The White Tiger - Aravind Adiga

The White Tiger

       - Aravind Adiga

                   

Introduction:

The White Tiger is the debut novel by Indian author Aravind Adiga. It is won the Man Booker Prize in the year 2008. This novel is about the dark reality of India. This story told by the central character Balram Halwai who move from rags to riches.

 The India represented in the novel The White Tiger:

Literature is the reflection of the society. It reflects the matters which are happen behind the curtain. It shows the undercurrent movements. Moreover literature not only shows the x-ray image of disease body but it provides the remedy also. Literature is fracturing the things which are already rotten in a way.

The White Tiger is the x-ray image of diseased body. The diseased body of India is presented here by Aravind Adiga. Only the skeleton remains there and the body eaten up by insect like politician and so on. In this novel India presented in two ways:

An India of light, and one of darkness

The darkness of India is capture the life of village people or in a ways it is about the darkness of village while an India of light capture the life of city people. In the darkness there is no choice but in the light there is choice to be good rather bad but the important thing is that the journey of India goes faster darkness to the light and Balram Halwai is one of them who moving towards darkness to the light.

The facts and figures shown by Adiga at the very beginning that-

“And our nation, though it has no drinking water, electricity, sewage system, public transportation, sense of hygiene, discipline, courtesy, or punctuality, does have entrepreneurs.”

Second is Indian system of time management. He makes satire on the mentality of Indian people that they are not punctual in time through showing the exact time by Balram.

“That was at 11:37 P.M. Five minutes ago.

I don’t just swear and curse. I’m a man of action and change.”

The representation of religion in India:

Third is that why India is the country of darkness? It is because first of all darkness is responsible because of the religion. Village people are superstitious in these matters. Balram satirizes on the religion first. Also he makes fun on the God and Goddesses of India. One of the reasons of regression of India is religion. The day of Indian people start with remembering Gods and Goddesses and end with that ceremony but the thing is that what new and gorgeous happen in the life of people after remembering God and Goddesses.

“It is an ancient and venerated custom of people in my country to start a story by praying to a Higher Power.

I guess, Your Excellency, that I too should start off by kissing some god’s arse.

Which god’s arse, though? There are so many choices.

See, the Muslims have one god.

The Christians have three gods.

And we Hindus have 36,000,000 gods.

Making a grand total of 36,000,004 divine arses for me to choose from.

How quickly do you think you could kiss 36,000,004 arses?”

Not capitalizing the word god it shows to not give respect moreover satirizes on that. Further the reference of the God Hanuman- the Indian God came. No doubt that the representation of God Hanuman is in satirical way but the fact is that he is serving his master. Every mythical story teach something so if this story taken by people so the hidden agenda or background reading may told the same story as Adiga tries to told us.

“The temple. Inside, you will find an image of a saffron-coloured creature, half man half monkey: this is Hanuman, everyone’s favourite god in the Darkness. Do you know about Hanuman, sir? He was the faithful servant of the god Rama, and we worshiping him in our temples because he is a shining example of how to serve your masters with absolute fidelity, love, and devotion.

These are the kinds of gods they have foisted on us, Mr Jjiabao. Understand, now, how hard it is for a man to win his freedom in India.”

The reference of divine goddesses Ganga in the form of river also presented here in this novel.

“But the river brings darkness to India- the black river.

Which black river am I talking of – which river of Death, whose banks are full of rich, dark, sticky mud whose grip traps everything that is planted in it, suffocating and choking and stunting it?

Why, I am talking of Mother Ganga, daughter of the Vedas, river of illumination, protector of us all, breaker of the chain of birth and rebirth. Everywhere this river flows, that area is the Darkness.”

Representation of social structure:

E. V. Ramakrishnan:

Indian literature is in the context of caste, gender, religion, etc. Moreover “the struggle against hegemonic structures of power defines the nature of lower caste subjectivity”. These are the things also capture in the novel so the idea give by Ramakrishnan very applicable here.

 Indian social structure captures the things like superstitions, (bribe prize) dowry, education system, cast system and what not.

“Halwai…’ he turned to the small dark man. ‘What caste is that, top or bottom?’

And I knew that my future depended on the answer to this question.

I should explain a thing or two about caste. Even Indians get confused about this word, especially educated Indians in the cities.

To sum up- in the old days there were one thousand castes and destinies in India. These days, there are just two castes: Men with Big Bellies, and Men with Small Bellies.

And only two destinies: eat –or get eaten up.”

About the education of India especially in the government, it is in ill position. It is on Pg no. 13 that how the education system works. It is all about that how Balram got entry with new name and exit with new name but afterward he understands that his real education done at the tea shop. It is not the only the education of Balram but it is the story of children like Balram who left out because of their weak condition. It is the real picture of India and the growing generation.

“If the Indian village is a paradise, then the school is a paradise within a paradise.”

Representation of political system in India:

In the political system of India it is covers police system socialist movements, election or voting system, corruption and what not.

It is start with the first sentence –O, democracy!

“These are the three main diseases of this country, sir: typhoid, cholera, and election fever.

Do you want good roads, clean water, good hospitals? Then vote out the great socialist!

This is India, not America. There’s always a way out here. I told you, we have someone here who works for us – Ramanathan. He’s a good fixer.”

The great socialist very good in speech in when time came for doing something they are disappearing. This is the reality of India. And the matter about the corruption is everywhere. Then how one can think about doing the work with full of honesty because the roots are now become weak or distasteful.

Indians invented everything:

“We Indians invented everything from the internet to hard-boiled egges to spaceship before the British stole it all from us.”

It is true that Indian has or we have the mentality to telling the like in this way. One way it is showing the superiority from other but when the time came for showing reality nothing happens accept pupating ourselves.

Indians are honest because of Rooster Coop- Perpetual servitude. Or in a way they are very fear to do such work. Moreover they are fear to catch by “Karma”. But stolen is stole than if it is big or small what makes it effect.

Homi K. Bhabha’s idea of “Nation and Narration” also applicable in this novel. Nation is the modern Janus-looking forward and backward. Adiga shows both the side of India here in this Novel.

Balram's story is the archetype of all stories of 'rags to riches':

Yes, Balram’s story is the archetype of all stories of ‘rags to riches’ because it is all about the dream or in the words of Balram how big can you think? He also gives the example of Rooster Coop- perpetual servitude. He believes that if someone wants to be rich there wasn’t any hard work for them.

The Rooster Coop and God Hanuman these are the things that he doesn’t like whereas he wants to be like Buddha, imagine himself as a Krishna and desire to ride the Honda city car and chandeliers make him more affection towards to become the rich.

“An Indian revolution?

Every man must make his own Benaras.

I was looking for the key for years

But the door was always open.”

This all line indicates that if one wants to be something they must not wait for someone else but do as how they want. Or in a way it is for those who doing something great they are always path founder instead of path follower.

And the last one which support him to be like rich and think like rich is society itself and his masters are also felt him to be rich and killed someone there is no problem.

To conclude this point – there is one statement given by Rousseau’s belief that “man was essentially good and was corrupted by the influence of society.”

"Language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique, deconstructive criticism aims to show that any text inevitably undermines its own claims to have a determinate meaning, and licences the reader to produce his own meanings out of it by an activity of semantic 'freeplay' (Derrida, 1978, in Lodge, 1988, p. 108). Is it possible to do deconstructive reading of The White Tiger.

It is the story of Balram or it is the story of murderer. The story can be told or narrated by the murderer or criminal also, this idea is given by Agatha Christie. This narration narrated by one murderer who is central character of this novel. The White Tiger can be deconstructive on the basis of how Balram narrate the story.

“He’s half-baked. The country is full of people like him.

He was right, sir-I didn’t like the way he had spoken about me, but he was right.

‘The Autobiography of a Half-Baked Indian.’ That’s what I ought to call my life’s story.”

So, in a way how one can rely on his narration if he himself called him half baked Indian? How one can believe in his narration which is based on half reality or truth? At the very beginning the story told by those who win the battle and here Balram also winner. Authentic history is that which was told by victories people. The one who is in position, his or her story is only right. Here Balram narrate his own story. He is at the center. So but obvious one should doubt on his narration because ultimately he got the position and become the entrepreneur. So, it can be considered as a “META-NARRATIVE”.

Conclusion:

No doubt that this novel is also satisfied the ego of capital country like America as M. Q. Khan noted but this is the fact of India. How India is represented in this novel is very real picture of India.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818)

This novel is in form of epistolary. It is frame narrative. Victor told his story to Walton and Walton to his sister, Savill.

Frankenstein, this novel is about the –

“Exaggeration always destroying

Exaggeration towards tragic facts.”

  This novel is based on this theme of exaggeration. The exaggeration of Victor (central character) leads him towards the tragic facts of him. Exaggeration of Victor is to become most knowledgeable person in the world. Moreover he tries to prove his knowledge so he creates MONSTER.

  After creating a monster he regrets himself. He isn’t happy to accept his own creation. But here monster wants love, sympathy, protection, affection, and so on. The creature goes on to say:

“I required kindness and sympathy; but I did not believe myself utterly unworthy of it.”

  Victor creates monster but he not ready to accept him so he left out monster. Monster is in search of companion so he creates a lady monster. Monster is very good by heart. It is just like - “A beautiful soul in ugly body.” It is just name that he got from his creator. Otherwise the quality of monster lies in Victor because he wasn’t able to accept what he creates.

  Here Shelley not gave chance to any women. Women are voiceless. They are mute. Through this Shelley satirizes on her patriarchal era. Moreover she creates his male characters like monster. She portrayed ugly face of male characters. Shelley’s imagination of the three characters it is just like image and it is also Shelley’s mind in shape of person.

  Ultimately Frankenstein and Walton both sin, not against the self or the God, but against the moral and social order because Frankenstein create monster breaking the social orders. Moreover he not accept him it is now the sin. It is the wish of Frankenstein and Walton to be more knowledgeable in the world. Both of them are in search of secret of life. But Frankenstein said that –

  “You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did’, and hopes that Walton’s temptation “may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been”.  

  Victor take time to search the secret of life but monster got it through the observation of human beings. “For monster the secret of life is the home and company itself”. This essential part of life Victor and Walton understand very late. The knowledge about the life is how to live life in company or community itself.

  Another thing is that this novel also carried out the myth of Narcissism. Narcissism it is feeling of over ambition and dominance. Walton was first person who have highly narcissism. Second is Victor Frankenstein because both of them are in search of life and also wants to be better their life or to be more knowledgeable in the world. Instead of this if we seemed this novel from the distance level writer also wants to be proving her in the so called “PATRIARCHAL World”. So it is also in one way the reflection of narcissism.

Conclusion:

  At the end it is all about the protagonist Frankenstein but it is not clear that who is protagonist. Whether the title is for father (Victor Frankenstein) who create Monster or it is for Monster Frankenstein who teach new way of living life to Victor. So novel is open for interpretation.

Literary Criticism and Philosophy - F. R. Leavis

Literary Criticism and Philosophy

           - F. R. Leavis

The essay literary criticism and philosophy was first published in scrutiny in the year 1937 and it was written in response to the suggestion of Wellek that Leavis should write about the theoretical basis of his criticism.

According to Wellek “Allow me to sketch your ideal of poetry, your norm with which you major every poet: your poetry must be in serious relation to actuality, in must have a firm grass on the actual, on the object, it must be in relation to life, it must not be cut off from direct vulgar, it should be normal human, testified to spiritual health and sanity, it should not be personal dreams and fantasies, there should be no emotion for its own sake in it… but a sharp, concrete realization, a sensuous particularity. The language of your poetry must not be cut of from speech, should not flatter the singing voice, and should not be merely mellifluous… I would ask you to defend your position more abstractly.”

In his reply, Leavis expresses his views on the discipline of literary criticism, and pleads that by making precise discriminations, he has advanced his theory Leavis says that literature criticism is “A distinct quite different from philosophy and its speculations”.

The reading demanded by poetry is of a different kind from that demanded by philosophy. The critic is the ideal leader of leader of poetry. The critic is concerned with evaluation, but judgment is not a question of applying and external “norm”.

The critics aim should be to realize as completely and sensitively as possible the experience that is given in the words. According to him “the business of the literary critic is to attain a peculiar completeness of response”. A critic should first observe the poetry and gave some times for the commentary.

Leavis defend his practice by pointing out that his critical assumption are implicit in his work “if I avoided such generalities, it was because they seemed too clumsy to be of any use. I thought I had provided something better”. He feels that the best way of presenting theoretical principles is to show then at work in practical criticism.

He believes in working in terms of “concrete judgments and particular analyses”. Leavis thinks of criticism as a cooperative affords, in terms of discussing the text with fellow critics. His method, to catch him is- “This doesn’t it? Bears such a relation to that; this kind of thing- don’t you find it so-whereas better then that etc”.

To reduce his principle to abstract statements would be to take away their precision and make them “clumsy and in adequate”. Leavis wrote that he believes in demonstrating his critical principle, not in staiting them: I do not argue in general terms that there should be no emotion for its own sake, no mere generous emotionality, no luxury in pain and joy, but by choice arrangement and analysis of concrete examples by giving those praises a precision meaning they couldn’t have got in any other way, this is how I try to advance the theory”.

Conclusion:

Yet we can say that in his own way Leavis tries to offer a theory and the assumptions which guide his judgments of poets and novelist are the nearest to a frame work even if they cannot be abstracted into a philosophical theory.

The Nature of Criticism - Herbert Read

The Nature of Criticism

           -Herbert Read

The Nature of Criticism is an essay which talks about the inclusion of scientific elements for emotional appreciation.

There are many weapons which are used in order to criticize a work of art. It was perhaps only Coleridge who tried to give literary criticism a scientific approach by relating it to the technical process of philosophy. To evaluate literature scientifically the hard work from every corner is necessary. Any science covers a large variety of every field and it evaluates literature from that point of view in order to analyze literature aesthetically you have to consider all their implication which are social or ethical in nature. So there is need of differentiating one literature from another one.

The discipline of Psychology it is only concerned with the process of mental activity where as literary criticism takes into consideration the product. According to psychologist art is only an expression of mentality and he does not take into consideration the literary values. Whereas psycho analysis involves the reeducations of the symbols to its proper origin. In art there are many symbols and according to Alfred Alder is ‘the attraction of a work of art arises from its synthesis. These were the general limitations of psychological criticism. Moreover the relation of psycho analysis with literary criticism, it is more concern with literature than criticism.

On this basis there are three questions such as:

What general function does psychoanalysis give to literature?

How does psychoanalysis explain the process of poetic creation or inspiration?

According to Herbert Read there are three people who answers psycho-analysis is the best way they are first, Freud, Juang, and Adler. In the matter of general function of literature Juang is only one of all the three to write about in this detail as he talks about the general principle of contrasted attitude. The contrasting attitudes are none as introversion and extraversion.

Any contrasted attitude is an outcome of a specific activity which unites and separates them. This activity is according to Juang phantasy. This situation is none as antitheses as a result any work of art requires phantasy for optimum imagination. Coming to the second aspects, the social validity of a particular symbol is very important. Symbol in literature is more intelligent than the normal symbol or the normal unconscious symbol of psychology. Any creative mind is capable of psycho analysis and in any mind there are two contrary tendencies in one of them it is being conscious and in the second being imagination perhaps subconsciously.

Part- 2

The main problem of the literary criticism is the question between Romanticism and Classicism and also the complexity between Classicism and Romanticism gives birth to inspiration which he sometimes not at all conscious in nature. Moreover the idea is the activity of inspiration which is explain by modern psychologist which are combine together satisfactorily to give the poetic inspiration but it does not have any format to understand the emotional state. Any inspiration is an outcome of an effective procedure first there is thought which gets converted into an idea, it getting converted to a mental image which turns into physicality which will latter on be selected or rejected.

 The conception of inspiration is beautifully illustrated by PLATO who says that a poet creates a poetry not by art but by inspiration and possession. Through this Read wants to suggest that poetry, painting, and sculpture cannot be merely developed by skills, it also requires lot of inspiration which is very spiritual in nature. It is also believe that inspiration has not been religious at all. It has become an aesthetic turn. The Classical and the Romantic writer were totally different in their attitude but Romantic writer always had to be subjective and which required psycho-analysis to be done.

 Freud in his study said that the phantasis turn in imagination and that turns into creation which is of optimum aesthetic value and subliming in nature. The artist has the capacity to turn phantacy into positive pleasure which is extremely independent in nature. On the basis of this Freud explained the individual in three levels: ID, EGO, and SUPER EGO.

In order to become an artist or to study an artist on has to do that through psycho analysis because you may have to understand the neurotic tendency of the artist. Psycho analysis finds in art a system of symbols which represent a hidden reality and by analyzing them you can understand and testify the genuiness symbol.

Part- 3

It talks about the question that does psycho analysis modify in any way our conception of the critic function?

It is used to find out the difficult answers of questions.

For example- “Hamlet”- The case of Hamlet who hesitate in taking the revenge of his father’s murder.

According to Coleridge Hamlet was a very kind hearted person and as a result he was not capable of taking any decision. Robertson says that the play Hamlet cannot be understood from within but there are no outside materials which can give a concrete answers to give but according to Dr. Jones a psychological explanation can give this answer. Through the understand of complex none as Oedipus complex with the use of hypothesis. He can in away give answer to the reasons of his father murdered. One can apply this theory to literary criticism and discover the strange and unfamiliar tracts of the human mind. In this way psycho analysis tries to resolve to the conflict and allows us to come to a common stand point.

According to Juang there are two fundamental types- the extroverted and the introverted. One is visible and another is imaginary. Therefore the psychologies should take up the position and he must try to expand the horizons of criticism.

Understanding is an outcome of the experience which can be both individual and collective but according to Juang the mind builds up primordial images which eventually turn into some kind of myths or religions through which they find expression in literature.

Conclusion:

Therefore we can say that psycho analysis has to look into myths for actual understanding the poetic imagination and it can only we done by building a hypothesis. The mind of the psycho-analysis has to unite everything in order to criticize any particular work and to solve the problem. 

The Function of Criticism - T. S. Eliot

The Function of Criticism

     T. S. Elioth

                                  

  This essay is an outcome of the controversy that was created in the year 1919. It is actually an answer to Murray’s essay on Eliot’s essay of “Romanticism and Tradition”. This essay is reply to the essay written by Murray.

 In this essay Eliot showcases the close relationship between the present and past in the world literature. One cannot say that which of them is superior. Both of them are dependent and yet independent. According to Eliot criticism is the analysis of the works of literary nature, criticism always has to be about something and its goal is to give proper explanation of all the literary text. Sometimes critics differ from each other because they have their personal biases. According to Eliot all critics should cooperate in order to critics a particular text. The aim and the method of the criticism of the work it should be according to the nature of the work.

  The Second part of this essay talks about Murray’s views on Classicism and Romanticism according to Murray a classical writer cannot be a romantic writer and a romantic writer cannot be the classical writer. But Eliot not believes in this statement that English people are only romantic and French are classical.

  Moreover, he discusses the problems in criticism and goes against the views of Matthew Arnold who differentiated between critical writing and creative writing. Both of them are equally important and critic in order to a criticize other and sometime they are capable to criticize their own work also.

Afterward Eliot differentiated two rates of artists:

 First rate of artists are those who sacrifice and also surrender themselves in order to get meaning of the text.

Whereas the second rate artist does not believe in this and works in a completely opposite direction.

  In the third part Eliot completely goes against the views of Murray as it is all about the discovery some common principles in order to achieve the perfection in art. The perfect artists are those who kept both the past and the present with them and go on writing. The artist who believe in inner voice only are not aware about the tradition, the wisdoms and the experiences of the past which can be extremely advantageous.

  The forth part of this essay is about there is no difference between a critical writer and creative writer, they are almost same. Moreover the highest level of the criticism done by those who criticize their own work. Eliot also talks about the facts and figure of ideal critics:

$   To be an ideal critic, one has to develop an extraordinary sense of facts about the work of art, the conditions, the setting and the mannerisms.

$   Any critic has to be good in comparison and analysis about the theme, the plot and the technical aspects like the structure and the content all of them should be taken together in order to interpret.

$   Facts are not always beneficial because they can sometimes mislead. Fact should be in close connection to what you are writing upon.

$   A good critic has to be extremely objective in nature and should have a scientific attitude by following all the above mention points.

Conclusion:

  In short, Eliot strongly believes in the concept of individuality and originality but he does not neglect the importance of tradition. He respects those critics who criticize the works with the idea of “PASTNESS OF THE PAST” in their mind.

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time by Matthew Arnold

The Function of Criticism at the Present Time

     Matthew Arnold


                            

This essay by Arnold was published in "Essays in Criticism" in the year 1865. The major point of concern in this essay was the prevailing attitude that creative and constructive capasity is more important than the critical capasity.

Arnold here tries to elaborate on the definition of criticism bt saying that-

"It is the endeavour in all branchies of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science to see the object as an in it self is realy is."

For creating sometimes, it requires to have the necessary mind set to understand it.

Accroding to Arnold, criticism is all about generating ideas during a specific time and at a specific place. 

According to him any literature can only be generated in the climate of great ideas and in this way.

"Criticism prepares the way for creation."

He further argued that emotional experience in writing criticism and creative work is almost similar. He against the opinion of people who under mind criticism.

Moreover he makes a comparison between Goethe and Byron. According to his both of them had equal creative and productive power. But Goethe had more strong critical view of cultural background. So, he is considered as and rated highly as a better writer than Byron. So, if any poet must have the background knowledge of society then be creative. Criticism not effect with external forces. It is free from all the barriers. It give way to the flow of ideas. Criticism done with full of honestly and it should be done without looking for any ends.

He also believe that criticism as well as important in education because through criticism, understanding of certain aspects with regard to the political, social, and literary understanding is enhanced.

Moreover, he talks about the importance of creativity is more than the importance of criticism. Moving further Arnold talks about the relationship between creative and critical power and focuses on why any literary creation is not possible without criticism?

Answer to this question is that criticism flurished the intellectual ideas. The ideas which are shaped by creativity. So both are interdependence.

Preface to Shakespeare - Samuel Johnson

Preface to Shakespeare
       Samuel Johnson
   

                                                       
                             


Introduction:

In this essay Samuel Johnson wishes to justify the relevence of Shakespeare even after so many years. In this essay Samuel Johnson talks about the prose and cons of Shakespear's plays. First he talks about the prose of Shakespeare's plays.

It is like-

He does have any heroes he only has characters would enact in the same manner as the character in the place on the Shakespeare. Sometimes he also represent the thinks which are not possible in subtle manner and through those situation he represent the real life issues and perhaps though it the human nature.

Due to this reason Shakespeare's dramas are considered to be the mirror of human life. Shakespeare's characters are basically common instead of that while he talks about historical play. He was one of the rare writer or perhaps only writer who wrote both tragedy and comedy with the same kind of expertise. He united the powers of exciting, laughter and sorrow, not only in one mind, but in one composition.

Earlier there were three basic style of drama comedies, histories and tragedies but none of them had the exact or definite ideas. Tragedy was not during that time more elevated that comedy. Both the genres were treated equally. He wrote in three genre with equal expertise. Shakespeare way of writing is very smothness and clearity. His characters are completely natural who only react to the situation and the circumstances.

Next step is about the cons of Shakespeare's plays. Shakepeare sacrifies virtue to convenience and sometimes without any moral purpose. The plots are often loosely form, sometimes he cannot comprehend his own design and always seems to go for the easier option.

The latter part of the plays is evidently neglect to get the profit out of it imperfection is evident at the end. He had no record to the distinction of time and place. Comic scenes sometimes engages and all the characters almost appeare the same. In tragedy also, the performance seems constantly to be worse.

Narration is naturally tedious. There is scenes of disproportionate pomp it sometimes obstracts the progerss of the action. His set speeches are commonly cold and weak. In a way it is escapist writing. His writing always had quibble.

Conclusion:

In short, Shakespeare's plays have both charactaeristics prose and cons. But the fact is that Shakespeare is one of the greatest writer in the world. 

Waiting for Godot - Samuel Beckett

Waiting for Godot

     Samuel Beckett

Introduction:

      Samuel Beckett as a modernist writer wrote this play waiting for Godot which has not specific beginning and ending. Ideally there is no beginning, no end, something in between. Only the hope. The play starts at the same place and end at the same place. In a way it has no change with big change. This play is big satire on human existence.

Character List:

Vladimir

Estragon

Pozzo

Lucky

Boy

Godot

Brief information about Characters:

1. Vladimir:

    Remain in the play very important character. Moreover he seems to be the more responsible and mature character.

2. Estragon:

     Estragon remains as a second important character with short memory. He seems weak and helpless and always wants to protection by Vladimir.

3. Pozzo:

    Pozzo coming to provides a diversion. He becomes helpful in passing the time of Vladimir and Estragon. In the second act he is blind and does not remember meeting Vladimir and Estragon the night before.

4. Lucky:

    Lucky is servant of Pozzo. In act 1, he entertains by dancing and thinking. However, in act 2, he is dumb.

5. Boy:

    Represent as a messenger of Godot.

6. Godot:

     It is remaining abstract, which is Vladimir and Estragon wait unendingly.

   Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot. The wait never end perhaps they wait for the end of life. Waiting for death in between we try to do something for the sake of passing the time. Vladimir and Estragon doing the same thing. They are trying to pass the time with various activities like:

A)  Passing hat to each other

B)   Playing game of breathing.

   Moreover Estragon playing with shoe while Vladimir playing with hat. It is indicates the habit of characters such as Estragon with the shoe represent as a hungry beast while Vladimir represent as a thinker.

     The play goes particular to general. The four characters represent as a particular in the lay but they symbolized as a whole human beings. However he satirizes on the work that the characters are doing. Or in a way he satirizes the work doing by the whole human beings. They are doing the same what Vladimir and Estragon are doing.

     It’s not make any difference though Vladimir thinks a lot or Estragon interested in hunger. The fates of both characters are similar.

     Through this Beckett satire on philosopher also who thinks a lot. He raised question like-

What does it matter if we knowing the things?

     But the knowledge becomes difficult for Vladimir. He always in tension because of this he also tries to Estragon must be in tension. So he frequently remaindered to Estragon that why are they there. They are waiting for Godot. It is very basic human nature.

This play remains open for interpretation about anything.

For example-

What is Godot?

Who is Godot?

Is he Godot himself?

Is it an abstract idea only? Or

Is it a symbol of death?

   So, everything remains as abstract ideas. The ambiguity lies in the play “Waiting for Godot”.

Existentialism:

      Existentialism crisis are found in the play. Profound questions of human existence raised by Beckett in the play. Characters are playing the game BREATHING. Breathing itself is an example of existentialism. Why are we taking breath? Is it our habit of doing that?

                                    Life + Anxiety = Truth

    The truth is the ultimate reality of life-Death. In between the birth and death there is only anxiety. So, Estragon tries to suicide. Existentialist considered this idea of suicide as a good idea. But human like to live this pathetic life. They are habituated. They are happy in doing that, just like Camus- “Myth of Sisyphus”.

Conclusion:

     “Waiting for Godot” is a serio-comic play. It’s includes so many things surrounded by human beings such as- existential crisis, Marxist ideology, psychology, Christian idea, socio-political matters, the effect of world war second and so on. The basic questions like-

Who is Godot? What is Godot? Whether Godot came or not? What are the questions that writer should ask?

At the end play end with hope.