Relationships

Third time reading this and it's still the same: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is my one favorite works of literature. The plot is racy and fun, while keeping my mind in suspense for revelations and arguments. Additionally, the dialogue is deliciously diabolical, with each character revealing each other's personal and professional information, and reveling in their darkest secrets. The play is truly more of a character-driven plot, which should make this play an actor's dream. For instance, who wouldn't want to dive in the craze, yet vibrant psyche of Martha, or the cynical and trapped soul of George? Martha and George's relationship is one of the main attractions of the play, and the one that I find myself investing in the most. Filled with sarcasm and empty with no child, their relationship captures my attention easier than Nick and Honey's relationship. Overall, the play felt very quick and was not a trouble third read. In addition, I found myself looking more at the revelation at the end when George reveals there is no son and then sings to Martha, "Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?" The meaning behind the question (who is afraid of living life without illusions) became more profound this time around (and I still do not know why).

Crazy attracts Crazy

Sex, alcohol, drama! What better elements can make up a play? While reading this play all I could think was that crazy attracts crazy, and if only walls could talk. Every family puts on a public façade but I pray to God that when they get behind closed doors they are not as dysfunctional as Martha and George.

Martha and George both came from unstable childhoods so I would expect nothing less from them. They never dealt with or seeked help for the issues of their past so they operate the only way they know how.

In all honesty, Albee hit the nail right on the spot. This play was set in the 1960’s and we are in the 2011 dealing with some of the same issues. It is still true to today’s society. So many people continue to have unhealthy relationships because they are scared of what the next person may think of them.

Who's afraid of Martha and George?

I enjoyed reading this play, I found it very exciting and intriguing. It was somewhat hard to comprehend because of how absurd the events in the story were. I definitely see a connection between the two couples. Who knows if the younger couple will ever escalate to the level of Martha and George--hopefully not after what they've seen. The couples are kind of similar, though, the younger couple has a lot more going for them and they are much more successful in various aspects. It's almost like Martha and George helped show them what NOT to become (in a very outrageous way). The concept of the "games" they played was very odd. The names of the games were very interesting. I do not understand why Nick and Honey stayed in their company for so long. If it were me I would have left after the first "game". I can only imagine how weird and uncomfortable a situation like this would be. Another thing that I found quite intriguing was the title of the acts. For example, the third act referring to an exorcism, in which all of the evil is released or brought out into the open. This accurately describes the revelation of Martha and George's secrets and illusions in this act. As far as the song George sings at the end and the last line of Martha's, I still don't fully understand. The ending left me kind of puzzled.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

In Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and older couple George and Martha to use a young couple to fuel the anger that they feel toward one another. . I found the text both disturbing and powerful in many ways. I also found irony in the immaturity of George and Martha’s relationship. As the play progresses, the layers of the actual relationship are revealed, which actually made me feel sympathy for the couple and their situation. It seems that event though they do not have a cohesive relationship; they are joined on level that may be inexplicable to any normal couple. There are indeed, some positive feelings that make up their attraction, for example, the constant themes of the “child” and “death”. The “child” seems to be the engine by which the couple expresses their needs and desires. The “death” of the child signifies a milestone in their marriage that they were able to overcome. I also found interesting the relationship between Martha and her father. She reviles George for not impressing her father nor, but at the same time, she does reveal how much she loves and respect George. All in all, I just believe that the play is very well written an portray a picture of two people in a relationship built on the grounds of unresolved emotional baggage and anger.

Martha is affraid...

This play has made a deep impression on me. At first of course I was shocked by Martha's behavior (and George’s too sometimes), for it was soooo ridiculous. Martha is so brutal and careless of consequences her words hold, it’s almost funny, and at the same time annoying. She acts obnoxiously because she is very unhappy, and I think that she hates men. She even tells Nick “you are all flops!" after she sleeps with him. Her hopes and expectations did not realize in her life, and she blames it on her husband. But although I thought her character was terrible, I still felt sorry for her at the end when she was talking about her "son". I could not help but break down crying seeing how much she wanted and loved that illusion; a symbol of their marriage that George had to destroy because he had enough and she cheated on him. From the very begging I pretty much knew that the son was not real (from the point when they argue about his eye color), so it was not such a shock for me at the end when the truth was out in the open.But as I said I was still very emotional because of a sense of a compassion I had. I almost think that although Martha acts like she hates George, deep inside she is afraid to loose their marriage. Thats why she is so upset when he tells her that the boy is dead.  I am very intrigued by this play and now can not wait to find out more about it and about Albee tomorrow in class.

The fun and games of Virginia Woolf

I'm fortunate to have read this play before so reading it a second time helped me understand events a lot more. I love this play because of the deviousness of George and Martha. They obviously have a failed marriage so they take out their problems on innocent people. The night of the faculty party the victims happened to be the new biology professor, Nick, and his wife, Honey. Both of the couples are obvious foils of each other. I think how Albee wanted the audience to see the play was how two direct foils clash with each other. Both have dark secrets in their closet, but everyone does. Starting with Nick and George, Nick is the more successful version. Nick is athletic, good looking, promising in biology, and well put together. George is a failure, old, unhappy, and dealing with Martha. Martha is a full figured, loud, old, privileged, seductive, and an alcoholic. Honey is mousey, small, weak stomached, and less intelligent or witty. They both play on each other since they both clash. The result is the purging of dark secrets. The two most important ones I think are the fabrication of the George and Martha's son and then the truth about George and Martha's marriage. Both reveal alot about how those couples act. It's slightly depressing the whole thing, but Albee was clever and inventive with the entire play. I liked how the play was separated into games and how they got worse and worse with time. Overall, it was an intelligent and interesting play that was a complete page-turner.

Marxist Madness

Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children is a shameless social criticism of the Capitalist system of economics and the tragic repercussions of war. German-born Brecht seemed to have felt alienated from both sides of the ominous Second World War that had begun brewing during the time period that this play was so hastily written. On the one hand, Brecht was clearly writing in response to the growing threat of the Nazis and of Italian fascism, attempting to warn the world of the bleak future that it was walking itself into. And yet, one could never accuse Brecht of being on the side of the Americans, as Mother Courage, with its decisive attacks on the Capitalist’s way of life, so clearly demonstrates. The titular character, Mother Courage, the driving force of the play, is symbolic of the greed that Brecht believes is at the heart of all Capitalism. Her three children represent the better human qualities (chivalry, honesty, and charity), while their tragic fates are metaphors for the negative effects of greed on the human heart, which in Brecht’s mind are inevitable in a Capitalist world. The chaplain is possibly my favorite character, as he is used by Brecht to demonstrate the hypocrisy of organized religion and wars fought in the name of “God”. Brecht’s style of theater is distinctive in its quick scene shifts, its thematic employment of small-scale musical numbers, and its rather one-dimensional characters, most of which are not so much good nor bad, but the literal personification of whatever it is that Brecht wants that specific character to represent.

The horrors of a war

In this play Brecht is strongly criticizes an idea of a war, and fascist ideology. He is talking about how everyone feeds off the war, so people like Mother Courage, Yvette and Chaplain use the war in trying to make a profit. To me it was a little depressing to read about all that, although I know its true. The war also turns human being into beasts. She predicted her children to die from their “good” qualities, but that does not destroy her will to continue on in that environment. Mother courage refuses to pay 200 galleons for Swiss and he dies. She cant bare a thought to lose money. And after all of her children are dead, she continues on with her “business”. To me its not courage, its madness, and  a complete loss of the sense of what is really important. It is a masterpiece. It shows how a war desensitizes people and makes them into animals that want to make a buck.    

Die Unglaubliche Mutter Courage!

The Incredible Mother Courage!

Mother Courage is a beyond incredible play. This is one of my favorites by far. I truly love how Bertolt Brecht captures the war in his play. This play gives such an amazing view of war and what it was like to live in the time of the war. “Mother Courage” may seem like a character without feelings and completely obsessed with earning money but I see that there is more to her than that. Brecht originally wrote the part for his own wife so I feel that he identifies with it more than it seems. His wife may be an actress but I feel that he wrote the part with many more motherly aspects because he probably had inspiration from his own wife’s motherly abilities. Yes, “Mother Courage” should have just gotten away from the war and saved her and her children’s lives but she didn’t therefore, she had to display courage in the way that she had to accept her children’s deaths quicker than most and move on with life. To some this may seem insensitive but it is really a courageous quality because she was hiding her pain and in the event of such tragedies it is probably one of the hardest things to ever do. I personally believe that Brecht created “Mother Courage” to be a courageous character and not the opposite.

Mother Courage

War is a topic that can be relevant in any society at any time. Just like many of the other plays we have read this play probably brought much controversy to the audience members but, a good play should spark some type of emotion. If this play was directed today a common link that would bind the audience to this play can be the topic of recession and survival. There are families that are killing themselves because they feel as if they cannot survive in this economy. The music in this play reminded me of a Greek chorus that is found in Greek plays. Also, because the play is epic theatre it eliminates all of the fluff and gets straight to the point. No elaborate scenes, props, lighting or costumes. This play in production would most likely rely solely on the acting. I believe that Brecht is more interested in getting the themes of the play across than with making it a magical piece of breathtaking art.

Brecht, Mother Courage

The author Brecht, who wrote Mother Courage is amazing! The whole time I was reading I was so infatuated by the text, that I had no problem concentrating. I felt that throughout this play, the true horrors of war were really shown and had great exhibitions of the reality of this time period. It was very heart felt to me, when this mother ends up loosing all her children.  Not only is she poor, slowly starving, yet one by one her children are ripped away from her, and brutally murdered. She looses a potential love affaire, a real chance at life, and all three of her children to the war. This story is not so shocking to me, I feel as though this whole play really reflects how disgusting and harmful violence is. In the end of this play, whole villages were burnt to ashes, people everywhere were starving…. Mother Courage even talks about how her daughter has a head full of lice, that is really how dirty this situation is. Not only did I feel that it reflected the hygienic situation well, this play spoke of the luting soldiers did, the raping of women, and even the battering of women. I thought that this is one of the few plays I was able to read, all the way through without being bored. I was constantly left wanting to know more, wanting to know if she would ever see one of her boys again, even though I knew in the back of my head they were done for. Such heroic characters, always sacrificing for someone else, the ultimate selflessness. This play is real, it reflects a real time period, and it is so well written, I loved it! 

Interesting

Mother Courage was a good play and an interesting one at that. I have always found stories set in war time fascinating. I enjoyed how Brecht showed what happened to a poor trades(wo)man and her children during a war instead of focusing on just the soldiers. In the beginning when Mother Courage was predicting everyone's death I was skeptical. I figured Eilif's was true, and there would be a way for Swiss Cheese to die, but I did not see Kattrin's coming at all. I also liked how in the beginning the song that Mother Courage was singing had the same refrain as the song the soldiers in the end were singing.

I did not like Cook. I think if the Chaplain had stayed then Mother Courage may have had a better life because the Chaplain cared for her well-being and Kattrin's while Cook didn't care for Kattrin at all and may not have liked Mother Courage that much to begin with.

Also, Mother Courage's name doesn't fit her, I think. I know she explained it, but throughout the play she seemed to do things out of necessity than courage. She also had a brutal philosophy on life in general. I think Kattrin deserves the name Courage more than her mother does. She was determined to warn the town of the soldiers arrival, and even when threatened, she kept playing until she they killed. That seemed me courageous to me.

I'm jumping about the play, I know, but I have another thing to point out. Did anyone else notice that the cooks song pointed out the virtues of the children? Courage = Eilif, Honesty = Swiss Cheese, and Charity = Kattrin. In the song, the men with the virtues died as well. Is this suppose to be another point of Brecht's? it's also foreshadowing of Kattrin's. But who belongs to the other virtues, wisdom and love of God? Is Mother Courage is wisdom and the chaplain love of God, then this means that everyone dies in the end. Perhaps I'm just making this up. Does anyone have an opinion on that?

Virtue=death

This play is startling to me because virtue becomes the downfall for players of war. Indeed, such idea permeates throughout the play, affecting the choices of several characters (e.g. Courage and Kattrin refusing to recognize Swiss Cheese’s corpse). Additionally, each of Courage’s children represents a virtue that plays a part in their deaths, virtues described (and foretold) by Courage. For example, bravery is attributed to Eilif who rushes off to war as a soldier for the Protestants; honesty is given to Swiss Cheese who is later captured by Catholics when attempting to return the pay box to the General. Finally, Kattrin exhibits kindness, banging the drums to warn the town, which leads to her death by gunfire. Another interesting observation is that each death relates back to Courage’s business—her children die because of her dealings, because of war. Overall, I actually enjoyed the play and its message against war. In addition, reading background information on when it was made, I found the idea springing from the rise of Nazism truly interesting, and that the play was set during the thirty years’ war. The character Courage is also another wonderful part of the story. She is one of the more complex characters that we have seen and I can’t wait to see the representation of her in production. Kattrin also is a favorite of mine and her final act, while resulting in her death, seems the most noble out of all the characters. Truly, I enjoyed this play, and I can see why some people consider it the greatest play of the 20th century.

Is it really courage or just necessity?

"Necessity knows no law, huh?" is a quote said by Eilif, Mother Courage’s oldest son. This quote summarizes the entire play. Mother Courage is bound by being a peasant living off of war. Peace is not a happy thought to any of the people who thrive off of the war. All anyone cares about the entire play is the state of the it and hoping it doesn’t end. It’s sad to see Courage’s children die one by one, but it’s good to see they die honorable and loyal deaths. Not once did the kids betray the cause they worked for, except for Kattrin. But even Kattrin was looking out for their mother as she did for them, by trying to leave her mother with the cook who could’ve possibly given her a better life. I wish the chaplain didn’t leave and that Mother Courage chose him instead, even if he wasn’t a smart businessman. He obviously cared for her and the cook was just looking for food and something to do. I think the importance of Kattrin’s silence was major because the biggest act that had the most impact throughout the entire play was her beating the drums to save the town. By her initiating the war/town fight she saved a lot of people even if it meant violence. The entire play centered around the fact that you have to do some things that aren’t usually honorable or looked well upon because of certain circumstances. Courage had to drive a cart around to sell clothes during the war because that’s how she fed her family. She had to let some kids go and move on but it was unavoidable. All the characters acted in that way. Eilif had to perform some unlawful things, but because it was the war, it was an heroic action. Swiss Cheese had to lie and protect his mother in hopes she gets the money box, but he ended up dying for her. Same goes with Kattrin because Courage survived...barely though. Overall, it was a sad play. Endless suffering for Mother Courage.

One Play in Search of a Plot

Although it took some for me to come to this conclusion, I have decided Luigi Pirandello’s Six Characters… absolutely genius in its message, possibly more so than any other play we have read this semester, and yet tragically flawed in its ability to maintain a meaningful series of coherent events. Lacking in the concise details of Ibsen’s realism or Bertrand’s extravagance, Pirandello uses his stage directions to meld the audience into the play, meanwhile employing the action and dialogue to disturb the distinction between characters and the actors playing them. The Father’s repeated self-absorbed, philosophical rants are a constant reminder of the absurd brilliance of the play itself, while the Stepdaughter’s vivacious and vain attitude seems to demonstrate Pirandello’s self-assured confidence, despite the multiple jabs at himself (a humbling humor that did not fail to amuse me). The “real” people, not unlike the Characters, had easily recognizable flaws, although they lack the extravagance and are certainly more real in that aspect. The Director’s character might have been developed a bit more, but his believability was slightly refreshing amidst the constantly colorful cast of Characters. Admittedly, I spent the majority of the play questioning the plot and why anything was (or more accurately wasn’t) happening, and even the ending, while tragic, was neither surprising nor riveting. I believe that Pirandello might have truly recognized the flaws in his own work, and that is why he chose to force the audience into the play itself, as to keep the people focused in on what might otherwise seem like a nebulous and chaotic joke instead of the truly unique and superb composition and contemplation of life and the psyche that Six Characters… is.

Unexpected.

Well the play was a bit different than I had imagined. These characters had some very dramatic lives. I did not have a specific view of what the characters might be or how the play would turn out I just did not expect it to be the way it was. The widowed woman with her four children and her other husband whom had or almost had sex with her eldest daughter (I did not quite catch if it did happen or only almost happened... so confused). It was definitely an interesting read. The characters were correct, I'm sure people would like to see a play about their lives. Lastly it ends tragically and who doesn't like a good tragedy? But one thing that irks me is that the play is almost non-climactic because it ends so abruptly after the deaths of the two children. I guess its a personal view but I would have liked for them to have finished their play. I believe a play about their lives alone would have been an interesting one but I do love Pirandello's creative way of putting it. If he would have just made the 6 characters play than it would have been just like any old play and his play inside of a play made it all the more different.

How Odd

Six Characters in Search of an Author is, well, odd. The title told you what it was about from the get go, but we also learn a little about the family itself. The step-daughter and father are very dramatic characters and really take the stage. The step-daughter seemed almost like a small version of Hedda Gabler but that might just be me. The father annoyed me with his philosophizing, though. At first, it was amusing, but then it just seemed like he was rambling even if he was trying to get a point across. I feel bad for the poor manager for some reason. He is trying to keep his actors in line while trying to appease the characters and have their play happen. He really appears at his wit's end. The ending was the strangest though. After the child drowns and the boy kills himself, instead of worrying whether or not the children are really dead, he just laments over his loss of a rehearsal day. The fact that the play ended on such an odd note leaves me in a state of "um, what?". I may need to read this play a few more times to fully understand it. Until then, I did not hate this play, but it is certainly not in my top ten

Six Characters

And I thought that my family was crazy! This family brings crazy to another level. I am pretty certain that this play caused an uproar in the audience when it was first produced. If an author/playwright can think it then to some extent it has had to happen already. In the beginning of the semester we spoke in class about how some themes were shunned in the theatre. I believe that if a production causes some type of buzz then it's job has been done. Just because people were not speaking on topics of incest does'nt mean that it did'nt happen. People thought that such problems should be kept private but, how can we come up with a solution or shed light to the situation if it is left in the dark?

Those Six Characters Are Kinda Peculiar

I'd say that the play was definitley unconvention however it left me with a strange feeling. I was very unsure of how I felt about the six characters or the nature f the play in general. I love the fact that the character found a since of immortality on the stage though they had their own lives, they still lived for theatrics an at times it was hard to separate theur theatrics from their actual life. Most of the plot seems to be a series of juicy revelation and vital expostions. One could explain the plot as an ongoing round of "he said...she said." It became quite annoying after the first act. The characters themeselves take over and overwhelmed me as the reader. The characters are all very distince, however they are joined under the direction of the manager. In the end, when the boy commits suicide and the child drowns, I was astonished by the reaction of the manager. He is unsure if the events that took place are real of if they are not. However he is more concerned because he has lost a day of rehearsal.

6 People, NO LIVES

In the play Six characters in search of an author, by Luigi Pirandello is a very odd play. I felt that as i was reading it, I had trouble concentrating and keeping on task. Its not that it was the worst play I have ever read, but I felt there was no real story to it. Just as the title describes it, six people looking for an author. I felt that once they had found their author, it was a diction of how to conduct and manage a play. "On the stage you can have a character becoming too prominent and overshadowing all the others. The thing is to pack them all into a neat little framework and then act what is actable. I am aware of the fact that everyone has his own interior life which he wants very much to put forward. But the difficulty lies in this fact: to set out just so much as is necessary for the stage, taking the other characters into consideration...." I felt that I was not reading a play, but reading the performance of the staging of a play. I overall really did not appreciate this play, I found it long and extremely boring. I feel that since the play was an actual play in the making, that one could not even get the whole story of what happened, other than a few sob lines here and there. I felt that the only two characters that even grabbed my attention was the step daughter and the Father. They were so dramatic and eccentric about what was said, how it was acted, and especially how they were perceived through another person. I feel that I would have to read this play several times before I would even be able to grasp its point, I did not really enjoy it. 

Maybe we are all characters in search of our author

I find this play very very complex. I feel like I could read it a million more times and never get one concrete meaning from it. This play opened thousands of doors for my imagination to wander into. I liked how in the beginning, the director talks about how Pirandello's play just make fools out of people, as if they're not themselves in a Pirandello play. This play is SO MUCH different than any play I've ever read. I've never heard of a play within a play. I found it interesting how when the director tells the actors to take a 20 minute break it also serves as the intermission for the audience. I imagine seeing this live would make you feel as though you're a part of everything occuring; so real. Yet, the concept of the 6 characters adds a fictional dimension. What interested me the most, I'd have to say, is the idea that maybe we are all characters in someone's play. What if the world we know: our paths of our lives and the events which occur, were the ideas of an author? What if each person, each family and their unique scenarios, belong to a specific author. And maybe, perhaps, if we were to dream up a person and their life, somewhere in the world that person existed; our creation. Maybe every person in the world is a character in some authors play, but not every life is interesting enough to receive a production. This play certainly leaves you with many questions and personally, makes me very curious. 6 Characters in Search of an Author has opened up many new thoughts and ideas for me.

This certainly was a strange read. The play was a quick read; however, I was left with a cold feeling towards it. I didn't hate, but I didn't like it. More so, I found the play more like a lesson in playwriting or a playwright's view towards drama and character. This notion goes well when the Director/Manager ponders that "nobody understands anything [about the play] and where the author plays the fool with us all?" The characters were fairly interesting, specifically the stepdaughter. Indeed, her passionate speeches created the drama before my eyes and let my imagination wonder. I truly want to see these speeches performed in production to see if such passion is captured. In addition, I held sympathy for the son because of his seclusion and isolation from the drama. However, his isolation made me want more from him, which makes me ponder more on the final scene. Was he the cause for the children's deaths? Overall, very interesting and quick play. Enjoyed it, and it left me with questions.

Time.

I actually really enjoyed reading Waiting for Godot. It was a very easy read and it was very comical as well. My favorite character was Estragon because he seemed to be the most sarcastic of the characters, and also, ironically, the most impatient. One thing that confused me about this play was that the characters seemingly had no sense/knowledge or time or reality. What I mean is, they didn't know if the had been waiting for Godot the day before or a few days before, whether the boy had came to them with a message from Godot the night before or not, etc. It became somewhat hard to tell if they were dreaming all of this up or not. Well, now that I think about it, maybe it was supposed to be confusing to the reader in order to feel the confusion the characters may feel. Perhaps they had been waiting for Godot for so long, repeating the same cycle for so long, that they have lost all sense of time. Speaking of time, which Pozzo seems to be obsessed with, I find it funny that Pozzo didn't "decide to" go blind until AFTER he lost his watch. All of the suffering the characters experience are pretty much self-imposed; Estragon with his "too small" boots, Lucky's "stupidity", Pozzo's blindness, etc. Pozzo's watch is like Estragon's boots, a simple, everyday thing that it seems he simply can not function without. When he does lose it and is forced to live without it, he is thus forced to deal with time in the biological sense (his beating heart, which is measuring out the remainder of his life) rather than the material sense (his watch, which he had control of, just as he has control over Lucky), and I don't think he could deal with his own mortality. I was only left with only a few real questions at the end of the play: where is Godot? It seems as though Vladimir and Estragon didn't really know how he looked, so did he even physically exist or have human characteristics? Or is he representative of "Father Time" (technically, always present, but in somewhat of an uninvolved way)? You can spend your whole life waiting on time to pass, calculating/measuring time, etc., but as my family says, "time waits for no one."

I'd rather wait in traffic. Or on a sinking ship. Or for grass to grow.

I absolutely despise Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, although I admit the title is so perfectly fitting to such a dull and disastrous travesty of a play. Having read this play multiple times now in the past year, I still cannot understand who would actually want to sit through this production in a live theater. The characters are absolutely ridiculous, the circular dialogue is mind-numbing, and just when you think it cannot be any worse and it must all be coming to a not-a-moment-too-soon close, the second act starts. Although the philosophical questions are obvious, the play still manages to lack any sort of meaning or even a coherent expression of opinion regarding anything. Pozzo and Lucky are cryptically unappealing, while Vladimir and Estragon are decisively exhausting. I do think I will just drop the next class that even mentions this title on the syllabus.

Samuel Beckett's, "Waiting for Godot," is one of the few accurate reflections of the human condition. The play that most call the play in which "nothing happens" actually expresses that life is only a long period of waiting. Beckett in a way displays that all humans are born to die eventually. Some waste away the time distracting them selves from the fact that death will inevitably come but others such as Estragon and Vladimir are merely passing the time and waiting for the long dull life they lead to end abruptly. Character's Estragon and Vladimir demonstrate Beckett's idea that all humans are trying their hardest to entertain themselves in every way to only pass the time that will in the end pass by no matter what. We know death will come naturally but not always when. Beckett expresses struggles with the agony of the wait for either something to happen that distracts us from our inescapable death or for that death to come. If our only reason for living is dying then what is the point of existing? Beckett also indicates that we all strive to obtain the proof and feeling of existence because we are unsure of all existence because there is no proof that after we die we are anything but a cold corpse. Beckett's writing is full of substance that express and explain his beliefs and feelings about the human condition.

Waiting... :(

Reading Waiting for Godot was unlike any reading experience I've ever had. During many points in the text, I was confused, overwhelmed, and generally bored. I found the characters, Estragon and Vladimir esecially peculiar in the first act with the nature of their conversation. At many instances in the text, the character's recited the same lines back to each other over and over; this repetitiont was often confusing. I found it difficult to take the events of the play literally; I kept searching for a deeper meaining or symbolism. I found it interesting that they discussed in detail the difference and uncertanties surronding the Bible's illustraion of Christ's crucifixtion. The characters dwar Biblical parallels and seem to associate Godot with a mystical higher power. However, though the connection between the character are intriguing, the play is absolutely exacerbating to the reader and I DID NOT enjoy reading it.

Waiting-ZzzZzz...

Personally I have never enjoyed Godot. This is my second attempt at reading it, and I am still just as brain-dead and confused by the end of it as ever. It is not an enjoyable read. I don't understand the point of writing a play about nothing. Lucky's monologue is painful to read. Throughout the play there are many different symbols, that can be interpreted in many different ways. It was not my thing. Overall it was my least favorite play to read, and if I never read it again I will not be sad.

Waiting for Godot blog

The only thing that caught my attention in this play was the stage directions. Beckett was very specific about crossing stage left, stage right and center stage. Blocking is usually in a script but I have never read it to the extent of " Martha runs from stage left to center stage". It has been my understanding that the director usually directs that type of blocking. I did not enjoy reading the script . It seemed pretty pointless. I understand that the character Godot may be a reference to God but there was no true plot or motivation in the script. It did not capture my attention at all. Usually if I am not interested in the content of a script I can find design or technical elements that can give it life to make it more interesting but, those aspects was pretty basic as well.

Waiting Fo - eva

While reading the play Waiting for Godot, I found it pleasant to read, yet I also thought it to be a little deceiving and complex. One can see that there are two acts, but within these two acts, so much happens! I was drawn to the character, Estragon, because he was the most funny and impatient out of the characters. He seemed to play with words, and this really causing the audience to think. One of the more significant characteristics in the play was the use of repetition and references to biblical things. The main characters always repeat sentences, this being very curious! They also do repeat the same actions time and time over, with the messenger and with Pozzo and Lucky. I also found it particular that the author used so many references to the bible, gospel, and even comparing some of the characters with biblical ones. Furthermore, even though they always say they are going to leave, at the end of every play there they are again, same spot where they began! Its as if they are sitting there waiting on something to happen to them, instead of getting up and doing something about it! 

Confused

I had a difficult time reading this play. I found it very confusing and sometimes pointless. While I did like listening to Estragon and Vladimir go back and forth during some conversations, I did not completely follow them at times. Pozzo and Lucky were an interesting duo though. Pozzo was horrible to Lucky, and Lucky just took all of the abuse, and his reasons why were not totally clear. I actually do not like Pozzo at all and felt bad for Lucky. Near the end of Act 1, Estragon and Vladimir talk about hanging themselves again, and they keep mentioning the rope. Was that suppose to allude to Lucky in some way? When Pozzo went blind in Act 2, I was happy because it meant that Pozzo had to rely on Lucky for something for once even if he is still unappreciative. The ending of the second act was basically the same as the first act's which means that Estragon and Vladimir are stuck in this repetitive cycle of waiting for godot for as long as they live. Either way, I'm still confused as to why this play is successful as it is. The language was confusing, and the message was not completely clear to me. Perhaps the discussion in class will clear things up for me. Until then, I'm lost.

Oh Lucky

Waiting for Godot is truly a difficult read; however, it is a rather fulfilling one. I loved Estragon and Vladimir's complex relationship. Additionally, their interactions with each other fascinated me, revealing different facets of their feelings (love, hate, interchangeable, reliant). However, the character that captured my attention was Lucky. Indeed, Lucky’s place in context of the play perplexes me. All the other characters are in search of things to occupy time, while Lucky has no such pastime. Pozzo tells him what to do, and he does it, which implies his servitude occupies his time. In addition, Beckett (in the Preface) stressed, Lucky is “lucky” because he has no expectations. I also find it truly telling that he has only two lines, and one is said because of an order. All in all, I found Waiting for Godot a complete and satisfying read.

Waiting...and waiting...and waiting...for Godot

I really disliked reading this play. I found it very confusing and kind of hard to read. I also had a very hard time understanding Vladimir and Estragon's love-hate relationship. One second they we're being abnormally lovey dovey and the next second they're yelling at each other and being rude to one another. When Pozzo and Lucky came into the picture I was even more so confused. Was Lucky Pozzo's slave? What was going on with Pozzo and Lucky's relationship? We're they actually pleasant with one another at one point? If so, what caused Pozzo to treat Lucky the way he does? I, at first, thought that Lucky was a dog until I saw the pictures that were integrated into the text. I don't understand this very strange society these characters reside in. I originally thought that this play would be realistic, but after reading it, it seems to be more of a very strange, fictional world. The reason for their extensive waiting for Godot was not clear to me either. Supposedly, their meeting with Godot would affect their futures? What REALLY confused me was the second act. Was the first act merely Vladimirs dream or was the second act in fact the dream? How is it that no one remembers the events of the previous day except Vladimir? Were the events of the first and second act actually a day apart or much more than that? This entire play was very bizarre to me; I just don't even know what to make of it. Waiting for Godot completely screwed with my mind. I did not enjoy reading this play.