Talk:Waiting for Godot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Waiting for Godot is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This user is Waiting for Godot, who will surely be arriving on June 9.
Do you really like Waiting for Godot? Userbox this interest with: {{User:Scepia/Godot}}, which displays as the left.

Contents

[edit] history section: What a mess!

I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but I can't make heads or tails of the history section of this play. It's too spread out (the history actually starts, jarringly, in the introductory paragraph rather than in this section), too quote-heavy (nothing wrong with putting quotes in Wikipedia, but many of the quotes in this section are not given a context), and just plain disorganized. Minaker 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godot's page

The unseen character Godot deserves his own page, since every other character in this play has one. If anyone really cares that much, please go for it. Make your theatre professor proud, you grad student, you! --BeastKing89 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

This article could do with a lot more sourcing. --Impaciente 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Irony of this Discussion Page

There is irony in the fact that we attempt to appoach an idea of truth about the text or play Waiting for Godot on this discussion board. We say thing like "more right" or "truth" or "false" etc... when the play itself seems to be suggesting that seeking these sorts of truths are valueless, they change what is true none. Think about the concept that is paradoxically undermined which is suggested by Didi's saying 'Let's go,' and the fact that (They do not move.) Do they go or do they not go, or do they go and not move. I think the issue here is that they do go, forward into time (thus the emphasis of waiting in the play), but bodily they do not move. Thus, concepts of words and truth fail to gather together (in their empty semblence of meaning) all the correspondent truths that are in reality occuring in Gogo and Didi's present. For Beckett, the words go and move contain different 'meanings' such that if they go, they do not necessarily have to 'move' and visa versa. Consider Pozzo declaration of having to keep his schedule in act one. He claims he has a schedule to keep, but he does not act to keep it (in the way that we might expect). But if Pozzo's schedule is observed in terms of temporality, then by simply 'going' into the future Pozzo maintains his scheduled arrival at a place--that place just so happens to be the future. Considering things thus, the deconstructive nature of the play suggest that there is no truth to be found in the words, the truth is found in the moment, in the immediate and always already active happenings of present time. Thus to say what is true about the play is always undermined by the fact that the play is being interpreted at a different time. Interpretations change with the mutable changes of semiological myths, and with the concepts under which they are conceived. Taking this philosophical position to heart suggests that there is no truth to claim about the play's 'meaning. But this reading, of course, presents an entirely ironic and cyclical paradox (i.e.-If this reading is true, how can we claim it to be true?). -- Graymattur

Shhhh...--BeastKing89 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

The note on the pronunciation does not seem correct. French pronuncation dictates that the accent should fall on the final syllable...such an odd pronunciation would be terribly stilted..."En Attendant GOdot"...can someone find a citation or remove this?Dancxjo

Provided a citation. It is also noteworthy that Beckett on Film (one of the better researched pieces on Beckett's work) used the GOD-oh pronounciation. -- Yossarian 09:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
This still seems very odd to me. I'll do more research. Thanks for the citation! Dancxjo 30 June 2005 06:34 (UTC)
I am still confused: is it GOD-oh (as in God, the Almighty, etc.) or GO-doh or GOH-doh (as in the verb to go). I would think that it would be GO-doh or GOH-doh, seeing how the /ah/ pronunciation in French is limited to the letter "a". I may be mistaken.
I've only heard it with the first syllable as the Deity, but that certainly doesn't correspond in British English with the given IPA. No-one here pronounces "God" or "Godot" with an ā Pirate pete 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the stuff about English pronounciation is quite clear (a little IPA might help, but I have no real sense of how to implement it). GAW-doh is the way Beckett pronounced it. As for the French, you're quite right. The user who added the bit about not emphasising it probably didn't realize that "goh-doh" is rather vague (is it "gaw" as in "God" or "goh", as in "gonads"?). In that case IPA would definitely help. -- Yossarian 10:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Beckett Directs Beckett version used GOD-oh, plus the comic confusion with Pozzo works better (is funnier) with the similar sounding name. 209.193.57.115 08:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how verifiable this is, but in fact spoken French distributes the stress or emphasis more evenly in the word than in English. Consequently, the pronunciation *can* sound like GO-doh, go-DOH, or even GO-DOH, in the same piece of speech by a single person.
Nuttyskin 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I tend to go with what Beckett himself said on the subject (GOD-oh, period). Of course, there's not REALLY a wrong way...just a more right one! ;) --Yossarian 09:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Beckett indeed used God-oh. This is why so many critics asked if the characters were actually waiting for God (which he refuted). The Gate Theatre's production of the play (Irish and Beckett's favorite production) also used God-oh.

[edit] Misc.

But what about Pozzo? and Lucky? both of whom turn up later? sjc

Also, I'm not at all sure about the influence of M. Sartre here. I think that we will have to wait for the Beckettologists and the existentialists to weigh in... sjc

I don't see why someone has called this an absurdist play-surely they mean 'Drama/theatre of the absurd'? Absurdist doesn't sound right. -Adrian

Well, the theatre of the absurd is the main manifestation of the idea of "absurdism" in art, and if something belongs to absurdism, then it is absurdist. I don't really see the problem. If you think it should be reworded, reword it :)
I've changed those dates, by the way, to published dates - I'm not sure that anybody knows exactly when Beckett wrote or translated it. I'll probably write a bit more later - I'm hoping to write articles on each of Beckett's plays if I get the chance, mainly so I can start the article Play (play). --Camembert
You're just enjoying the idea of legitimately creating such a bizarre page title, aren't you? ;-) (BTW, I cribbed the dates I put hee from the Samuel Beckett article. so if they were wrong here, they're also wrong there.) Tarquin
If the wikipedia had a slightly different naming convention, I could also create Film (film) off the back of Beckett, but Film (movie) is almost as good ;-) --Camembert
There was an article in a UK newspaper (actually a review of a cycling book) that stated the title was inspired by a group of schoolboys in Paris after WWII who were waiting at the local velodrome (which had been used as a transit camp for French Jews during the war). When Beckett asked the boys why they were there, they said they were En Attendant Godeau - in other words, waiting for Roger Godeau who was the local cycling hero. Average Earthman 11:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The book would be Tim Hilton One More Kilometre and We're in the Showers (2004), but the story is rubbish. Beckett was asked almost from the beginning if he had heard of cyclist Godeau (or the Balzac character Godeau, for that matter) and the answer was no. You can find the story and the denial in Colin Duckworth En attendant Godot, London, 1966. Personally I have my doubts that the story is even true about the boys "waiting for Godeau", at least before Beckett made the phrase famous. Urban legend? --192.35.35.34 01:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An intended joke misunderstood by a scholar with no sense of humour, maybe? Like Shakespeare being served a particularly fussy sheep's leg stew and calling it Much Ado About Mutton.
Nuttyskin 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why they would reply "En Attendant Godeau" in the first place, as the phrase literally means "WHILE waiting for Godeau." I think the more likely response from French Speakers would be something along the lines of "Nous attendons Godeau" as that is an actual sentence.

I have, for the time being, removed "An existential work influenced by Jean-Paul Sartre" - it might be true, but I'm not convinced. I'll hopefully be expanding this article quite soon, in the course of which I'll have a root around for some evidence of this, and if I find any, I'll add it back. And of course if anybody else knows this is certainly the case can add it back too.

I should probably add: it's not the idea that you can see it as existentialist and embodying Sartre's ideas that I don't agree with - it's the idea that Beckett was doing this consciously. And even if he was, where's the evidence? So a section about critical views of the work mentioning existentialism and Sartre is fine, and I'll probably do that when I expand anyway, come what may, but to have it in the first para seems a bit misleading to me.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about all of this... :) --Camembert

I did find a reference that Beckett became friends with Alfred Peron who once shared a study with Sartre, if that helps any - although Waiting for Godot was written over 10 years later. Another reference mentions the bleak and dark point of view of the play being suggestive of Sartre and the term "theatre of the absurd" derived from writings of Sartre and more particilarly Albert Camus - however I can find nothing that directly relates this play directly with Sartre. I agree that there should perhaps be a discussion of the influence of existentialism on Beckett's work, but it really belongs on the Beckett page, not here. Melody

I'm not a philosopher so I could be mistaken, but from what I know about existential thought, the claim that the "tedium and meaninglessness of human life" portrayed in "Waiting For Godot" is somehow a theme of existentialism seems very misguided. Existential thinkers do not assert that life is meaningless, but rather that it is lacking in the intrinsic or universal meaning which other philosophies often celebrate. The idea that life is meaningless seems to be more along the lines of nihilism. Again, existentialism generally argues the nature of meaning, not its presence altogether. The connection between "Waiting for Godot" and existentialism seems a popular idea, but is it valid?--FamilyDollar 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are they "officially" tramps?

I had put this in the article before, but I probably should have discussed it here first.

The entry currently says that "Vladimir and Estragon appear to be tramps". I'm not sure that's entirely accurate.

Estragon "indicates his rags" in the first act, but aside from his boots being too small for him (which in fact changes in the second act) I don't think there is any other reference to either of their clothes (aside from the bowlers; which isn't much: Pozzo and Lucky wear them as well). So I'm not certain if it's fair to say they are indeed tramps ("appear" seems too vague). I'm probably quibbling over nothing (but hell, I'm a purist...I think...), but it seems to be that tramp is just one interpretation...which is what the play is really all about after all! :)

I don't want to change anything without input. If everyone thinks it's an unnecessary change, I'll do an Estragon and forget it. (Maybe just a clearer explanation is order???)

Thanks for any input.

- Yossarian

Direct answer to the question- no, I would agree they're not "officially" tramps. On the other hand, there is evidence that they are tramps- the ragged and ill-fitting clothes (someone's (I forget whose) trousers fall down when he takes his belt off, which is unusual if your trousers fit), plus the fact that they are somewhere in the country eating root vegetables. I chose "appear" because I thought it was appropriately vague ;-). I just wouldn't want to give the impression that the tramp thing is just a convention in staging- it is quite heavily implied in the text. Markalexander100 08:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I was thinking it was more of a staging convention...but I do see your point, and you're quite right. I just wanted to hear the full story. I defer to you, good sir. Cheers. - Yossarian PS: It's Estragon's pants by the way (that guy just can't get a break...can't believe I forgot about that). Now someone just needs to do his page.


- Graymattur

Observing the text in a vacuum (as a 'purist'), it is not evident that they are tramps, still, I think it is reasonable to assume that Beckett intended them to be. Especially considering that he was involved in the production process and that is how they were staged. Also, it is not only their clothing suggests that they are to be viewed as such, their actions are very similar to the archetypical comedic tramps we tend to associate with vaudevillian acts. Not only do Gogo's pants fall down, but they trade hats in quintessential act of comedy reminiscent of mid-century stereotypical concept of the theatrical 'tramp.'

Gogo sleeps in a ditch. Also, I remember reading the back cover summary of one publication, which refers to them as tramps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.69.144 (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Offspring of Mr. Beckett

Being as Sam is going to be featured (something that he very justly deserves I might add), I thought it might be the right time for me to plug something I've been doing: that is, the Waiting for Godot character pages. Now, I've pretty much totally made the articles on the seat of my pants (and on my own, but for a few people who've corrected my sometimes questionable grammar), with as much of the knowledge I have, and as many of the notes I have to create them, so their probably slanted more to my interpretation of the play. I'd like to ask that any Godot or Beckettphiles out there take a look and add as much as they can. If I do say so myself, they're okayish...but somewhat limited. I don't write THAT well in encyclopedia form (I'm more of a prose writer), so I have the feeling they're probably a little choppy.

The links are in the article, but here they are anyway for easy access:

-- Yossarian 05:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

PS: Does the "Boy" character warrant a page?

-- Y

I, for one, hate the current Grove Press cover. I liked the older black-and-white version.--192.35.35.36 21:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge Neutrality of the Article

Almost innumerable critiques from academically respected sources (in the U.S.) exist whose substance would take exception to the deferential tone with which this article discusses the play.

Well, by all means charge in and change the tone if you like. That's what Wikipedia is all about. "Be Bold."
Septegram 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's go.--magpi3 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, hope an nobility are two important topics to discuss.

"There can be no arguing that much of Waiting for Godot deals with the subject of religion, there are simply too many scriptural references" Samuel Beckett himself said “I also told [Ralph] Richardson that if by Godot I had meant God I would [have] said God, and not Godot. This seemed to disappoint him greatly.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyricalfoxy (talk • contribs) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyright?

The article links to the full text of the play:

- is that legally available yet? The domain seems to be a fan-site.

also I think the quotations should be moved to wikiquote

(clem 12:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Quotes transwikied, Lead rewritten

I've moved the quotations section to Wikiquote and added a Wikiquote link. I've also rewritten the Lead. The old one was a very nice and cool introduction, but it wasn't really a Lead section: those are supposed to summarize, rather than merely introduce, the article, please see WP:LEAD for rationale. Note that I have used most of the old Lead for a new "Stage history" section (very incomplete, please expand it!) Bishonen | talk 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warning

Isn't it a bit ironic to have a "spoiler" warning on a play where nothing happens? --BadSeed 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is ironic, perhaps not. However, to say that "nothing happens" is only one interpretation of the play, and my own opinion is that, in fact, a whole hell of a lot "happens" in it; hence, I've put the spoiler back in. —Saposcat 08:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Several unauthorized sequels, in which Godot actually arrives,...

Does this not, in effect, constitute a spoiler? After all, the play is called Waiting for Godot, and it is not unnatural for a first-time reader to suppose that a character mentioned in the title, and whose imminent arrival is discussed at length, might actually arrive - isn't it?
Nuttyskin 10:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Boy

The discussion of what the boy says seems unclear to me. It doesn't mention that there may be two, and it implies he mentions a barn the second time.

It seems to me that there is likely just one boy... there is certainly just one actor for the part. I think that probably the most common interpretation is that the boy forgot he had met Vladimir and Estragon before, and a source would be in order for anything to the contrary is said. (It would probably be best if there were a discussion of this part of the play linked to anyway.) Theshibboleth 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didi and Gogo

Do the nicknames Didi and Gogo relate to the Mandarin didi and guoguo, meaning younger brother and older brother respectively? Theshibboleth 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt it (but hey, who knows?). It's a neat little synchronicity, though, ain't it? --Yossarian 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absurdism

Im currently studying Waiting for Godot and I thought I understood the meaning behind it all untill my marks on tests showed otherwise. I would like to understand how this play is a tradgic comedy?

Well, it's tragic 'cause they're never going to stop waiting, but it's comedic because some of it is really funny. That's about as simply as it can be put, though, so you might want to look into the nigh infinite publications on Samuel Beckett and his plays. -- Yossarian 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First, consider the basics: absurd theatre is but a more elaborated version of Luke 6:42, and the Otto West definition of existentialism 'It´s better to die for your belief than to have never believed at all'. Obviously, you´re supposed to ask yourself why the characters in the play don´t spot the absurdity in the other characters´ behaviour. What you´re not supposed to do is to wonder how to classify the absurd - as soon as you start listening to Becket telling you it´s comedy, it´s tragedy, you´re off track. 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Godot?

"Godot" has - it is written - often been interpreted as meaning "God". Quotation: "Beckett himself vehemently denied [this] all his life, saying 'If by Godot I had meant God I would have said God, and not Godot'". But that is too simplistic! How can one overlook the etymology? "-ot" is a French diminutive, added to the English "God", hence it literally means "Little God" (or, maybe, one could say "Godey"). And who is that?

The word gode (pronounced like the English word God) in French means penis, but is grammatically feminine (as vagin is masculine - go figure!); but even so, masculine diminutives on feminine nouns are not unknown. So Godot could at least imply little penis.
Nuttyskin 10:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Humanity is waiting for the return of Christ since 2000 years, still in vain. Will he come? Nobody knows. "He will come tomorrow", the boy said. So everyone says. Always tomorrow... Few dare to express how depressing this waiting is... Maybe no one yet dared to see this meaning in the play. Yet it should be quite obvious! Becket denied that "Godot" would mean "God", and he was right! He didn't say, though, what it is supposed to mean. If someone would have said "Christ" (or "Jesus"), what would Becket have said then?

Is it a satirical play about the so far apparently futile and hopeless waiting for the return of Christ?

Written by Jan Erik Sigdell, Slovenia

Well, many people often mean "Christ" when they say "God". He would have said the same thing as he did about it being God if people had said Christ. This play is so much deeper than a religion...--Yossarian 07:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, yet I don't know anyone who doesn't make a difference between God and Christ or mixes the names up. But it seems to me that many an expert or a scholar is seeking far deeper depths in a piece of art than the author or artist ever knew were there... so that he or she can write a more "brilliant" analysis... Often the simple explanation is the more probable. My suggestion is a simple one, but one which could arouse controversies with Churches and fundamentalists. Maybe the latter is a reason for some to avoid such an explanation. JES

b.s. johnson, when questioned about his uncompromising postion regarding his own fiction, said: 'i want him (the reader) to see my vision, not something conjured out of his own imagination...how is he (the reader) supposed to grow if he will not admit other's ideas? if he wants to impose his imagination, let him write his own books.' i think much the same could be said for beckett. --h.quirk

[edit] Gay Godot?

An anonymous user had this to say about Didi and Gogo:

There have even been commentaries that Estragon and Vladimir are homosexual lovers.

Now, while that has crossed my mind, it was mere facetiousness on my part, more than anything else, and I've rarely (if ever) seen the idea of Vladimir and Estragon as gay seriously discussed in any piece on the play or Beckett...if someone can find a source though, I'd be very interested to see it. I don't really agree, but, hey, I love interesting ideas. -- Yossarian 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I moved it from the opening paragraph (a very odd place to find it) to the interpretations section. However, it's not in a great place, and if someone could add a bit of context, that would be great.

There was a production of "Waiting for Godot" done at Theatre Rhinoceros (a gay oriented company) in San Francisco a few years ago which had the characters going in and out of drag during the performance. It was quite fascinating. Unfortunately, they soon ran afoul of the Beckett estate which ordered that they cease with the cross-dressing and play it "straight." gar in Oakland (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Godot - Go deo?

"Go deo", an Irish language phrase, means "forever". Waiting for >go deo< = Waiting for forever. A clever litte wordplay by Beckett perhaps. Bolak77 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High school poster?

I don't think this image, "Poster for a highschool production of Waiting for Godot © Samuel S. Young" adds anything to the article. The high school production itself is not particularly notable, and as far as I can tell, the artist is just some guy. ~ Booya Bazooka 01:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree. This is no more relevant to the article than adding a picture of a school kid dressed as Batman to the Batman page. It is a good idea to have a poster of a professional production of the play, however, so we might want to replace it with this one. This is for a Tricklock Company production from 2003, starring Joe Pesce. Any objections? Ron g 13:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I tried to find a poster for the world premier (English or French) but could not locate one. If anyone has it, it would certainly add a lot of value. Ron g 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I actually uploaded it (the high school poster), and though it seemed semi-relavent at the time, I think the article could probably do without it (with a major production poster in place of it). By the by, I do have some photos from the world premiere (French), but the copyright status is probably borked, and I hate it when the fair use image police come down on me. But I shall investigate. Cheers --Yossarian 23:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Changed it. If you find something from the original production that you can use, by all means please overwrite this image. That would be great. Ron g 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I don't think that Trivia section is particularly necessary. None of the stuff there is releavent to the play, other than a couple "Waiting for..."s in popular culture, and the like (the first one about Lenin, I think, was simply some user's personal constraint on the matter). I mean, there was Waiting for Lefty before there was Godot, so couldn't those "Waiting for..." titles actually be related to that more directly? You see my point (I hope). So, I'm going to delete it (if there are serious objections, I'll restore it). --Yossarian 10:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say (as a random anonymous editor) that a section in the article on Godot in pop culture is highly warranted; it's still a landmark work. Are you actually suggesting that "Waiting for Guffman" and "Waiting for Gounod" are alluding to that fairly obscure play? Other articles have such sections, and the wiki isn't in danger of running out of room. I say restore it and add some "citations needed" markup. 216.67.40.89 08:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I can also restore it myself. IMNSHO there is really no good reason for leaving it off. 66.230.112.169 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the stuff that was there was semi-irrelevant and unsubstantiated (particularly the Lenin thing, which I suspect was original research). Sorry, I wasn't suggesting Waiting for Lefty was the inspiration for those other titles. I was merely suggesting that listing every play/show/movie that has "Waiting for..." in the title is pretty flimsy, even as trivia. Perhaps a section on Godot in popular culture would be appropriate? Something that doesn't lend itself to listing stuff off. Cheers, --Yossarian 03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Related works" is an inappropriate title for the section. Songs and shows like House M.D. are not actually related works simply because they reference Beckett's play; the title gives a false impression. Could this section perhaps be divided into Trivia and Related works so that works like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which are actually related, are differentiated from mere modern cultural references? Florestan 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

I have deleted a paragraph mentioning a recent re-interpretation of the play by someone named Alexander Arotin. The entire paragraph was added by one user, Laxxx, whose only other wikipedia contributions regard this same person (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Laxxx). The style of the paragraph and this user's suspect history make it seem like this paragraph is just an advertisement or vanity edit that does not belong in the article. If Arotin actually is a well-known musician or theatrical scholar, please revert my change (but add a period to the end of the paragraph!). 24.250.21.120 07:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed academic-style paper

I removed the academic paper and interpretation that were posted to the article. It looks like serious work, but interpretive material belongs in the discussion page, not the main article. Ron g 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] >:3

godot stood me up -- Cannibalicious!

If you rearrange the letters of "vladimir estragon pozzo lucky" it spells:
Go spritz only a vocalized murk!
Puzzler cloaking a stormy void.
Yacking dolor vomits a puzzler.
A dorky, stoical, moving puzzler.
"A puzzler ... I rack only God. [Vomits.]"
A puzzler racks God - I only vomit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.135.193.2 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've Cleaned up the formatting,

Now it is time for someone to clean up the actual material in the article. Anyone want to take on the task (fixing all those crappy references would be grand...)~AFA pony. 09:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the ones that were just bare URLs to use {cite web}. I also removed the {unref} tag, as it seemed there were plenty now, but if the intent of that was to motivate people to clean up the references, put it back. —johndburger 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite

A few comments on the article. I’ve steadily worked my way through all the minor plays but really felt overhauling Godot was too much of a job to do it justice but I was asked and I hate to say, “No.” That was two months ago.

I’ve concentrated on using quotes from Beckett as much as possible to back up statements made. If not Beckett, then people who were there at the time. Predictably enough there exist very few that explain much about the meaning of the play – if we are to believe Beckett then meaning lies entirely in the province of the audience – but a fairly decent overall picture is still presented if you can read in between the lines.

I took particular care in getting the timeline right too, including the radio broadcasts which tend to get overlooked.

As regards interpretations, space simply doesn’t allow detailed coverage but I thought that the religious angle deserved a little more attention since it is the most popular interpretation and needed to be put into perspective.

References have been checked thoroughly – I own most of the books – and the most reliable sources used. None of the people who were involved with Beckett are spring chickens anymore and their memories are not what they were. You will note for example I constructed Jean Martin’s recollection of how he prepared to play Lucky from three separate quotes by him. Even ‘reliable’ authors like Ruby Cohn can misremember things and she herself acknowledges that she has read and talked about Waiting for Godot so much that she cannot be completely certain that the things she thinks she is recalling are true memories.

It is a long article but I’ve left out far more than I’ve included. If people follow the reference trail there is so much more available. Do check out the Godot Action Comic – someone really ought to do the whole play that way.

Jimmy4559 11:27 15th June 2007

I wonder if we could *possibly* move the synopsis before the characters. The character-section is quite a detailed one... and the reader doesn't even know what the play is about yet. The characters is also a type of interpretation, isn't it? The synopsis is more factual - I mean to say, "The play opens with Estragon struggling to remove his boot" is easy to verify by reading the play; "as far as Lucky goes, Pozzo is his Godot" is simply one way of understanding their relationship. Any suggestions / objections to swopping the sections? --Leviel 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Geoffrey Holder as Lucky.jpg

Image:Geoffrey Holder as Lucky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add plot summary to the introduction

It would be nice if the introduction to the article gave a brief description of what the play is about. Readers shouldn't have to read the entire article when they really just want a two or three sentence summary of the plot. It seems as if the article is written for people who already know the play (and thus have little need to look it up in an encyclopedia). The fact that it was "voted 'the most significant English language play of the 20th century'" and the details of the title should be pushed down into the body of the article. The introduction should just give a quick run-down of the who, what, why, when, where, and how of the subject. Who wrote it? What is it about? Why is it notable? When did it premiere? Etc, etc. --JHP (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Edits

I found this article to be fairly sophomoric, fairly poorly written, with a number of poor analyses and even at one point somebody had written "I think that this means..." I have gone over Act 1 and cleaned up the writing a lot, and given it a more academic tone in some respects. May not be perfect yet, but I have tried to make improvements. Formerly: dpendery, before Wikipedia system ate my password, and so now I am an anonymous user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.74.12.38 (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)