Scan barcode
A review by eesh25
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
5.0
4.5 Stars
I don't think anyone's as surprised as I am at the fact that I kinda loved this play. Like, I genuinely thought it was great.
Not sure if you've noticed, but I don't read many classics. Almost none really. And one of the reasons for that is that, while I can appreciate how well they're written or how clever they are, the writing is often very dense and they bore me. The last time I remember enjoying a classic was when I read Pride and Prejudice years ago, and that was because I love Austen's subtle sense of humour.
Anyway, this play isn't everyone cup of tea, I don't think. It's an existentialist play and nothing really happens. There are just four characters, and only two who are present at all times: Estragon and Vladimir. There's just one set for both acts, a barren piece of land with one leafless tree and nothing else. The two main characters are waiting for a person named Godot who's supposed to give them a better life. And they spend the entire time waiting, talking nonsense and doing nothing. When the other two character, Pozzo and Lucky, show up, the four of them talk nonsense and do nothing. I imagine it'd be a little dull to watch.
But to read, it's great. I mean yes, most of their conversations make no sense but they also do. In fact, a quote by Cassandra Clare come to mind when I think about this book:
And when you look for it here, there is so much subtext. You can't go more than a few pages without some elaborate metaphor about human nature. I mean, the fact they're waiting for someone they barely know, to change their miserable lives, instead of doing something productive, is the biggest metaphor of all. Then there are countless smaller ones like the toxic and co-dependent relationship between Lucky and Pozzo, the faux dignity and self-serving nature of humanity, Vladimir's and Estragon's inability to move forward, the way they pick fights with each other just to pass the time... there's so much there and I really wished I'd been taking notes while reading. Maybe on the reread? Though I'm not sure if there will be one because really, it does get a tad tedious at time, which is basically a representation of the tedium of life.
Maybe I will reread it. It can be really funny, the way the characters act and interact; with an underlying ocean of cynicism and hopelessness, of course.
Overall, if philosophy, and maybe misanthropy, is your thing, I would highly recommend reading this play. It's really short and gives you a lot to think about. Though from what I've heard, the author didn't intend for half the themes that people have managed to find in it, which is okay. I think it was John Green who once said that once you put your art out into the world, it's no longer yours.
I don't think anyone's as surprised as I am at the fact that I kinda loved this play. Like, I genuinely thought it was great.
Not sure if you've noticed, but I don't read many classics. Almost none really. And one of the reasons for that is that, while I can appreciate how well they're written or how clever they are, the writing is often very dense and they bore me. The last time I remember enjoying a classic was when I read Pride and Prejudice years ago, and that was because I love Austen's subtle sense of humour.
Anyway, this play isn't everyone cup of tea, I don't think. It's an existentialist play and nothing really happens. There are just four characters, and only two who are present at all times: Estragon and Vladimir. There's just one set for both acts, a barren piece of land with one leafless tree and nothing else. The two main characters are waiting for a person named Godot who's supposed to give them a better life. And they spend the entire time waiting, talking nonsense and doing nothing. When the other two character, Pozzo and Lucky, show up, the four of them talk nonsense and do nothing. I imagine it'd be a little dull to watch.
But to read, it's great. I mean yes, most of their conversations make no sense but they also do. In fact, a quote by Cassandra Clare come to mind when I think about this book:
There's plenty of sense in nonsense sometimes, if you wish to look for it.
And when you look for it here, there is so much subtext. You can't go more than a few pages without some elaborate metaphor about human nature. I mean, the fact they're waiting for someone they barely know, to change their miserable lives, instead of doing something productive, is the biggest metaphor of all. Then there are countless smaller ones like the toxic and co-dependent relationship between Lucky and Pozzo, the faux dignity and self-serving nature of humanity, Vladimir's and Estragon's inability to move forward, the way they pick fights with each other just to pass the time... there's so much there and I really wished I'd been taking notes while reading. Maybe on the reread? Though I'm not sure if there will be one because really, it does get a tad tedious at time, which is basically a representation of the tedium of life.
Maybe I will reread it. It can be really funny, the way the characters act and interact; with an underlying ocean of cynicism and hopelessness, of course.
Overall, if philosophy, and maybe misanthropy, is your thing, I would highly recommend reading this play. It's really short and gives you a lot to think about. Though from what I've heard, the author didn't intend for half the themes that people have managed to find in it, which is okay. I think it was John Green who once said that once you put your art out into the world, it's no longer yours.