Just pointless

How can this be considered a good book when it's just filled with gibberish? It has no theme, no plot, and only absurd dialogue! How can you stand by this and retain it a masterpiece!

Other urls found in this thread:

mediafire.com/file/314oldx3q4wc23d/Essay_2.docx
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>It has no theme, no plot, and only absurd dialogue!
They were waiting for Godot.

>calls a play a book

Please be trolling

Godot is a mere concept... we don't know if he exists in fact

a play, not a book, that is not worth sitting through at all

Then why would they be waiting for him?

Because the characters have nothing better to do. They just make up stuff to entertain themselves and pass the time quicker.

I think its a play that has to be watched actually. Especially if you're not Irish you wont grasp the rapport and implications of a lot of the speech if you don't hear it in action

In a paper I have due I am supposed to show that the play is at least slightly entertaining since for the first time ever there is no plot, no theme and only absurd dialogue but there is no way of going about it...

I guess that you must be there in person to really experience the stage direction but if you are just reading it you don't get the gist out of it

The dialogue isn't absurd. Its aphoristic, esoteric and sometimes straight up comedic. You clearly just haven't understood it.
Beckett is an existentialist writer not a Dadaist

Actually I just watched the filmed version, the Channel 4 one is very good

>The dialogue isn't absurd. Its aphoristic, esoteric and sometimes straight up comedic. You clearly just haven't understood it.
>Beckett is an existentialist writer not a Dadaist
Well, that is what I have to discuss in my paper. I don't agree with the prompt either. I believe that there is indeed a theme and a sort of plot that just isn't fully developed by the end of the play.

They exist because they believe he exists, whatever he is.

We all are waiting for Godot, and filled our lives with nonsense in between, even if Godot may never come.

The play in itself can be entertaining, yet, I can't understand how it can be good with the lack of plot, theme and coherent dialogue.

its satire stupid. they were waiting for god but he dont show up

What are you talking about, they were waiting for some dude called Godot not God, its in the title

So once again we encounter baseless optimism, where stupidity surrounds us as a way of filling the time. They are doomed to wait for something that might never come, rending their life meaningless or not until the truth comes out. Right?

no you moran. who the fuck names their kid godot? fucking idiot

What type of Irish mother calls her son Estrogon, I don't know it must have been a weird town

Anyway, how should I go about my paper? How can I make an essay defending the statement that there is no theme??? Any ideas?

What type of Micky Mouse school are you in that you have to defend an objectively wrong statement
Best I can say is try go with the attempt to not have a theme paradoxically becomes a theme

>What type of Micky Mouse school are you in that you have to defend an objectively wrong statement
>Best I can say is try go with the attempt to not have a theme paradoxically becomes a theme
Yeah, the theme would be that there is no theme in the play I guess...

How can I freaking write a paragraph proving there is no theme. If there is no theme, then I have nothing to discuss for that paragraph

I suppose you discuss about the lack of an actual where there could have been one, and that yet, the author decided not to include.

The "lack of a theme" is a theme unto itself. Like an anti-hero or metaphysics. The play sort of forces you to examine the notion of what it means to have a theme, what it means to have a purpose - what it means to be a play at all.

OP I must commend you for going about this so cleverly. You're playing the idiot just to get anons to respond to you and it's working quite well.

If you haven't actually watched a play (performed competently) then you can't really comment on the play.

Inspector Hound is superior anyway, tbqhwyf.

Holy! You just explained it so well. We are always given a theme but in this play we aren't so the lack puts us in a state of discombobulation. The same goes for plot I suppose

I just did not have time to watch it and I prefer reading so that I can annotate.

But what if God wasn't God, but God was God therefore God is God and then God isn't God but instead is God but then he is called Godot. it is all a state of combustion and rembustion

You really didn't understand the play, didn't you.

I suppose not. Enlighten me!

Just as they wait for a Godot who never comes, so too the audience awaits a "point" that never comes. In this way, the audience becomes Didi and Vlad. Bravo Beckett.

Would Beckett have liked this thread.

>Just as they wait for a Godot who never comes, so too the audience awaits a "point" that never comes. In this way, the audience becomes Didi and Vlad. Bravo Beckett.
This is a side I never thought of. Bravo!

It was written in French though. Irish exceptionalism is truly the worst.

Ulysses is a book about nothing.
You don't get it until you read between the lines.

This, what the hell is that user talking about

It's all meaningless gibberish because it's like, life is meaningless gibberish, man.

I'm talking about the fucking English version obviously which was specifically written with an Irish dialect.
I'm not saying you need to be Irish to understand it, only that hearing dialogue performed obviously reveals connotations and emotions that were not obvious in the text, especially if its in a dialect that is not familiar to you.

Wasn't the play written in spanish so the audience could understand that there is no theme in the end?

We watched this version in high school. It's very good.

Come on guys this is an entry level play. Put it in its historical context and everything will make sense.

and what would it be?

user I get the feeling that if you didn't skip lecture this wouldn't be a problem

It was written in French, but Beckett himself translated it into his native English

You're everything wrong with newfags. Read at least 100 books before posting

>Come on guys this is an entry level play.
You clearly don't understand what entry level is if you're using it this way. Maybe it's seminal and something to read first. But it's not absolutely obvious on first read.
It's time to stop posting.

I got an A on this paper tying in Kierkegaard/Christianity to Waiting For Godot. Maybe have a brain and don't be such a pleb and you can write an easy paper about it.

mediafire.com/file/314oldx3q4wc23d/Essay_2.docx

You really shouldn't take descriptions like that so literally here.

>missing the point this hard

>I got an A on this paper tying in Kierkegaard/Christianity to Waiting For Godot.

This guy knows where its at

How can I miss the point if there isn't any??

There is no point that is the point

pro tip: there are hegelian themes in beckett's writings especially waiting for godot

It's still a book, dumbass, unless you get some unbound sheets of paper or you're reading it on a kindle, which makes you a peasant or a pleb

Trying too hard, mate.

This has to bait. Godot was an absurdist play. Plot is the least important thing.

Just hang your self and masturbate for some inspiration

I shove Kierkegaard down every essay's throat. It just feels right tbqh