Analysis of the Portrayal of the Major Characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting For Godot and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

ABSTRACT

Skripsi ini berisi analisis terhadap dua buah drama berjudul Waiting for
Godot karya Samuel Beckett dan Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead karya
Tom Stoppard. Kedua drama ini beraliran absurd, yang erat kaitannya dengan
filosofi eksistensialisme. Karena itulah para tokoh utama pada masing-masing
drama diceritakan mempertanyakan arti hidup mereka.
Analisis dalam skripsi ini berfokus pada penggambaran sifat-sifat dari
para tokoh utama yang mempengaruhi usaha mereka dalam memperoleh
jawaban akan arti hidup mereka. Dua tokoh utama di Waiting for Godot memilih
untuk menunggu seorang sosok bernama Godot untuk memberi arti pada hidup
mereka. Sedangkan dua tokoh utama di Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
memilih untuk mencari tahu sendiri arti hidup mereka melalui kejadian-kejadian
yang menimpa mereka.
Di akhir cerita, para tokoh utama pada masing-masing drama sama-sama
gagal memperoleh arti hidup. Godot yang ditunggu oleh dua tokoh utama di
Waiting for Godot tidak pernah datang, sementara dua tokoh utama di
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead tetap tidak mengetahui arti hidup
mereka hingga saat mereka dihadapkan pada kematian yang sudah menjadi
takdir mereka. Hal tersebut dikarenakan menurut pandangan penulis beraliran
absurd, hidup tidak memiliki arti.

iii
Maranatha Christian University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ......................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 5
Method of Research ................................................................................ 5
Organization of the Thesis ....................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYSIS OF THE PORTRAYAL
OF THE MAJOR CHARACTERS IN SAMUEL BECKETT’S
WAITING FOR GODOT .......................................................................... 7
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE PORTRAYAL
OF THE MAJOR CHARACTERS IN TOM STOPPARD’S
ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD .......................... 23

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ................................................................... 40
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES
Synopsis of Waiting for Godot ............................................................... 48
Synopsis of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead ............................ 49
Biography of the Authors ....................................................................... 50

ii
Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study
Theatre of the absurd is “a literary movement in drama popular throughout
European countries from the 1940s to approximately 1989” (Marinaro). The term
“theatre of the absurd” was created by American Critic Martin Esslin in 1960,
referring to particular plays that convey “the absurdity of human condition; it
merely presents it in being—that is, in terms of concrete stage images of the

absurdity of existence” (Esslin xx).
Theatre of the absurd is highly influenced by the philosophy of
existentialism, which is a notion that “humans define their own meaning in life,
and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. It
focuses on the question of human existence, and the feeling that there is no
purpose or explanation at the core of existence” (“Existentialism”). The
existentialist Albert Camus was the first person to introduce the term “absurd” in
his essay The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), in which he depicted “the human
condition as basically meaningless . . . that humanity had to resign itself to
recognizing that a fully satisfying rational explanation of the universe was beyond

1
Maranatha Christian University

its reach; in that sense, the world must ultimately be seen as absurd” (Crabb).
Absurd playwrights share the same idea with existentialists in the way they
“question the nature of existing” (Bolick). That is why their stories usually revolve
around characters who are trying to figure out the meaning of their lives and
since absurd playwrights believe human existence does not have any meaning or
purpose; in their plays, “characters are caught in hopeless situations forced to do

repetitive or meaningless actions; dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and
nonsense; plots that are cyclical or absurdly expansive; either a parody or
dismissal of realism and the concept of the ‘well-made play’” (Cash). Two of the
significant playwrights that belong to this movement are Samuel Beckett and Tom
Stoppard.
Samuel Beckett was a prominent writer in the 20th century. He was a
novelist, a poet, and a playwright. His first published work was a poem titled
Whoroscope (1929) which is based on the biography of Rene Descartes, a
French philosopher. Some of his famous novels are entitled Molloy, Malone Dies,
and The Unnamable, which is a trilogy written between 1946-1950. He was later
best known for his plays, such as Waiting for Godot (1953), Endgame (1957),
Krapp’s Last Tape (1958), and Happy Days (1961). Beckett’s works are known
for being “stark, fundamentally minimalist, and deeply pessimistic about human
nature and the human condition, although the pessimism is mitigated by a great
and often wicked sense of humor” (“Samuel Beckett”). Beckett was awarded The
Nobel Prize in Literature in 1969 “for his writing, which – in new forms for novel
and drama – in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation” (“The Nobel
Prize in Literature 1969”).
Waiting for Godot is considered the masterpiece of Samuel Beckett. It
tells a story about two men waiting for a man or a mysterious figure named Godot.

2
Maranatha Christian University

When Waiting for Godot was first performed in 1953 in Paris, France, it received
a positive impression from the audiences due to its new convention with “no plot,
no climax, no denouement; no beginning, no middle and no end,” according to
the English theatre critic Kenneth Tynan (Dickstein). It was also chosen as “the
most significant English language play of the 20th century” (Berlin). Beckett’s
Waiting for Godot is probably the most well-known absurd play among the others
and has influenced other writers in writing similar plays, such as Harold Pinter in
The Dumb Waiter, Edward Albee in The Zoo Story, and even Tom Stoppard in
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
Tom Stoppard is considered one of the most successful British
playwrights and screenwriters. He is the man behind many great plays; some of
them are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1966), The Real Inspector
Hound (1968), Arcadia (1993), and The Coast of Utopia (2002). He is also the cowriter of some famous films, such as Empire of the Sun (1987), Indiana Jones
and the Last Crusade (1989), and Shakespeare in Love (1998). Stoppard is
known for “creating what have been termed ‘serious comedies’ – funny plays that
deal with important ideas” (Opitz), as depicted in his works. He has received
much praise and many awards for playwriting, including Academy Awards and

Tony Awards. He has also received numerous honorary degrees and was
knighted in 1997 (“Tom Stoppard”).
Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern are

Dead is one of

Stoppard’s

masterpieces. It is also different from Stoppard’s other works because the play is
structured in a form of metatheatre. The term “metatheatre” was mentioned by
Lionel Abel in his book Metatheatre: A New View of Dramatic Form, which is
briefly defined as “drama about drama” (Hornby 31). The story of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead takes place during a particular part of the plot in
3
Maranatha Christian University

Shakespeare’s Hamlet, focusing on the offstage lives of two minor characters in
Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and what the events mean to them.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead received good critical reviews and
achieved a huge success when it was first released because it was “a very funny
play about death. Very funny, very brilliant, very chilling; it has the dust of thought
about it and particles glitter excitingly in the theatrical air” (Barnes), making
Stoppard widely known ever since.
Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead are
absurd plays with similar pairs of major characters. Both plays present two men
who are thrown into the world trying to figure out the meaning of their lives in their
own ways. The characterization and the relationship between the major
characters in these two plays are striking, which is why I would like to discuss the
portrayal of the major characters of the plays. Harry Shaw in Dictionary of Literary
Terms states that portrayal “refers to the portrait (*characterization) of individuals
presented in literary selections” (295), while character in literature is defined as “a
personage in a narrative or dramatic work” (“Character”).
Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead have different traits and
they are opposite to each other in certain ways; however, they complement each
other and depend on each other. Beckett describes Vladimir and Estragon as a
pseudo-couple: “they don’t necessarily always want to be in each other’s
company, yet they recognise each other as a necessary person in order to

survive” (“Waiting For Godot And Companionship English Literature Essay”). On
the other hand, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are often described as two sides
of the same coin: “a coin has two sides, each distinct, at least in its orientation,
and in some sense opposite the other. Yet each side is dependent upon each
4
Maranatha Christian University

other for existence” (Tiedemann). Therefore, the major characters in both plays
should be seen as one entity.

Statement of the Problems
The problems I would like to discuss in this thesis are:
1. How are the major characters portrayed in these two plays?
2. What are the purposes of the authors in portraying the major characters?

Purpose of the Study
Based on the problems above, the purposes of the study are:
1. To show how the major characters are portrayed in these two plays.
2. To show the purposes of the authors in portraying the major characters.

Method of Research
In writing this thesis, I use the library research method. First, I read the
primary texts, which are Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Tom Stoppard’s
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Second, I analyze the portrayal of the
major characters in both plays by using other references to support my analysis.
Lastly, I draw some conclusions based on the analysis.

Organization of the Thesis
This thesis is divided into four chapters, which are preceded by the
Abstract and the Table of Contents. The first chapter is the Introduction, which
consists of the Background of the Study, the Statement of the Problem, the
Purpose of the Study, the Method of Research, and the Organization of the
Thesis. The second chapter contains the analysis of the portrayal of the major
5
Maranatha Christian University

characters in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The third chapter contains the
analysis of the portrayal of the major characters in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead. The fourth chapter contains the conclusion of the
analysis, followed by the Bibliography and the Appendices, which consist of the

summary of both plays and the biography of the authors.

6
Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Tom
Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead in the previous chapters, I
would like to draw some conclusions. Both of the plays are absurd plays. Since
absurd play is highly influenced by the philosophy of existentialism, that is why
the major characters in both plays are characters who are trying to figure out the
meaning of their lives.
Vladimir and Estragon, the major characters in Waiting for Godot, are two
tramps who are waiting for a man who is a mysterious figure named Godot. They
believe Godot will save them from their meaningless life. Vladimir and Estragon
are intended to represent humanity in general, which explains why they have
different traits because every human being has their own traits. Vladimir is

portrayed as a person who is intelligent, responsible, persistent, and hopeful. He
is capable of thinking, has knowledge about philosophical and religious matters,
is reliable, and believes Godot will come someday and save him and Estragon,
which is why he keeps on waiting. Vladimir is the reason both of the major
characters wait for Godot, since he believes so much in Godot. He also makes

40
Maranatha Christian University

Estragon waits for Godot with him. On the other hand, Estragon is portrayed as a
person who is shallow, helpless, absent-minded, and impatient. Estragon is
incapable of thinking, of recalling the events that happened in the past, of taking
care of himself, and does not like to wait and do nothing. Estragon keeps
forgetting about Godot and keeps suggesting that both he and Vladimir leave,
because he is uncertain whether Godot will actually come and he thinks it is
better for him and Vladimir to take action on their own. However, he is always
reminded by Vladimir about Godot, to prevent him from leaving. Thus, it is clear
that the purpose of the author in creating characters like Vladimir and Estragon is
to represent humanity, namely, people who passively wait for other people to give
meaning of their life.
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, the major characters in Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead, are two Elizabethan men who are sent by the King of
Denmark to watch over Hamlet. As characters who are caught up in the plot of
Hamlet, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz struggle to figure out the meaning of their
life in the story. They believe that by participating in the event, they will have the
answer about their existence. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are also intended to
represent humanity in general, which explains their different traits. Guildenstern is
portrayed as a person who is inquisitive, anxious, and rational. He is very
interested in figuring out the reason why everything is the way it is in order to
understand situations around him, which is why he questions things a lot. He
believes that there is a reason or logical explanation for all events that happen.
This is why he is the one who suggests that both he and Estragon carry out their
duty, so that they can figure out their purpose. He becomes worried when things
do not go according to the plan or when he cannot take control of a situation, and
it is hard for him to act without knowing. Rosencrantz, on the other hand, is
41
Maranatha Christian University

portrayed as a person who is simple-minded, carefree, and indecisive.
Rosencrantz does not share the same concern as Guildenstern about their
existence and he is not bothered about thinking deeply regarding their situation,
as long as he is happy. He also cannot make a decision on his own, which is why
he lets Guildenstern decide and he supports whatever decision Guildenstern
makes. Therefore, it can be concluded that the purpose of the author in creating
characters like Guildenstern and Rosencrantz is to represent humanity, namely,
people who actively look for the meaning of their life by themselves.
As mentioned previously, the major characters in each play are intended
to represent humanity in general. Humans are social beings; they cannot exist
without the presence of other people. That explains why Beckett and Stoppard
make their characters in pairs; it is to give the sense of being needed and the
sense of existence for each of their characters. It also explains that despite their
different personalities and being somewhat opposite to each other in certain ways,
the major characters in each play depend on and complement each other, which
is why they should be seen as one entity. In Waiting for Godot, Vladimir needs
Estragon to talk to and take care of in order to pass time, while Estragon needs
Vladimir to protect and watch over him. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
Dead, Guildenstern needs Rosencrantz for company and support, while
Rosencrantz needs Guildenstern for guidance. However, there is one character
who leads his companion to do something and there is one who relies on the
other more. In this case, Vladimir and Guildenstern are the ones who lead their
companion, which makes them the dominant one of the two. Vladimir is the one
who leads Estragon to wait for Godot: despite Estragon’s suggestion to leave, in
the end Estragon stays with Vladimir to wait for Godot because he needs him
more. It is the same with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. Guildenstern is the one
42
Maranatha Christian University

who leads Rosencrantz to carry out their duty: even though Rosencrantz does
not share the same concern as Guildenstern about their existence, in the end
Rosencrantz follows Guildenstern’s step because he cannot make a decision on
his own.
Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
apparently share some similarities and a difference. The first similarity is both of
them are absurd plays which deal with the theme of existentialism, as the major
characters in the two plays are caught up in a meaningless world and they
struggle to figure out the meaning of their lives. The second similarity is the major
characters in each play have different traits because they are intended to
represent humanity in general; however, in the end they decide to do the same
thing. Vladimir and Estragon decide to wait for Godot, while Guildenstern and
Rosencrantz decide to carry out the King’s order. Another similarity is at the end
of the plays, when both major characters fail to discover the meaning of their lives.
Godot, whom Vladimir and Estragon wait for and believe that he can save them
from their meaningless life, does not show up at all, even at the end of the story.
Meanwhile, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz still do not get the answer of their
existence, even when they are led to their death.
The only difference between the two plays is Vladimir and Estragon in
Waiting for Godot passively wait for someone to give meaning to their life, while
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
actively look for the meaning of their life by themselves. However, both attempts
conducted by the major characters fail because from the absurdist playwrights’
point of view, a human’s life is basically meaningless.
To conclude my analysis, both Waiting for Godot and Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are probably not easy to read. Since both of them are absurd plays,
43
Maranatha Christian University

it is sometimes hard to understand the meaning behind the lines and the events;
thus, it makes them quite challenging to analyze. However, both plays are two
examples of serious, deep, and brilliant works of literature that people can enjoy.
We are forced to think deeply to find its interpretation. In my opinion, Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead is a better play than Waiting of Godot because it is
richer in the plot and contains more humor, since Stoppard is also known for his
comedy. I think it is brilliant to make a story from the minor characters who are
fated to die in somebody’s play in order to see the events from their point of view.
This is probably what makes Stoppard successful in trying to make the reader
sympathize with the characters’ fate.

44
Maranatha Christian University

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1965. Print.
Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. London: Faber and
Faber Ltd, 2013. Google Books. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

References
“Anxious.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
“Absent-minded.” Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 12 Sep. 2015.
Barnes, Clive. “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.” The New York Times.
17 Oct. 1967. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Berlin, Normand. “Traffic of our Stage: Why Waiting for Godot?” The
Massachusetts Review. 1999. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
“Biography of Tom Stoppard.” GradeSaver.com. N.p, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.
Bolick, Elizabeth L. “Absurdism in Post-Modern Art: Examining the Interplay
between “Waiting for Godot” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”.
Studentpulse.com. N.p, 2009. Web. 22 Aug. 2015.
“Carefree.” Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
Cash, Justin. “Theatre of the Absurd.” Theatrelinks.com, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2015.
“Character.” Oxford Reference. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

45
Maranatha Christian University

Crabb, Jerome P. “Theatre of the Absurd.” Theatredatabase.com. 3 Sep. 2006.
Web. 29 Aug. 2015.
Dickstein, Morris. “An Outsider in His Own Life.” The New York Times. 3 Aug.
1997. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Anchor Books, 1961. Print.
“Existentialism.” Philosophybasics.com. N.p, n.d. Web. 1 Aug. 2016.
“Helpless.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 12 Sep. 2015.
“Hopeful.” Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
Hornby, Richard. Drama, Metadrama and Perception. Cranbury, NJ: Associated
University Press, 1986. Print.
“Impatient.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
“Indecisive.” Def. 1. Cambridge Dictionaries. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
“Intelligent.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
“Inquisitive.” Def. 1. Cambridge Dictionaries. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Marinaro, Francesca. “Theater of the Absurd: Definition & Characteristics.”
Study.com, n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2015.
Opitz, Lary. “Tom Stoppard: A Brief Biography.” Skidmore College, n.d. Web. 27
Apr. 2015.
“Persistent.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
“Rational.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.
“Responsible.” Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.
“Samuel Beckett.” Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
“Samuel Beckett.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 16
Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.
“Samuel Beckett.” Biblio.co.uk. Biblio, Inc. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
“Shallow.” Def. 3b. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Web. 12 Sep. 2015.
46
Maranatha Christian University

Shaw, Harry. Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972. Print.
“Simpleminded.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
“Simple-minded.” Def. 1. Cambridge Dictionaries. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
“The Nobel Prize in Literature 1969.” Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web.
27 Apr. 2015.
Tiedemann, Mark. “The Duality Motif in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead.” The Journal of Nagasaki University of Foreign
Language (2004): 83-92. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
“Tom Stoppard.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. 5 Apr.
2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.
“Waiting For Godot And Companionship English Literature Essay.” UK Essays.
All Answers Ltd, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

47
Maranatha Christian University