‘Waiting for Godot ‘ and ‘The Outsider ‘ have similar subjects running through the chief vena of the secret plan, though they are radically different in manner and secret plan. In peculiar there are inquiries presented by the texts refering what it truly is to be human, an appraisal as it were of how we live our lives.

In ‘The Outsider ‘ ( The Stranger as it is sometimes known by the original rubric ) , the secret plan follows a immature adult male named Meursault. Apparently detached from the universe around him, he has a barbarous honestness and an ab initio upseting ability to in cold blood detect and measure any state of affairs. The decease of his female parent at the novel ‘s gap sees him prohibitionist of cryings, non desiring to see the organic structure at her funeral but alternatively imbibing a cup of tea and smoking a coffin nail with a caretaker. There is an indifference to his female parent ‘s decease, an apathy towards the concerns and emotions of most people that we see infinite times, as the wallopings of Salamo ‘s Canis familiaris and Raymond ‘s whipping of his girlfriend. He is independent of society, disregarding many of the societal conventions and structures we apply to life ; yet he is non lonely. Underneath his wooden demeanor, there is a existent gusto for life, a bang that he finds in the universe around him frequently lost to all but kids. He seems to be happy, non because he follows the guidelines that civilisation lays out, but because he finds felicity in his ain manner, felicity found really much in the present. But his ‘happiness ‘ is non what we would chiefly conceive of. Possibly because felicity is sensed as wild, a Sun kissed passion laden with laughter and delectation where as Meursault, except for occasional minutes where he wholly lets go like the lorry, is cold and robotic in his joy. A differentiation so, between felicity and what Meursault feels, content. This is an of import subject in the book which, although adamantly denied by Camus, seems to hold a instead existential philosopher border. We work hard to acquire money, have sometimes hard relationships, do things we merely do non desire to, and for what? To be happy? Surely non this fugitive fleeting emotion ; so possibly it is to be content with ourselves and our lives. Yet, is this non what Meursault feels by disregarding all of these rules?

It appears as though the construction of societal order is ignored by Meursault, and he is better off without it. But because of this uniqueness, it seems as though the remainder of society, the ‘civilised ‘ peoples of the universe, can non understand him and hence find him so unpalatable, so incorrect. Indeed, it is this that is truly used to convict him of a offense punishable by decease in the courtroom, the existent slaying secondary to his coldness, the image of his as a soulless freak. They see him as uncaring and in some ways, he is, but this is a really simplified position. So if Meursault is such an foreign character, how can we associate to him? In most things we ca n’t, yet as the book proceeds we can get down to understand him ; and through this understanding his development. It seems as though Meursault ‘s growing throughout the book is reasonably limited, if non non-existent. This is nevertheless, rather incorrect. All of Meursault evident mutual opposition from others around him seems to stem from, non a deficiency of cognition and caring from what is about him, but from himself. He ‘s non cognizant of his ain desires, motives and as such, acts as though he has none. Because of this, his interaction with the universe around him is limited, his emotions are badly abridged, determinations non-existent, his positions of people entirely disinterested or casually misguided in their nonsubjective unbias. The inactive demeanor he adopts creates an aura of detached and hardhearted, relationships based on easiness instead than a connexion with the individual. He can detect them carefully, inside informations of their face, actions voice all to the full rendered in his head, yet his apprehension of what this means is unequal for what is considered human communicating. The alteration that Meursault undergoes so is a major 1. From the terminal of Chapter three where he kills the Arab, without sorrow and indifference he ends his life, so proceeds to hit the dead organic structure three more times. Why? This act underlines all of Meursault ‘s separation from society. He does non believe in anything spiritual ( more unusual at the clip ) , being is an passing thing ; it flees after a ephemeral minute. The killing holds no significance ; it is as if other people to Meursault, as in the old people ‘s place, do non truly be. This is something of Meursault that we could, to some extent, expect. It is, nevertheless ; the shot of the organic structure after that is surprising. As mentioned, Meursault does non cognize himself and so when questioned, he says he is non certain why he continued to dispatch slugs into the cadaver. This is important as it shows that Meursault is non entirely unconcerned with life, there is something else crushing its melody in his actions. Possibly this is a release for him, hatred, choler from the decease of his female parent, furthermore from the imperfect society he lives in. The heat, which plays a immense portion throughout the book could, to some extent, non merely deduce the shock in which Meursault finds himself at times, but besides a little step of firing emotion within himself.

It is these deep buried emotions that Meursault begins to come to clasps with towards the terminal of the book. Indeed the alteration between him at the terminal of chapter two, and the terminal of chapter three is slightly absorbing. His prison sentence serves as a accelerator to alter in Meursault, the isolation of his cell conveying him closer to impressions of normalcy instead than forcing him off. His inactive demeanor falls off and he begins to do determinations, actions and words that have direct effects and effects that he can portray before they happen. When he shouts at the Chaplain, he does so “ with calls of choler and joy ” . Emotion comes alive within Meursault and with it, a cognition. A cognition of his wants and inducements, confidences of everything he has of all time seen, heard, touched ; what it means to be alive, “ certain about himself, approximately everything, surer than the chaplain could of all time be, sure of his life and sure of the decease he has waiting for him. ” We see that he moves from indifference from his decease to apprehension, so to acceptance. This might look fiddling, but this is the extremum of his alteration, the transmutation into feeling. He wants to populate his life once more, to get away and be free, to see, this clip truly experience. But he does n’t. He has recognised his sentence, recognised his decease and will confront it. The last lines are peculiarly affecting, anger rises to the forepart in a boom storm and he spills away all the pent up emotion that has been held within him all his life. He realises with a despairing hilarity the futility of life, the indifference that, like he had one time shown, the existence has for human life. The concluding measure in his transition is being the focal point of hatred at his executing, eventually understanding why they should experience this manner towards him, why they found him so incorrect.

Waiting for Godot evidently delivers its thoughts is a really different manner. It is of class a drama so unlike Meursault, we see the characters from the exterior, pass oning to us with the aid of the physical organic structure. The absurdist text makes it sometimes harder to maintain path of the emotions of the characters as it does in the Outsider, yet we ne’er feel lost in their sudden temper swings and uneven reactions. Like the Outsider, Waiting for Godot has strong subjects on the thought of society and where we are ‘placed ‘ . This is invariably challenged, by both Estragon and Vladimir and so the characters of Lucky and Pozzo. Godot himself, of whom we ne’er catch a glance, it an interesting character, merely by the manner that the two hobos ( ne’er really referred to as hobos in the book ) talk of him ; words of worship, collapse, imploring. A really simple reading might be that Godot is God, but it seems that he is more routed in our universe. Beckett himself said he did non cognize who Godot was, yet it seems that he represents non a individual, but something more abstract. He is society, regulations, construction ; he is the corporate head of a people. As ideals change, Vladimir and Estragon might be accepted back into a universe of normalcy. They are everlastingly at the mildness of Godot, his will it was ordering their topographic point. But outside of society, what do Vladimir and Estragon have? Very merely, they have… nil. They exist in a universe of emptiness, the drama is frequently described as something in which, “ Nothing happens, twice. ” And this is what the drama says. Like the Outsider, it explores the thought that finally, there is nil. And so, we create something ; society. We create rites, faith, regulations, rules, thoughts all to cover up the indispensable void of our lives. The drama elicits a sense of panic lurking in day-to-day life, an elegiac tone of desperation, the loss of hope. And in the procedure of watching it, the point is forced place in dark sarcasm. We are waiting for Godot, we are the 1s go throughing the clip watching the broken duologue between two bewildered work forces ; we are the 1s who try blind ourselves from meaningless being. Vladimir and Estragon exist outside this frontage in a province we would barely name cognisant, yet more true to themselves. Forgetful, leery and in hurting, they fight against ennui and empty continuance and so pass clip by dissing one another and reiterating what had come earlier. Like the Outsider, the characters are radically different from what we would name normal, because they challenge the recognized beliefs and fundamental laws.

But allow us now look at character inside what we would see pubilc civilization, Pozzo and Lucky. Although still immensely different from most of us in behavior and presentation, they are if you will metaphors for what our lives have become. The slave and the maestro, possibly more relevant in history these characters, yet non every bit immaterial as one might believe. We exist in a universe where you are either on top or on underside, fighting to lift of all time higher. You take what you can, or person else will, and supply merely for yourself in a conflict against those we would name our community. These two characters are non mediaeval relics, but really much representations of us today. Pozzo, whilst in entire control in the first Act, handling Lucky like an animate being is far from impregnable in his place. By the 2nd Act, he is unsighted, and Lucky is more prima him about than being commanded. Lucky is now in control, although Pozzo is blind to it, physically and more significantly, mentally. This alteration of power underscores the junior-grade infighting of political relations and human interaction, both characters riddled with flaws yet excessively focused on each other, Pozzo on Lucky ‘s aid and obeisance, Lucky of Pozzo now despairing bids ; both unable to make anything about their ain jobs.

And once more and once more, illations can be drawn from the absurd actions of the characters from Waiting for Godot and Meursault in the Outsider touching upon the topic of decease and of black pessimism. It is a powerful capable and one that both allude to countless times. The Outsider portrays decease as a blessing, a concluding release, the one thing in which we are all every bit blessed. Waiting for Godot, something for which we must wait for, wait through scenes of ennui unless we sign up to the hapless reliefs and false thoughts as the remainder of humanity. And in this we have a profoundly misanthropic position of us as people, although this is redeemed slightly by certain fragments of text. The strong friendly relationship between Vladimir and Estragon is entirely good, a friendly relationship seeking to outweigh the troubles they face. The Foreigner offers peace, at first false peace through Meursault ‘s emotional emancipation, and so true peace through his comprehension of feeling and his absolution. So whilst both dramas can be considered both unenthusiastic of life, there is some component to them that inspires something more, something hard to to the full grok.

It is in this that we see hope. Difficult to see at first, granted, yet it is at that place. Life is without intending, without intent. But it is non unpointed. Yes, society is barbarous and leery of those that we call different yes, we can non impute a higher significance to our being but it does non intend we can non happen our ain intent and harness it for a opportunity at good.