I enjoy the works of Oliver Sacks because of his genuine interest in people and he never imposes the pretensions of narrow mindedness. This, to me, is the same reason I enjoy the works of Samuel Beckett. He does not use umbrella diagnoses, instead examines individual cases, which I believe is far superior in helping people. He seemed like a person with great benevolence for humanity.

An example of his open mindedness is highlighted here from: ''There is no way by which the events of the world can be directly transmitted or recorded in our brains; they are experienced and constructed in a highly subjective way, which is different in every individual to begin with, and differently reinterpreted or reexperienced whenever they are recollected. Our only truth is narrative truth, the stories we tell each other and ourselves—the stories we continually recategorize and refine. Such subjectivity is built into the very nature of memory and follows from its basis and mechanisms in the brains we have.'' (The River of Consciousness)

The unreliability of memory is a subject explored through many of Beckett's unreliable narrators.

I think geniuses are not those born with a certain raw talent and intelligence, although intelligence is important, it is rather those most motivated by passion, allowing them to focus and ruminate on their profession until it becomes their life, a constant in their conscious and unconscious mind. This allows links to be made in things unconsidered by those less focused.

I find both of these to be attempts to understand ourselves, others and the human condition.

I find Darwin relates a lot to Sacks. This is because his passion shone through in his work. This passion lead to On the Origin of Species, a cornerstone of the Enlightenment.

His curiousity for individuals and benevolence toward them, I believe, were the reasons for his L-dopa breakthrough.

Medical cases could be more valuable evaluating more comprehensively the individual, rather than merely their symptoms. This can lead to umbrella terms for very different illnesses.

Subjects which one may not be interested in become enthralling through Sacks' charisma and storytelling.

This is what made him interesting, his consideration as a doctor of things beyond medicine. What he calls ''Scotoma'', things which cannot be explained through science, at least not at the present moment.

I find this is the bane of science, a lack of consideration of illogical causations. The need to explain things too matter-of-factly.

Or even nothing can be done. I'm reminded of Plato's: ''There are two things a person should never be angry at, what they can help, and what they cannot.'' Applied to Godot, this is the acceptance of the human condition.

I am reminded here of Erasmus' The Praise of Folly, where in the last section of the book, he criticises Christians so focused on their salvation, they fail to enjoy life. They fear being damned more than death.

Intellectuals fearing death, attempt to immortalise themselves through their works. Or, for the Everyman, to place purpose on human lives is a comfort to our existence.

I agree. This is why I am interested in Beckett. He does not write about anything he does not know, rather his works show the sheer amount we do not and cannot know. Kenneth Tynan said in reaction to others calling it pretentious, ''But what, exactly, are its pretensions? To state that mankind is waiting for a sign that is late in coming is a platitude which none but an illiterate would interpret as making claims to profundity.'' (Graver, L. and Federman, R. Samuel Beckett: the critical heritage, ''Waiting for Godot: Kenneth Tynan in 'Observer' (1955)''. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. pp. 97)

This could be what Beckett was implying. I prefer to think Godot represents some objective meaning, a piece of absolute, infallible knowledge. The diminutive then may be not a little god, rather a piece of god, a piece of absolute knowledge. Thus, Godot arriving would not have made sense, as objective knowledge is unobtainable.

I agree. I think it's about waiting. This is to outline most of life is waiting.

I agree. The absurdity being the lack of meaning. Still, there's meaning which can be imposed. Someone who had never come in contact with money would not find meaning to value it as those who have. Thus, life is not meaningless, but for meaning to exist, it must be created by people.

I think Beckett also saturates things with meaning. For example, with minimal props, like the tree. So much meaning is imposed on it that it winds up having as ambiguous a meaning as if none were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5PRaTSMUI I was not familiar with Alexander Calder, but having watched the video, I think Heinz's argument has some credibility. (The speakers don't seem to add anything to this point) Calder's mobiles have a delicacy in balance. As does Beckett's works, in their subtlety and the extent of his focus on form, which only increased in later plays. The reason he moved to theatre was to have more control over his work. To portray the ''disquieting beauty from the precarious balance.''

They impose their own responsibility to wait for Godot. I agree there is no blatant purpose.

I disagree that Estragon and Vladimir have the freedom to go where they please. They are imprisoned by their expectation of Godot, and the fear of not being there if he arrives.

This leads to a display of mundane oddities, which life is filled of, yet had previously often been omitted from theatre, as the focus was to entertain. Godot manages to be entertaining all the same, when the realisation comes that the viewers life are filled with their own mundane oddities.

The incompetence of language as a form of communication is common throughout Beckett's works. He often uses humour to outline this, through miscommunication and writing intentionally ambiguously things which can be interpreted in many way. This becomes more prominent in his later works, where language seems to breakdown and be unintelligible. Still, the works are carefully crafted as such, and surely not an arrangement of random words.

I agree with this impression. The play is cyclical, they seem to have been repeating the same day for some time, and will continue to. For example, at the end of the play just before the final curtain, Estragon: Well? Shall we go? Vladimir: Yes, let's go [They do not move] (Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot. London : Faber and Faber, 2006, pp 87)

This is a common perception, but in my opinion, the play is more concerned with waiting for something that's not coming, or does not exist - so ultimately waiting for nothing. Saying it is concerned with nothing makes it seem nihilistic,which is something I believe Beckett is. Rather, Beckett evokes that the nature of meaning is different than how it is usually perceived. It is not something objective which exists independently in the world outside of people, rather it needs a perceiver to exist. Like George Berkeley's quote, ''to be is to be perceived''. If Beckett was asked if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?, I believe he would answer 'no'.

I find this to be an excellent overview of Waiting for Godot, and agree with the majority of the points. Heinz dismisses many of the confused interpretations which surround the play, while not imposing pretensions himself.

ovi - relating to eggs And I presume Heinz is referring to ''cephalic'', which is a technical term relating to the head.

The closest use of ''ovicephalos'' I found is as the name of a species of hookworm, Metacanthocephalus ovicephalus.

Does Beckett obscure and dilute any meaning of life in his plays? Perhaps this is the impression given by the characters of waiting for a long period of time. Any impression of hope for heaven or fear of hell has been eroded. Perhaps the desolate environments he places his characters in make the living envy the dead (I do not know who to attribute this to, as it has many sources, but the concept remains). This seems, at times, applicable. The contrary may also be argued. They seem more bored than suicidal. Their attempt to hang themselves is more for their entertainment than to achieve death.

Like the little boy, I don't fully understand this anecdote, but see its relevance to Godot. Perhaps Godot too is waiting for the tramps somewhere, perhaps the tramps are Godot, already holding the meaning they await, but never quite able to grasp it.

The ''little'' aspect may be to outline people placing too much value on meaning.

I think this is what the waiting in Godot is, and the reason many people write. The times constantly seem out of joint because they don't necessarily make sense. The human condition is far too irrational. We feign rationality through inept language. Despite no respite, I do enjoy speculation into why others think the times are out of joint. It is entertaining, and Beckett even makes it humourous.

I think its ironic that so much speculation has been placed upon what I agree is an anti-mystery play.

I think Beckett rejects logical causation. Life is far too messy for it to be possible to pinpoint the plethora of oscillations which lead to any situation, let alone logical ones.

Continuing on my last annotation, ''little cross'' may be each person's elementary attempt toward absolute knowledge or meaning.

I agree with his description of allegories. Also, I find them to be reductive, and often liable to fallacy.

There is not indication of a ''lost paradise''. There is nostalgia for better times in other plays, such as Happy Days by Beckett, but I don't see much in Godot.

This is an interesting point on Beckett's subtlety.

The role reversal is interesting, from powerful land owner to a feeble blind man in need. It shows the instability of power.

blows where it will

I wish Heinz had elaborated on what he thought was significant about this. I get the irony of Lucky's name, being an ill treated slave. Perhaps he means Lucky, due to his name, and his status, is one of the most closely tied to the Western world? With hierarchy, Pozzo the Anglo-Saxon land owner in Ireland.

I agree with this term being a good description of Godot. Godot lacks form, of course, in his absence.

I disagree, as mentioned in a previous annotation, it is to outline the inadequacy of language for communication. Godot or his other works are not whimsically chosen nonsense.

Here, Heinz calls Beckett an egghead, which he says is synonymous with an intellectual. In an interview with Gabriel D'Aubrarède, Beckett is asked why he writes claims the exact opposite, ''I haven't the slightest idea. I'm no intellectual.'' (qtd. in Critical Heritage, 'Interviews with Beckett', 217)