Lucky faces the uncertainty of whether he will end up remaining with Pozzo, or with a new master, in much the same way that most religious people are always waiting to find out what they have waiting for them in the afterlife.ĭavid Hesla states in The Shape of Chaos that “ and are largely spared the burden of the past, for their memories are so defective that little of earlier time remains to them” (133). It is arguable, however, that Lucky actually does have expectations, and that he is equally, if not more, insecure than the two tramps who remain forever waiting for Godot. In response to being asked if Lucky was named so because he does not have to wait for Godot like Vladimir and Estragon do, but that he has his own Godot in Pozzo, Beckett stated, “I suppose he is Lucky to have no more expectations” (Ben-Zvi 144). It appears as though Beckett misspoke when questioned about Lucky. One can conclude from this that the situation with Pozzo and Lucky is an attempt by Beckett to express the notion that religious practices serve no actual practical purpose, that it is an unnecessary weight keeping them from noticing the enlightenment the physical world has to offer. Given this, it can be concluded that the unnecessary nature of the bag filled with sand that Lucky faithfully bears in order to impress his master is symbolic of the unnecessary burden many religious people carry in their various rituals of worship.
A bag of sand most often merely serves the purpose of providing extra weight, such as sandbags often used to stave of flood waters, or to weigh down a hot air balloon. In the second act, it is revealed that at least one of the bags carried by Lucky is filled with sand. This reflects how a religious person would bear certain discomforts, such as rising early from bed every Sunday to attend church, in order to please higher beings, eternal bliss in the afterlife. When Estragon asks why Lucky does not relieve himself of the burden he carries once he and Pozzo have stopped to rest, Pozzo replies that it is because Lucky is trying to impress him so that he will not be sold at the fair. The dynamic between Pozzo and Lucky in the first act reflects the relationship some people have with their religion. The relationship between Pozzo and Lucky in the first act is an example of the notion that humanity must look away from religion as a source of the meaning of life. In other words, instead of looking into a universe he could never understand, Vladimir should listen to Estragon’s dream, focussing on human experience, which is the only thing humans can really comprehend. It seems as though Beckett makes use of this to say that one should place more emphasis on personal experience as a means of discovering profound truths rather than looking into a realm beyond human comprehension and certainty. Estragon would rather discuss his dream with Vladimir, and maybe through interpretation, become more enlightened about the human condition. The following silence sets this quote apart from the rest of the line, it makes reference to the idea of looking to the supernatural, the universe, as one way of pondering the meaning of life. Vladimir forcefully insists that he keep it to himself, and then Estragon, gesturing towards the universe, asks, “This one is good enough for you?” (10). Near the beginning of the first act, Estragon attempts to tell Vladimir what he had dreamed after waking from a nap. Considering the way in which this play reflects the human condition, one can also say that this means it is erroneous to ponder the spiritual realm which is beyond our ability to comprehend. Godot does not have an identity, according to Beckett, and it is therefore erroneous to try to find out who he is. In this case, the entire play reflects the situation humans find themselves in. Beckett’s intention to not have the identity of Godot pondered reflects the underlying notion in his play that people should stop pondering the divine realm and focus on the human condition in physical existential terms. Beckett makes the misdirection of people who seek to find out who Godot is in his statement that “the great success of Waiting For Godothas arisen from a misunderstanding: critics and public alike were busy in allegorical or symbolic terms a play which strove at all costs to avoid definition” (Ben-Zvi 142). Even Beckett himself states that he has no idea who Godot is, and that he would have made it clear in the play if he did (Ben-Zvi 141-142). Those who interpret the play often expend too much effort attempting to infer the identity of Godot.
0 kommentar(er)
