Absurd

The focus of the absurd is on the emptiness, the lack of meaning.

About Beckett and the play

- Samuel Barclay Beckett was born on 13th of April, 1906.
- He was Irish, yet he wrote Waiting for Godot in French.

Absurd Drama
- Often, is repetitive and has a circular structure, which sometimes adds a
comic effect.
- The lack of form and plot is a reflection of lack of meaning in the world &
the reactions of humans to a world of meaninglessness.
(It is too difficult for us to give up the search for hope and meaning, thus
we tend to make up our own meaning in the absence of pre-defined
meaning)
- There is no real communication as language too does not have pre-given
meaning.
- There is no neat closure at the end of such plays.
- Can be called ‘tragicomedy’

Tragicomedy
Most modernist dramas are no longer a tragedy, but a tragic comedy because
traditional tragedy is no longer possible.
Traditional Tragedy
(i) requires divine/supernatural/extra human forces- basically humans
at the mercy of some other force [cannot be applied in the present
day- belief in the supernatural shaking]
(ii) is about societal order- a horrific event, the cataclysmic destruction
of order, restoration of order, closure [requires a framework of
meaning to exude their tragic effect]
Therefore, there is a switch to ‘Tragicomedy’.

Shakespearean Tragedy & the Theatre of the Absurd

Esslin says Shakespeare is an influence on the ‘tragicomedy’ part of Absurd
Drama as his tragedies had comic relief. This comic relief was portrayed through
the bodily aspect- slapstick comedy or low comedy.
- Shakespearean plays are tragic (have some cataclysmic, horrific, decisive
event- that is so because of the framework of morality) with comic relief.
- Absurd drama (the opposite)- Shakespearean tragedy cannot exist as the
Absurd does not have the framework of morality. Here exists a comedy,
with moments of tragedy.

Tragicomedy (philosophical concerns)

- The tragedy here is of the ‘daily’. Full of unhappiness, of pain, of daily
problems.
The comedy here- ‘Unhappiness is the most comical’
 - Absurd plays shatter hope (also described below) yet they do not allow
giving into despair.
According to Camus, the Absurd tries to give the ‘Liberty of Laughter’
According to Esslin ‘Hope and despair are two sides of the same coin,
giving up one means giving up the other’
- Resorting to suicide in the face of despair, is easier but facing the
meaninglessness of life is difficult. Meaninglessness is tragic initially, but
later becomes liberating and sets one free.
-

Parody of ‘meaning’- The act of waiting

- Dialogue is full of word play, rambling, rant, more words and less meaning.
- Nothing new happens.
Waiting is assumed to have meaning, through two things, belief and hope.
There is belief (that what one is waiting for has some significance and it
exists, Godot exists) and hope (that the waiting will stop, and Godot will
come). Generally, one focuses on, what might come after the waiting, and the
meaning is derived from that.
Yet, neither are fulfilled. The waiting in the play is without hope and belief,
thus there is a parody of the meaning of waiting.
Meaning making structure here, is the act of waiting itself.

The play originally written in French

- Beckett felt writing the play in a language that he knows (his first
language) would make him more vulnerable to using extra words. He
wrote it in French (a foreign language) where he knew lesser words and
the thus the writing is more minimalistic.
- The title
(i) In French it is “En Attendant Godot”- the present continuous tense it
used. It translates to ‘While Waiting for Godot” or ‘in the meanwhile’
- the focus is on the ‘while’. (The English translation puts more focus
on ‘waiting’)
(ii) The French title focuses on- what is going on while waiting. While
waiting puts focus on action done to fill/pass the time. Doing
something while waiting.

Setting- “A country road. A tree.

Evening” (very sparse)
A country road - The road does not offer an
- Suggests a sense of travel. escape, the only possible
- But they two characters are escape is suicide.
stuck there, there is
permanent statis. A tree
- The road is misleading as it - Stands still.
does not head anywhere. - Suggests a passage of time.
- Looks like a cross, and the two
characters even think of killing
 themselves by hanging on the - Becomes a prop for attempted
tree. suicide, and thus the only
hope for escape.

The characters (nationalities state- not really, just prerogative)

(i) Estragon- French
(ii) Vladimir- Russian
(iii) Lucky- English
(iv) Pozzo- Italian
All male characters
- The play portrays masculine impotency. (?)
- Males in a crisis of relating to each other or
- Maybe a homosexual couple (Vladimir and Estragon)

Different from traditional tragedy

The absurd play is constant dialogue with the traditional.

- A completed act is the centre of tragedy which is not possible in this world
because even a small act is not being completed.
- Comedy: This failed, frustrated, deflated action gives rise to comedy
- Every action on stage in this play, displaces generic expectations. (The
audience of this play would be familiar with traditional tragedies and
comedies and have certain expectations)
- The beginning of this play is like the end of a classical tragedy because
there is ‘nothing to do’ after a tragic event is over. (Nothing can be done
to undo the tragic event)
- In traditional tragedy, the tragic action leads to protagonist’s tragic
awareness. Generally, the protagonist of a tragedy, constantly pushes
away awareness even when it keeps coming to them. But in absurd plays-
the tragic awareness is already there without the tragic action.
- In absurd plays, the nature of action is not heroic, it is an evasion of the
very given state of being.

Absurd in constant conversation with the traditional

MODERNISM, cannot seem to carry on with tradition as it is, but cannot even
break away from it.

1. Greek Tragedy
- The main character is elevated, is of noble background.
- The language is also elevated.
- Action is the centre- action is definitive, and disrupts societal order.
- The conflict is between two ‘rights’- but there is a protagonist and an
antagonist.
- The effect or response of the audience- catharsis. (no comedy at all)
- Resolution comes after the conflict.

Greek Comedy (completely different from Greek tragedy)

 - The characters are ordinary/everyday characters.
- The language is also colloquial.
- The action is at the domestic level.
- The effect on the audience, is laughter.
Example: Lysistrata

2. Renaissance tragedy (mingling with comedy)

- The protagonist is from aristocratic class.
- The conflict is between court vs pastoral
Conflict is between two sides, a right and a wrong, the two sides are clear.
- The tragic genre is diluted- there is a comic subplot with ordinary people.
Example: Macbeth

3. Modern Tragedy (mingling further into comedy)

- The protagonist is an ordinary person.
- The ordinary life becomes the centre for tragedy.
- The conflict- we don’t know who/what the struggle is against. It is an
existential struggle, not against a person. [in traditional tragedies the
protagonist draws his heroism by fighting an equally strong and powerful
antagonist. (example: Hector and Achillies) That is missing here.
a. We don’t know who the enemy is. Example: Kafka
b. Not knowing the antagonist does two things.
(i) Diminishes the status of the protagonist because he can’t be a
hero without an enemy who is evil but equally powerful.
(ii) Makes the struggle not heroic and thus meaningless. Thus, the
meaning conferring framework of tragedy and comedy is taken
away but the struggle aspect remains.
- Does not offer a resolution or catharsis.

4. Tragicomedy
- In classical and renaissance comedy, the audience requires a distancing
from the comic subject. (the comic subplot)
The audience has to feel superior and distant from what they are laughing
‘at’.
An absence of empathy is required, otherwise they cannot laugh.
The audience needs to feel secure that they are not in the position of the
comic subject. The audience feels a relative sense of stability.
Example: Slapstick comedy.
- Tragic content (as explained in modern tragedy) through a comic lens,
doesn’t allow audience to retain stability and superiority.
They do not feel completely distant from the characters.
Empathy is evoked, but laughter retains its cruelty.
They move from feeling elevated to ordinary.
Example, guards in Macbeth vs Estragon and Vladimir in the play. (we feel
more identified with them)

Waiting for Godot specific

 - Beckett is being ironic about drama and tragedy.
- He shifts the central action or the idea of action is displaced, from being
about struggle to the central action being ‘nothing’.
- Acknowledging that there is nothing to be done, and nothing to do.
- All action in the play is an escape from the acceptance that there’s
nothing to do.
Thus, all action becomes meaningless:
1. Pulling the boot
2. Hanging from the tree
3. Eating, talking- all of it.
- Every action is repetitive and circular. As every action is an attempt to
pass time, even suicide.
- Beckett displaces generic expectations (through the stage setting, their
conversations and miscommunication)
What is generally the conclusion of a classical tragedy (nothing to be
done) is stated at the beginning. The conclusion is the beginning.
- (idea of dramatic development is also displaced) Action generally derives
its meaning from its placement in the linear progression, eventually
leading to resolution. Here, actions are also random.

Act 1, Scene 1
“Nothing to be done” (in French Ne faire pas)
2 meanings
- Nothing to do &
- The hopelessness that nothing can be done.
(i) On the surface level it is about removing the boot.
(ii) It is an act of giving up
(iii) ‘Nothing’ becomes the backdrop of the whole play
- Vladimir takes this action beyond just the boot (as said by Estragon) to-
there’s nothing to be done in life
“I’m beginning to come to round to that opinion. All my life I’ve tried to put
it from me, saying Vladimir be reasonable, you haven’t tried everything.
And I resumed the struggle.”

What we see
- Constant miscommunication between them.
- Meaning is never stable in the play.

Action in the play

- Attempted action is given up upon by them
- Every action they do, fails.
Failed action sets the tone of the play.
- The play has a circular structure- It starts and ends at the same point, it
repeats itself.
- This repetition is at the level of physical status (they=re tramps at the
beginning and end) and level of plot (they’re waiting at both points)
 It gives a sense of past action.

“And I resumed the struggle”

- There is despair in trying to put away the knowledge of doing nothing
because resuming the struggle is easier that fully accepting the
nothingness.
- The two characters perform action to keep inaction at bay.
- Trying to attempt action always leads them to failure.

Reminder of the Myth of Sisyphus

- Repetitive
- Failed action
- Meaningless

“I’m glad to see you back”

- Brings their relationship into question because this comes after they’ve
already talked.

“Hope deferred maketh the something sick- “(this said after Estragon says- “you
always wait till the last moment- focus on last moment’)
- The entire sentence is ‘Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, but desire
fulfilled is a tree of life’- a biblical reference. (This serves as an opening
point into a larger conversation by salvation and damnation)
- “last moment”- is a central concept in Christianity. Even if you repent at
the last moment of your life, there is hope for salvation.
- Again, Estragon talks about the task at hand, but Vladimir takes it to a
spiritual level.

“One of the thieves was saved”- Vladimir hints at the biblical story of the two
thieves which he details later.
Then questions- “Suppose we repented.”
Estragon: Repented what?
Vladimir: Oh…. (He reflects). We wouldn’t have to go into the details.
Estragon: Our being born?
- Everyone is born with some sin. Christianity gives repentance as a way out
of the original sin or any other sin as well.
- Vladimir breaks into laughter but stops because of physical pain
(i) Even laughter is painful.
(ii) Cannot rebel/laugh against religion.

Then Vladimir brings up the story of two thieves.

There are four versions of Christ’s life written by four different evangelists-
three of them say that the thieves were crucified along with Christ in the
other side. Fourth one says that one of the two thieves repented and
believed in Christ and asked for forgiveness- thus one is saved and the
other is damned.
 - Beckett uses Christian mythology because it is familiar. He uses symbols
from it, and raises questions provided by Christianity but the answers
provided by it, are no longer relevant.
The question here is about salvation, waiting, hope and whether waiting is
worth.
(i) Believing in a Messiah and waiting for a Messiah to come and save
us is a common, central aspect of the Jewish faith.
(ii) The promise of salvation is also a Christian thought.

The two characters relation to the Biblical stories and the Bible
1. Estragon (Physical and practical)- “I remember the maps of the Holy Land.
Coloured they were. Very pretty”- Does not remember the stories/gospels
in the bible but remembers the maps and describes them as a child’s
memory,
2. Vladimir (Philosophical and spiritual)- “But all four were there. And only
one speaks of a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the
others?”
This difference between them leads to comic cross talk.

“Hell”
“I am going”
- Hell, still has some unpleasant association.

“It’ll pass the time”

Vladimir asks Estragon if he should tell him the story of the two thieves. Estragon
says a definitive “no”- yet Vladimir insists saying “It’ll pass the time”
- Important questions about life, death and salvation are being discussed to
pass time. They are being used a filler in the play.
- Silence and waiting become so unbearable- that they keep talking even if
it makes no sense.

Vladimir further in his story- moves from “hell” to “death”

1. Hell- Scary, unpleasant. Yet if there is hell, there is heaven, and you still
exist in hell. The idea of not existing at all (and our actions in our life
having no role to play, in the progression of where we might end up) is
more unpleasant than the idea of suffering in hell.
Fear generated by religion was more comforting than a world without
faith.
2. Death- End, not existing at all.
Beckett’s focus is on such questions and not answers.

Beckett says that a statement by St. Augustine has ‘beautiful shape’- “Do not
despair one of the thieves was saved, do not presume one of the thieves was
dammed”
- The shape is about balancing opposites. Two equal phrases that balance
each other out, the content and the shape is also balanced. Yet no
certainty is offered about ones future.
 - He maintains a sense of uncertainty, does not give any answers about
death, salvation, despair or about whether will Godot arrive or not.
- The play is like a see-saw between hope and despair.

Here, the idea of salvation (based on faith) is central, but the belief keeps
wavering.

Vladimir- “But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved.
Why believe him rather than others?”
- Because it gives hope.
- This question has also been debated upon by Scholars of bible.
The explanation given by them
(i) It is a matter of language used rather than repenting or not.
(ii) One of the thieves uses harsh language whereas the other mocked
more gently.
(iii) The thieves were most probably, political rebels. The evangelists did
not want to show the valorisation of a political rebel; therefore, they
did not mention that.
Estragon replies- “People are bloody ignorant apes”
- This is meant to have a comic effect, as Estragon himself didn’t know who
our saviour is.
Even here, Vladimir raises a question but Estragon is ignorant of it.
- They refuse to engage in conversation.
- There is a lack of meaningful conversation between the two.
- They are talking at each other, and not to each other. That is also just to
pass time.

The Christian framework is half forgotten. It is only remembered in a strange and

funny manner.
- Vladimir only half quotes.
- Estragon remembers nothing except the maps. (And is presented as a
childhood memory)
- The questions of Christianity are raised but the answers are either
forgotten or are not relevant.
- This heightens the pain and suffering of the characters.
- The modern hell
(i) Different from traditional notions of hell as a place with fire and
flames.
(ii) Modern hell is a bad desolate place
(iii) Here, even the tree is half dead.
(iv) It is a place of suffering, there is no life.
(v) It exists in this life itself, and not elsewhere.
Being born is a sin, the birth and life that follow are hell. There is no
escape or closure.

- At the end of Act 1- the boy comes refers to himself and his brother.
- He takes care of the goats, while his brother minds the sheep. One is not
beaten, and the other is beaten. (Reminiscent of Cain and Abel)
(i) Abel- Shepherd, sacrificed his sheep and god accepted it.
(ii) Cain- Farmer, sacrificed his grain and god rejected it.
Out of jealousy Cain killed his brother, and was then outcasted.

- Connects to the story of the two thieves, a pair- one was saved and the
other was damned. In the thieves cases their own actions determined their
faith, but in the case of the brothers- it was arbitrary as god rejects one
and prefers the other.
- The God of the old testament was arbitrary (Christian God believes in the
fruit of your own actions). The God of the old testament, may prefer you
on the basis of your actions or it can be arbitrary. Therefore, who suffers
and how much is completely meaningless.
- Godot is not God, but he might be the God of the old testament because
he is arbitrary, has favourites, exercises power and is more concerned
about power than justice.

Yet, when asked who Godot it, Beckett responded “If I knew who Godot was, I
would’ve told it in the play”- Asking who is Godot is the wrong questions, why
to wait is the right one.

The idea of couple or double

Vladimir and Estragon

- At first, they two characters seem interchangeable, it becomes hard to
distinguish between the two. Their differences emerge slowly as the play
progresses.
- Their differences:
(i) Physical characteristics (These have not been mentioned in the
play)
They’re opposites physically, Vladimir is tall and thin, while Estragon
is short and stout.
This is done for comic relief. Taken from existing theatrical
traditions. Drawing upon comic theatre. Example: Laurel & Hardy
(ii) One is spiritual and the other is practical.
- Why the similarity?
(i) Both of them are supposed to represent humanity and mankind,
therefore they need to have a degree of interchangeability
(ii) They repeat each other’s words.
As both of them are in pain. Estragon’s foot and Vladimir’s stomach.
(iii) They keep talking, and reminding the other of their shared pasts but
also keep forgetting parts of it.
(iv) They echo each other’s word when they are asking each other, why
they are waiting for Godot.
- Their relationship
 (i) Their relationship is more of dependence than companionship.
Example: when Estragon attempts to talk about his dream to
Vladimir.
(ii) They are stuck together. Example, they constantly say “we should
part” but don’t part.
(iii) They almost represent an old married couple. They’ve been
together for 50 years but cannot trust their facts. Example- hand in
hand on top of the Eiffel tower- very honeymoon-esque.
(iv) They are always saving each other.
Vladimir looks after Estragon.
Saves him at many points. (how far would you go without me)
Gives him food, acts as a nurturer.
(v) Like an old couple they have some degree of attachment but are
mostly dependent. Their rebellion/hatred/anger/irritation at each
other is also a part of this dependency.
(vi) There is a sense of entrapment, that offers comic relief.
Each other’s presence is perhaps not the companionship they want.
They have nobody else but each other.
1. They embrace each other but Estragon immediately recoils.
A buildup is followed by an undercut. They come in from an
embrace but immediately repel. (this push and pull are a part of
their relationship)
(vii) Complement each other, but constantly clash.
(viii) Intend to die alone but neither one of them can escape alone.
(ix) Nicknames Gogo and Didi indicate a long-term familiarity.
(x) They have memories together, but that too is about suicide.
(xi) Death is the only way they will separate, but they still don’t go for it
because how will the other survive if one dies. In this context you
can look at them as a couple and not friends, since it is easier to
separate for friends.

Pozzo and Lucky

- The idea of the pair is repeated with them also. But this is a master-slave
dynamic.
- Yet they are inseparable and mutually dependent on each other.
- Vladimir and Estragon are an equal pair, yet they are stuck together not
out of choice but an existential condition.

The relationships in the play expose an anxiety at being alone, but frustration of
being together. It begs the questions; do we stay in relationships out of anxiety
or choice?
- All human beings are stuck with each other.
- We are all essentially alone. But we cannot separate from each other.
- We find other people necessary but irritating.
- This is a larger theme within existentialism- suffering of being stuck
together on earth.
Sartre said “Hell is other people”
 - The two couples stuck together, enforces this idea surrounding human
relationships.

What is funny? Failure of climaxes.

There is building up to a tragic/romantic/emotional climax, followed by its failure.
(tragic: suicide, emotional/romantic: embracing each other)
There is comedy in the disappointment of the climax.
Example:
Vladimir gets excited about the idea of hanging themselves to the tree because
it would give them an erection & ejaculation.
- Here, quite literally the climax does not happen.
- This might be the only way to have sexual excitement.
- Not slapstick comedy because there fall arouses laughter. Here, the fall is
symbolic and not literal.

Absence of the feminine

Beckett was adamant that male characters cannot be played by women because
women don’t have a prostrate. (Beckett was present in the theatrical production
of the plays)
If the play is about existential crisis and the human condition, then why can only
men be a part of it?
- Beckett is seen as misogynist- Male as the default representation of
humankind
- Or Beckett is attempting to convey the pain and suffering with the
absence of female comfort/ nurture/ or anything that provides solace.

The play explores a crisis of masculinity and patriarchy among men.

- Patriarchy is a power structure- older men’s power on younger men (power
of a father)
- Struggle between different men for power- young vs old, master vs slave,
father vs son
- Freud focuses on biological difference but Lacan moves from sex to
gender- and focuses on the phallus. (symbolic of penis, symbolic of power-
not all people with penis have phallus. This power is by definition
masculine and neither woman or men have it completely)

Exploration in the play

- Vladimir constantly points how Estragon would not survive without him,
constantly asserting power. He is emotionally dependent on keeping
Estragon physically dependent on him. He needs to be needed.
- Estragon attempts to assert himself as well. They constantly struggle for
power.
Both aspire for potency and masculinity.
- This can also be seen in the fact that they get excited at the possibility of
an erection. This might also suggest their impotency.
Being an impotent man, is worse than being a woman.
- Both of them are in a position of crisis- relative to Godot.
 - Lacan says women do have certain phallic power in her role of being an
object of desire, power lies in keeping the man waiting.
- Here man is forced into feminine position- absolute emasculation
- Homoeroticism is there and also fear because of it
(i) Homoeroticism can lead to feminisation of man can take place,
indicating a world without woman.
(ii) Had a woman been there in the play, the erection would’ve been for
her. Then emasculation would’ve been difficult.

- The boy/messenger- least power, least masculine, less masculine than the
two men.
Yet, the irony is, that he is closest to Godot who is most powerful and most
masculine.
This shows the arbitrary power of patriarchy.
Patriarchy also lies in choosing one sone over the other- mirrors the
themes in Old Testament.

- In the play the struggle for power is between (i) Godot and others, (ii)
Vladimir and Estragon, (iii) Master and Slave and (iv) Messenger and his
Brother.

(i) Godot
- Godot is the patriarch, source of hegemonic power, of phallic power, and
has ultimate power- controls everyone even in his absence.
- Is said to have a long-white beard- God, the father is shown having it in
Judo-Christian Culture.
- All other men in the play suffer from a lack of power in relation to Godot-
thus all are demasculinised.
Tussle for power among each other- powerlessness vis a vis Godot- relative
absence of power- all points towards a crisis of masculinity. (If women had
been there, then all males would have power in relation to her)

(ii) Pozzo
- Pozzo seems to be the next to Godot in terms of power
- Asserts power. Most powerful of the men present.
- Yet he turns blind by the end. Blindness is often seen as a symbol of
castration- lowering his masculinity and power.
- By the end, there is a reversal of power between Pozzo and Lucky.
(iii) Lucky
- Lucky has a white beard (closest to Godot) but is a slave therefore is
demasculinised.
- The status of a slave is feminised.

In order to explore struggle for masculine between men, among men in the
absence of women- no women are involved in the play.
Masculinity requires subordinating others in a subordinate position- moments of
comfort and embrace are undercut.
There is an exploration of men within patriarchy- can they have tenderness? (no)
Do they become bigger than the power struggle in this situation? (no) Are men
capable of comfort/ nurturing/ solace? (not like a woman)

Thus, there is a critique of masculinity.

- War is patriarchal- it is imagined, enacted by men. Certain men are
demasculinised because of different power struggles between chiefs and
foot soldiers.
- This power struggle can turn murderous
(i) Son in patriarchy is often sacrificed. Example: Abraham and Isaac
(ii) Sons often wants to kill father.

Lucky’s speech
St Augustine’s saying- “Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved. Do not
presume, one of the thieves was dammed”- Becketts says the sentence has
beautiful shape. And that it is the shape that matters- Entry point into Lucky’s
Speech.

Structural and formal concerns

- Punctuations and paragraphs give shape on paper, and breaths and
pauses in speech.
- Lucky’s speech as bracketed between- what comes before (people asking
him to think) and- what comes after (silence)- is automated and is given a
shape by its placement in the play.
The speech is an ongoing thing as it has no control- it is abruptly started
and stopped.
- Thinking is continuous, speaking is a small amount of the flow of thoughts.
- He does not start to stop the speech on his own.

- Monologue or soliloquy
Monologue- one person talking addressing listeners on stage/or audience
Soliloquy- the person presumes no one is listening. Exposes the inner
thoughts of the character. Used to show thought in a play.
- Lucky is thinking out loud, so it can be considered a but what exists in the
play is a subversion of soliloquy.
(i) Lucky’s speech does not have a ‘self’ behind it. There is no ‘self’
who gives the speech shape.
(ii) Lucky is not the thinking self because he has no control over when
to start and stop.
(iii) There is no conscious identity behind it.
(iv) Lucky does not control or organise the speech.
Beckett consciously does this, so as to subvert the soliloquy.

- There is no speaker and listener in his speech. It is a parody of soliloquy

and thinking.
 Descartes said- “I think, therefore I am”
Rational thinking constitutes human, this idea is overturned by Beckett.
Lucky’s speech has no rationality and no thought.

- Parody of structure of speech

(i) The structuring element of this speech is time- it is unfolding in
dramatic time.
(ii) There is a use of stream of consciousness. The content is not
conscious, but the language flows in a stream of consciousness
manner. (influence of Joyce)
(iii) Parodies- the structure of language.
(iv) Parodies the Christian worldview- in the format of a lecture or
sermon.

The Speech
‘quaqua’- Latin phrase meaning ‘as is’ but here it becomes non sensical like an
animal sound.

Divine apathia- free from suffering/ indifferent/ apathetic

Divine athambia- cannot be easily disturbed &
Divine aphasia- not understanding language/ unspeaking
Summary and parody of Judaeo-Christian God- apathetic, uncaring and un-
understanding of human suffering.

But he loves us dearly, except for some unknown reason because he is very
arbitrary in his choices, and has favourites. (In Calvinism- some people are saved
and some are damned according to God’s will)

“But time will tell”- Christian concept of time is teleological- time will come to an
end. We don’t know who will be saved or who will be damned, but time will tell.
Parody of half certainty given by Christianity, but it is still better than no
certainty.

Moves from Christian worldview to academia, science, philosophy, scholarship to

measure/categorise/understand the world.

“Academy and Anthropometry- cacaca & popopo children’s word for excrement.
‘metry’- points to measurement. Man measures all things, with its capacity for
rationality.

Essy-in-Possy- Beckett gave a Latin phrase “Esse est percipi”- meaning ‘to be is
to be perceived.’
How do you know if something exists if you cannot see it? It exists because god
sees it. (Beckett attempts to reconcile Christianity with Philosophy)
Lucky’s speech sounds very scholarly- use of scholarly-sounding terms
“established beyond all doubt” terms that belong to logical thought in an illogical
speech.
There is awareness of the power certain words command, even if robbed of their
meaning. &
Repetition of such intelligent, and logical phrases- serves exactly the opposite
purpose.