As an absurdist philosophical exploration on the meaning of life (or lack of), it entertains in the dark perspective that life itself is a comedy, with or without a punch line, when one spends it waiting for something else than life itself. “Waiting for Godot” is very much an acquired taste. Reading the book has to be less satisfying that seeing the play, but this shortcoming is mitigated by the fact that it is generally performed with a minimalist décor. ( )

Innovative in its time; interesting, yet not enjoyable. ( )

The story revolves around two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, who have been told they must wait for Godot, though they aren't sure who he is or what he looks like. They miss many opportunities because they turn them down in anticipation that they might miss Godot. This play has the advantage of simple one line dialog that makes it a good choice for the middle school LMC, but also invites deeper interpretations which makes is suitable for the high school LMC as well. This is a very nice combination of attributes because the work can be used by classes with a wide range of abilities each understanding and interpreting the work at their own level. ( )

WAITING FOR GODOT: I picked up Waiting for Godot with no knowledge of it other than having heard that it was a play in which not a whole lot happened.

Literary types have concocted political, Freudian, Jungian, existentialist, biblical and homoerotic (and many other) interpretations of the play. I am not interested in any particular interpretation, for this reason: the play is extremely boring. By the middle of the second act, every last aspect of the play is tiresome. It's billed as "a tragicomedy in two acts." That's great, except it's not funny at all.

This play's influence on Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is obvious, except that that play held the interest a little better and actually offered some philosophical insight on life.

Waiting for Godot goes into the category of works that people (pretentious literary snobs and pretentious literary posers) say are so deep and meaningful because they don't have the slightest idea of what it means. I'll be a man and say it's not deep and it's not interesting.

NOT RECOMMENDED

WAITING FOR GODOT: I picked up Waiting for Godot with no knowledge of it other than having heard that it was a play in which not a whole lot happened.

Literary types have concocted political, Freudian, Jungian, existentialist, biblical and homoerotic (and many other) interpretations of the play. I am not interested in any particular interpretation, for this reason: the play is extremely boring. By the middle of the second act, every last aspect of the play is tiresome. It's billed as "a tragicomedy in two acts." That's great, except it's not funny at all.

This play's influence on Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is obvious, except that that play held the interest a little better and actually offered some philosophical insight on life.

Waiting for Godot goes into the category of works that people (pretentious literary snobs and pretentious literary posers) say are so deep and meaningful because they don't have the slightest idea of what it means. I'll be a man and say it's not deep and it's not interesting.

NOT RECOMMENDED