The inherent nature of academic analysis of plays or other literature is that the presumption is usually that the piece of work to be analyzed must be full of content and must contain wealth of enlightening ideas. Therefore, the analyzer, if not careful, is likely to be biased towards interpreting the writing in a manner that he thinks fits the requester of the analysis's expectations. In this analysis of the play "waiting for Godot", I will place extensive effort to resisting the temptation of dissecting the play in a manner which I think is expected of me by my audience.
The play's general theme is centered on a conversation between two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who are for some mysterious reason are waiting for a Godot who never appears. During the wait they quarrel, argue, eat carrots and some chicken bones and even contemplate suicide. They sit by the tree which is the only symbol of some order in an alienated world.
In the process of their long wait four more characters are introduced, Pozzo and his slave Lucky, and later two messengers from the supposed Godot who are two boys that apparently look exactly the same.
While it is clear from the onset of the story that the main characters are dealing with an important human struggle of finding the essence of life, the dialogue is a bit confusing, boring and tasteless at first. For me the main motivating factor to continue reading was the fact that the writing style had a strong hidden suggestion that something highly enlightening was to come. This fact was strengthened by the introduction of Pozzo and his slave Lucky; Pozzo's whits and his slave's inability to think without a hat on and without being commanded to think by his master, gave the...