We started to watch Waiting for Godot this week in class. Right now, I am still confused on what is going on. There hasn't been much value I have taken away from the play. If it is just more of the same then maybe there's a big metaphor I'm missing that I'll realize once the play is over and it was all the same nonsensical banter. The conversations are random and abrupt and seem to have no real value. The only thing that I think could have real deeper meaning right now is Lucky's speech, but even that was mostly nonsense filler words. I think Lucky was talking about God and how humans can only have an idea about God but not know exactly a conclusion about God. I think the word "waiting" has a lot of magnitude in the title and should be thought about deeper. One thing I was thinking was that "Nothing really happens when you wait. In waiting rooms, there are magazines or forms of entertainment to pass time. These things don't provide much value, rather it's just something to do instead of doing nothing." But what provides value? Everyone dies eventually, so maybe there is no value in anything, or everything has value, depends on how you look at it. The conversations Gogo and Didi have may not be insightful, but could they still be valuable? It's helping them pass time and is at least somewhat entertaining to us. We may not learn much, at the first impression, but I guess it's better than nothing. So, maybe I was wrong and the entertainment sources do provide value. Maybe Lucky's speech was about God and Gogo and Didi waiting is a metaphor for life? They're waiting for something that they are sure is going to come, they just aren't sure when, so they pass the time and keep themselves busy, not always consciously thinking about what they're waiting for, but always knowing that they are just waiting. Whether or not this is an insight that one could takeaway from the play, in all it's nonsense, I was able to come up with that, so the play isn't just nonsensical if you sit down and really try to think about it.
This week in class we read a piece called Show and Tell by Scott McCloud. This piece showed (and told) the importance of pictures in readings. It started off with a short anecdote of this kid in front of his class explaining how his robot toy transforms into an airplane. He uses a mixture of words and plain showing how it does what it does. This develops the author's main argument that "words and pictures have great powers to tell stories when creators fully exploit them both," (McCloud 809). I believe that images in books don't make a work of literature any less intellectual. If the content is meant to be intellectual, pictures aren't going to make it any less. Actually, images bring a different dynamic and can allow for more intellectual content. If an author were to include a statement where there could be many interpretations, that would be considered intellectual, but if you add an image to that and turn it into a comic, there could be an infinite amount of i...

Comments
Post a Comment