The destructive nature of clip and adult male ‘s inability to exceed it has preoccupied many authors whether they be philosophers, literary creative persons or mathematicians since the Greeks. Supplying different definitions and representations of clip as an hourglass or in presents a ticker, clip remains an obstruction which bewilders adult male. Shakspere in his sonnets, chiefly in the first portion of his sonnets dedicated to The Fair Youth, challenges the annihilating nature of clip through the immortality of his poetry.[ 1 ]This tense relationship is still relentless in modern literature. Human fighting against the domination of clip is portrayed through efforts to beat it whether through poetry or memory. Yet, these sorts of efforts are absurd since they are unpointed and most of the clip doomed to failure. The supporters of The Glass Menagerie and Waiting for Godot exhibit their opposition through memory, and the form of clip becomes perplexing. Adding to its obfuscation is the inordinate repeat that makes monotony persistent. If the Aristotelean integrity of clip is limited to 24 hours, the dramas and chiefly in Waiting for Godot are non bound by clip as this latter is undetermined.[ 2 ]
Collision between Past, Present and Future:
Time is by and large referred to by pulling what is called a ‘timeline ‘ . A timeline is “ a horizontal line that is used to stand for clip, with the past towards the left and the hereafter towards the right ” .[ 3 ]In this horizontal line, yesteryear, present and hereafter are clearly separated. Past is prior to show which is followed by the hereafter. In The Glass Menagerie and Waiting for Godot, clip is no longer represented by a line one time present, past and future collide. In both dramas, the signifier clip takes is non a line but a circle since the three temporal mentions occur at the same time. Past, nowadays and hereafter are no longer distinguishable for the characters combine present with past, past with future and so on.
Using the Past to Defy the Present:
The past takes topographic point in the present through memory. Yet, memory and chiefly the yesteryear are more underlined in The Glass Menagerie than Waiting for Godot. Vladimir and Estragon speak regretfully about their past escapades. Didi recalls the clip when he and Estragon were “ [ H ] and in manus from the top of the Eiffel Tower, among the first ” ( 10 ) . Estragon remembers how Vladimir “ fished [ him ] out ” of the Rhone ( 53 ) .
Amanda makes clip equivocal. In her present, the yesteryear is dominant. Her outfit is antique as “ [ H ] Er chapeau is five or six old ages old, one of those awful cloche chapeaus that were worn in the late mid-twentiess ” and her “ really old bathrobe much excessively big for her little figure ” ( 20 ; 29 ) . She is ever stating her kids about her “ 17 gentlemen companies ” and Blue Mountain so much that Tom foretells her narrative. Amanda seeks her young person in her memories “ by withdrawing into a past refashioned to offer solace ” and to counterbalance the unpleasant nowadays.[ 4 ]Through her outfit, she vanquishes clip as “ [ s ] he wears a girlish frock of yellowed voile with a bluish silk sash [ and ] [ s ] he carries a clump of jonquils [ so much so that ] the fable of her young person is about revived. ” ( 55 ) Due to that, she claims that “ [ T ] onight I ‘m rejuvenated! ” ( 87 ) . Furthermore, the round form of clip is marked by the fact that Amanda uses the past to welcome the hereafter. She says to Jim, “ I ran to the bole an ‘ pulled out this light frock – Terribly old! Historical about! But feels so good ” ( 63 ) . She wears an old frock to recognize the hereafter: the gentleman company. She besides serves lemonade in “ an antique cut-glass Pitcher ” ( 87 ) . Furthermore, they “ have to pass the balance of the eventide in the 19th century, before Mr. Edison made the Mazda lamp! ” as Amanda claims ( 69 ) . Hence, yesteryear, present and future are joined together in the memory universe of The Glass Menagerie. The unsatisfactory present pushes the characters to respond as such. As Bigsby affirms in his “ Entering The Glass Menagerie ” , the characters “ desire to populate with soothing fiction, instead than face barbarous truths ” ( 35 ) . The past maps as a safety from the present that deceives and the hereafter that frightens.
The Madeleine Episode and the Magic of Memory:
But though “ it ‘s excessively late ” , as Vladimir claims, memory is the sole and merely alleviation that makes the unease of waiting lighter even if this does non last plenty ( 10 ) . This alleviation comes from the pleasance that past events have on the characters or what Vladimir calls, in Latin, “ Memoria praeteritorum bonorum ” , intending that retrieving one ‘s yesteryear is pleasant.[ 5 ]This echoes Proust ‘s perceptual experience of clip and memory in the first volume of A La Recherche du temps perdu.[ 6 ]
Through memory, Proust defeats the power of clip since “ clip does non merely transport adult male towards the terminal of his life [ , ] [ I ] T destroys him in every blink of an eye, therefore the sense of human life as a slow and fragmental decease ” ( “ Memory: Redemption or Loss? ” 8 ) . It is through the “ madeleine episode ” that the power of “ self-generated memory ” overcomes clip.[ 7 ]The episode describes how a tea-soaked piece of madeleine evokes several pleasant images of the past altering his province from being “ weary after a dull twenty-four hours with the chance of a cheerless morrow ” to a surprisingly happy adult male.[ 8 ]The tea turns into a charming “ potion ” . “ Involuntary memory ” does non last long but its strength lies in its triggering of several physical esthesiss such as odor and gustatory sensation and even resuscitating lost 1s such as the storyteller ‘s Aunt Leonie ( Swann ‘s Way 39 ) . Hence, we discover that “ [ T ] he whole of Proust ‘s universe comes out of a teacup ” as Samuel Beckett observes.[ 9 ]
If Proust ‘s storyteller undergoes a charming, beyond-logic event thanks to “ nonvoluntary memory ” , this is non Amanda ‘s and the other characters ‘ instance. Amanda ‘s past memories are non ‘epiphanies ‘ but instead voluntary memories to get away her deceiving world. She expresses delectation in stating her life in Blue Mountain like Pozzo when repenting his “ fantastic sight ” . Vladimir, though he is the 1 who said the Memoria phrase, comments that “ thought of the yearss when [ one ] was happy [ … ] must be unpleasant ” ( 86 ) . Vladimir points to the fact that the crisp contrast between the former province and the present province causes heartache.[ 10 ]Still, Didi and Gogo find safety in past memories though they do non look to be every bit pleasant as Amanda ‘s, for Estragon tried to perpetrate suicide throwing himself into the Rhone ( 53 ) .
Defying Oblivion:
If memory can be both voluntary and nonvoluntary, limbo is most of the clip considered as nonvoluntary since it is the failure to retrieve. But even limbo, the manifestation of mental inabilities, becomes equivocal chiefly in Waiting for Godot.
Estragon is said to be more unmindful and amnesic compared to Vladimir. He even forgets about the most dramatic ‘event ‘ in the drama: waiting. He does non show any involvement in waiting and impulses Vladimir to go forth. Yet, what affairs is non this difference between Estragon ‘s “ hapless memory ” or Vladimir ‘s better one. What matters is the fact that memory becomes temporal and unsure. For although Vladimir has a better memory, he still fears limbo as he urges Estragon stating, “ allow us persist in what we have resolved, before we forget. ” He shows his battle to retrieve seeking to recapitulate what happened, “ [ tungsten ] ait. . . we embraced. . . we were happy. . . happy. . . what do we make now that we ‘re happy. . . travel on waiting. . .waiting. . . allow me believe. . . it ‘s coming. . . travel on waiting. . . now that we ‘re happy. . . allow me see. . . ah! The tree! ” ( 65 ) . Even Pozzo forgets and no 1 is safe from limbo. He admits that his “ memory is faulty ” ( 38 ) . He wonders what he has done with his pipe, his spray, and even his beloved ticker, a present from his “ granpa ” ( 34 ; 40 ; 46 ) . He asks to be forgiven after kicking about Lucky stating, “ Gentlemen, I do n’t cognize what came over me. Forgive me. Forget all I said. ( More and more his old ego. ) I do n’t retrieve precisely what it was. ” ( 34 ) . Oblivion is linked to clip in that it is because clip base on ballss that one forgets. Jim and Vladimir remark the fallibility of adult male ‘s memory and the fast ones it plays on him ( The Glass Menagerie 72 ) ( Waiting for Godot 50 ) .
Forgetting is besides lingual in Waiting for Godot as the characters express a trouble to retrieve words. They look for the reverse of “ saved ” , for illustration ( 12 ) . This recalls Krapp ‘s limbo and his looking up words he used to cognize when he was younger such as “ viduity ” .[ 11 ]A more serious affair is that Gogo forgets the name of the individual who is supposed to ‘save ‘ them, around whom and because of whom everything happens:
ESTRAGON. ( undertone ) . Is that him?
VLADIMIR. Who?
ESTRAGON. ( seeking to retrieve the name ) . Er. . .
VLADIMIR. Godot?
ESTRAGON. Yes. ( 22 )
Estragon forgets non merely Godot ‘s name but besides about “ yesterday ” and merely flashes are left in his memory. He remembers the bone and the boot but neither Pozzo nor Lucky and “ [ a ] ll that remains is a fuzz and a hurting ” ( “ Action and Theatricality in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 21 ) . All that Estragon remembers affects him straight.[ 12 ]The characters in Waiting for Godot attempt to defy limbo and so does Tom in The Glass Menagerie, but his purpose differs.
Oblivion: The Sought Bliss:
Tom ‘s success in get awaying is non considered as such because of the memory of his sister as everything is a reminder of her. Wherever Tom goes, his sister ‘s image haunts him. “ The window [ … ] filled with pieces of colored glass, bantam transparent bottles in delicate colorss, like spots of a tattered rainbow ” reminds him of Laura and he does everything to “ blow [ her ] candles out ” ( 92 ) . He can non bury about Laura. Because of his failure, he changes the universe around him into a memory for his sister ‘s interest. Hence, Laura becomes the creative person ‘s inspiration to make this universe of memory as “ the drama is memory ” ( 14 ) . The drama is a manifestation of Tom acknowledging his guilt towards his household. It is the cogent evidence of his failure to bury but his success to vanquish clip. Like “ Shakespeare ” , his memory of Laura will be unaffected by the power of clip.
Memory and limbo become linked. Though both are subjective, the supporters can non truly command them as they wish. They want to bury what they consider as a painful memory and they want to retrieve what they see as a happy 1. But, each clip they fail. It is because they fail that they seek even harder and in an inordinate manner. Whether it is to retrieve or to bury, the characters are bewildered by clip. Their relationship with it is like that of Pozzo and Lucky: clip is the maestro and the supporters are the slave. They are dependent on clip since it is a landmark that determines whether they improve or non since “ clip will [ ever ] Tell ” . Yet, they do non give up as they attempt to get away their humdrum where no clear differentiation between the yearss of the hebdomad is possible.
The Circular Shape of Time: Repeat:
Repetition makes clip even more equivocal. Repeat is non merely used as a subject but besides a leitmotiv, because the perennial events make both dramas plotless where “ nil happens ” and “ nil [ is ] to be done ” ( 9 ; 11 ; 21 ) . Furthermore, repeat is linked to clip in that it marks its round form. A circle does non hold a start or an terminal as “ [ T ] he round has neither a beginning nor an stoping ” .[ 13 ]Repeat characterises the absurdness of life. Camus trades with this point noting the anguish humdrum has on adult male, “ Rising, tram, four hours in the office or the mill, repast, tram, four hours of work, repast, slumber, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday harmonizing to the same beat ” ( The Myth of Sisyphus 12 ) . Life becomes a mechanism that kills creativeness and pushes the characters to seek difficult to get away it aimlessly. The Wingfields sink into modus operandi and merely Tom seeks to get away through escapade. Repeat is besides manifested through the inordinate usage of the spiritual overtone in Williams ‘ drama. In Waiting for Godot, the inability to separate between “ yesterday ” and “ today ” echoes Camus ‘s word picture of humdrum.
Repeat is chiefly used in poesy to make rime and musicalness. It might be defined as,
An indispensable consolidative component in about all poesy and much prose. It may dwell of sounds, peculiar syllables and words, phrases, stanzas, metrical forms, thoughts, allusions and forms Thus chorus, vowel rhyme, rime, internal rime, initial rhyme and onomatopoeia ( qq.v. ) are frequent in repeat.[ 14 ]
Yet, this definition is different in the dramas since repeat is used as a leitmotiv to emphasize the humdrum of life. It is no longer a technique to make beats but instead this beat is so frequently repeated that it becomes dull, no longer joyful but sad. Jacquart seems to give an equal definition of this sort of repeat,
Comme le retour d’un theme musical, le leitmotif consiste [ aˆ¦ ] a reiterer de loin en loin une phrase-clef chargee d’echos en flash-back et en flash-forward. [ aˆ¦ ] [ L ] a repetition proprement dite affecte lupus erythematosus dynamisme du duologue. Elle peut donner l’impression de le ralentir, ou meme de l’interrompre puisque repeter est par definition ne pas progresser. [ aˆ¦ ] [ L ] a repetition n’apporte rien, apparemment cela est juste. En fait, elle renforce [ … ] le contact entre l’acteur et le spectateur, ou mieux, elle rend le message operant. Nous Avons donc intimacy a Ce que Jakobson appelle la fonction conative, qui est centree Sur lupus erythematosus A«A destinateurA A» . ( Le Theatre de Derision 200-202 )
Therefore, repeat slows the events doing clip awkward and the message behind the drama more obvious. With repeat, that message is clear. The Boy ‘s message brings nil new. The characters ‘ being is nonmeaningful. They live and yet, nil different characterizes the several yearss of their day-to-day life. Estragon ‘ comment describes this load as, “ nil happens, cipher comes, cipher goes, it ‘s atrocious ” ( 41 ) . Sisyphus ‘ status is besides similar since it is characterised by repeat. His penalty is to turn over the stone up to the top of hill of that same stone to turn over back down. Sisyphus repeats the same act infinitely unable to get away it. What makes that sort of repeat and humdrum tragic is the fact that the 1 who lives it is witting of its load. One is stuck in it as in a vortex. Life is dull but still the supporters, like Sisyphus, carry on their undertaking. They are cognizant of the humdrum they live in and some of them struggle to withstand it.
A Christian Monotonous Life:
Repeat in The Glass Menagerie is depicted through the everyday the Wingfield household lives in and through the insistent spiritual discourses Amanda and Tom use otherwise.
The Urgent Need for a Change:
Tom rebellions against his humdrum everyday-life and seeks escapade in films. Adventure is characterised by the ever-changing series of events where each twenty-four hours is different from the other. This is what the universe of the drama needs and what its storyteller longs for in order non to lose his creativeness. But, as Tom comments, “ people go to films alternatively of traveling ” ( 61 ) . They “ unrecorded escapade through films and Hollywood characters [ who ] are supposed to hold all the escapades for everybody in America, while everybody in America sits in a dark room and tickers them have them ” ( 61 ) . It is merely when the war breaks out that escapade “ becomes available to the multitudes ” and non merely to the 1930s-Hollywood star Clark Gable, “ the King of Hollywood ” ( 61 ) .[ 15 ]Furthermore, the films are besides an inspiration for Tom to make his individuality as “ Killer Wingfield ” and “ El Diablo ” . His rebellious and originative character is translated non merely through his readings of D. H. Lawrence but besides through the Mafia character that he describes to Amanda go forthing her “ panting ” from horror ( 29 ; 31 ) .
These two fanciful characters lead a life different from Tom ‘s humdrum every-day being in the warehouse. They deceive through camouflage with “ a spot over one oculus and a false mustache, sometimes [ … ] green beards [ on ] ” ( 31 ) . They belong to the universe of offense and “ the underworld ” ( 31 ) . Each dark is a new escapade since Tom changes his outfit and his name with an ever-changing being, as he claims. Besides, through these fanciful character, Tom shows his repulsive force of his female parent ‘s past-memories utilizing a violent discourse iˆalmost want for her deathiˆ naming her an “ ugly – babbling old – enchantress ” travel [ ing ] through a series of violent, gawky motions ” ( 31 ) .
From the beginning, the tenseness between female parent and boy is manifested through Amanda ‘s insistent critical comments directed to Tom. Tom expresses his disgust from his female parent ‘s predictable memories that turned into a ritual/habit along with her “ rise and radiance ” . This look is sacredly loaded. The struggle between female parent and boy prevarications besides in their different usage of faith, extremely present in their discourse. Actually, the spiritual overtone is insistent in The Glass Menagerie. A miracle as a helpful response from the divinities is doomed to failure in a universe where money and “ concern ” regulation.
“ Christian religion ” as a Form of Repeat:
Christian imagination “ stained by modern philistinism ” is recurrent in The Glass Menagerie as faith is chiefly used for concern involvement, charming fast ones, doing conversation, joking and even for cursing.[ 16 ]This demonstrates the debasement of faith along with other ‘moral values ‘ in the post-Great Depression, the post-World War I, and the pre-World War II universe where faith becomes a discourse alternatively of continuing its ‘true ‘ holy significance.
Amanda ‘s discourse is chiefly spiritual unlike Tom ‘s where “ Christian footings appear merely as maledictions ” ( “ The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Calamity without Violence ” 41 ) . Amanda ‘s usage of spiritual footings may be seen as another safety from the present world that deceives her where faith is absent. However, her use becomes sarcastic as she contributes in its debasement. She describes her clients as “ Christian sufferer ” utilizing this concern linguistic communication to sell her magazine ( 28 ; 42 ) . She makes conversation speaking about her apparels being resurrected and the “ old candelabra that used to be on the communion table at the church of the Heavenly Rest ” which burned down ( 69 ) . She jokes about where Moses was when the visible radiations went off replying that he was in the dark ( 67 ) . She besides draws a spiritual imagination when she spills the lemonade stating that she is baptising herself ( 87 ) . Stein underlines Amanda ‘s inordinate resort to the Christian imagination in the undermentioned mode:
Amanda, who condemns replete and urges Tom to believe in footings of the head and spirit, as “ Christian grownups ” do, is frequently characterised in Christian footings. Her music [ … ] is “ Ave Maria. ” As a miss she could merely cook angel nutrient bar. She urges Laura, “ Possess your psyche in forbearance ” . ( “ The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Calamity without Violence ” 40 )
Tom ‘s usage of faith is even more consciously dry, for either he swears utilizing spiritual footings or is unsighted to any spiritual symbolism. “ He denies the universe of belief and [ … ] calls himself ‘El Diablo ‘ ” ( “ The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Calamity without Violence ” 40 ) . He associates himself with the underworld, offense and arouses to be a Machiavellian and an anti-Christ in his address with his female parent ( 31 ) . Christ ‘s and God ‘s names are merely present every bit abhorrence as in “ [ tungsten ] chapeau in Christ ‘s name ” “ God darn ‘Rise and Shine ‘ ” ( 28 ; 31 ) .[ 17 ]He is impressed by Malvolio the Magician whose name implies “ bad will ” . This magician stands for the bogus modern Christ since, like Christ, he turns H2O into vino and ironically turns the vino into beer and subsequently on into whisky ( “ The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Calamity without Violence ” 41 ) .[ 18 ]The magician waves a scarf over a bowl of gold-fish and “ they fly off Canary Islandss ” and vice-versa ( 34 ) . This associates him one time more to Christ since fish is Christ ‘s symbol:
Jesus is frequently compared with a fisherman, and Christians are represented as fish because they have received disclosure and salvation by H2O at their baptism. The ideograph of the fish ( Grecian iktus ) was the emblem of the early Church, its [ … ] five letters being the initials of the five Grecian words depicting the Saviour Iesus Khristos Theou Uios Soter ( Jesus the Anointed, Son of God, Redeemer ) . When Jesus reappeared to the apostles after the Resurrection, ‘he said unto them. Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a grilled fish, and of an honeycomb ‘ ( Luke 24, xli-xlii ) . Like honey, meaning the revealed Word, fish was the appropriate first nutrient for the resurrected Jesus: it rises from the deepnesss as he had risen once more from the following universe. Fish became one of the symbols of the Eucharistic repast, and characteristics in many iconographies.[ 19 ]
Malvolio, the prestidigitator, presents his emblem as a gold-fish. Once more, faith is stained by modern philistinism since the fish is no longer natural but gold. The 2nd narrative about Christ inquiring for meat and holding fish as his first nutrient after the Resurrection is straight more related to Malvolio ‘s show and him as a modern bogus Christ. Malvolio “ got out of the casket without taking one nail ” . This image refers to Christ ‘s crucifixion and Resurrection though Tom is blind to it and sees its significance “ in personal footings merely ” instead than spiritual 1s ( 34 ) ( “ The Glass Menagerie Revisited: Calamity without Violence ” 41 ) .
Repeat is so present in The Glass Menagerie through the modus operandi that the characters live in and seek to get away with films or memories and the spiritual discourse and images that they use each harmonizing to his/her personality. Repeat is more stressed in Waiting for Godot because the Acts of the Apostless are about the same and the drama could travel on everlastingly to go “ ad infinitum, [ B ] ut the economic system of the two-act construction does its work good plenty ” ( “ Action and Theatricality in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 24 ) . Furthermore, this signifier makes “ nil happens ” – twice, and therefore might be “ nil happens ” three times if the drama had three Acts of the Apostless, and so on.[ 20 ]
“ Time Has Stopped ” :
Repeat non merely changes the form of clip but it besides “ dramatises the ultimate job of waiting ” . This load is stressed in the 2nd act of Waiting for Godot through the rubric and “ verbal modus operandi ” , and evident sameness in the scene and the characters ( “ Action and Theatricality in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 20 ) . The rubric demonstrates the long procedure of waiting and repeat. Harmonizing to Calderwood, the rubric “ suggests the ongoingness of a verbal action, as in ‘We are Waiting for Godot ‘ ” ( “ Ways of Waiting in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 32 ) . It is every bit equivocal as the drama itself since it is neither gerund nor a present participial and therefore its grammatical class can non be defined with certainty. Furthermore, whether the rubric precedes the drama or the opposite, or whether it is conclusive of the drama or it is its start point, it forms a circle with the text ( “ Ways of Waiting in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 34 ) . Hence, it is both the beginning and the terminal of the drama as it begins with waiting and terminals with that same “ non-action ” . The rubric echoes besides the impression of repeat in “ the verbal modus operandi ” and in events gestures and intermissions signified by Vladimir ‘s vocal.[ 21 ]
Didi ‘s Song: A Manifestation of Repeat:
Repetition becomes a subject instead than a technique since everything in the drama represents it. In both Acts of the Apostless, the scene is the same, the characters looking are besides the same, or so it seems, and chiefly “ nil happens ” . In both Acts of the Apostless, there are five characters, Didi, Gogo, Pozzo, Lucky and the Boy, coming, remaining or go forthing the state route where there is a tree during the eventide. They talk, drama games, curse each other, do up, greet each other, philosophize about life and faith, act, ask inquiries, dream, are in hurting and attempt to perpetrate self-destruction but still Godot does non come and therefore “ nil happens ” . Pozzo and Lucky merely appear as “ support ” “ [ to ] go through the clip ” and the Boy, who is supposed to be the courier, has no message but that Godot is non approaching, and all of this alterations nil in the drama ( 77 ; 12 ) . Sometimes the supporters even treat fiddling affairs excessively earnestly and of import 1s trivially or lengthen their conversations interchanging repeatedly the same line like in this episode:
POZZO. And thank you.
VLADIMIR. Thank you.
POZZO. Not at all.
ESTRAGON. Yes yes.
POZZO. No no.
VLADIMIR. Yes yes.
ESTRAGON. No no. Silence. ( 47 )
Furthermore, repeat is marked in Waiting for Godot by the surplus of silences and intermissions and gestures with long phase waies of interchanging chapeaus and have oning boots ( 71-72 ) . Silence and intermission translate minutes of uncertainty, vacillation or “ nil ” to state to make full up the clip of waiting. But it is through these phase waies along with the different games played inspired from Marx Brothers ‘ Duck Soup that void is staged repeatedly.[ 22 ]
The 2nd act is introduced with an endless vocal about a Canis familiaris “ killed by a cook and the reaching of another battalion of Canis familiariss who write upon another gravestone a vocal about a Canis familiaris killed by a cook… and so on ” ( “ Ways of Waiting in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 31 ) . This vocal besides forms a circle since the vocal is eternal with a Petrushka-like[ 23 ]form. The gravestone is an component in the dog-story and is at the same clip the carrier of the narrative. Furthermore, a gravestone preserves the yesteryear in the present. It is the informant of a past-event in the present. Hence, the gravestone is a intersection between the yesteryear and the present, no longer distinguishable.[ 24 ]Yet, even though the narrative told in the gravestone is the same, the Canis familiaris ‘s position alterations from alive to dead. This little alteration echoes the characters ‘ status. Pozzo ‘s sightlessness, Lucky ‘s denseness and the tree blossoming are sudden in a series of perennial events. They are every bit sudden as the Canis familiaris ‘s ‘murder ‘ by the cook. These alterations do non go on bit by bit but in a night-time giving clip an even more equivocal form. Nevertheless, “ yesterday ” and “ today ” remain likewise if non indistinguishable, though Vladimir insists they are different.
When “ Yesterday ” and “ Today ” Are the Lapp:
Merely like the gravestone, where yesteryear and nowadays are the same, the yearss in Waiting for Godot have no differentiation whatsoever. Time stops, as Vladimir comments, because yesterday and today are difficult to state apart since the same events occur and “ nil happens ” ( 36 ; 38 ) . Even the yearss of the hebdomad are barely distinguishable as Pozzo admirations, “ But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it non instead Sunday? ( Pause. ) Or Monday? ( Pause. ) Or Friday? ” ( 15 ) . Nevertheless, Vladimir struggles to turn out the antonym, i.e. that they are populating in universe where each twenty-four hours is different from the other. This fighting turns into an compulsion with clip. Pozzo ‘s first visual aspect denotes his former inordinate preoccupation with clip through his ticker and inordinate checking of the exact hr or twelvemonth while detecting his agenda. But, one time he loses his sight, he seems to be a different character in Act 2: blind and with no impression of clip. Vladimir ‘s compulsion with clip may take to the same consequence. He asks about the clip, admirations “ will dark ne’er come ” twice, harasses Pozzo with “ when ” and is the lone 1 who notices that the ‘same events ‘ are perennial exclamation, “ Off we go once more ” twice ( 33 ; 36 ; 49 ; 91 ) . Didi besides retells the ‘events ‘ of the drama precisely as they ‘happen ‘ following what Roland Barthes calls “ mise en abime ” ,
Tomorrow, when I wake, or believe I do, what shall I say of today? That with Estragon my friend, at this topographic point, until the autumn of dark, I waited for Godot? That Pozzo passed, with his bearer, and that he spoke to us? Probably. But in all that what truth will at that place be? ( Estragon, holding struggled with his boots in vain, is snoozing off once more. Vladimir looks at him. ) He ‘ll cognize nil. He ‘ll state me about the blows he received and I ‘ll give him a carrot. ( 90 )
Even Vladimir doubts the certainty of the events that happened. However, he tries to make a differentiation between the yearss, though none seems to be, by separating between them utilizing “ tomorrow, ” “ yesterday ” and “ today ” and the appropriate verb signifiers and tenses. He looks for any mark of alteration in the universe around him. He notices the blossoming of the tree, Didi ‘s boots and Pozzo and Lucky non being the same merely to hold the feeling that he and Gogo exist and that life goes on and is non inactive ( 66 ; 67 ; 48 ) . He besides comments when Estragon claims that dark does non fall that “ [ I ] T ‘ll fall all of a sudden, like yesterday ” ( 71 ) .
Because of repeat and sameness, Vladimir asks about clip in an inordinate manner that irritates the other characters and chiefly Pozzo. Vladimir annoys Pozzo with “ since when ” or “ when ” inquiring about the exact day of the month since “ yesterday ” both Pozzo and Lucky were neither unsighted nor dense. However, Pozzo ‘s ferocious reaction shows his annoyance since he truly can non reply exactly though he tries to avoid the inquiry or merely replies “ I do n’t cognize ” ( 85 ; 86 ; 89 ) . It is during the episode of Didi ‘s “ when [ s ] ” that a new definition of clip is given:
VLADIMIR. Dumb! Since when?
POZZO. ( all of a sudden furious. ) Have you non done torturing me with your accurst clip! It ‘s detestable! When! When! One twenty-four hours, is that non plenty for you, one twenty-four hours he went dense, one twenty-four hours I went blind, one twenty-four hours we ‘ll travel deaf, one twenty-four hours we were born, one twenty-four hours we shall decease, the same twenty-four hours, the same second, is that non plenty for you? ( Calmer. ) They give birth astride of a grave, the light glows an blink of an eye, so it ‘s dark one time more.
One twenty-four hours is the exclusive reply. He “ woke up one all right twenty-four hours every bit blind as Fortune ” and one twenty-four hours Lucky became dense ( 86 ) . With no specific day of the month does Pozzo reply, for what affairs is non when precisely but the evident alteration that he and his servant underwent. Repeat and routine clang the significance of clip making a new definition. Time is erased because of it, meanwhile, “ there is a awful surplus of clip ” since it exists in a “ dateless drama ” ( “ Ways of Waiting in ‘Waiting for Godot ‘ ” 35 ) . This impression seems difficult to accept by Didi. Yet, clip does non count, harmonizing to Pozzo ‘s definition, what matters is the consequence it has on the topics. Life and decease are non antonyms but two sides of the same coin merely like “ yesterday ” and “ today ” .
Time is marked by clumsiness and uncertainness. It is no longer cosmopolitan or nonsubjective but instead subjective. Its additive form is shattered by the laterality of memory since no clear differentiation between past, present and hereafter is possible any longer. Furthermore, repeat alterations the form of clip. It besides stresses the absurd status in which the supporters of both dramas are entrapped. In The Glass Menagerie, repeat manifests itself through the humdrum life that Tom seeks to get away and that causes the tenseness between him and his female parent. Religion is another perennial subject that emphasizes their dissension. They use it otherwise in their discourse but it is stained in both. Repeat in Waiting for Godot dominates the drama. No differentiation between the yearss is possible though Didi attempts to happen one. Repeat emphasiss besides the fact that the waited for are absent since they are the bringers of a better alteration. Their visual aspect would interrupt the enchantment of everyday and humdrum and therefore the absurdness of a inactive life. Godot and Jim are the Jesuss most waited for, whose reaching, if of all time they come, would do being bearable.
