Premium Essay

Pozzo and Lucky First Meeting

In:

Submitted By americanbubble
Words 592
Pages 3
First Meetings

1) ‘Estragon: [pretending to search] Bozzo… Bozzo…’
- Estragon hasn’t listened to Pozzo’s introduction of himself. Usually when meeting someone you pay attention to information about the other person such as names and where they are from. 2) ‘Pozzo: … Does that name mean nothing to you?’
- Pozzo expects Vladimir and Estragon to already know who he is, which puts him at a higher class. Usually when meeting someone, you make the conversation as equal as possible, noting the other person’s class without mentioning it. 3) ‘Estragon: [Timidly to Pozzo] you’re not Mr Godot, sir?
- Estragon and Vladimir are intimidated by Pozzo. This is shown by the way Estragon adresses Pozzo, calling him ‘Sir’ and asking him timidly. When first meeting someone it is usual to try and make the other person feel comfortable talking to them, not intimidated. 4) ‘Pozzo: [Halting.] You are human begins none the less. [He puts on his glasses.] As far as one can see. [He takes off his glasses]. Of the same species as myself. [He bursts into an enormous laugh.] Of the same species as Pozzo! Made in God’s image!’
- This large chunk of text shows that Pozzo is prolix. This means that the conversation is unbalanced and therefore uncomfortable. It is unusual in a first meeting for one person to hold most of the conversation without offering the other person to talk. 5) ‘Vladimir: Well you see-
Pozzo: [Peremptory] Who is Godot?’
-This interruption shows an intimidating and controlling attitude from Pozzo to Vladimir and Estragon. When first meeting someone, it is polite to allow the other person to speak and in some cases it is relieving as it shows they are interested in keeping the conversation flowing. By interrupting Pozzo intimidates Vladimir into silence and forces authority over them by asking a demanding question without the intention of listening

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Waiting for Godot

...ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF DERRIDA’S DECONSTRUCTION IN SAMUEL BECKETT’S WAITING FOR GODOT ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF DERRIDA’S DECONSTRUCTION IN SAMUEL BECKETT’S WAITING FOR GODOT Deconstruction is a literary theory and philosophy of language derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on a metaphysics of presence, where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence. Deconstruction rejects the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic meaning. Due to the impossibility of pure presence and consequently of intrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted and comprehended from the linguistic point of view and in terms of its oppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture. Derrida says that one member is associated with presence (more highly emphasized) while the other is associated with absence. He proposes “difference” - a perpetual series of interactions between presence and absence - where a concept is constituted, comprehended and identified in terms of what it is not and self-sufficient meaning is never arrived at. Derrida's theories on deconstruction were influenced by the work of linguists such as Ferdinand de Saussure and literary theorists such as Roland Barthes (whose works were an investigation...

Words: 2164 - Pages: 9