What is this “struggle”?
It's not
easy to describe the setting of this play. The play, "Waiting for
Godot" seems to be in a dream type world where everything seems a
little bit bleak. There's a tree, but not much of a tree. Didi and Gogo
conversation on scenery; Gogo says “… all my lousy life I crawled about in the
mud and you talk about scenery? Look at the muk heap." Basically saying
there's not much scenery an important note, Didi mentions that they went to a
place called the McAllen country that was entirely red. The fact that
everything is red and Didi says that it’s down there; he could be mentioning a
place that resembles the catholic hell. Gogo doesn't remember but that's
typical of most the characters except for Didi. Didi is “the would” be Bill Murray
in the movie “Groundhog Day”. In the play, each day plays out nearly the same
as the day before. This makes me think that these characters might be in between
heaven and hell, maybe like purgatory. This could be Beckett’s way of showing
us how we already are living in between heaven and hell and maybe this
resemblance of purgatory is just everyday life. This “Muk” as Didi and Gogo calls
it, is something that Didi says he gets more comfortable with the longer he's
in it. This “Muk” is representative of the setting and it is representative of
how Beckett views people as they shrug through life. This Muk is the bad part
of life created by fears. The setting is bleak; same as Beckett’s view of most
people and how they shrug through life never making a true transcendence. It
seems just like in the movie “Groundhog Day” there is something to be done or
like some ghost movie, they need to complete some unfinished work.
I want to
talk about the tree for a moment. It's interesting the tree is one of only two
objects there. The tree has great significance; they have desired to end their
life on the tree. The tree always seems to be dead, but in act two it sprouts
leaves. That's not uncommon for a tree to sprout leaves, but Didi took special
interest. I wonder if this is Beckett’s way of showing us that some type of miracle
of creation had just happened, but why or how? I believe that our Loving
emotions can create beauty and life. The night before, after they were done
waiting for Godot, after the child left (but not before telling Didi to wait
there and Godot would be there tomorrow) they sat next to each other and from
their souls you could see that they love each other. It was funny for a moment;
they felt autonomous not male or female (just souls) and they were in love.
Then, they looked up, saw each other, noticed that they were both male, and
quickly turned away; scared to have the thought that they were two males that
may have love for each other. This could be meant in a homosexual way; though
it doesn't have to. The results as I saw it was, a positive affect on scenery;
the leaves grew on the tree, Didi was singing in the morning, and seem to be in
a cheery mood; all because they enjoyed their time together as two souls. It's
a little bit like in the movie “Pleasantville” everything is black-and-white,
perfect, and simple (just like in Catholicism). As Toby McGuire and Reese
Witherspoon from our world came into the picture they began to break
expectations and common social laws (Things that would be shameful by
Catholicism standards). They would follow their heart/ soul and let that part
of them shine; soon others followed. Then magically everything and everyone
started to change into color from black-and-white. At first, this new change
was looked down on, however it ended up being a very positive change for a
place that was already considered “perfect”.
Pozzo's
existence in this play is very particular; at first glance, I see him or his
presence as a viewpoint on slavery; after all he was a slave master. What I
noticed was shocking and is hard to explain. Pozzo was representative of a
Catholic God. Let's say for a moment that the Catholic God would/ could be a
person and let's say that that person asks for worshipers to do their bidding,
that person constantly needs to be infallible and that person needs constant
contact with his subject to assert his dominate position. This described
persona sounds egocentric, controlling, and elitist. (This description is from
how followers act towards Godot.) This all seems to describe Pozzo quite well.
So, now knowing that these are conversations with Godot; let's look at them
again. Pozzo likes to have conversation with, "the society of my likes
", as he says. I imagine that Godot would also like to socialize given
that he's always accepting prayers and praise; also, supposedly people were
created in god’s image. Pozzo mentions that there likeness is “an imperfect one”,
maybe inferring that he's the perfect one. Didi mentions that having a slave is
a scandal, however it's interesting when you think of it as, Pozzo is
representative of God and Lucky is just a faithful servant of God. Is it still
a scandal? Beckett seems to be making these comparisons of slavery to worship.
I especially like this one point in the play where Pozzo’s infallibility is put
in to question by Pozzo himself; when Pazzo decides to stay and smoke pipe
after he has already said he was leaving. First Pazzo explains that he's a
small smoker and why he likes it; just to convince Didi and Gogo that it should
be appropriate (almost asking for permission to go back on what he had already
said). Then there is this conundrum of how to not go back on his word; after all
he is infallible. Since, he already got up to leave; he has his slave adjust
the seat, as if there was something the seat had done to cause him to get up
and now that lucky has fix the chair so, he may sit again. This way, Pozzo can
still appear perfect or at least in his mind (Haha). When he explains why lucky
does his bidding he has this notion that lucky does all this because Lucky
doesn't want to be discarded. Lucky wants to impress Pozzo so Pozzo will keep
him. Hmm, does this sound a little like the relationship between God and man?
I have to
touch on lucky’s speech and the relevance to the other characters. Lucky’s
speech starts on the subject of Catholic God and seems to describe this
relationship between man and God. Saying this relationship is “for reasons
unknown”. He’s also mentioning the time and energy wasted in these attempts to
praise God; and why “for reasons unknown”. I can't seem to follow the reasoning
towards the end of the speech but it seems to be further explanation of the
relationship between man and God. As the speech nears the end, all characters
are eager to make lucky stop talking; it seems to be hurting them. I want to
dive into this question. Why is Lucky's speech hurting them? I think to answer
this question we need to take a look at false realities. This may also unlock
the answer to why there is this relationship between God and man and how it
could be such a strong relationship “for reasons unknown”. A false reality is
something we will take as “true” and base our decisions off of. In our mind
these things called “truths” that are true enough, to base decisions off of; we
tend to hold these “truths” much higher in regards to respect, than ourselves. You
see, we know for a fact, that we are not perfect, that in our past we have done
regrettable things (touch touched something sharp and cut ourselves), we have
in person seen our own fallacies and now know from experience that we are
imperfect. However, the “truths” we know, cannot be imperfect; like in
religion, if you don't see how the truth is real, then you're not looking hard
enough. Or with parents, when you were a kid they were never wrong; if
anything, there was just something you didn't understand. This makes parents
infallible and this concept of something being infallible is desirable. I think
it has something to do with consistency, repetitions, and same results more or
less. Also, a collective view is desirable, because it can reaffirm our own
ideals; like you're testing them on others to see if you are the only one
thinking this way. To make sure you're not just wrong again, because after all
we’re not perfect. This way of identifying “truths” makes them very concrete in
our minds. Because we are now, "so sure" of these "truths",
we shouldn't have to keep testing them to make sure that they are true. We can
feel that we are too imperfect to question or test these "truths"
that we now know. So, these "truths" are locked away (Bedrock) in the
part of our mind; that does unconsciously influence every decision we make.
These “truths” are very desirable as with each truth: comes an ease of
decision-making and can help show where "one stands" between right
and wrong and will help judge other people; whether they are good or bad. These
truths help us categorize the world into something in our mind can filter, or
decipher, or transcript into easily accessible information with a brief
description from the point of view of our "truths". Collecting data
is attractive as the more we know, the easier it is to combat our surroundings.
Like MacGyver or a spy you can face anything that comes your way and handle it
with poise. To argue these "truths" is too willingly give up all
knowledge learned up to this point and to give up all decisions-making
abilities and to start over from your new truths to gain knowledge. No one
person is ready to give up on their life's work of knowledge. How dumb would
you have to be; to be alive as long as you have and get it wrong? But wait you
checked with the collective and we all can't be wrong. And now you're just
unsure and weak; you don't agree with the collective and confusion sets-in. We
need our false realities in order to feel secure, in order to be comfortable,
and in order to be ready to face whatever comes our way. This seems to explain
why we see them go through pain during Lucky's speech. Lucky is questioning
their “truths” or religion and now the mental anguish from cognitive dissidents
is manifesting itself as physical pain. I see this shown in another part of the
play. Just after the first time they want to hang themselves. Didi says “let's
wait and see what he says”, about hanging themselves. It's such a big and deep
subject, to hang one’s self. There must be a great deal of mental anguish
associated with the desire to hang one’s self. So rather than dealing with the
bedrock of our mind, it would be easier to accept that there is some type of
regulator or “God” there to answer or decide these questions that hurt so much
to even just think about. In this example Gogo seems more willing to question
this idea of God; maybe because this view doesn't resonate with him as easily.
He wonders where or what their role is with God. Without giving an answer, Didi
he gets defensive says "on our hands and knees ", as to say they are
not worthy of his presents; let alone to be inquisitive about something as irrelevant
and insignificant as ourselves. Blowing over the whole question; like in the
explanation from Pozzo, of why lucky doesn't drop the bag. Pazzo seems to evade
the question. Gogo asks “we've no more rights anymore?", Didi’s response
is similar to why Pozzo thinks lucky stays. They gave their rights away to
impress Godot. Gogo says “we're not tied” and Didi quickly changes the subject;
frighten by some unheard noise. When Gogo asks again, about being tied, Didi
asked Gogo about the carrot he gave him; similarly, to evade the question. When
the question finally gets out, Didi shrugs the question, he laughs, and says “no
question about it”. Then Didi becomes a bit unsure and slightly depressed and
says “for the moment”. You see, all that back and forth to get to that question
out is our mind not allowing us to access this area of the mind; we totally
subconsciously will divert from the question. When the question was finally
pronounced, Didi's first reaction was to rely on the “truths” that he knows.
Then he thinks about it, there’s a moment of cognitive dissidents, his
confusion sets in, and he becomes a bit depressed. Moments after, he seems to
dismiss these defying thoughts. Gogo then speaks on his carrot saying "It's
funny the more you eat the worse it gets." Didi takes this another way,
describing what seems like his way of living with Godot is like living in Muk
he doesn't mind it in the long run.
I feel as
though this essay has put me through a journey to find a new
definition/description of transcendence. Currently transcendence usually means
to leave the body and live on another plain, such as heaven or hell. I now see
that to transcend, one has to meet their soul’s desires on the plane of
reality. We must reach that part of our brain the bedrock that holds our “truths”
(the same truths that regulate us). We must tinker with this part of our mind until
it no longer can regulate the desires from our soul. Our souls are autonomous
they aren't male, or female, or rock, or plant; the soul desires the attraction
to other souls. Just as mass makes gravity that pulls in more mass; similarly
our souls reach out to pull in and be with more soul. To transcend is to find an
utilizable equilibrium between our “truths” (false realities [the knowledge
that keeps us alive]) and what our soul truly desires. There’s the struggle, uncomplicated, and simple; our desire to struggle in some form is related to wanting to be with soul and create fertile ground for more soul.
