The Yeats Journal of Korea/한국 예이츠 저널 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14354/yjk.2015.46.99
Vol. 46 (2015): 99-115
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot
and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon
(for the late Professor Daniel Albright)*
1)
Beau La Rhee
____________________________________
Abstract: W. B. Yeats and Samuel Beckett are Modernist dramatists, different from
earlier playwrights. This paper intends to demonstrate their unique use of narratology
in Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon and Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. They do not
make use of conventional use of foreshadowing, cause and effect sequence, or
problem, climax, and resolution structure often found in a complex plot. For these
playwrights the reality of the world is not shown through a fastidious depiction
(narration) of the world around them but through an introspective view of the inner
self: two characters are put together, instead of one with a long monologue. It is the
two dramatists’ strategy to make their play dramatic; yet, although the chats between
each pair appear to be random and unrelated to any of the events that follow, what
they talk about reveals the reality not seen through the faculties of our eyes. This is
how Yeats and Beckett depict (narrate) the actual world we live in.
Key words: Vladimir, Estragon, Blind Man, Lame Man, narratology
Author: Beau La Rhee is Assistant Professor at Jeju National University. Her main
research interests include Shakespeare, Yeats, and drama.
E-mail: [email protected]
____________________________________
제목: 베켓의 고도를 기다리며와 예이츠의 고양이와 달의 설화학
우리말 요약: W. B. 예이츠와 새뮤엘 베켓은 그 이전의 극작가들과 다른 모더니스트
극작가들이다. 본 논문은 예이츠의 고양이와 달과 벳켓의 고도를 기다리며 속의
설화학의 독특한 기법을 밝히고자 한다. 이 두 작가는 복잡한 플롯에서 보이는 복선,
원인과 결과, 문제, 점층법, 결말 등이 없다. 이들에게 세상의 실체는 주변의 사람들에
* This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the
Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A2A2028665).
100
Beau La Rhee
대한 세밀한 묘사(설화)로써 보이는 것이라기보다, 기다란 독백 대신 두 인물을 포개
놓음으로써 내면의 자아에 대한 내면적 견해를 드러내어 보여 주는 것이다. 이것이 이
두 작가가 자신의 극을 극적으로 만드는 기법이다. 그러나, 각 작품에서 겉보기에 두
인물이 이어지는 사건과 무관한 말들을 주고받는 것 같지만, 그들의 말은 우리의 눈으
로는 관찰하기 어려운 실체를 드러낸다. 이것이 예이츠와 베켓이 우리가 사는 세계를
묘사(설화)하는 방법인 것이다.
주제어: 블라디미어, 에스트레곤, 장님, 절름발이, 설화학
저자: 이보라는 제주대학교 조교수이다. 현재 주된 관심분야는 셰익스피어, 예이츠, 희곡
이다.
____________________________________
I
M oving from the 19th century realist
drama, the modern stage plays often do
without extravagant scenery or setting. Peter Brook, a stage director noticed
the artistic potential an empty space on stage has. Beckett had already begun
to foreground the empty space of stage as his predecessor Yeats had done
before. As if the stage of each playwright makes an announcement of the
narrative of his play, the dialogue and the structure of the play’s narrative
resound with the echo the empty stage produces. Yeats and Beckett have
much more ties than one might assume when it comes to the narratology of
their drama. Beckett’s Waiting for Godot has so much resemblance to Yeats’s
play The Cat and the Moon in the way it achieves aesthetic beauty through
narratology. Yeats’s later play Purgatory (1938) in which only two characters
appear on stage must have also influenced Beckett in designing Waiting for
Godot (Steiner 8). A play can have monologues in it, but a play with only
monologues is rare or not possible. But Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon and
Beckett’s Waiting for Godot are a two-character structure, which may be
regarded as a monologue structure: it is like the playwright placed a split self
of the same character to form a drama. In addition, the structure of the plot
of each play is similar: both plays center on two tramps anticipating their
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 101
meeting with someone unknown, only having a vague idea of who they are
supposed to meet. In Yeats’s play, the tramps travel to find the holy well,
hoping to meet a saint. In Beckett’s play, the tramps simply wait at a tree
where they are to meet a man named Godot. Both plays are filled with
seemingly unimportant chats between two individuals. While Yeats’s ending
has the two tramps meet the saint leading to a change of mood, Beckett’s
ending is a continuance of nothingness, having his tramps remain on stage in
vain without the presence of Godot. Though the presence of the anticipated
character would make a big difference between the dramas, the art of joining
characters renders a very similar poetic effect. Each author sees the usefulness
of grouping characters: couples are not used to represent the reality of the
world but that of the inner self. Couples in each work are companions of
their journey; their differences seem rather ambiguous and life represented in
each play is rather minimalist. However, the deficiency of realist
representations actually help maximize life’s subtlety in the plays of Yeats
and Beckett. In this paper, I will discuss the common aesthetic values of the
narratolgy used in the plays of Yeats and Beckett, the joining of characters
as a means to depict a realistic view of life.
II
The major differences between Yeats’s The Cat and Beckett’s Waiting are
that Yeats included verse in his drama and that it is a comedy while
Beckett’s play is a tragicomedy. Three songs using the mysterious appearance
of a cat in the moonlight appear in Yeats’s play, in the beginning, middle,
and end. The songs enhance the magical and mystical atmosphere, which
matches the purpose of the two tramps’ journey to get cured. Beckett’s play
does not include verse, but the layout of events itself has a poetic effect. The
102
Beau La Rhee
play opens with Estragon and Vladimir chatting without purpose until at a
certain point they say they are waiting for a man named Godot. After a long
talk about trivial matters, a boy comes to tell them Godot will not be there
but will come the next day in Act I. With a slight difference, Act II repeats
the first act as the boy comes again to tell them Godot will not be coming
but will be coming the following day. Yeats’s play is a short one in one Act
while Beckett’s is a longer piece in two Acts.
Moreover, though the characters of both plays seemingly speak of trivial
matters, bickering over petty things in daily life as life companions would,
Yeats’s tramps as allegories are more explicitly made. The play appears to
center on giving a moral lesson. This becomes more obvious through the
play’s ending. The Blind Beggar and the Lame Beggar make different choices
as they arrive at the holy well where they expect to meet the saint who can
make their wishes come true. The Blind Beggar wants to gain sight and the
Lame Beggar wants to be healed, but the resolution of the Lame beggar has
changed after pondering over the advantages of being blessed. When they
meet the saint, the Blind Beggar gains sight, but he realizes that his friend
has stolen his sheep and is wearing its skin. His gaining sight leads to losing
a friend as he abandons him after an argument. The Lame beggar, on the
other hand, savors the grand idea of having his name written in the holy
book rather than gaining physical advantages. However, Yeats’s play shows
that a miracle can happen:
Lame Beggar. Will you see that they put my name in the book?
First Musician. I will then.
Lame Beggar. Let us be going, Holy Man.
First Musician. But you must bless the road.
Lame Beggar. I haven’t the right words.
First Musician. What do you want words for? Bow to
What is before you, bow to what is behind you, bow
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 103
to what is to the left of you, bo to what is to the
right of you.
[The Lame Beggar begins to bow.
First Musician. That’s no good.
Lame Beggar. No good, Holy Man?
First Musician. No good at all. You must dance.
Lame Beggar. But how can I dance? Ain’t I a lame man?
First Musician. Aren’t you blessed?
Lame Beggar. Maybe so.
First Musician. Aren’t you a miracle?
Lame Beggar. I am, Holy Man.
First Musican. Then dance, and that’ll be a miracle.
[The Lame Beggar begins to dance, at first clumsily, moving about with
his stick, then he throws away the stick and dances more and more
quickly. Whenever he strikes the ground strongly with his lame foot the
cymbals clash. He goes out dancing, after which follows the First
Musician’s song. (VPl 803-04)
Despite the Lame Beggar’s choice not to be cured but to be blessed, he
gradually moves and dances around soon without the help of a stick. His
movements begin to pick up speed and dexterity, cymbals’ clashing signifying
the strength of the leg’s movement. The dancing seems to suggest that his
choice to be blessed is taken positively and gets to be rewarded with having
his lame leg cured together with being blessed. Whether the dancing merely
represents the salvation of one’s soul, symbolically metamorphosed in the
appearance of the leg being cured or whether the saint virtually has made the
beggar’s two wishes come true is unclear because there is no dialogue
following after this scene that can clarify it. However, the ending gives the
play a feeling of a parable with a final moral lesson, which matches the
stylization of the Japanese Noh drama, often containing a moral lesson.
Beckett’s Waiting for Godot does not work in the way Yeats’s play does.
The play has a different purpose. The play is more psychological and
philosophical, and by not making the two tramps meet Godot at the end, the
104
Beau La Rhee
drama becomes open to more than one interpretations expanding the scope
from the present into the future and even back into the past:
Boy: Mister . . . (Vladimir turns.) Mister Albert . . .
Vladimir: Off we go again. (Pause.) Do you not recognize me?
Boy: No Sir.
Vladimir: It wasn’t you came yesterday.
Boy: No Sir.
Vladimir: This is your first time.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Silence.
Vladimir: You have a message from Mr. Godot.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Vladimir: He won’t come this evening.
Boy: No Sir.
Vladimir: But he’ll come to-morrow.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Vladimir: Without fail.
Boy: Yes Sir.
Silence.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (58)
In the first Act, Vladimir and Estragon have been told by another boy that
Godot would not be coming but would be the following day. In the second
Act towards the ending, Vladimir seems to repeat what he has asked with a
slight difference. He seems to know the answer to his own question that
Godot would not be coming today either but would be the following day,
which he probably knows is uncertain. The act of waiting and repeated
disappointment caused by Godot may bear allegorical meaning when the
social, political backdrop is taken into consideration. Beckett’s audience would
notice the many meanings that waiting and unkept promises bear as it was
first staged in 1953 when the world was split in half as a result of the Cold
War. Yeats and Beckett may had different purposes for their plays, but the
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 105
joining of two tramps to tell a story seems to have a singular effect:
depicting life as it is since many aspects of humanity do not lead to an
absolutely happy or tragic ending. Through the monologue of what appears to
be a dialogue of a couple, each artist shows that life is not simple.
III
In Yeats’s The Cat, the two beggars enter the stage, wearing grotesque
masks. They count their steps heading to the holy well of Saint Colman as a
beggar at the cross-roads told them they could find it “in a thousand paces
from where he stood” (793). From the outset of the play the two tramps begin
to bicker, the blind beggar complaining to the lame beggar held on his back
that he may have been giving him the wrong directions. Being irritated, he
finds faults with his short strides. The dialogue between them mostly consists
of blaming and fault-finding with each other, but it lets us know that they
have been friends and companions in their journey, dependent on each other as
one is blind and the other lame. Yet, they seem to have formed a friendship
through their life’s journey. They appear to talk simply to kill time until the
saint appears in front of them. They talk about rumors and share ideas about
them, but they do not agree with each other, which leads to other arguments
about petty things. The interaction is humorous and arouses laughter. The two
tramps do not contribute to telling one solid story but wanders from one story
to the next. One example is that they have different opinions about saints and
religious people; the Blind beggar is rather pessimistic believing that “the
bigger the sinner the better pleased is the saint” (298) while the Lame beggar
disagrees. The Blind Beggar may have turned pessimistic because he cannot
do anything about people stealing from him, taking advantage of his blindness.
This turns out to be true as his gaining sight enables him to see that his
106
Beau La Rhee
friend the Lame Beggar is wearing his sheep’s skin. Though he gains sight, he
loses a long time friend. Yeats’s play has a simple plot: two tramps set out
for the holy well and during their journey they pass the time talking about
trivial things. Such joining of characters and structure of the plot are
analogous to those of Waiting for Godot.
Beckett’s work matches the minimalist attitude of Yeats toward art, but
he goes beyond symbolistic and allegorical construction. Beckett expands on
Yeats’s dramatization of a parable-like mood. As Stempel writes,
The tree where Vladimir and Estragon meet to wait for Godot is also a
type, and its significance as a symbol is shaped by the different
perspectives of these two characters. For Vladimir it represents the
alternatives of salvation or damnation; it is either a tree of life or a tree of
death: life, if Godot comes as promised; death by hanging oneself if he
does not. (269)
The meaning of the tree can be changed by the perspective of the spectator,
and the symbol of it is subject to change depending on Godot’s arrival. The
allegorical construction does not stop there. Vladimir and Estragon are more
than allegorical figures as shown through the stories they offer during their
passing of time while the other couple, Pozzo and Lucky, maybe so in that
matter, which I will get to later in my discussion. The tramps like Yeats’
tramps are comical characters, but the major difference would be that as Kern
points out, “the audience is made to witness stark suffering, but a suffering
unadorned with rhetoric or sublimated by high ideals, a suffering caused,
rather by the endless gnawing of physical ailments and discomfort, of cold
and hunger...” (42). Estragon makes his appearance in agony as he is having
some trouble taking off his boot, and the audience soon realizes that he has
been beaten by unknown group of people. The play certainly contains tragic
elements as a tragicomedy as opposed to Yeats’s comedy. But just like
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 107
Yeats’s tramps, Beckett’s characters, for example, talk about what seems like
a random story of thieves and a savior, which is told in the beginning of the
play as they wait for Godot. Vladimir plainly states the purpose of telling the
story, which is to “pass the time” (9). Such seemingly random stories are told
in the midst of their waiting; the agony of the action of waiting, however, is
deepened by their forgetfulness and ambiguous sense of time and date, which
suggests that they may have been repetitively doing this act of waiting
numerous times:
Estragon: We came here yesterday?
Vladimir: What did we do yesterday?
Estragon: Yes.
Vladimir: Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you’re about.
Estragon: In my opinion we were here.
Vladimir: (looking round). You recognize the place?
Estragon: I didn’t say that.
Vladimir: Well?
Estragon: That makes no difference.
Vladimir: All the same . . . that tree . . .
(turning towards auditorium) that bog . . .
Estragon: You’re sure it was this evening?
Vladimir: What?
Estragon: That we were to wait. (10)
The two go on in this fashion about the uncertainty of the time and date,
and they are the same in their forgetfulness. Though the conversation is in
the form of a dialogue, it sounds like a monologue of one voice. They are
often difficult to tell apart although they are obviously different from each
other in their intelligence and physical strength. They get angry at each other
easily, but they know they cannot part with each other; they bicker but soon
make up. Much of the dialogue between Estragon and Vladimir appears to be
a thought process of one person:
108
Beau La Rhee
Estragon: A vague supplication.
Vladimir: Exactly.
Estragon: And what did he reply?
Valdimir: That he’d see.
Estragon: That he couldn’t promise anything.
Vladimir: That he’d have to think it over.
Estragon: In the quiet of his home.
Vladimir: Consult his family.
Estragon: His friends.
Vladimir: His agents.
Estragon: His correspondents. (13)
The dialogue above is a continuation of listing, and the list goes on further.
Such kind of speech is sporadically displayed throughout the play, and it gives
a sense of stream of a single person’s consciousness. The effect of this
tendency of conversation can be explained by what Postlewait points out: “In
terms of temporal sequence there is no orderly principle of cause and effect
that unifies memory and expectation” (480). This argument is very true of the
style of Beckett’s play and equally true of Yeats’s The Cat. The connecting of
two characters narrating as one person throughout the drama clearly shows that
the drama will not progress in the order of events determined by cause and
effect found in conventional drama. As Postlewait says, Beckett’s drama
“simply runs on and on without cause” (484) and “Continuity is missing;
sequence is broken. Events in time are incomprehensible” (486).
The drama we are accustomed to has a long tradition going back to
Shakespearean plays and even farther back to the attic plays in ancient Greek
period. These plays can be linked together as they fit the model Aristotle
speaks of in his Poetics. Even if a play does not accord with the complex
model Aristotle suggests, it would often have a problem set up with a climax
and a resolution in the end. We obviously notice that the tramp stories of
Beckett and Yeats do not focus on plot but rather on metaphors, symbols,
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 109
and allegories. As Rabinovitz notes, Beckett uses “extended metaphors”:
their lack of rigidly fixed meanings invites readers to fill in any areas that
might seem ambiguous. This again adds to the significance of Beckett’s
writing. Given that he presents models of reality based on his own insights,
he also encourages readers to reconfigure these models in the light of their
own experiences. (329)
The discussions of each topic between Vladimir and Estragon are repeatedly
marked by ambiguity, not knowing how they got there and why they are
there waiting for Godot. Even the reasons why Estragon got beaten by a
group of people are not given. Each time a story is brought up by these
characters, it seems to evade the core questions: why, what, how, and where.
The messenger boy in both Act I and II does not fully satisfy our questions
nor does he help identify any of the problems the two tramps are facing. The
abundance of ambiguities might be the reason each topic the tramps bring up
can be applied to a wide range of human experiences, and Beckett’s play still
leaves the audience with a lingering hope that Godot will come tomorrow.
The aesthetic approach of the artist’s portrayal of human reality has
advantages that realistic works do not have. As Pearce notes, “The language
of a Realistic work is largely referential; most of the words used by the
characters refer directly to things, people, ideas, feelings that can be
completely known. There is little suggestion, and nothing is left out” (340).
Yeats’s The Cat also corresponds to the feature of ambiguity, and it is
achieved through an additional device; that is, the inclusion of three poems
about a cat and the moon, in the beginning, middle, and end, together with
the ambiguity of the ending. Just as Waiting for Godot could not “have been
written without Purgatory,” (8) for “Its setting, intonations, and crowded
emptiness expand on Yeats’s nightmare” (Steiner 9), it could not have been
written without The Cat and the Moon, for it expands on the idea of joining
110
Beau La Rhee
characters. In the course of describing Shakespeare’s view of tragedy, Steiner
maintains, “The tragic-comic weave of our world, its refusal to be only one
thing at one time, possessed his panoptic genius. His immensity is as
pluralistic as is human experience itself” (12). Just like Shakespeare, and to
an even greater extent, Beckett seems to have believed that there are always
two sides of a coin in real life. He presents the tragicomic life through
ambiguity of dream and reality, life and death, material and immaterial, and
so forth. Just as it is unclear which is better in Yeats’s play, whether it is
better to steal from a friend and choose to be blessed without seeking
physical cure like the Lame Beggar or better to seek physical comfortableness
after living an honest life like the Blind Beggar. One may be uncertain about
the merits of gaining knowledge or sight as life would be less tragic without
certain knowledge. Tagic-comic elements coexist in Yeats’s play; and his
tramps are hard to tell apart as they stay together on their journey, and each
has faults, acting out on their selfish needs.
Beckett’s characters are the same in that they mirror each other, yet they
seem more inactive, perhaps because the act of only waiting without attempting
to visit Godot or the fact that they do not do anything about Godot’s
procrastination is what makes them so. The wishes of Yeats’s characters being
fulfilled in the end do make a big difference. However, Beckett’s characters
give us a sense of languor. Cuddy writes,
It is provocative that Beckett’s earlier poetry and fiction examine
antepurgatory and the ‘late repentants’ who retain the possibility of moving
up to a better world; while later in Godot
—
after Beckett’s own
experiences with the French Underground in World World II when choices
were essential in determining the worth of one’s life, or death
he
—
explores the antechamber of Hell and the nature of existence for those
human beings who never had the courage to make commitments or choose
sides in any situation. (51)
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 111
As Cuddy notes, Beckett’s experiences seem to have enlightened him to see
the importance of taking an active part if one hopes to see change in one’s
life. Yet, Vladimir and Estragon do not put much effort to change their
situation except wait passively for a person whom they are not certain of if
he can offer the help they need; having the vague idea that meeting the man
named Godot would bring change to their lives, they simply squander time
and remain powerless and decide to wait again the next day when Godot
could not keep his words. To show the impotence of being lethargic and
inactive, Beckett may have intentionally made these characters static by
opening the play having them simply wait, not having them walk and make
their journey to the place where they are to meet Godot. Yet, we must be
reminded that Yeats shows us the two tramps, the Blind beggar carrying the
Lame Beggar on his back, making steps toward and looking for the holy
well. They talk while they are in movement and they are actively searching
for the well. However, what Beckett’s characters are merely doing are
standing, sitting, and waiting at a tree. Beckett seems to have had the
intention to make them seen as passive characters.
Despite the differences between Vladimir and Estragon, they almost sound
like one character being inactive. When the first Act closes after being told that
Godot would not show up, Estragon says, “Well, shall we go?” and Vladimir
responds, “Yes, let’s go” but the stage direction indicates, “They do not move”
(35). This is exactly the way the second Act ends having the same dialogue
and the stage direction since Godot is not coming: “They do not move” (60).
They act as one, and they seem to be mirror images to each other though each
has attributes that separate them as individuals. Beckett seems to emphasize
this aspect as he links two other characters, Pozzo and Lucky. All the audience
members would have a strong impression of them being different from each
other in the first Act and remember that Pozzo is the master and Lucky the
slave as they come out of the theatre. As opposed to this impression, only
112
Beau La Rhee
people in the audience who have taken a closer look at Vladimir and Estragon
would remember after watching the play that one is more intelligent and one
stronger than the other. They repeatedly continue to play language games,
which seem more like a monologue of one voice during their wait:
Vladimir: Question of temperament.
Estragon: Of character.
Vladimir: Nothing you can do about it.
Estragon: No use struggling.
Vladimir: One is what one is.
Estragon: No use wriggling.
Vladimir: The essential doesn’t change.
Estragon: Nothing to be done. (14).
The dialogue just appears to rephrase the previous words, continuing to convey
the same ideas in a monotonous way; although the two have moments of
disagreement throughout the play, they simply come across as a split self
representing one person’s ideas.
In contrast, Pozzo and Lucky are two opposites. Pozzo, the master of
Lucky, makes his appearance loud and clear. It is as if the most interesting
thing that happens in the play is his appearance in the midst of the
monotonous speeches. The stage direction indicates, “Enter Pozzo and Lucky.
Pozzo drives Lucky by means of a rope passed round his neck, so that
Lucky is the first to enter, followed by the rope which is long enough to let
him reach the middle of the stage before Pozzo appears. Lucky carries a
heavy bag, a folding stool, a picnic basket and a greatcoat, Pozzo a whip”
(15). Beckett has the slave show up on stage first in a most strange and
shocking way with a rope tied to his neck and does not let Pozzo make his
entrance till he reaches the middle. We would wonder what is at the end of
the rope that is extended to the entrance. All our attention would be given to
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 113
the entrance where Pozzo is about to appear. We would have no trouble
telling them apart as Pozzo makes it clear that he has all the power to
control him. Pozzo, as expected, is very proud and commanding and shows
no mercy to his slave in Act I. Lucky does not put down the bags he is
carrying, but Pozzo would jerk the rope violently whenever his body shows
inertness. Pozzo’s inhuman treatment of Lucky stands out even more because
he intends to be polite and civil with the other couple and at times even
gentlemanly. But he is proud and arrogant and want all the attention he can
get, but he would not let them bother his slave. Pozzo’s relationship with
Lucky becomes clearer through the conversation between him and the other
couple, and Lucky keeps his silence throughout the whole time except at one
point where he gives a long tedious erudite speech when he is ordered to do
so, which soon agonizes everyone on stage as it picks up speed and becomes
unintelligible. Lucky would dance if he is ordered. Pozzo exhibits complete
control over him in Act 1. In Act 2, Pozzo and Lucky show up again, in
fact unexpectedly because he has announced that he would sell Lucky to get
rid of him in the first Act. This time Pozzo shows up blind, powerless and
not much in control of Lucky although they would stick together. As he is
blind, he has no sense of time and place while Lucky lost his voice
completely. The radical change of Pozzo’s condition in the second Act seems
to represent the idea that no human being is really superior over others since
humanity is vulnerable and evanescent as part of nature. The allegorical
implications embedded in the change of Pozzo’s condition lead to the
conclusion that Pozzo and Lucky are tied together in their weaknesses,
mirroring each other. Now Pozzo cannot get rid of Lucky; they will continue
to stick together as companions in their life’s journey. Though the grouping
of Pozzo and Lucky is made different from that of Vladimir and Estragon, it
goes along with the same thematic design that however different we may
seem from one another, we are part of the same old story: humanity.
114
Beau La Rhee
IV
Yeats and Beckett are new playwrights, with new approaches to
narratology. Narratology often studies novels, novella, and short stories.
According to Abrams, many theorists have attempted to “extend the concept
—
of ‘fictive utterances’ to include all the genres of literature poems, narratives,
dramas, as well as novels; all these forms ... are imitations, or fictive
representations, of some type of ‘natural’ discourse” (63). The narratology of
Yeats’s and Beckett’s plays has a very unique feature: being more than a
“natural discourse,” their narratology consists of dialogues of multiple topics,
instead of revolving around a single complex plot. In this sense, Beckett’s or
Yeats’s plays appear to lack a plot, to solve the problems; the narrative of
these works, however, does not focus on solving the problems, but it is
rather just a collection of various observations the persons of the play have
coming to their minds until someone appears in front of them. Thus, the
narratology of the plays by Yeats and Beckett seems to reflect the same
poetic view of life: the narratology without a narration, but with only the
mirror images of characters. It seems that their art of narratology asserts that
everyone has a story to tell, meaning that fundamentally everyone is the
same, instead of using a single plot to tell a story. I conclude this is an
extension of “the concept of fictive utterances,” or a new narratology as
illustrated in Beckett’s and Yeats’s plays, Waiting for Godot and The Cat
and the Moon.
Works cited
Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1988.
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Weidenfeld: Grove Press, 1954.
The Narratolgy in Beckett’s Waiting for Godot and Yeats’s The Cat and the Moon 115
Cuddy, Lois A. “Beckett’s ‘Dead Voices’ in ‘Waiting for Godot’: New Inhabitants
of Dante’s ‘Inferno.’” Modern Language Studies 12.2 (Spring 1982): 48-60.
Kern, Edith. “Drama Stripped for Inaction: Beckett’s Godot.” Yale French Studies
14 Motley: Today’s French Theatre (1954): 41-47.
Pearce, Richard. “The Limits of Realism.” College English 31.4 (Jan. 1970): 335-343.
Postlewait, Thomas. “Self-Performing Voices: Mind, Memory, and Time in Beckett’s
Drama.” Twentieth Century Literature 24.4 (Winter 1978): 473-491.
Rabinovitz, Rubin. “Samuel Beckett’s Figurative Language.” Contemporary Literature
26.3 (Autumn 1985): 317-330.
Steiner, George. “‘Tragedy,’ Reconsidered.” New Literary History 35.1 (Winter 2004):
1-15.
Stempel, Daniel. History Electrified into Anagogy: A Reading of “Waiting for
Godot.” Contemporary Literature 17.2 (Spring 1976): 263-278.
Yeats, William Butler. Ed. Peter Allt and Russell K. Alspach. The Variorum Edition
of The Poems of W. B. Yeats. New York: Macmillan, 1957. 1st edition 1966.
(VP)
Manuscript peer-review process:
receipt acknowledged: Feb. 5, 2015.
revision received: Mar. 10, 2015.
publication approved: Apr. 15, 2015.
Edited by: Ilhwan Yoon