After the near-apocalyptic end of World War II, an overwhelming state of fear and confusion would cause a major shift in the artistic expression of the era. Nothing remained sacred since doubt replaced any virtue of knowledge, hope or stability. Artistic conventions were also replaced by a radical new unorthodoxy and fundamental realities of human thought were either questioned or abandoned altogether. In particular, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot brings the "tragi-comic" madness of language and communication to center stage with profound implications against the need to communicate in the first place. Unapologetic yet dignified, Beckett mocks the ineffectiveness of language and human communication. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Primarily, Beckett's dialogue bathes in repetition and irrationality, acting as a vehicle for both comedy and critique. Waiting for Godot is characterized by verbal exchanges that provide very little in the way of traditional development and leave behind more confusion than there was before anyone decided to open their mouths. The most striking example is Estragon's fascination with Lucky's bags throughout Act I.Estragon: Why doesn't he put down his bags?Pozzo: But that would surprise me.Vladimir: We tell you asks a question. Pozzo: (delighted) A question! WHO? What! (28) Beckett here presents the main distraction of Act I, Estragon and Vladimir's curious interest in Pozzo and Lucky. However, a seemingly fundamental question regarding the servant's cargo takes time to reach Pozzo amid endless chatter of nonsense and confusion. Ironically, Pozzo immediately goes on to predict that "no good will come of" from disturbing activities such as asking questions. In a sense, Pozzo is right. The question is repeated several times, tempers become slightly heated and considerable time is wasted without an answer or explanation. The cause of this series of incidents is unexpected: Estragon's simple suggestion of a simple question is the cause of this miniature disaster. This great failure of communication is just one example of Beckett's passionate deconstruction of language. In fact, Pozzo and Lucky end up leaving with Estragon and Vladimir not an ounce wiser than before. They know less now than at the start of the first act. Finally, to compound this frustration, the main source of any resemblance to "driving action" or "narrative" has disappeared from the scene, along with the lives of Estragon and Vladimir. The language that one might consider the source of all fundamental drama is in reality only a catalyst for the absurd. Language is the greatest barrier between absurdity and reality. Indeed, Beckett's view of language asserts that language aims to reinforce this barrier rather than find ways around it. This is evident as Gogo and Didi continue to repeat themselves and draw circles in their speech, reflecting the delicate cycle of their seemingly pointless lives. Furthermore, the most blatant criticism of Beckett's language can be seen during the most absurd and verbose point of the play: Lucky's speech. speech. Previously seen by actors and audiences as nothing more than a mute slave, Lucky is received as an oracle or prophet. It begins: "Given the existence as expressed in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a white-bearded quaquaquaqua personal God outside of time without.