Some might read "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett and be confused and puzzled, or mostly, left with the reaction of eyes narrowed and foreheads furrowed at the contemplation of the strange absurd play with no visible meaning. However, the play, defined as a tragicomedy, to me fulfilled its literary classification. Samuel Beckett surely revealed the tragic fate of our two not-so-heroes, and maybe symbolically illustrated the tragic existence of humanity. As I looked around the room at my peers deep in reading, chuckling at some witty wordplay, it struck me that the play was so tragic, it was humorous. I know, that is weird, tragedy, funny? But hear me out. "Waiting for Godot" is a comedy to me, because it connects with the ambiguity that is the world. The play moves in a circular plot, from Act I to Act II, it always starts with dialogue between Vladimir and Estragon, goes to the introduction of Pozzo and Lucky, and then the boy. Always waiting however. And reoccurring talk of waiting. Unlike other plays, which move in a linear path, "Waiting for Godot" moves circularly, or not even. The plot makes it seem like a giant plate of spaghetti syntax. The world doesn't move in a straight line, as much as people would like to argue. People make the path to a goal, in the end, however as life progresses, the path of the goal also changes. Some may stop and sniff the flowers, wander off the path to explore life even further, stop and rest, the world may set a linear path but life decides on the spontaneous path of the journey. That's why its funny, the play is a manifestation of one's quest for purpose, and the tragic delays, even if it is our own shackles, that hinder us.
Vladimir and Estragon, their repetitive behavior, one part tragic and one part comedy, is set in a setting that is only described as a country road, a rock, and a tree. The characters that are introduced have no idea for their meaning and only know to wait for a mysterious figure known as Godot. Even Pozzo and Lucky question or are causes for questions of existence. The play always goes back to waiting for a purpose and for something to happen. But that's just it. When you are waiting for something, just like how I am waiting for something smart to post on my blog, nothing happens. Yes, I might be thinking of what to type, but in that time that I wait, my blog remains unfilled with my analytic word play. Nothing happens in the plot, because all they do is wait.
Referring to my big question, how does the media shape our view of the world and ourselves, when referring to "Waiting for Godot" I can say that the absence of an external source at the beginning contributes to no views of purpose at all. Media is good when found in a happy medium like everything else. Too much and you have no ideas of your own, none at all, and there is nothing to mold your thoughts. Vladimir shows the effect of outside sources towards the end though. When the boy comes back, Vladimir questions the validity of Godot. The media, in the form of Boy, helps him to form new thoughts. Estragon does not count as he seems to be a part of Vladimir, like co-dependent creatures. "Waiting for Godot" helps answer my big question, by helping to illustrate that sometimes media is needed, or else we are left waiting for something new. Like how i'm waiting for a good conclusion.