Beidelman1

Caleb Beidelman
Dee Goertz
ENG 336
1 December 2015
Cursing the Darkness with a Candle: An Analysis of Waiting for Godot and Endgame
In life people constantly search for the meaning of their existence. Why am I here? What
am I meant to do during the seventy plus years I am on this earth? How can I make this world a
better place before I leave it? These questions are just a small sample of the type of questions
that would have infuriated Samuel Beckett; for they constitute an endless search which may or
may not be answered during ones lifetime. Within certain plays of the genre of realism such as
Hedda Gabler (1890) authored by Henrik Ibsen there exists a certain underlying meaning to the
story. Ibsen attempt to illustrate a certain aspect in society and commentate on why it leads real
people, represented by the characters within the play, to a certain downfall based on this aspect in
society. For Ibsen the aspect he comments on is the fact that women are seen as the object of
their husband or father and that the accepted lifestyle for women at Ibsens time was to be a quiet
housewife who is in charge of the home. With Beckett there is no such underlying meaning in
either Waiting for Godot (1948-49) or Endgame (1957). Influenced by the atmosphere of postwar Europe, Samuel Beckett portrays life through apocalyptic worlds illustrating that there is no
one true meaning to life, rather it is ones will to carry on through the darkness that allows one to
survive and be content.
Beginning with the plays that are classified in the genre of realism, playwrights such as
Ibsen wanted to impart an important moral or lesson to their audiences. This lesson or moral was
based on the society in which the playwrights lived. For Ibsen, the independence and rights and
role of the woman were an important discussion topic during his time. Within Hedda Gabler, the

Beidelman2
title character, Hedda, is not the typical ideal woman, she does not want to be the quiet housewife
that Tesman so dearly seeks and she is very adamant about this through her actions. She is also
not afraid to speak plainly about this, seen in the lines Well, I shall have one thing at least to kill
time with in the meanwhile. TESMAN: Oh thank heaven for that! What is it, Hedda. Eh?
HEDDA: My pistols, George. TESMAN: Your pistols! HEDDA: General Gabler's pistols
(Gainor, 265 Ln, 766-773). In these lines we see Hedda yearning to use a pistol, an item that at
the time would only be used by a man. Hedda shows that she wants to break free of these
normal female characteristics. In this way, she calls the pistols her fathers pistols as if
channeling his own masculinity into herself. Through her character, Ibsen attempts to represent
the powerful and independent woman that society discourages. Likewise, Ibsen shows his
audience that women deserve the right to be independent and make their own decisions and by so
doing, imparts a meaning or lesson onto his audience through his play.
In contrast, Samuel Beckett avoids imparting a lesson onto his audience. In both
Endgame and Waiting for Godot, Beckett is very clear about the world which his characters
inhabit, being one in which the characters are merely surviving rather than overstepping societal
norms. Within Waiting for Godot, the characters Vladimir and Estragon have no other goal in life
other than waiting for the elusive Godot, the reason for waiting is left ambiguous to the reader.
The play, however, is centered on the relationship between the two characters. The comical
actions they commit while waiting for this man help them continue existing, rather than provide
some high ideal or meaning to the work. In this way Beckett creates a unique style of drama
which relies on the fundamental characteristics of humanity best expressed in the lines,
Estragon: I was asleep! Why will you never let me sleep! Vladimir: I felt lonely.
Estragon: I had a dream. Vladimir: Dont tell me! Estragon: I dreamt that- Vladimir:
DONT TELL ME! Estragon: This one is enough for you? Its not nice of you, Didi. Who

Beidelman3
am I to tell my private nightmares to if I cant tell them to you? (Gainor, 1021, Ln, 192201).
Within these lines the reader gets a glimpse at the dialogue that Estragon and Vladimir are
engaged in which occurs throughout the entirety of the play. Though their objective is to wait for
Godot, this quote emphasizes the importance of companionship between Vladimir and Estragon.
Without Vladimir, Estragon would have no one to reassure him of his nightmares, thus showing
the importance of the dependence of companionship in the overall chances of survival for both
Estragon and Vladimir.
Endgame, like Waiting for Godot, is a play that illustrates a relationship of dependence
between two pairs of characters. In Waiting for Godot, the main pair of characters dependent on
each other are Estragon and Vladimir, but Pozzo and Lucky also contribute to this same structure
as illustrating a relationship of dependence. In Endgame, Beckett creates a four person
relationship of dependence including Clov, Hamm, Nell and Nagg, who are the parents of
Hamm. Within Endgame the reader observes that each of the four characters is dependent on one
other character, due to their physical disabilities. Hamm is unable to stand and is blind, therefore
he requires the help of Clov, his servant to assist him in seeing the world and helping him move
around. Nell and Nagg require the assistance of Clov and Hamm in order to speak, due to their
living situation, having been squeezed within dustbins covered by lids because of their lack of
legs. The relationship of dependence is best expressed in the lines,
Clov: If age but knew! HAMM: Sit on him! CLOV: I can't sit. HAMM: True. And I
can't stand. CLOV: So it is. HAMM: Every man his specialty. No phone calls? Don't we
laugh? CLOV: I don't feel like it. HAMM: Nor I. Clov! CLOV: Yes. HAMM: Nature has
forgotten us. CLOV: There's no more nature. (Beckett, 4).
This quotes illustrates clearly how Clov and Hamm depend on each other within the work. Clov
is unable to sit thus needs to be standing all the times, which he does through assisting Hamm,

Beidelman4
who is unable to stand. This quote also introduces the idea of an apocalyptic world that Clov and
Hamm exist within seen in the closing lines above, Hamm: Nature has forgotten us. Clov:
Theres no more nature (Beckett, 4).
The idea of an apocalyptic world devoid of time is presented explicitly through both
Endgame and Waiting for Godot and further emphasizes Becketts goal of illustrating that which
truly matters in life. The years 1953-1962 was the beginning of the escalation of the nuclear
crisis between the U.S and U.S.S.R. This is the world in which Beckett lived in, a world that was
constantly threatened by the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe, one that would wipe out
civilization as it was known. Beckett used this idea as a starting point for both Endgame and
Waiting for Godot which is spoken about by Andrew Gibson in his work Critical Lives: Samuel
Beckett,
At the same time, however, from the mid-1950s onwards, there is a strain in Becketts
art which seems less abstract than global. The works in question are fraught with the
recognition that something has happened to history itself. They clearly respond to a
historical condition, that of the Cold War or at least, to particular phases of it which
seemed all-encompassing as none had been before (Gibson, 133).
Beckett is clearly responding to a world which is affected by the terror of a possible nuclear
catastrophe through both Endgame and Waiting for Godot. There is a sense of isolation and
alienation found within both plays that most likely was felt by those who lived through both the
Cold War and World War II.
In Waiting for Godot, Estragon and Vladimir exist within a world that is devoid of all
pleasurable scenery emphasizing its apocalyptic nature. The stage for this show is often
minimalistic and by so doing it represents the war-torn landscape of Europe following World War
II. The two characters are constantly waiting for an event to occur which may never happen,
echoing the waiting for destruction that occurs for many in the time of the Cold War. Likewise,

Beidelman5
in Endgame, Hamm has Clov look out the window constantly as if he is looking for something to
prove that there is hope in this apocalyptic world. When Clov finally sees something which is
significant, that of a small boy, Hamm states If he exists he'll die there or he'll come here. And if
he doesn't... It's the end, Clov, we've come to the end. I don't need you any more (Beckett, 26).
This quote further emphasizes Becketts idea that there is no one true meaning in life rather it is
survival and the condition of being content, seen through the acts of Endgame, which provides a
metaphorical light to their world filled with darkness.
In addition to the physical actions, made by the characters within Waiting for Godot and
Endgame, which define the worlds as being apocalyptic in nature, they are also defined through
the psychology and mental state of the characters within the plays. In Waiting for Godot, what is
said in dialogue between the two characters grows darker in nature as the play progresses. An
example of this can be found when contrasting the following set of lines,
Estragon: He should be here. Vladimir: He didnt say for sure hed come. Estragon: And
if he doesnt come? Vladimir: Well come back tomorrow. Estragon: And then the day
after tomorrow. Vladimir: Possibly (Gainor, 1020 Ln 150-155).

late.

Vladimir: We have to come back tomorrow. Estragon: What for? Vladimir: To wait for
Godot. Estragon: Ah! He didnt come? Vladimir: No. Estragon: And now its too
Vladimir: Yes now its night (Gainor, 1071 Ln 1027-1033).

By contrasting these two quotes one sees the progression of thought between the two characters.
There is a sense of hope within the first quote, but this hope is all but extinguished within the two
characters as evidenced through the second quote. The thoughts of Estragon and Vladimir are
communicated in a darker tone that reflects the apocalyptic and futile world in which they live.
Between the first and second acts, Vladimir is the only one who remembers what occurred the
day before which only further emphasizes the fact that the characters seem to be losing their
minds and that world in which Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky live in is one that is dark

Beidelman6
and lonely, lacking pleasurable or memorable experiences. This dark tone, which Beckett
presents through the characters of Vladimir and Estragon, also directly reflects Becketts view on
the state of modern theatre.
Through Becketts style of writing one sees that he is breaking from the genre of realism
and creating a unique style of drama later to be classified as Theatre of the Absurd. This genre of
theatre is not filled with sets representing painstakingly real environments, rather it contains
spaces in which the fundamental characteristics of humanity such as relationships, emotions,
hopes and dreams. He believed that in order for a play to be successful it must cause someone to
lose themselves in the simple and fundamental aspects mentioned above. This is communicated
through one of his short prose pieces titled Enough, What do I know of man's destiny? I could
tell you more about radishes (Enough, 53). One of the leading scholars and author of over
twelve works of writing on Beckett, S.E. Gontarski, describes Becketts plays and why they
bring both an apocalyptic tone and his new and unique form to theatrical drama in his work On
Beckett: Essays and Criticism,
The true rhythm of Becketts plays: I cant, I must. When the voice rises it can be apocalyptic
For a man who has chosen loneliness, there is something unreal about the theater, a betrayal: the
public premises, the assumption of a contained space, actors, others, an audience. As though in
penance, the drama contracts to a needles eye. The action crawls through the eye out of time
(Gontarski, 190).
This quote from Gontarskis work illustrates why Becketts plays present themselves in an
apocalyptic tone. We see this in how the characters commit their actions. In Endgame, Clov
begrudgingly obeys the orders of Hamm, uttering, Then I'll leave you (Beckett, 23) which
shows how futile Clov believes his actions are. Everything he does for Hamm is repeated to the
point that he no longer understands the necessity of his actions or why he ought to be serving
Hamm which he brings up later on in the play, There's one thing I'll never understand. Why I

Beidelman7
always obey you. Can you explain that to meI'm tired of our goings on, very tired (Beckett,
25). It is clear from Clovs lines here that he is ready to embrace the path of loneliness as
Gontarski suggests and that Clov, like Vladimir and Estragon, is struggling with the question of
whether to go on and if so why?
It seems the idea of an apocalyptic world filled with seemingly meaningless dialogue has
shocked many audiences within the twentieth and twenty-first centuries through Becketts works.
Theatre-goers had a hard time letting go of the idea that a play must communicate some form of
meaning in order for it to be a successful play. Gontarski briefly describes an encounter he had
with a chemist following a production of Waiting for Godot which clearly presents the attitude
that Beckett was fighting in the writing of his works,
In a discussion after our production of Godot, a chemist insisted it couldnt be a good
play because there was no meaning, no message. I want to know the message, he said,
pounding the table. Well, all you can say to that is, if there is a message its not glad
tidings. And when youre really aroused you may insist in return that an empirical
scientist ought to know better than that that a carrot is a carrot is a carrot, overstating
the point (Gontarski, 189).
People really still find it hard to experience a play without it having a message or meaning to it at
the end. It just shows you that Beckett presents an entirely new form of theatre that was never
before attempted. That is the magic of a work from Beckett: he challenges his audience to form
their own ideas about their existence.
Beckett presents the audience with an excellent counter-example to his goal for the
audience stated above and by so doing illustrates what happens when one speaks before their
thoughts have been formed. This act consequently results in non-rational thought detrimental to
the process of forming ideas of existence. This is communicated through Luckys long academic
speech within Waiting for Godot. Lucky goes on and on about several topics, mostly pertaining

Beidelman8
to humans descending into a cold and dark world of uncertainty, but in so doing he is merely
spouting out words of nonsense. Up to this point in the play, Lucky has not said a word and
following this speech he speaks no other words as well which is a significant choice by Beckett.
In giving Lucky this speech within the play, Beckett is attempting to show his audience that even
when one tries to put meaning or a moral into a work it becomes nonsense and insignificant to
the audience. This idea is discussed within Hugh Kenners work titled Samuel Beckett: A Critical
Study,
Throughout, and notably during Luckys holocaust of phrases, we clutch at the straws of
meaning, persuaded at bottom only of one thing, that all four men exist, embodied,
gravid, speaking; moving before us, their shadows cast on the wall, their voices heard on
the walls of the auditorium, their feet heavy on the boards (Kenner, 137-138).
This quote truly illustrates Becketts goal of presenting works that show what truly matters
within life. The characters exist in their own individuality and are merely surviving within the
dark worlds they inhabit.
Despite searching for an answer to all problems within his works, one is likely to never
find this for that was not Becketts intention. What does matter is what occurs following the play
within the audience. Being steeped in thought of life and the world around them, one learns they
possess the willpower and strength to form their own ideas of existence and how to survive
within the world. No play can give them the answer to life, they must discover it within
themselves. This of course is the reality that all of Becketts characters live within. Hamm and
Clov are going through the same repeated motions day after day in order to keep living as they
always have. Estragon and Vladimir continue to wait and will still be waiting as time progresses,
all they can do is continue waiting with the hope that Godot will come. Thus the audience
becomes like the characters, as a torch bearer, bringing light into the darkness of the world and
cursing at it for they have hope that tomorrow will be a better day than this one.

Beidelman9
Samuel Beckett sought to create theatre that challenged the minds of his audience. In a
direct break with the realistic drama that came before him, he did not seek to represent life in
exact detail based on the time in which he lived. If this was the case all of his plays would be set
within the war torn landscapes of Europe. Yet there are influences from this environment found
within his plays and it goes to show that Beckett was able to create works of drama influenced by
what he saw in the world around him in an abstract manner. Through his exceptional use of
characters committing repetitious actions that serve no purpose other than to help them survive
and be content with life, Beckett illustrates that there is no one true meaning in life. It is the task
of each person to find their own form of contentedness through their will and perseverance to
survive in the dark and violent world in which we live in today.

Beidelman10
Works Cited
Beckett, Samuel. Endgame. New York: Grove, 1958. Print.
Beckett, Samuel. "Enough." First Love, and Other Shorts. New York City: Grove, 1974. 51-61.
Print.
Gainor, J. Ellen., Stanton B. Garner, and Martin Puchner. "Waiting for Godot." The Norton
Anthology of Drama. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009. 1010-1072. Print.
Gibson, Andrew. Critical Lives: Samuel Beckett. London: Reaktion, 2009. Print.
Gontarski, S. E. On Beckett: Essays and Criticism. New York: Grove, 1986. Print.
Kenner, Hugh. Samuel Beckett, a Critical Study. Berkeley: U of California, 1968. Print.