Explication of Events and Dialogues in Samuel Beckett s Waiting for Godot 1. Argument Samuel Beckett s once spurned existential tragicomedy Waiting for Godot has received its critical due some order of magnitude over. Its dialogical prose withstands the regular prod and likely occasions enough theses each semester to rival Andrew Marvell. However, the play s more mundane points continue to elude the attention of commentators, and I suspect this variety of neglect peculiar to Beckett alone. Much allusive pleasantry abounds yet a missing watch is consigned to the jurisdiction of metaphor (viz., lost time). But where did it go? the question is simply not brought up. Irish literary critic Vivian Mercier s well-known, in fact laudatory summation, [H]e has written a play in which nothing happens, twice, of course concedes things happen. Rather, Mercier s contention is that nothing especially occurs, and unless one is willing to drape grander tableaus of myth upon the text I find myself in agreement. Indeed the miracle is that stage direction, in conjunction with minute passages of speech, too clearly spells out the humdrum goings-on contained between its acts. Meanwhile evidence planted before the reader is passed over and not comprehended. Dutifully intending to keep an ironic eye out for the playwright s mirth risks evading dirty potholes of detail. Such an approach to texts seems to me entirely suitable to fiction, which superficially delights in metaphysical themes of damnation and self-knowledge, the building blocks of who, what, and where almost without exception laid neatly before us and speedily traversed. In this drama there is no purposeful obfuscation nor symbol where none intended. Ultimately it is all too loathsome an endorsement of l'esprit poétique to scratch one s head in flattering ponder, pleased at least for having taken part in the collective puzzlement. It is exactly because the reader is accustomed to declaring comprehension of a tale upon breaching its metonymic stratum that she or he fails to address baser articles, such as Estragon s dreams and Vladimir s bladder. Gaining the symbolic high ground typically indicates one has finished with plot, having climbed by aid of its sequence of broad rungs. Because Beckett's literature begins with the symbolic readers are enabled to browse as if allegory were a skin stretched over rough incident, on which otherwise we snag and fight for understanding. Suffice it to say this primacy of parable in Waiting for Godot dissuades investigation, so you believe yourself in caverns when but kneeling in ash. 2. Questions Who beats Estragon? Vladimir s urinary incontinence necessitates sleepwalking to relieve himself. He tramples Estragon in doing so and refuses knowledge of his dreams lest the tormentor be known. ESTRAGON. Who am I to tell my private nightmares to if I can't tell them to you? VLADIMIR. Let them remain private. You know I can't bear that.[1] ESTRAGON. I wasn't doing anything. VLADIMIR. Then why did they beat you? ESTRAGON. I don't know.[2]