How does absurdity generate comedy in Waiting for Godot

Memoona Zahid
To what extent is absurdity central to generating dramatic comedy in Waiting for Godot?
The absurdity of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett generates comedy as the ‘theatre of the absurd’ is described as a form of drama that highlights the absurdity of human existence by showcasing the disjointed, repetitious, and meaningless dialogue, the purposeless and confusing situations, and the plot that lacks realistic or logical development.1 This theme is perhaps the most prominent theme in the play. In his article, ‘Vaudeville, Pantomime and Tragedy – the Absurdity of Waiting for Godot’, Samuel Tapp claims that Waiting for Godot does not have a typical structure of a tragedy, or a typical comedic structure, but rather has a structure that is a ‘clash of these two incompatible forms’ resulting in what he calls ‘the absurd effect’. The habit and routine of the protagonists, is a clear factor that shows the human condition and their search for the meaning of life. The play can also be regarded as a comedy as it contains elements of vaudeville and pantomimic traditions. This can be seen through the constant stumbling and tripping and also the verbal humour consisting of puns, misunderstandings and repetition. The humour that is most evident to see is the slapstick comedy, linked to farce, especially when Estragon struggles with his shoes, his fallen trousers and the unzipped fly.
Waiting for Godot, is what it says on the cover, a play simply about waiting. The protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for this mysterious being, who is mentioned constantly throughout the play as ‘Godot’, who is commonly associated with God. The title itself can be regarded as absurd because of the word ‘waiting’, as when we wait for something we are doing things absentmindedly to pass the time. Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for something to give meaning to their lives, for something to save them, to relieve them of their hopelessness. They represent the human condition in the way we wait in vain for something to give meaning to our lives.
Both Vladimir and Estragon are characters in the play that reflect the human condition and through these characters do we see the pointless conversations, the confusing situations and how the plot lacks any rational development. The audience in the play recognise the situation that the characters are in, perhaps because it reflects their own situation, however they do not fully comprehend it. The situation that Vladimir and Estragon could be described as a mirror that universalises human experiences. The philosophical questions that a human ponders on a daily basis are mocked through the stichomythic exchange between Vladimir and Estragon in the first act.
Estragon: I am happy.
Vladimir: So am I.
Estragon: So am I.
Vladimir: We are happy.
Estragon: We are happy. [Silence.] What do we do now, now that we are happy?

Tapp expresses that the exchanges between them are often ‘childish, illogical, inane and inconclusive and often lead to a bathetic comic affect.’ Bathos is the effect of anti-climax created by an unintentional lapse in mood from the sublime to the trivial or ridiculous.2
In Ian Mackean’s essay, ‘The function of comedy in the plays of Samuel Beckett’, he writes that ‘Beckett amuses his audience while at the same time demolishing one of the most familiar answers to the question of what gives human life value.’ This exchange draws attention to what all humans go through. So many people would like to be happy or achieve ultimate happiness. However the vast majority of us will never or have never reached that point. Why? Beckett tries to show this in how Vladimir and Estragon converse. Beckett enforces the idea that us as humans take part in too much idle talk which achieves nothing. Vladimir and Estragon are stating that they are happy but in reality, they are probably not. We can see that being happy, in the case of Vladimir and Estragon is nothing great in itself. Estragon asks a very key question – ‘What do we do now, now that we are happy?’ It’s the questions that we dismiss, that we do not think about. We think about the how, how are we going to be happy, but rarely do we think of what may follow our happiness. Absurdism is apparent in this exchange as it is particularly pointless, and very repetitious although it makes us think. This exchange can be comedic in the way that it portrays the characters contentment with life. They have established that they are happy, that they can now wait for Godot which is a goal for them, no matter how absurd, which gives them purpose.

The absurdity of the play is evident in the way that Vladimir and Estragon decide to spend their time. Beckett introduces comedy however the comedy is quite literally absurd as the characters want to hang themselves in order to induce a feeling inside them.

Estragon: What about hanging ourselves?
Vladimir: Hmm. It’d give us an erection!

This conversation shows that the characters are so desperate to feel, that they would hang themselves to do so. In Angela Hotaling’s essay, ‘Camus and the Absurdity of Existence in Waiting for Godot’, she points out that “The only options that seems available to the men are waiting or suicide.” The men are stuck in a limbo where they have nothing to do as such. They have the irrational idea of hanging themselves in order to pass the time. This is comedic as the audience would never think of doing such a thing in order to pass the time. Suicide for the audience, is a very serious topic, however, Vladimir and Estragon’s light-hearted conversation about hanging themselves may make the audience feel less confined about the subject. On the other hand, existentialists like Jean-Paul Satre would argue that committing suicide is a way of taking control of one’s life, a show of self-determination and taking charge of their own fate and ultimately a key to man’s power in the face of God. One could argue that Vladimir and Estragon’s talk of suicide could be a way of them showing that they have had enough, although in the end they do not commit suicide so this may illustrates their hope.

The absurdity of Waiting for Godot can be seen through one of the much darker aspects of the play which is the master-slave relationship between Pozzo and Lucky. Their relationship displays abuse on both a verbal and physical level. Although it is not said outright that Pozzo owns Lucky the emphasis of this fact is apparent through the words and actions. Lucky has finished articulating his endless tirade of thoughts when Pozzo exerts his power on Lucky.
Pozzo: Up scum! [He jerks the rope.] Help me!

This line implies the power that Pozzo holds over Lucky. Some would argue that at first glance the name for Lucky is ironic, however on further inspection it can be deduced that his name is quite fitting. Lucky, unlike the other characters, is needed. He has some sort of order is his life and therefore, his position may be desired in this situation. Whereas Vladimir and Estragon have no particular purpose apart from waiting, Lucky has a job, perhaps even a sense of meaning to his life. The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky has many interpretations. If Pozzo is the father figure, then Lucky is the child. If Pozzo is the puppeteer then Lucky is the puppet. All of these interpretations mirror their relationship. Although it is not the perfect relationship, it is strong, and therefore could be seen as fortunate. This relationship is tragic but comedic. It is tragic in the way that Pozzo seems to think that he owns Lucky and therefore treats him like nothing, but comedic in the fact that Lucky has a meaningful position in his life.

The relationship between Vladimir and Estragon, however is one filled with kindness and compassion. This is clear through the stage directions that describe the way in which they converse and the words that they speak, especially in the first act.
Vladimir: [Tenderly] I’ll carry you. [Pause] If necessary.
Vladimir talks to Estragon in a motherly way, showing that he cares deeply about his friend, although the fact that he pauses and says ‘if necessary’ could imply that his compassion is almost forced or perhaps he is afraid of showing his love for Estragon. We realise that their relationship is not one of false pretences, but rather they do not know how to express their feelings, thus coming across as irritated with one another in other parts of the play. Their relationship is comedic in the way that it could represent a relationship of an old married couple that continuously bickers and argues. It can be argued that their relationship is one of mutual co-dependency, meaning that they rely on one another to exist. This is suggested in the way that both characters talk of leaving one another throughout the play but never actually do, implying that despite the fact they may not want one another, they still need to be together.

Words: 1456 (excluding quotes and name)
Bibliography
Primary texts:
1. Beckett, Samuel (1957), Waiting for Godot, Faber.
2. Beckett, Samuel (1986), The Complete Dramatic Works, Faber.
Secondary texts:
1. Belevicius, Edvinas, (2014), ‘Existentialism and Happiness in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot,’ Department of Philology Vilnius University.
2. Bleiman, Barbara (2012), Dramatic Genres: Studying Comedy, English and Media Centre.
3. Esslin, Martin (1960), The Theatre of the Absurd, Penguin.
4. MacKean, Ian (2008), ‘The function of comedy in the plays of Samuel Beckett’, http://www.literature-study-online.com/essays/beckett-comedy.html
5. Sutcliffe, Joe (2011), ‘The Irishness of Waiting for Godot,’ English Review, 21:3.
6. Tapp, Samuel (2014), ‘Vaudeville, Pantomime and Tragedy – the Absurdity of Waiting for Godot,’ emagazine 65.
7. Taylor-Batty, Mark and Taylor-Batty, Juliet (2008), Modern Theatre Guides: Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot,’ Continuum.
8. Hotaling, Angela (2011), ‘Camus and the Absurdity of Existence in Waiting for Godot’
Digital resources:
1. Kurt Vonnegut on the Shapes of Stories (1997) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ
2. Abbott and Costello (1954) – The Susquehanna Hat Co http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZV5g1CNZM
3. Abbott andCostello (1953) – Who’s on First? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

Bibliography: 2. Beckett, Samuel (1986), The Complete Dramatic Works, Faber. Secondary texts: 1. Belevicius, Edvinas, (2014), ‘Existentialism and Happiness in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot,’ Department of Philology Vilnius University. 2. Bleiman, Barbara (2012), Dramatic Genres: Studying Comedy, English and Media Centre. 3. Esslin, Martin (1960), The Theatre of the Absurd, Penguin. 4. MacKean, Ian (2008), ‘The function of comedy in the plays of Samuel Beckett’, http://www.literature-study-online.com/essays/beckett-comedy.html 5 6. Tapp, Samuel (2014), ‘Vaudeville, Pantomime and Tragedy – the Absurdity of Waiting for Godot,’ emagazine 65. 7. Taylor-Batty, Mark and Taylor-Batty, Juliet (2008), Modern Theatre Guides: Samuel Beckett’s ‘Waiting for Godot,’ Continuum. 8. Hotaling, Angela (2011), ‘Camus and the Absurdity of Existence in Waiting for Godot’ Digital resources: 1. Kurt Vonnegut on the Shapes of Stories (1997) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ 2 3. Abbott andCostello (1953) – Who’s on First? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg