Waiting for Godot

Finally read a Beckett - the lack of which has long been my embarrassment. And wasn't that depressing. While I can appreciate certain intellectual and aesthetic merits, I can't say that I liked it. If I wanted to read something in the absurdity grain, I would much rather read a Borges, which is at least funny. Life is too tragic, that unless the tragedy is truly exceptional (like King Lear!), I'd just sooner immerse myself in comedy.

But the problem, I find, is that my outlook (life is tragic) leads me to write stories that I wouldn't want to read myself. How does one surmount that block?

Norman Mailer is full of shit. There's a quote by him on the back of my copy of Waiting for Godot: "It is possible that consciously or unconsciously Beckett is restating the moral and sexual basis of Christianity which was lost with Christ..." First of all, when someone suggests that a writer may be doing something "unconsciously," you know that's a red flag for bullshit. But I didn't heed the warning, and enamored by the idea, I searched for that theme while I was reading the play. Of course I didn't find it. Why? I scrutinized the quote again and realized that the idea itself is nonsense. There's no such thing as Christianity before Christ, so how could any aspect of Christianity be "lost" after Christ? Mailer pulled that old pseudo-intellectual's trick of trying to confuse his reader into believing that he, Norman Mailer, is profounder than we could ever hope to understand.

Second of all, I didn't find much in the text to support the interpretation that it's about a sexual anything. Except for that discussion about hanging themselves so that they can get erections. But I believe that sex here is used as one limited aspect of a larger concept, diversion. While the question of diversion (either supporting or undermining morality and faith) permeates the whole play, sex by itself doesn't hold any definite set of propositions. Once again, I think Mailer was trying to get some cheap thrills.