Meaning In Samuel Beckett's Waiting For Godot

‘Meaning’ is like a taboo word in Post Modernism. It is not to be talked of and one should not search for it in any literary text since it is a meaningless endeavour. This radicalism against the search for meaning in literature is rationally unacceptable and untenable. This small paper aims to show that although the Post-Structuralist idea of deconstruction that stands behind Post-Modernist writing, emerged as a critique of conventional view regarding ‘meaning’ and ‘rationality’, is itself a meticulously advocated rational view. This paper is a critique of the Post-Modernist critique of the idea of meaning in a literary text. ‘Waiting for Godot’, which is one of the representative pieces of Post Modernist literature, is made a reference point for this purpose.
‘Waiting for Godot’ by Samuel Beckett is considered to be a revolutionary play in many sense. Any conventional play has a specific setting and background. Even if a play begins abruptly, one can understand the backdrop and the context through the dialogues of the characters on which the

This tree is nothing more than a bush for Estragon. The two men begin to talk about Godot. Their conversation is full of contradictions. First of all, there is not certainty of Godot’s coming although they are waiting there for him only. They are also not sure whether they were present in the same spot yesterday. Then there is complete confusion regarding the day of meeting. The two men do not even know, whether it is Sunday or Monday or Friday. Deconstructive analysis tries to reveal that a text is made of contradictory elements but in this case all kind of conflicting and contradictory elements weave into the very fabric of this text. As discussed earlier, logical consistency is a false criteria to either judge or misjudge literature. A literary text cannot be but like an epistemic system and be written off only by forgetting about