Thoughtful Laughter in Beckets Waiting for Godot free essay sample

Samuel Beckett’s use of humor can be seen throughout his repertoire of work, ranging from the exaggeratedly tragic lives of the two characters in Rough for Theater I to the mechanical prodding that is required to rouse the characters in Act Without Words II. The humor in Beckett’s work is given dimension by the fact that it addresses morbid themes such as death, poverty, suffering, and the crushing despair and apathy that comes with the realization of the meaninglessness of lifethe cornerstone of existentialism. Thus, the reader is amused by the works because, through humor, Beckett lightens the tenebrous view of life that is existentialism. Such a response to this sort of humor can be considered â€Å"thoughtful laughter† because while the reader considers the material to be funny, he is also made to ruminate over the broader and often darker implications of the work. Beckett’s humor can be seen most prominently in Waiting for Godot, and a character in whom this humor is most strongly manifested is Pozzo’s faithful subordinate, Lucky. We will write a custom essay sample on Thoughtful Laughter in Beckets Waiting for Godot or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Lucky’s character and what he deal with represents the struggle that many face in their daily lives regarding their relationships with others. Lucky’s relationship with Pozzo is clearly one of submission and resignation, and through this relationship Beckett brings up the question of how and why we, as humans, allow ourselves to be controlled by others. Beckett’s use of humor in this situation is seen initially in his introduction of Lucky; when he enters the stage he is described as being â€Å"[driven] by means of a rope passed around his neck† by Pozzo. The absurdity in Beckett’s humor comes into play here in that Beckett makes what we often consider to be a figurative concept of being controlled by someone else literal. The idea that one person is capable of controlling another is made funny because the image is so ludicrous. The rope around Lucky’s neck and the fact that he is being forced to carry Pozzo’s belongings serves as a symbol of the socially constructed power structure—Pozzo is clearly in control in this situation and Lucky is being forced to comply with and do the bidding of his master. What also makes this humorous is the absurdity of the circumstance; Lucky is allowing himself to be literally led by a rope by someone who is supposedly superior to him, and does nothing to protest. This communicates how people have created a society in which they control one another by ranking, be it racial, socio-economic, age/gender-related, or anything else. It also brings to the reader’s attention the fact that, while it is clear that this situation is unfair and inconsistent with what many consider to be basic ethics, little is done to improve Lucky’s condition. Conversely, the reaction that Lucky’s situation provokes from Vladimir and Estragon contributes to Beckett’s commentary on this in that while both acknowledge that Pozzo’s treatment of Lucky is immoral and unjust (Vladimir refers to it as a â€Å"scandal† and Estragon as â€Å"a disgrace†), neither takes real initiative to help him. The â€Å"thoughtful laughter† that this elicits from the reader is so because the characters make themselves appear so appalled at the situation but don’t seem to actually care enough to help Lucky. Rather, they seem to be expressing disgust in order to prove to those around them that they are morally upstanding. An example of this can be noted in the stage direction where it is written that Estragon is â€Å"not to be outdone† by Vladimir’s supposed horror before he gives his own commentary on the way Lucky is treated. Lucky not only serves Pozzo as a sort of slave, but also serves Estragon and Vladimir in that he is an instrument for their self-aggrandizement—to them he is an object on whose situation they may comment and make themselves appear more caring and philanthropic than they actually are. In addition to serving as a symbol of the oppressed masses and a jumping-off point for heightening one’s own image, Lucky’s response to the way he is treated provokes thoughtful laughter in that he, too, does little to help his own cause. Beckett illustrates this in a scene in act I where Lucky kicks Estragon in the shins when Estragon, after encouragement from Pozzo, attempts to actually help Lucky. Initially, this part of the play can be considered funny because of the physical comedy. When one looks closer, however, it becomes apparent that this action has much stronger implications; Lucky’s character is beaten-down, oppressed by his supposed superiors, and overworked, yet when others make an attempt at helping him he refuses to accept such charity and instead makes a point of injuring his attendant. While laughable because Estragon’s injury is unexpected and entirely uncalled-for, this action is crucial to illuminating the dysfunctional nature of interpersonal relationships in which one person reaches out to another who is suffering. Not only has Lucky refused assistance in an alleged time of need, but has also managed to injure someone else in the process. This interaction between Lucky and Estragon is illustrative of Beckett’s approach to describing human interactions in that while Estragon thinks he is improving Lucky’s situation, he only ends up making it worse for himself. Thus, they have gotten nowhere and failed to move forward by bettering their circumstances. While this is a dreary point for Beckett to make, he orchestrates it beautifully through the medium of physical comedy and a sense for the absurd and exaggerated, presenting to the reader the ability to laugh at the situation while acknowledging its dismal symbolism. The character of Lucky can be mirrored by the first character presented in Act Without Words II, another work by Beckett. Contrasted against another character who is presented as gung-ho and constantly working toward bettering his own situation, this first character is displayed as apathetic, self-pitying, and needing much encouragement(being prodded multiple times) to perform basic human functions such as getting up and putting his clothes on. Lucky is similar to this character in that he, too, must be Waiting for Godot is profoundly bleak in that it presents existence as a stagnant chasm of nothingness and that every action performed by man is devoid of meaning and only done to â€Å"pass the time,† a phrase used multiple times throughout the work. What the play does, however, is communicate this message through the use of humor. Were it not for Samuel Beckett’s inventive weaving of jest into the intricate tapestry of existentialist commentary that is Waiting for Godot, the work would be emotionally draining and fail to accomplish what many existentialists yearn to achieve—the desire to live fully despite the meaninglessness of existence. The nonsensical delivery of Waiting for Godot is vital to the play’s ability to evoke in the reader an understanding of the hopelessness of the human predicament because with this humor the work blooms with vivacity and results in the reader simultaneously enjoying himself and better understanding Beckett’s criticisms.