To What Extent Does ‘Waiting for Godot’ Challenge the Conventions of Its Genre?
To what extent does ‘Waiting for Godot’ challenge the conventions of its genre?
‘Waiting for Godot’ by Samuel Beckett largely ignores the standard conventions of theatre. To challenge these conventions Beckett utilises a circular plot, provides only obscure hints to where and when the play is set, breaks the fourth wall all too regularly and explores themes that were previously obscured from mainstream theatre.
A key difference between Beckett’s text and others of its genre is its use of a circular plot. This is paralleled by the conversations between characters, which have little meaning and ultimately go nowhere:
Pozzo: And thank you.
Vladimir: Thank you.
Pozzo: Not at all.
Estragon: Yes yes.
Pozzo: No no.
Vladimir: Yes yes.
Estragon: No no.
The plot has no real climax, drama or suspense to it, which is one of the techniques Beckett uses to challenge theatrical conventions.
Obscure, nonsensical hints such as when Vladimir states, “we should have thought of it a million years ago in the nineties”, are the only information that is provided to the reader about the date, time and setting of the text. We can only guess they are somewhere in Europe post 1889 from the comment Vladimir makes ‘Hand in hand from the… Eiffel Tower, among the first.’. When Estragon replies ‘eleven’ after being asked how old he thinks Vladimir is, it adds to the audiences uncertainty surrounding the supposed age of the characters and more generally whether we’re supposed to take their physical appearance literally. Pozzo declared he’s ‘not particularly human’, which only adds to the audience’s uncertainty about where the play is set: where is it possible to be only sort of human? Beckett keeps the audience almost completely in the dark throughout the text, which massively challenges theatrical conventions.
Another technique Beckett utilises in his text to challenge the theatrical norms is to have the characters only being definitive on the vaguest of details, for instance
‘Waiting for Godot’ by Samuel Beckett largely ignores the standard conventions of theatre. To challenge these conventions Beckett utilises a circular plot, provides only obscure hints to where and when the play is set, breaks the fourth wall all too regularly and explores themes that were previously obscured from mainstream theatre.
A key difference between Beckett’s text and others of its genre is its use of a circular plot. This is paralleled by the conversations between characters, which have little meaning and ultimately go nowhere:
Pozzo: And thank you.
Vladimir: Thank you.
Pozzo: Not at all.
Estragon: Yes yes.
Pozzo: No no.
Vladimir: Yes yes.
Estragon: No no.
The plot has no real climax, drama or suspense to it, which is one of the techniques Beckett uses to challenge theatrical conventions.
Obscure, nonsensical hints such as when Vladimir states, “we should have thought of it a million years ago in the nineties”, are the only information that is provided to the reader about the date, time and setting of the text. We can only guess they are somewhere in Europe post 1889 from the comment Vladimir makes ‘Hand in hand from the… Eiffel Tower, among the first.’. When Estragon replies ‘eleven’ after being asked how old he thinks Vladimir is, it adds to the audiences uncertainty surrounding the supposed age of the characters and more generally whether we’re supposed to take their physical appearance literally. Pozzo declared he’s ‘not particularly human’, which only adds to the audience’s uncertainty about where the play is set: where is it possible to be only sort of human? Beckett keeps the audience almost completely in the dark throughout the text, which massively challenges theatrical conventions.
Another technique Beckett utilises in his text to challenge the theatrical norms is to have the characters only being definitive on the vaguest of details, for instance