Talk:Waiting for Godot/Archive 3

Plot Summary

This plot summary is laden with interpretative snippets and quotes by Beckett. Shouldn't those items go under interpretation and leave the plot summary as...well...just a plot summary? 207.237.199.62 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole thing reads like an essay some first year english lit major wrote about the play. Arguably interesting but not very encyclopedic. Not having looked at the edit history and just based on glancing through this discussion page it certainly does seem that someone simply wikified an essay- which now that I think about it is rather funny since that's often the opposite of how these things go. The plot summary section, at the very least, needs a rewrite. 140.182.134.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

And a poor essay at that. The section of the Characters should be shortened, and all the unnecessary quotes, while interesting, should be removed, or at least modified. Half of the section of "Who is Godot?" consists of quotes. I wish I could change it, but will leave it to someone else. Ykerzner (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Synopsis is not a Synopsis. It's not a synopsis if it's several pages long. seriously, lookup the word Synopsis in a dictionary.70.79.146.225 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the synopsis or plot summary, because it had been too elaborate, too full of unsourced interpretive comments. It didn’t seem to have an encyclopedic style — it seemed overly witty and colorful. It had also been complained of [above] in this section without dispute beginning in 2009. So I trimmed it down to its bare bones.Hollarbohem (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with that wholesale surgery. If there was unencyclopedic writing (and your version is not faultless in this regard), that can be addressed. Taking the comments above which are >10 years old as justification for these cuts is inappropriate because the synopsis was then very different: Special:Permalink/355647050. In accordance with WP:BRD, I'm going to restore the previous version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that though the plot summary section has changed over time, it seems to have grown more ornate and elaborate. The summary is not at all concise as it should be — it’s huge and massive. Any definition of a play’s “plot” or “plot summary” shouldn’t include so many minor moments and descriptions. I think the summary needs to be more considerate of the reader, or researcher, or student — who comes looking for information on the topic. The reader is faced with these massive “plot summary” paragraphs about removing shoes and dozing off, etc. The “narrator voice” in the summary seems (to me) to depict a witty story-teller — with too much in-universe or novelistic personality. An in-universe point-of-view contributes to the narration including a lot of interpretive commentary. Colorful or novelistic words and phrases that don’t occur in the play are the plot-summary narrator’s contributions to narrative style and attempts to add in-universe context: The two are “bedraggled” companions. An off-stage cry “heralds” an entrance. Someone speaks “loftily”.Hollarbohem (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"bedraggled" doesn't strike me as any more unencyclopedic than "tramp-like". OTOH, the original description of Lucky's monologue is deservedly more detailed than "Lucky performs a dance and a monologue. Then Pozzo and Lucky depart." The use of contractions in the proposed text is not in line with MOS:CONTRACT. I agree that the current synopsis could be trimmed, but that 1st attempt was too radical. This page has >250 watchers; I expected more input. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I see what you’re saying about “tramp-like”, and I agree. Of course the script doesn’t call them “tramps”. I disagree strongly with the description of Lucky’s speech (as it stands now in the article) when it says that the speech “dissolves into mindless verbosity”. The speech, in fact, even as cryptic as it may get, has been seen by many sources to contain serious and even profound meanings, and meanings that are key to the play. And for Wikipedia to call it “mindless” not only misses the point, but seems derogatory. Also to say that Lucky’s speech begins as an “academic lecture” seems wrong (to me) or at least controversial — it’s an interpretation or metaphor that not everyone’s going to agree with. And since the metaphor (“academic lecture”) doesn’t come from the play itself, it at least needs a footnote (according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction). It seems wrong in terms of style -- too much like a novel or fiction-writing, and not really a plot-summary.Hollarbohem (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems no one else is offering any opinion. We agree that the current synopsis is flawed. IMO the proposed version was shortened too much. Is there a third way? I'm not volunteering. If you think your version should stand, I'm not going to revert again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I will restore — with some additions. Any helpful ideas, suggestions, edits, additions or reversions are welcome, and which could possibly make for a kind of third way.Hollarbohem (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

play overview in article's intro

I attempted to remove a spoiler from the article's intro. This was reverted with the following reasons given:

• "spoiler concerns stopped decades ago": obviously false for the many readers who have not seen the play and may want to know some basic facts about it without knowing its resolution
• "it's a crucial element": in fact I addressed this in my own edit summary, pointing out that this element was already covered in the plot summary. The resolution to the central conflict of a dramatic work is always a "crucial element" to the work, but out of respect for viewers is almost universally omitted from high-level summaries. Claiming that the resolution is so crucial it needs to be revealed up front basically dismisses the concept of a "spoiler" outright.

Sure, it's debatable whether this particular spoiler spoils one's enjoyment of the play. But the very concept is subjective: what one viewer might find merely an interesting note about the play, another might find significantly detracts from her enjoyment. It seems pretty apparent that, regardless of one's personal feelings about how important a particular spoiler is, revealing the resolution to the central conflict in the first sentence of the article, without warning, takes that decision out of the reader's hands. Is there a compelling reason to keep this revelation in the intro? 2605:A601:AB42:5B00:D79A:70A3:B6A4:34BF (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The concept of a spoiler in Wikipedia articles was abandoned in 2007; see Template:Spoiler and the links there; see also Template:Uw-spoiler. The function of an article's lead section are explained in the lead section of MOS:LEAD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The first one leads to a page that does not exist. The second contains the advice "giving a section a title such as 'Plot' or 'Ending' is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative," which is exactly the point I have been making: the "plot" section of this article, not the lead, is the appropriate place for this revelation. What specifically in the third link do you find arguing for spoilers in the lead? Leads in most Wikipedia articles about dramatic works do not contain them. 2605:A601:AB42:5B00:D79A:70A3:B6A4:34BF (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The first link provides links about the Wikipedia history of abandoning spoiler warnings, especially Wikipedia talk:Spoiler/old template talk and the links at the top of that page, especially Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8#Template:Spoiler. From MOS:LEAD: "summary of its most important contents", " basics in a nutshell", "summarize the most important points" – all of which apply to "Godot who never arrives", something that is mentioned widely in titles of articles and papers, articles leads, headlines, and papers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposing changes

I have read through the talk sections for this page and have noted some of the perceived deficiencies that have been most commonly associated with the article. The changes I propose are as follows: -Improve the grammer and fluidity in the 'Plot','Godot' and 'Vladamir and Estragon' sections. -Describe the actions and relevence of the 'Boy', 'Pozzo' and 'Lucky' more succinctly. -To include a better description of the tree within the 'Plot' section. -To include a more thorough examination of Lucky's philosophical speech that occurs within the play, while quoting a relevent scholarly article to boost it's sense of belonging. -To include a paragraph discussing Beckett's time in occupied Paris within the 'Political' section, in order to more thoroughly elucidate the means by which he likely developed his own sense of politics. An ommision I thought prudent to include seeing as it provides an element of contextualisation which may prove vital to this particular section. -Provide a 'Wiki-Link' to Beckett's biography page on Wikepedia following the inclusion of his time spent in Paris during the War. -To provide an additional link to 'The Blind Beggar' Wikepedia page, seeing as Pozzo may resemble this particular Biblical figure, within the 'Christian' section. I have provided this synopsis of the changes I wish to make so that if anyone disagrees with them, or spots ommissions of my own within the synopsis, I may be notified with greater ease. RobertUCC (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo representation

While stumbling upon this entry, I was somewhat surprised at the "non-notable" unimpressive images that this article offers to represent one of the most important plays of the 20th century. In particular: Vladimir and Estragon (The Doon School, India, 2010) and Estragon and the boy (University of Chicago, 2020). Really? Zero Mostel and Burgess Meredith, Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen, Robin Williams and Steve Martin ... et al. Someone PLEASE update this page with a better, more notable, representation!!! Maineartists (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For a selection of available images, see Commons:Category:Waiting for Godot, to which, subject to Commons:Licensing, you (not "someone") are free to add. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this just coincidence, or not?

In 1951, The book "Waiting for God", by Simone Weil, was published. Weil (1909-43) was a well-known author and mystic.

Then in 1952, Samuel Beckett's play "Waiting for Godot" was published.

Is the similarity between the titles and their timing just a coincidence? 2601:200:C000:1A0:9D37:4459:C381:5539 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)