimir: From death, from death.
Estragon: Well what of it?
Vladimir: The the two of them must have been damned.
Estragon: And why not?
Vladimir: But one of the four says that one of the two was saved.
Estragon: Well? They dont agree and thats all there is to it.

Vladimir: But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved. Why
believe him rather than the others?
Estragon: Who believes him?
Vladimir: Everybody. Its the only version they know.
Estragon: People are ignorant apes.
Officers objected to the propriety of Becketts language and to some physical
gestures. Beckett agreed to make a few changes, but resisted altering the offending
dialogue between Vladimir and Estragon on the subject of erections or the essential fall
of Estragons trousers at the close 3 august 1955 private Arts Theatre Club and
September at Criterion, after a few more changes17.
For example, at the end of both acts, Didi and Gogo contemplate suicide, a mortal
sin and talk about errection:

3.4 Happy days

With "Happy Days" Samuel Beckett has composed a song of rue that will haunt
the inner ear long after you have heard it. Like his earlier plays, Mr. Beckett's latest work
reflects a sorrowing vision of man and his world. A bitter, often earthy, humor lights it up.
But what it reveals is shadowed in pessimism. Man struggles for hope, but his destiny, as
"Happy Days" sees it, is tragic. The earth reduces him to a crawling thing and ultimately
swallows him. Although Mr. Beckett's Winnie, the character who has virtually all the
lines, cries out wearily, "So little to say, so little to do, and the fear so great," she also

17 Lawrence Graver, p. 34

expresses the playwright's admiration of man's durability: "That is what I find so

wonderful. The way man adapts himself. To changing conditions."
Mr. Beckett's threnody is grim, but in its muted, tremulous way it shimmers with
beauty. For he has refined his theatre into something that parallels the elusiveness and
overtones of music. His writing is spare and allusive, wry and grave, direct and poetic.
He dispenses with the commonplaces of plot and action; nevertheless, he arrives at an
emotional essence.
On a literal level the burden of "Happy Days" is soon told. As the curtain goes up,
Winnie, a woman no longer young, is embedded up to her bosom in a mound of earth in
an expanse of scorched grass. She chatters incessantly to Willie, presumably her mate,
who is all but unseen. She seeks to fill the hours. She reminisces, comments, laughs,
grumbles. She assures herself that this is one of her happy days, when in fact she is on the
verge of tears.
In the second act she has sunk into the mound so that only her head is visible, and
now she cannot move it. Despite the desperation of her predicament, this is another of her
happy days. For at the end Willie, dressed formally as if for a diplomatic function or a
funeral, crawls out and strives to reach her. Fruitlessly, of course. Mr. Beckett knows that
Winnie's hopes are false--and so does she.
Mr. Beckett's objective is anything but literal. "Happy Days" is surely his allegory
of the human condition. Poor Winnie babbling away pretends that she has created order
out of her odd incarceration. She is aware that Willie's "marvelous gift" is to sleep. She

10

calls to him anyhow: "Just to know that in theory you hear me even though in fact you
don't is all I need." This is the mercy for which she pleads.
At the Cherry Lane Theatre, where "Happy Days" opened last night, William
Ritman has designed a mound as barren as a dune and has set it against a glaringly yellow
cyclorama. Alan Schneider has directed the play with a memorable combination of
delicacy and strength. John C. Becher does the whimpering, senile Willie effectively. But
the dominating impression is made by Ruth White, who plays Winnie with heartrending
pathos.
Despite limited mobility Miss White conveys a profound sense of the dark, empty
spaces of Winnie's life. She uses her voice to achieve a remarkable range of nuance. Her
eyes, her lips, the very lines in her face suggest mood and feeling. She fusses bravely
with the black shopping bag that seems to contain all her worldly possessions. Her
attempt to be invincible turns into a pitiable failure. At the end, with the silly, feathered
little hat atop the head projecting out of the mound, she seems like a puny, weary Earth
Mother of a mean, despairing world.
"Happy Days" describes the aridity of life, but, in Winnie's words, "sorrow keeps
breaking in." If Mr. Beckett does not lift the heart, his mournful song is at least
compassionate, and that is a great deal18.

3.5 Results of the analysis

As one could easily see from the analysis, there are some major differences between the
censorship applied on Becketts plays in Spain and in the United Kingdom. As I have
18 http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-days.html

11

shown in the beginning of my analysis, these substantial differences rooted from the
different systems of the censorship in the two states, and of course, from the different
political regimes, namely dictatorship in Spain and democracy in the United Kigdom.
Therefore, under Francos regime, having the Chatolic Church as the most
powerful ally and supporter, there was a general severe preservation of faith and morality
and there could be not even slightest trace of obscenity or blasphemy.
In Britain, as I have previously shown, the democratic political regime was more
open to negotiations regarding Becketts play. But even if they preached freedom of
speech and expression as a guaranteed liberty, there was a great deal of conservatorism
left, due to the long tradition of prudery. But there was, for sure, a higher degree of
leniency, given that the officials of Lord Chamberlain were willing to discuss and
negotiate the changes of original texts.
I can conclude that the Francos regime and the censorship that Becketts play had
to suffer in Spains mid 20th century damaged profoundly the very understanding of the
plays, as well as the understanding of the author himself. The public reception was
completely different than what was supposed to be.
The cuts and the amendments of his plays made him look obscure, meaningless,
and not appreciated as a playwright who changed the history of theatre. The depth of
his message and of his introversion was altered to such an extent that made him look
rather ridiculous and ludicrous. Waiting for Godot, under the Spanish and English
censorship turned from a philoshopical puzzle, a mistery trapped in an enigma, into an
unreasonable play, in which nothing actually happens.

12

This corrupted version of Becketts play and Beckett as an author decayed the
way an entire society perceived him. But it is the duty of todays specialist to reveal the
true meaning of Samuel L. Becketts plays, who was indeed one of the greateast
playwrights in history of literature, one of the fathers of theater of absurd, an author who
searched deeply for the true nature of humankind, the meaning of life and touched the
emotions of many. The fact that he was so perceived in those times is a greater motivation
for us, nowadays, to truly understand and defend the freedom of speech and expression19.

Conclusions
As I have already said, censorship is a reality in every society, what differs is the
degree and the actual organization and carrying out of the acts of censorship. Censorship,
as specialists defined it, is a form of control the control of the information that reaches
the population; not only the amount of informations, but what is more important, the
accuracy and even the circulation of some ideas, regarded as dangerous and threatening.
So, an act of censorship is any attempt of limiting the free exchange of information.
As we could see, from an historical point of view, apparently censorship appeared
in China, around the year 213 BC, when the first emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi ordered that
almost all books would be collected and publicly burned, along with the execution of
nearly 460 scholars that opposed him. The Romans also used censorship in order to
control the population, as well as Greeks. In conclusion, one may say that censorship is a
facet of any society, regardless the year, the ruler or the political regime.

19 Nuria Fernandez Quesada pp. 207 - 08

13

Even though, as specialists agree that, there was no society in the history of
mankind without acts of censorship, but as I have pointed out in the second chapter, 20 th
century was one of the most controlled chronological periods, when it comes to literature
in particular. Many works of authors considered today canonical were seen as a major
threat for the impressionable minds of the youngsters.
Censorship in those days was either punitive or preventive, or even both. The
majority of the states where there was censorship used either the punitive, either the
preventive form. But in some states, like in the Soviet Union, were used both preventive
and punitive censorship.
In the United Kingdom, the process of censorship was a result of conservative
Victorian values of decency and propriety, while in Spain, through political and
moral censorship, Franco tried to create and protect a certain national identity.
Even though those years have passed, the egative effects and the impact on
culture can be still observed. Some authors are still not perceived as they were supposed
to; their messages are still covered in layers of anti-intelectualism and reminescences of
those days, as I have pointed out in the third chapter.
In my opinion, Samuel L. Beckett, one of the most important and intriguing
authors of all times, is still not fully understood. And I do not mean that his words do not
touch the emotions (and nerves, as he himself wanted) of many but in the collective
memory of some societies he is not one of the most representatives playwrights of the
absurd, but simply...absurd. His words were robbed of meaning through cuts and
replacements; the depths of his plays appeared superficial and shallow.

14

When it comes to censorship, the debates around the subject are always hated.
That is because either party has its pros and cons. Some say that there are information
and ideas that should be censored, in order not to offend a group of people, while others
say that it is unacceptable that any of us should be censored, given that freedom of speech
and of expression is one of peoples fundamental liberties.
To my mind, there should be no censorship at all, at least when it comes to
literature. I do not say that it is not possible that in our society nowadays, people censor
themelves in order not to be marginalized, or even the opposite, to better adapt and
integrate. I even think this is a condition of rational dialogue; but when it comes to
literature, censorship is unjustifiable and a major, profound threat to authors, to readers,
to culture and, in the end, to society. Through censorship truth is hidden, being accesible
to a small group of people, who decide if the population can or can not know it.
I highly disagree with the idea that censorship can be justified through protection
of the young minds. Robbing a work of art, regardless it is a painting, a novel, or a play,
of its true, honest bearing, means turning it into a false witness of history. I really think
that all censored writings were stripped of their power to evoke certain times and to
reveal important aspects of a society. As a result, the legacy is not authentic.
Another aspect that I consider highly important is the intellectual freedom of the
reader, as well as his inner development and growth. By preventing the readers to make
contact with new ideas and perspectives, the intellectual self and the emotional self are
somehow annulled.

15

In conclusion, I want to be free to speak my mind and stand by what I think and
write. And I consider it to be an essential, fundamental and indispensable part of our
everyday life.

Bibliography
Books and articles
1. The plays Of Samuel Beckett Katherine Weiss
2. Robert Post Censorship and Silencing: Practices of cultural Regulation, California,
1998, pp. 1 - 2
3. Rachel Potter - Modernist Literature, Edinburgh, 2012, Chapter 3, p. 1
4. Dinah Birch, Katy Hooper, The concise Oxford Companion to English Literature,
Second Edition, 2003, p. 123
5. Dinah Birch The Oxford Companion to English Literature, seventh edition, 2009,
Oxford, p. 206
6. Themelios, Volume 39, Issue 3, Issue 3, edited by D. A. Carson, p. 616
7. C. OLeary and Alberto Lazaro Censorship across borders: The reception of English
Literature in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle,
2011
8. Philip Steele - Censorship, Moral dilemmas, Hong Kong, 2002, p. 6
9. Maureen Ihrie, Salvador Oropesa - World Literature in Spanish: An encyclopedia,.
Santa Barbara, 2011, pp 168 - 171

16

Online sources
1.

The

Universal

Declaration

of

Human

Rights,

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
2.

Human

Rights

Act,

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-

rights/what-are-human-rights%3F/the-human-rights-act/freedom-of-expression
3. Spanish Constitution,
http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx#I6
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=censor
http://www.samuel-beckett.net/boston/friend.html
http://www.samuel-beckett.net/boston/sbremem.html
http://www.egs.edu/library/samuel-beckett/biography/
http://samuel-beckett.net/309_beckett.html
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-godot.html
http://www.english.fsu.edu/jobs/num01/Num1Esslin.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-days.html