Estragon: The Circus Analysis

These repeating events and very subtle shifts and change are just a sample of the bigger circle that expresses the lives of Vladimir and Estragon, where there is a hindrance in decision making and hope in waiting.
The purpose of repetition done by Estragon and Vladimir repeating each others lines, alternating back and forth symbolizes the repetitiveness of life. "Estragon: The circus. Vladimir: The music-hall. Estragon: The circus." One of the commonly repeated dialogues is when Estragon wants to leave but Vladimir reminds him that they are waiting for Godot. Not only is there repetition in speech of the characters but in the series of events. Vladimir claiming that he didn’t recognize Pozzo and Lucky although he has met them before. This indicates
that the actions presented in the first act of the play and when Vladimir asks the boy if he came yesterday. This suggests that the series of events have been repeated over a longer period of time and were shown just two occurrences of a longer sequence. Vladimir and Estragon display a life of circular, never ending events, like that of the song they sing, with no evident beginning or end. When they begin to switch hats, we see another illustration of the unending repetition that can go on perpetually. By one point in the play, there has been so much dialogue about waiting for Godot that eventually Estragon realizes it. "Let's go. We can't. Ah!" The idea of hopelessness then comes into play. Vladimir and Estragon hold on to this hope that Godot is coming and it is because they stay hoping, that they lose hope. Vladimir, coming to the realization that there is a cycle of events, knows what the boy is going to say at the beginning of act II before he says anything. These events are just a sample of the bigger circle that expresses the lives of Vladimir and Estragon.
The reasons for this repetition is to show that overall tone of the play is not that of hope because the audience needs to accept that Godot never comes and the idea of waiting in vain.
The purpose of not fulfilling what was hoped for at the end is done to prove that the reason they waited in the first place was because they had hope and didn’t make a change on their own. The play shows the hindrance in decision making. Act II when Vladimir comes and goes, he had no where or has no where to go. “A dog came in…” (37) repetition, circular nursery rhymes, tale about looking for some food (small pleasures in life) you will be beaten and repeat. People need to learn to make the change and find the simple pleasures in life and not wait for someone to come and make it for you. Also, the lines of Vladimir and Estragon in the play can be interchangeable "It hurts?" and responding, "Hurts! He wants to know if it hurts!" The repetition of this kind of dialogue shows the parallelism in the play and that despite their differences, they always come to the same conclusion. The ending has distinct parts where Vladimir has moments of insight and yet there is still repetition because despite his epiphany he never changed. Life is war and life is havoc but the characters are companionate and are dislocated in a life where hope is questionable. Even after a messenger is sent to Estragon and Vladimir, havoc is still the great
destroyer. Although there is a lot of repetition in the play, there are subtle shifts and changes. The tree has 4 or 5 leaves in act II displaying the changes in nature like growth and the seasons that are always in flux. This change symbolizes humans in the act of literature who are always morphing and making nature bend to their will. Another change is when Vladimir puts on Lucky’s hat. Vladimir may want to gain Lucky’s knowledge for “He can’t think without his hat.” He, by taking the hat puts on the role of someone who has purpose. Pozzo becoming blind and the rope getting shorter is also a change displayed. Pozzo becomes dependant on Lucky instead of Lucky dependant on him. The shorter the rope the more control you have making the rope bend to your will. Here we see the fundamental question of the nature of existence “we must try something, something that’ll make us feel like we exist.” There becomes a necessity for the word “we” and poses other questions like, is there meaning? Does it exist or are we waiting for meaning? Maybe is was better if they killed themselves? But how could it be better or worse if there is no good or bad? Even with good intentions and resolution, the custom of inactivity cannot be broken instantaneously showing us that subtle changes are not enough to make a difference.