Waiting for Godot

The post war desolate atmosphere is thick and wraps everything in the avail of timelessness and mild depression while the two main characters babble their way in circles, sometimes normal, other times imbecile. The humor has roots in the art of making fun of the dumb, the unable and the poor, which I disdain, but it also has some good moments and the language is very quick, and at times impressive, especially since the original was crafted in French.

Ted-Ed says this play is a part of the “Theatre of the absurd” movement and even though I don't really know what that is, it sounds about right. In general, I don't enjoy non sensical tales and didn't expect much from this, but I gave it a try because it is famous and quite short. Oh and if you didn't know, there is a recording of the entire play/movie on YouTube.

Overall, I understand what Beckett was trying to show us about life and time and waiting and wanting and needing and not having and never reaching the end; but having to sit through this felt like I was trapped in there, with him - and perhaps that was intentional, but dear god, let me out.

Honestly sort of hated reading this initially; its heavy emphasis on parentheticals and slapstick that seem to be better acted out than to be read. It's a bit weird, confusing as to what it is even trying to do, and the dialogue runs in circles. But upon further analysis and reading this, my appreciation for it has increased with its surprising philosophical depth that derives from just two people waiting for someone who doesn't exist. Beckett purposely made this as absurd as possible, intending for the audience to be so confused as to what they're even supposed to feel in the moment. Nothing in the play makes sense, and it is almost impossible to make any sense as to what is happening - if even anything has happened at all.

Still, it doesn't make for the most entertaining read as I just felt like I was missing out on all the fun stuff. Slapstick isn't nearly as funny in my head than to see other people do it themselves on stage.

I'm afraid this is one of those terrible, wonderful books. It's terrible because it's the story of two people who are lost and unhappy and confused. It's wonderful because something about the story feels deeply true.

There isn't much plot. It's a play, with a simple setting, and simple dialogue. Two men are standing around, talking “to pass the time,” and waiting for the arrival of the mysterious Godot. They don't seem to know why they are waiting for him; the implication is that Godot will hurt them if they don't continue to wait. Yet he never arrives, and there is little for them to do while they wait.

A few other people arrive and depart, and they, too, seem to have little understanding of their own intentions and actions.

I disliked and liked this play very much. I don't know what to make of it myself.