BestThesis on Anti Hero

1. ANTIHERO IN WAITING FOR GODOT
BY SAMUEL BECKETT
HAFSA ASLAM
ROLL NO. 12835
Faculty of English Language, Literature & Applied
Linguistics
National University of Modern Languages, Lahore
Campus
2013-2014

2. ii
A STUDY OF ANTIHERO IN WAITING FOR
GODOT BY SAMUEL BECKETT
INTERNAL SUPERVISOR:
MR. ___________________
EXTERNAL SUPERVISOR:
MR. ______________________
BY:
HAFSA ASLAM
A thesis Presented to the
Faculty of English Language, Literature & Applied Linguistics
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN LANGUAGES
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
ENGLISH LITERATURE & LINGUISTICS
JULY, 2014

3. iii
A STUDY OF ANTIHERO IN WAITING FOR GODOT
BY SAMUEL BECKETT
Submitted By: HAFSA ASLAM Roll #:.12835.
MA English Literature & Linguistics
Mr.
Name of Internal Supervisor Signatures
Mr.
Name of External Supervisor Signatures
Muhammad Kashif Jalil
Name of H.O.D. Signatures
Brig. (R) Muhammad Akram Khan
Name of Regional Director Signatures
Date:___________
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF MODERN
LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE,
LANGUAGE & APPLIED LINGUISTICS

4. iv
RESEARCHER'S DECLARATION
I, HAFSA ASLAM, do hereby solemnly declare that the work
presented in this research has not been previously submitted to any other
institution for a degree.
HAFSA ASLAM

5. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My all acknowledgements go to my teachers especially my
supervisor Madam Rushda Saeed who helped me whenever I needed her
help. I owe a great sense of gratitude for all my friends who assisted me to
understand complicated concepts.
I would also like to thank all those writers, researchers and
publishers whose works have been consulted and cited in this piece of
research. Special thanks go to my family who helped me to provide a
sound and favorable, loving environment at home to sit calmly and do this
research.
HAFSA ASLAM

6. vi
DEDICATIONS
I humbly dedicate this piece of research to my dearest Parents Mr.
and Mrs. Muhammad Aslam, whose guidance has always been a key to
success for me in my life and whose love and prayer enabled me to do
something worthwhile in life. I also dedicate this work to other family
members who provide me a sound environment for the compilation of this
work.

7. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………..
Chapter 2: Literature review…………………………………..……
Chapter 3: Discussion of Antihero…………………………………..
3.1: Difference between hero, antihero and villain………….
Chapter 4: Exploration of Antihero in Waiting for Godot…………
Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………………………………............
5.1: The Conclusion of the Study…………..…………………
5.2: Findings of the Research………..………………………..
5.3: Recommendations………………………………………...
Bibliography……………………………………..

8. viii
ABSTRACT
This research has been designed to study this splendid and
significant character under one of the master piece of Samuel Beckett’s
plays waiting for Godot. As it is apparent form the topic of this research
“Antihero in waiting for Godot” by “Samuel Beckett”.
Antihero is the relationship or the result of two words anti -hero
and written as antihero. Big problem regarding the antihero is his
mysterious actions and dialogues which create complications for the
readers to understand the real nature of his character because he does not
truly fit into the character of hero or villain but somewhere between them.
Deep study of the character of antihero explores his puzzling or
mysterious nature or absurdity to recognize his real position is not only a
big reason of its curiosity which provides a new dimension of thought but
perception of another constantly changing term “hero. It seems that
antihero has taken alter under heroism and has such characteristics which
prove that it is different from previous heroes. Antihero depicts picture of
such person who has multiple meanings or characteristics of hero.

9. ix
Antihero’s personality and mysterious actions create curiosity and
complications for the reader and it seems that he is more than a hero but at
what category he falls reader cannot decide it easily. At this point writer’s
struggle to deliver a very significant message through this character has
failed.
Tis research clears this concept that Antihero is present in
Waiting For Godat and explores who is anti hero in this
play.

10. x

11. 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

12. 2
1.1 Introduction
The 20th century is known as complex age with an environment of
changing or transformation in characters because after the world war a
sudden transformation in characters appeared which put people in great
confusion regarding the character of hero and villain. Morison is one of
those who regards this age as the entry of a modern and complex character
named antihero.
This research has been designed to study this splendid and
significant character under one of the master piece of Samuel Beckett’s
plays waiting for Godot. As it is apparent form the topic of this research
“Antihero in waiting for Godot” by “Samuel Beckett”.
Antihero is the relationship or the result of two words anti -hero
and written as antihero. He is the central figure of a story, fiction, play or
drama; who has not such heroic strength or power and courage which our
classical or traditional heroes have. Actually antihero depicts the picture of
modern man who is totally different from traditional man. Modern man is
selfish. His fights are meaningless. His actions are insignificant. He is just
man of words while traditional heroes are man of actions. They fight for
their honour, love and promise. Classical stories show that they are true to
their words like the famous Herakles, Perseus, Jason and Medeia. They are
famous for heroic strength power and courage. People granted them

13. 3
immortality and show respect for them because of their ambitious,
courageous actions and strength.
Sometimes characters are memorized from the reference of their
forefathers, who are unique in their actions. While Antihero is shown as a
person who is not sure about his actions and remains in doubts about his
own decisions. T. S. Eliot is one of those who have highlighted the
character of antihero in his work. Through the character of Antihero Eliot
criticizes the modern society and questions on the actions of human beings
which are meaningless. In the poem “The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock”
Eliot highlighted antihero by describing the personality of such person
who is not confident in any decision making. He thinks to propose a girl
but has failed to do this practically. He makes many plans in his
imaginations but it does not seem practically. In reality, he never says a
single word or anything which he thought. He reflects the personality of
such person who is coward and having poor mentality.
In the story The Lord of the Rings the character of Gollum is
considered best example of the antihero. He is a complicated personality
which everyone cannot understand easily.
The personality of Gollum stands between hero and villain. He is
sincere and loyal servant and companion of Frodo but sometimes he has
shown as a dishonest servant and traitor. He helps Frodo to destroy ring

14. 4
which actually the cause of all disputes but sometimes thinks about ring
powers and makes plans to get this. Researches which have been done on
the character of anti hero show that he is always presented in an absurdist
writing and actions. Usually people are confused about his actions and
dialogues which are not easy to understand.
Antihero as a fictional term entered in literature in the nineteenth
century and grew properly in the second half of the twentieth century,
however the antihero as protagonists or characters have been part of
literature for a very long time and second world war played its main role
in the development of the modern antihero when sudden transformation in
characters appeared.
History of that time period in which antihero flourished shows that
under the title of theatre of absurd many writers wrote such plays which
had complex characters because their characters were not easy to
understand. These characters were hanging between hero and villain
position. Their actions and dialogues were absurd that’s why still some
characters are mysterious for the readers.
John Donne has researched on the history of antihero and describes
that antihero has been a significant part of literature for a very long time.
Antihero is the only character which is the true depiction of human beings
in this world. His actions and dialogues sometimes fall him under the

15. 5
character of hero and sometimes he seems villain but the real position of
antihero is between them. F.J.Hoffmann agrees with John Donne idea by
adding that it is not easy to understand the character of Antihero because
of his real position, which stands between hero and villain.
The twentieth century which is known as the age of crisis or
confusion is famous for confused and complicated character named
antihero who is the production of this time period. Mysterious and
confused characters of literature of that time period, are actually the
reflection of frustration, destructions and separation of culture and
traditional values which appeared and started to grow rapidly among the
people of Europe (after 1st World War till the end of 2nd World War).
After having the experience of war people were in anxiety,
confusion and broken state. In the light of this confusion the writers, poets,
and dramatist rejected to write according to the traditional writing style,
which had the stories of real heroes who were great warriors, lovers, men
of wisdom and practical of their words. Writers of the 20th century rejected
to write according to the classical or previous writing style. They started
writing in such way which was the demand of this broken, sad and
pathetic situation. The purpose of such writing was to give true reflection
or image of people which (after war) were confused, broken and

16. 6
wandering aimlessly in the search of someone who could solve all their
problems.
Writers of 20th century introduced such writing style in which main
character or hero has presented as ordinary person. He speaks ordinary and
meaningless dialogues. It seems that his actions do not have much worth
but deep understanding of his character shows that he is allotted by the
writer for a very significant purpose or message. So antihero dialogues or
actions in any play or work have rare position and provides a new
dimension of thought or realization.
Big problem regarding the antihero is his mysterious actions and
dialogues which create complications for the readers to understand the real
nature of his character because he does not truly fit into the character of
hero or villain but somewhere between them.
This study has been attempted to find out the real nature of those
characters which highlight complications, problems and grieves of life by
their mysterious actions and dialogues. Through the exploration of
antihero in waiting for Godot this research highlight this idea that modern
plays which deal with mysterious actions and dialogues reflect the image
of antihero in the character of a broken, aimless, not practical and selfish
person. William Sandra who has been professor of university of California

17. 7
researched on the subject of the presence of antihero in the modern age
and describes that antihero is strongly present in our literary life.
Antihero is only one character whose job is just to represent the
real state of human beings; antihero deals with absurd writing and the
purpose of absurd writing is the reflection of absurdity within the life of
human beings. Actually antihero is the face or mirror of modern human
beings; his actions are in fact the actions of modern man. The presences of
absurdity in his character are actually the absurdity of our own actions and
decision.
Although antihero is a difficult, mysterious and contradictory term
to explore or investigate thus it is one of the strong concepts that evokes
highlights or produces possible interpretations. It provides a new way of
acknowledgement. As it is a difficult, mysterious and contradictory term
so it’s always difficult to recognize him or to get actual message which
writer wants to say or convey through this character.
Deep study of the character of antihero explores his puzzling or
mysterious nature or absurdity to recognize his real position is not only a
big reason of its curiosity which provides a new dimension of thought but
perception of another constantly changing term “hero. It seems that
antihero has taken alter under heroism and has such characteristics which
prove that it is different from previous heroes. Antihero depicts picture of

18. 8
such person who has multiple meanings or characteristics of hero.
Antihero’s personality and mysterious actions create curiosity and
complications for the reader and it seems that he is more than a hero but at
what category he falls reader cannot decide it easily. At this point writer’s
struggle to deliver a very significant message through this character has
failed.
In this research the area of antihero exploration or investigation
will be Samuel’s play waiting for Godot who belongs to the school of
Paris it means he is one of those writers who were writing under the title
of theatre of absurd. Theatre of absurd makes a direct link of the play
waiting for Godot with the presence of antihero in this work because
antihero got popularity under this theatre. Those writers who were writing
under this theatre were not the conscious member of any group or literary
movement they just had common outlook about life and according to them
man’s life in this universe is meaningless and purpose less. Man has lack
of awareness of his existence. His actions are meaningless, his dialogues
are worthless. Modern man is coward and depended on others. Martin
Esslin was first who introduced such kind of writing style by highlighted
the theatre of absurd in his book called theatre of absurd but Samuel
Beckett is one of those who continued this term and got fame in this.

19. 9
Samuel Beckett is famous for his characters which reflect
complications and, confusions. They are mysterious regarding their nature,
actions and dialogues but in spite of all such problems Samuel Beckett
earned factual fame his plays considered one of those significant work
which chases readers mind for a long time because of mysterious and
provoking ideas.
His play waiting for Godot (which he wrote under this time period
in which antihero grew properly) stands as the most renowned work in the
history of English literature. The purpose of this research is to find
antihero figure from this well known play.
Play Waiting for Godot originally written in French but later on
translated in more than fifty languages. In spite of such marvelous
popularity its characters are still complicated and hanging between hero
and villain position. The whole atmosphere of the play is mysterious and
not easy to understand. Its characters, their actions and dialogues
everything is absurd. Story of the play is ordinary and reflects meaningless
journey of human life. It has no plot or action in the ordinary sense of the
word. Nothing really happens throughout the play; in fact it seems that
there is nothing special in the play.
The very sense of the drama or play is that there is nothing
significant or heroic in our life. We are ordinary, having ordinary issues.

20. 10
We act like puppets. We are in fact just man of words; our life is hollow
just as the setting of the play is hollow empty and meaningless. The
concept of hero is not present in the story and all characters have equal
attention. All characters of this play have lack of heroic qualities, decision
power, and courage to face the problems of life. They waste their time in
waiting for someone and think that when he will come everything will be
solved but at the end when a boy comes and informs that Godot is not
coming; so, they earned nothing. Their actions, dialogues and expressions
show that they are not like classical hero as they don’t have such heroic
quality nor they are villain because these characteristics also not present in
them, then what is the real nature of the characters? This question usually
comes in the mind of reader. Some critics fit some characters into the
category of hero or villain but this deep analysis of their characters shows
that no one really fit into an obvious category of hero and villain.
This play opens without previous detail for the audience and does
not have any climax and ends at the same point it starts. But in spite of all
such complexities it is considered one of the most influential plays.
Through its dialogues and mysterious actions play hunts readers mind for
a very long time. It’s not easy to forget this play because of its strong
writing style.

21. 11
Therefore such significant work which clearly reflect the mind,
behaviors and hollowness of the people and offers an enormous scope for
different interpretations, demands full consideration of each and every
aspect of the play which is not possible without the proper understanding
of the nature of characters. Secondly if we don’t explore characters in a
proper way we would not be able to understand writer’s message which he
is actually trying to convey.
This complexity of characters demands to think in a different way.
To find some logical reason to solves the mystery of this play; which can
help the reader to understand the nature of its characters.
This study helps to understand this play and explores or
investigates real nature of the characters of waiting for Godot and proves
that characters of waiting for Godot especially Vladimir and Estragon are
antihero which is hero of modern age and presents the life actions
behavior and mentality of the lay man.
There is some confusion regarding the number of characters of
play. Basically this play “waiting for Godot” deals with six characters
Vladimir and Estragon are the main characters of the play, they are in
search of someone named Godot. In the story they meet with lucky and
Pozzo (3rd and 4th characters), and asked for Godot (fifth character of the

22. 12
play who remain disappeared till the end of play) at the end a boy appears
as a messenger (sixth character) and tells about the arrival of Godot.
But critics have different views about its characters. According to
some critics there are six characters in the play but according to some
critics there are only five characters in this play they do not considered
Godot as a character because he remains disappear till the end of the play.
Those critics who are in favor of six characters have claimed that if
writer has discussed him then he is just like one of those significant
characters of the play which we cannot ignore.
This study will be restricted on the six characters of the play. Each
and every character has discussed which reflect the image of antihero.
Objectives
The objectives of this research are:
 To draw a clear difference between hero, villain and antihero.
 To explore those things which fall Beckett’s characters under
the category of antihero in the play waiting for Godot.
 To give recommendations according to findings and
conclusion.
Research Questions
1. What is the difference between hero, villain and antihero?

23. 13
2. Which things show the presence of antihero in a literary work?
3. How far Beckett’s characters fall under the category of
Antihero in the play waiting for Godot?
4. What recommendations can be given to the readers according
to findings and conclusion?
Delimitation of the Study
The researcher limitizes herself to play Waiting for Godot
characters written by Samuel Beckett.
Research Methodology
This study is a qualitative study that is a field of inquiry and
focuses on fields and subject matters. The primary source of collecting
data of this study is play itself entitled Waiting for Godot written by
Samuel Beckett. The data will be taken from the characters’ utterances and
the narrator’s explanation which represent the presence of antihero. The
secondary source of collecting data is critiques on the play, and Samuel
Beckett.

24. 14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

25. 15
2.1 Literature review:
As stated in the chapter 1 the purpose of this study is to examine or
explore the “Antihero” also known as anti- hero figures from Samuel
Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot”. This chapter will give a quick review
of anti hero study which is related to this thesis statement. Past research
demonstrates that anti hero has been a prominent figure of literature and
provides a wild range of interpretation to the characters of modern age. It
will help to explore that Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot”
demands for the research of anti hero because work which have been done
on this play shows that there is a great need of this study. Antihero is one
of those characters which have complications and this complexity of
character makes him an interested subject for the readers (Bentley Eric,
1980)
Antihero throws light towards man’s real position in this universe
and presents the real face of modern hero which has lost all his heroic
qualities and now fed up with the problems of life. We cannot understand
the characters of modern drama unless we not understand the character of
antihero (Milem, 1982, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1989, Kuh Albert, 1992).
Robert and john used word lay man for him and explores that
antihero is the hero of his own self who just makes plans in his own mind
and do not perform any action. He presents the personality of lay man who

26. 16
considers himself hero but in reality he has nothing which make him hero,
we can call him hero of modern drama. (Robert Brown & John Dukeson,
1960). Actually antihero reveals nature, position mentality, temperament,
consciousness and aesthetic sense of a lay man and provides the real
picture of modern man in this universe (Kenyon Review, 1960).
previous researches are showing that antihero is the representative
of modern drama or age but David Martine believes that antihero not only
recognize from his actions or dialogues but also at that time when he do
nothing or speak nothing. Antihero is not merely a character of twentieth
century but the character of every story which throws light towards such
person who is just man of words and do not do anything practically (David
Martine, 1976) john Bentley seems in the favor of David Martine and
explores in his study that antihero is the hero of the theatre of absurd. He
is timid, weak, courage less, action less, clumsy, dumb and stranded
among the problems, miseries and sufferings of life. His personality
depicts universal actions of common man or ordinary man (The Depth of
Characters, P.45).
Coe researched on antihero and defined him as a hollow, frustrated
and action less hero (R.N. Coe, 1976). Actually whenever a weak or action
less person will be presented as a hero he will be an anti hero (oxford
university press, 1977). Molson is in favor of this definition of antihero

27. 17
and reveals that every modern hero is an antihero. Actually modern
literature presents a mixture of villain and hero which high lights the
character of anti hero (University of Sandura, 1978).
J.L. Styan adds something more in it and explores significant
features of antihero in his research and through survey of different works.
His study helps to understand that anti hero is such person who losses all
his strength, willpower, courage and potential, when he has to face tough
time or he faces some trail or troubles. He depends upon others and has
not physical or mental strength. (Peter D.Hart Research Associates,
1981).In the light of J.L.Styan John Fleeming discovers the personality of
antihero in the work of T.S. Eliot and Pinter and concludes that their
majority characters are anti heroes who present the personality of a hollow
and action less person (Peter Doherty Research Associates, 1985).
Researches on the difference of an antihero and antagonist
highlighted that antihero can be an antagonist but not always because
function of a villain or antagonist is to create problems for a hero,
consciously and unconsciously he do this thing. But antihero is the villain
of his self. May be some situations or circumstances show him as
antagonist but he is not opponent of any one and just present the
personality of such person who is center of all actions but itself has not
heroic qualities (Melvin Ransot, 1967).

28. 18
Anti hero has very different personality as compare to some
classical character because he is the character of twentieth century.
Research which have been done on the comparison of antihero with
classical hero concludes that classical hero were warrior, they fight for
their honor, dignity and had great name or background while anti hero has
nothing such trait and gives the reflection of stuffed man and miserable
man of modern area ( Huraja Bandly,1980; Lacy & Wright,
1984;Feldiman Newso,1988,Knox & Lindsay,1992).actually antihero are
the representative of his age which is hopeless frustrated and action less.
Francis Doherthy compares one figure of antihero with other
classical hero and explores that classical hero were the representative of
their age and antihero are the representative of their age. The difference
between them is actually the difference between the time period of
classical age and modern age(Doherthy Francis,1978).Other researches
which have been done regarding the comparison of antihero with previous
heroes explore the same differences which mentioned above (Roqusive
Brown & Kenner Hugh,1975;Bowen,1978;Knox,Lindsay & Kolb,1995).
James bonnet explores the journey of antihero, he says actually
every work gives reflection of its age and antihero is the production of
after world war. After world war people were frustrated, broken and weak
this thing reflects through the character of antihero(Exploring The Dark

29. 19
side: The Antihero’s Journey,1992).James research shows that he is agree
with previous researchers who has said that anti hero is the representative
of his age and presents modern man as a weak, timid, broken and
frustrated person.. Stephen is little bit disagree with this statement and
explores that anti hero is not only representative of modern age but gives
the image of every man’s reality in this universe (George Stephen, 1995).
His views are much similar to Robert Brown and John Dukeson’s thought.
Marvin Mudrick(1975) has studied the characters of fictions and
concluded that there are two different views about characters, first one is
the purist and the second is realistic. According to the purist characters of
a story are only the part of an imaginative fiction and do not exist outside
the dramatic world. But realistic arguments exposed this point that
characters depict real human beings. Their actions are in fact the actions of
the people.
By holding these views different researcher examines the
character of anti hero and concludes that antihero has very strong position
in both sides (purist and realistic) this character is not only an interested
dramatic character but also a true soul of real human beings(Whitt
&Browning,1987;Astin,1990;Kinzie,Kuh,Schuh;1995;John Hud,2005)

30. 20
This strong position of antihero in the world of literature(drama,
poetry and fiction) inspired many researchers to find him and study him.
That’s why anti hero has been studied vary wildly.
Steward has researched on the character of anti hero. He believes
that a classical hero or traditional hero may be dashing, strong, brave,
courageous, handsome or smart while antihero always shown as an
incomplete, unlucky, dumb, clumsy and timid person. Milton is only one
who has presented antihero in a heroic manner even in the get up of a
weak, unlucky and defeated character (Steward Mconnion, 1996).
Salvatore argues with steward and explores that antihero cannot be shown
with heroic qualities and when Milton shows Satan as a hero at that time
he is still an antihero who can deliver just magnificent speeches and
cannot do anything practically (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Breuter is agreed with Steward‘s views about anti hero’s qualities
and find such qualities in the character of Gollum.
Gollum from the series “Lord of the Rings” is perfect example of
an antihero he just man of words. He makes plan to take ring but does
not show any action. Sometimes he looks a faithful servant of Frodo and at
the same time a big villain who wants to take his ring. Actually anti hero is
such character that has a significant position between hero and villain
(R.Breuter, 2006).

31. 21
Jay Hodson comments on his research and highlights this point that
Gollum cannot be considered as an anti hero. He has shown as swamp
creature who warns people from ring powers, but when we see his position
as such person who just speak and do nothing and is between hero and
villain so this thing makes him an antihero.
Above observations or research reviews highlight some characters
of antihero and clear this concept that antihero is a person who can never
be a man of courage and practical and always stand between hero and
villain characteristics. This thing is a great inspiration to this study to find
antihero in the play waiting for Godot because its characters are ordinary,
have been an interested subject for the researchers and wandering between
hero and villain position.
William Empson explores from this play that every person is
running but for what, no one knows. When they cry for Godot their voices
show that the purpose of their sorrow is not only for Godot but something
else. The emptiness of the play has great position in the play. The
insignificant actions of the characters show in fact real activities of human
beings and pursue a new dimension of thought which is very deep”
(Analysis Of Waiting For Godot, 1956).Empson‘s work highlights
characters of Waiting For Godot as representative of all human beings.
Which are ordinary common and show new face of reality?

32. 22
Dennis Douglas opinion is very close to William Empson. His
research shows that Samuel play “Waiting for Godot” throws light
towards modern man’s attitude, his actions are in fact the actions of
modern man, and actually modern man now has lost all his abilities to
solve the problems of life by his own self. He is now totally depended
upon others. When boy says “Godot is not coming “at this time Estragon
says that he is not happy with all this, his dialogues show, now we fed up
with the waiting for bright future. Behind him there is the voice of all
broken and destroyed people (The Drama Of Evasion In Waiting For
Godot, 1968)
F.J.Hoffman agreed with ` William Empson and Dennis Douglas
in these words “Actually waiting for Godot provides a deep thought, its
characters are not easily understandable. So we cannot easily conclude
anything from them; but each and every decryption of characters shows
the activities of lay man or common man explores the language thought,
status of lay man’s self.(the language of self,1982.)
Before 1980s researchers observed the characters of waiting for
Godot generally or collectively. They did not specify them as hero or
villain. (Dramatic Survey of Literary World [DSLW], 2004)
“It is not easy to read Beckett’s play and then forget it. His plays
hunt readers mind for a very long time. His hero is different and unique

33. 23
and gives a new image” (Beckett A Light In Dark, 1980).John used word
hero in his research which inspired the researchers to find hero of this
play.
Karol Dan was first who explored that Vladimir and Estragon are
the hero or the main protagonist of the story because they run the story.
Story begins with them and finishes on them. Other characters are un
significant or ordinary in front of them” (Exploration Of Hero, University
Of Bengahina, 1982)
JR Brown is not agreeing with Karol Brown study explores that
Vladimir is the hero of waiting for Godot. Although Vladimir and
Estragon both run the story but it seems that Estragon is totally dependent
on him and cannot leave without him. Sometimes Vladimir’s character
also reflect this thing but not in significantly way. (International Journal of
Humanities, 1992)
On the contrast Edison Beeny believes that Godot is the hero of the
play because Vladimir and Estragon think that when Godot will come
everything will be solved it means Godot is such person who can solve all
their problems and they are nothing without him (Sigillum University of
Iceland, 1981)

34. 24
George Kinzie has proved in his research that Godot cannot be
hero of the waiting for Godot, he believes that we cannot considered such
person hero who has not appearance till the end of the story
(Pamplia University Of London, 1984).
Martina Ferio proved in her research that there is no hero in
Waiting for Godot because on one character fit into the slandered
definition of hero (University Of Bologna, 1990)
Regarding the villain different studies show different conclusions.
R.k.John has researched on villain in Waiting for Godot. He believed that
Pozzo is villain because he treats very badly with lucky this thing reflects
the personality of a cruel person and cruelty is one of the features of
villain. Sometimes Vladimir and Estragon are shown great villain of his
own salve. They do not use their brain and waste their time in waiting for
someone.(University Of Salamanca,1993)research on the characteristics of
villain proved that we cannot call someone villain just because the
presence of some features of villain (Astin Kuh,1970).a person who
creates problems in the way of hero is villain(oxford university
press,1984)in Waiting For Godot no one creates hurdle for any one and
significant features which makes a person villain not present in the play so
there is no villain in Waiting For Godot (William Nora,1999; Francis
Abel,2005)

35. 25
Empson Wildo in his research on Waiting for Godot says that
characters of this play are different from other plays and belong to the
theatre of absurd which considered the beginning of antihero (Absurdity of
Character in Waiting for Godot, 2001)
Above researches or arguments conclude that characters of Samuel
Beckett’s play waiting for Godot have been a complex subject in
literature. These characters not fall into the category of hero nor villain
(Roqusive Brown & Kenner Hugh, 1982; Bowen, 1988; Knox, Lindsay &
Kolb, 1995; Bohr Nora, 1999; Francis Abel, 2005); and there is a great
need to explore real nature of them, which is antihero as Empson Wildo
research reveals some link of them with antihero. This study will give a
better understanding of Samuel Beckett’s renowned work.

36. 26
CHAPTER 3
DISCUSSION ON THE SIGNIFINENT CHARISTICS OF
ANTIHERO REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE OF
HERO AND VILLAIN

37. 27
3.1 Discussion on Antihero
Chapter three of my thesis is related with a little introduction of
Hero, Villain and anti hero. Actually without having proper understanding
of hero and villain we cannot get comprehensive approach for antihero
which is necessary to explore the real worthy material from the text. It has
mentioned in the previous chapter that before the appearance of Anti hero,
only two characters were famous, one is hero and second is villain. These
two characters were obvious and had specific characteristics.
In the last of 19th and 20th century after the world war sudden
transformation in characters appeared.
19th and 20th century introduced a new character which is between
hero and villain, in the history of English literature it is known as antihero.
According to the Cazamian views “Antihero is the mixture of hero
and villain; we cannot get him unless we not know the real nature of hero
and villain”.
Same thought also expressed by William Morison he thinks that
the characters of hero and villain when get mixed they produced a new
character and the real understanding of this new character demands the
understanding of hero and villain characteristics. The primary question of
the study is related with different characteristics of Antihero regarding
hero and villain.

38. 28
3.2 How Antihero is different from Hero and Villain?
Hero has been an interested subject for the critics and in the light
of researches and literary works this study concludes that Different
researches which have been done on the character of hero describe him as
a central figure of our stories, a strong character and a man having extra
ordinary strength, power and courage to face the problems of life (Astin,
1979, William Kolb, 1985, Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt 1996).
It is reflected from the history that in the past there is a special kind
of tales related to the daring and brave characters. with the passage of time
a slight change came in the character of hero many things added in his
character but one basic concept remained same that hero should be
different from other persons regarding his strength courage and power. In
the literature of Hellenic myths we find such stories which are connected
to the battle field, fight for honour, dignity and religion. These stories
throw light to the unusual or odd strength of man and women like the
famous Herakles, Perseus, Jason and Medeia. They are famous for heroic
strength power and courage. Nation granted them immorality because of
their motivated and bold actions and strength; sometimes characters are
remembered from the reference of their background which highlights
some specialty in actions of their forefathers. English dictionary labels
hero as a person is famous for velour, strength, who takes bold actions.

39. 29
But bold actions should be in some positive way not for the bad of
someone, his actions deal with noble deeds which show his heroic
qualities.
In classical or traditional stories or myths the heroes are usually off
springs of the god and goddess or mortal mother and father. He can be in
the form of half human and half god. He has extraordinary personality and
his death usually happened in an odd way. He participates in the battles
and fights for his honor and the deeds of his community. He is often
regarded as the crucial or round character of a poem, play and fiction. The
antique and present word for protagonist or the hero is ‘ieros’. In Homeric
times, this word was used to highlight the power of gods and mortal man.
This period is known as the age of heroes and epic. William Dukeson
remarks that best hero produced by Homer; his heroes fulfill that scale
which we used to judge a person as hero. In the concept of hero he added
adventurous realistic and dynamic colours of actions. Homer produced
such heroes which were the heroes of real life. They were practical
persons and believed in actions rather than thoughts. Actually homer’s
hero was same as the previous hero but he did not do any new but made a
slightly change in the central concept or theme of the literature. Previous
literature focus on the majestic or kingship holder parents of hero and
homer’s work put attention towards the energetic strength of hero by

40. 30
highlighting the actions of him. His Odyssey and Iliad stand as the most
renowned work in the history of English literature. The poems of these
books are full of war or battlefield actions. In which homer presents his
hero as facing a storm of arrows without any interval. Hero is courageous
and strong hearted enough that he can kill hundreds of people; for him
nothing is valued but his honour, dignity, love and duty. Homeric heroes
are called epic heroes as well traditional or ancient heroes. Odysseus,
Achilles is popular or famous names of Homeric heroes.
Another type of hero is tragic hero who is the man of noble ideas
having tragic or sad story. He has extraordinary quality. He is also just like
previous hero but royal background or to fight in a battle field is not
necessary for him. He faces some downfall because some of his fault or
error and his own ruin become a cause of great learning for him. In other
words hamartia and paripatia are two main things in the characteristics of
tragic hero. Aristotle was first who defined tragic hero and gave a clear
concept of this. According to the Aristotelian principal of tragedy when
hero faces a sudden downfall, this downfall must be the result of his own
flaw, fortune not wholly responsible for this. Before Aristotle definition of
tragic hero Greek plays highlighted such tragic heroes which faced a
sudden downfall because of their fortune. It means tragic hero was present
in Greek tragedy but Greece highlighted the powers of fortune written by

41. 31
god, they believed that if one thing is written by god than it will be surely
happened and no one can get escape from this. Oedipus Rex is the best
example of tragic hero presented by Greek tragedy in which Oedipus
becomes a victim of fortune and ruins. When it predicted that Oedipus will
marry to his mother, his parents sent him far way but as it was written in
his fortune so it happened and Oedipus destroyed. Aristotle threw light
towards the flaw of man by his own self. Actually Aristotle believes that:
"A man cannot become a hero until he can see the root of his own
downfall caused by his own mistake, in which fortune must not be
fully involved."
Shakespeare is one of those writers who earned factual fame
because of his four tragedies which stand as the most renowned work in
the history of English literature. He introduced his own tragic hero who
has downfall like all tragic hero but sometimes it seems that his character
is aware of his own down fall like hamlet that murders Claudius (the
villain of his play). He exposed his destiny by his own actions. Usually
tragedies discuss male person as hero but Shakespeare introduced female
tragic character as Cleopatra from “Antony and Cleopatra”.
The world is the mixture of black and white, where good and bad
people exist together, the same is the case with literature where we find
some personalities as hero which could not be defined without the

42. 32
personality of villain. William John describes in his most famous book
“Soul of a Characters” that:
“A character who is standing in the hero’s position is hero just
because of those characters which are standing with him. If these
characters do not make themselves ordinary and powerless we cannot get
hero”. (p.78)
This statement throws light towards the importance of villain who
is actually an opposite personality of hero. If hero is the paragon of virtues
so villain is the paragon of bad hobbits. His job is to create barriers in the
way of hero. Morison describes the personality of villain as if hero is the
main character of the story than villain is an obstacle character who can be
defined with the title of Antagonist.
Oxford dictionary defines villain as a person who does something
bad deliberately, he is an evil or wicked person and highlights bad things
by his actions. The best villains in the history of English literature are
those who are as mysterious, interested and unexpected as protagonists.
They are not simple characters who have bad intentions to rule over
people but something more than this. In other words they are not simply
understandable as black and white. John William claims that villain is the
cruelest person of the story. His personality reflects nothing but
cruelity.koh Wimps defines villain as a person who creates hurdle for

43. 33
hero, and has not normal mentality. George Viod is in favour of John
William and says evil is the main characteristic of a villain. Stephen
Sateen adds more things in it and says that a villain is such person who is
ethically bad and usually motivated by bad thoughts and desires. He does
wrong things just for the satisfaction of his own soul. He does badly with
the people and feel contentment.
Above discussion regarding villain highlights the following types
of villain.
A villain is such person who does evil or something cruel. These types of
hero are hypocritical and self serving. He presented in such a way that
reader feel hate for him. His actions show cruelty and evil best example of
this is the character of Mr. Brocklehurst who is a famous character from
Jane Eyre written by Charlotte Bronte.
Writer describes his character as the controller of a boarding school for
orphaned girls. This school was established by one of his relatives.
Broklehurst leaves Jane alone when she finally decides to stand with him.
He do evil with her moreover, he does not feel any shame or regret on this
and considers himself as pious person. He thinks that he is as kind as he is
helping poor girls.
Second type of villain is a person who is insane; he has not normal attitude
or consciousness. Writer shows him as a person who do bad or something

44. 34
evil without any reason. He does this just for the satisfaction of his soul.
Sometimes he even doesn’t know why he doing or the difference between
right and wrong. His mysterious behavior horrifies the readers or
spectators. Sometimes villain has shown as a person who is not
esthetically a bad guy but he taken his virtue, innocence and goodness to
the extreme or very high level. He thinks that he is the only person who
can save this world and it is his responsibility to keep people away from
wrong things. He reacts on the wrong deeds of the people and while doing
this usually crosses the limits. Even stands at that position in which reader
doubts his psyche and starts to considered him villain.
Borisson Donne expressed in one of his book that Antihero is one of the
type of hero but he is not purely fit into the character of such person who
has heroic qualities but some characteristics of it. Sometimes he looks like
a villain but deep analysis of his personality shows both features of hero
and villain at the same time.
Above discussion on the hero highlights him as a person who runs the
story antihero also runs the story but hero must have h royal background
while antihero describes the life of a lay man. This study explores that
hero must have heroic qualities while antihero does not have this.
Sometimes he seems to have such sharp thinking which make him
extraordinary man but deep study of his character shows that he just

45. 35
makes plans but do not perform any significant action. Even he is not sure
of his own ideas at the time when reader expects the implementation of all
planning, he being a coward person take back step and thinks that may be
he is wrong. He reflects dual personality. Sometimes like villain reader
feels hate for him because he does such actions which fit him into the
villain image and sometimes he seems to think like hero. But Antihero just
thinks about heroic actions, he does nothing; best example of this is the
character of Gollum. He sometime shows himself a true companion of
Frodo and tells him how he can save his ring and sometimes makes plan to
kill food to take the ring. Antihero is not an imaginary character his each
and every action represents the true image of modern human beings like
hollow man written by T.S Eliot draws the true picture of modern man and
Prufrok is the best example of Antihero. Prufrok is the true representative
of western broken people. He makes many plans to propose his beloved
but at that time when the reader accepts some action he does nothing. His
actions reveals that human beings are not confident in his actions they still
have some doubts in their personality.
Antihero is always shown as a person who is not perfect even for his own
self as he cannot stand alone. In each and every work related to the
antihero we find him broken, shapeless and confused.

46. 36
Hug Melian who is the professor of the university of California research
on the character of antihero and concludes that Antihero is very different
from hero and villain although sometimes we find the image of these
characters but this character is itself is very strong or enough strong which
cannot be submerge in them. The history of hero and villain also proves
his statement true and it is reflect that if we misunderstand the character of
antihero we not get the real point which actually writer wants to convey
through him.
.

47. 37
CHAPTER 4
EXPLORATION OF ANTIHERO IN WAITING FOR
GODOT

48. 38
4.1 Exploration of Antihero in Waiting for Godot
Hamersley’s (2008) observation is significant for the readers of
any work of literature when he states, “the task of a researcher is not only
to create or provide a reading of a particular “text” but also to use this to
clarify general issues of life” or to give some new information. This
chapter discovers the antihero figures through the analysis of the study
waiting for Godot. It will explore the real nature of the characters that is
antihero and the hero of modern period. Literature review of the waiting
for Godot shows that characters of waiting for Godot have been a
complicated subject for the critics. These characters are unique and not
easy to understand. Every researcher has different views about the
characters of this play which are not easy to forget and hunt readers mind
for a very long time (Bohr William, 1999; Joinable, 2005).
4.2 Analysis:
Stephen vikano in his book “The shadow of Antihero in the world
of Art” describes that the character of antihero demands certain story,
atmosphere, setting and theme of the play according to his character.
Antihero is not one of those characters whom we can fit easily in any
situation. The existence of antihero can be expected in that situation in
which characters have not authority, power and courage to get escape from
the problems, frustration, sorrows and panic situation (p. 97).

49. 39
Mac Throneth (1998) in the light of Stephen statement observes
some articles and concludes that
“He is very right in saying this because every work which has
some reflection of antihero depicts the picture of absurdity, frustration and
disappointment. In a sad mysterious and pathetic situation antihero has
shown as a person who is powerless and action less. Works which has
some picture of this character deals with absurd sitting”. (p.43)
Stephen’s book and Mac observance shows that antihero presence
demands absurd sitting, frustrated situation .a picture of sorrows and
pains. Play waiting for Godot depicts this picture very clearly. In the very
start of the story reader feels that setting of this play is noting significant.
It is empty and seems meaningless. In the act one scene, Samuel Beckett
describes scene for this play as
“There is a tree by the side of a country road. The time is evening.
There is nothing else”. (p.3)
Waiting for Godot deals with absurd dialogues the protagonists are
helpless and action less the whole atmosphere of the play is sad and
irritating. Antihero is an ordinary character. He represents the life actions
and behavior of a common or lay man who belongs to the modern age.
In the book of “Ordinary Figures in Literaria” it is mentioned that
“Antihero is the ordinary character of modern age”. (p.31)

50. 40
Vladimir and Estragon are presented in the play as a common
person. In the play writer describes Estragon as a fool and such person
who has short memory. He is coward person who bears pain in the night
because of the beating of some people. Vladimir guards him and helps him
whenever he needs.
In the start Estragon is shown as doing fight from his shoe but not
succeeded in this until Vladimir comes. Vladimir also depicts the actions
of a lay man. Vladimir sometimes gives the impression of an able person
but for the salvation of the sorrows, problems and solution of frustration,
he finds himself powerless and wait for Godot.
According to some critics Vladimir and Estragon is the hero of the
story because they run the story. Story begins with them and ends on
them. While some critics considered Godot is hero.
According to the oxford university “a hero is considered a central
figure of the story he is not only that runs the story but also has a
significant position in the plot of the story” (oxford university press, 1980)
Deep analysis of the characters shows that no one of them fit into
the category of hero in this play. Vladimir and Estragon although run the
story but only for this reason we cannot consider them hero because
definition of hero given by oxford university throws light to this point that
hero must has a significant position in the plot as far as the position of

51. 41
Vladimir and Estragon considered, we feel that they are just like such
characters who produced to run the story and have not any significant
position
Literature of Hellenic myths presents the personality of hero as
completely changed person from an ordinary one. In this literature we find
such stories which are related to the battle field, fight for honour, dignity,
religion, and throw light to the unusual strength of man and women like
the famous Herakles, and Perseus etc. The heroes of these stories are
famous for heroic strength, extraordinary mentality and physical power,
courage and endurance. The reading of classical or traditional heroes not
only provides us a past journey of great occasions but explores the real
meaning of hero. English dictionary labels hero as a person who is famous
for valor, strength, and brave actions. His actions deals with noble deeds
and show his heroic qualities.
The characters of waiting for Godot have not any heroic trait. They
do not show any action, not give us a historical journey through worthy
dialogues. Their dialogues are absurd. Everything shows that they are
common and ordinary characters of the modern age.
Vladimir and Estragon are in waiting for Godot and highlight the
wait for such person whom they don’t know. Even they are not sure about
his name that’s why when Pozzo comes, they thinks that may be he is

52. 42
Godot. Estragon continuously asks him that you are Godot or not. Even
when Pozzo tells him that he is not Godot. He seems not believe or trust
on him and asks Vladimir that what is the actual name of that person
whom we are waiting. (p.23)
This thing shows that they are relying on such person whom
actually they don’t know. They think that when he will come all their
problems will be solved. They are totally relying on him even when they
are not sure he will come or not.
Vladimir: What do we do now?
Estragon: Wait.
Vladimir: Yes, but while waiting.
Estragon: nothing but wait for Godot? (p.12)
Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot look noting fruitful but
as they are action less, coward and are not confident on their own powers
so they are restricted to wait.
Estragon: And If he doesn’t come?
Vladimir: We’ll come back to-morrow.
Estragon: And the day after to-morrow.
Vladimir: Possibly.
Estragon: And so on.

53. 43
Vladimir: The point is.
Estragon: Until he comes (p.10)
William George researched on the behavior of antihero in the book
of “Sermonic Shadows of Life “and describes that Antihero has coward
personality. He usually seems to depend on others. He gets shelter under
this illusion that one day someone will come and solve all his problems so
he need not to do anything but to wait for him(p.73).This thing shows the
reflect of antihero in Vladimir and Estragon when they wait for Godot.
Vladimir and Estragon throughout the play does not show and
thing which can prove that they are not hero but an antihero. Antihero
each and every action fit them into the category of antihero.
When Vladimir and Estragon fed up from the “waiting for Godot”
they think about suicide rather than to think positively or make their mind
to perform some significant action. This point reveals that they are fed up
from the waiting and like a coward person thinking some sort of escape
instead of to face it bravely.
Estragon: What about hanging ourselves?
Vladimir: Hmm. It’d give us an erection!
Estragon: (highly exited). An erection! (12).

54. 44
Redemption from the problems or duties of life through suicide
also mentioned by Albert Camus in his book “ The Theatre of the Absurd”
as “when life had missed all its meanings, purposes and struggles or hope
for betterment at that time only coward, timid and action less person
thinks about suicide. How hopeless we are we should not look for escape
in suicide” (p.23).this thing shows that the characters of waiting for Godot
are coward and have nothing heroic in them.
Angela Hotaling highlights the same concept regarding the
antihero but she adds that antihero always stands between hero and villain
position it’s not easy to recognize him.
The Study of the characters of Vladimir, Estragon and Godot
shows that they are not hero because heroic characteristics not present in
them. Villain characteristics also not present in them but sometimes their
personalities show some reflection of hero and villain in them. When
Vladimir and Estragon come to know about the not coming of Godot they
do not lose heart like a common person but when they do not decide to do
anything by their own self at this point they seem villain of their own self.
Study of the hero and villain shows that just because of this mild or little
reflection they cannot be clearly considered a hero or villain. This
complicity shows that their real position is between hero and villain,

55. 45
which is the position of antihero who always stands between hero and
villain.
Gollum is considered the best example of Antihero who stands
between hero and villain. In the lord of the rings he shows his personality
as a dual person who is sometimes seems hero and sometimes villain.
When he helps Frodo he falls under the category of hero but when he
makes plan to kill him at that time he falls under the category of villain.
The characters of waiting for Godot especially Vladimir and Estragon
show the same attitude. Gollum makes many plans in his mind but do not
perform according to this because of his lack of courage. Vladimir and
Estragon in the play many times show the same attitude. Lucky is also
falls under the character of antihero because Pozzo behaved him badly but
he does not resist against him. He bears all things. He weeps but does not
say a single word to Pozzo. This thing shows that he is a coward person
which is nothing but an Antihero.
Pozzo sometimes reflects the image of villain because of the
misbehaved with lucky but study of the character of villain shows that
villain is such kind of person who creates hurdle on the way of hero.
Pozzo does not do such thing.

56. 46
Close study of the characters of waiting for Godot shows that all
characters of this play are just broken images of the modern society. They
are feared of their own dreams because they think that they cannot fulfill
them. This thing reflects through their dialogues. When Estragon wants to
share his dream but Vladimir is not in favour to listen it.
Estragon: I had a dream.
Vladimir: Don’t tell me! (p.25)
Antihero is the true representative of the human beings. In
literature no one truly highlights the actions, mentality and behavior of
man as it is. Usually writers describe the picture of human beings with a
little change but Antihero depicts this picture as it is. The study of the
waiting for Godot highlights the true picture of human beings. Samuel
Beckett describes the true picture of man by the absurd actions and
dialogues of the characters. Vladimir and Estragon do many things which
seem absurd and complicated. In the end of the act one when boy informs
that Godot is not coming than they finally decided to go but do not move.
Estragon: wait is not worth while now
Vladimir: No, it’s not worth while now
Estragon: Well, shall we go?
Vladimir: yes, let’s go.

57. 47
(They do not move). (p.53)
Estragon and Vladimir statement also seems a little bit absurd.
When Estragon says that wait is not worth while Vladimir repels “No” it
means he is not agree with Estragon’s statement but further speaks the
same dialogue. They decide to go but do not move even a single step.
Samuel Beckett at many points describes characters in that situation in
which they make plan about something but do not perform this practically,
such writing style shows that Vladimir and Estragon are just man of
words. They are confused about their own strength and decision just as the
people after world war were confused and discouraged. At this time
antihero who is the hero of the modern age shows his presence in the
characters of Vladimir and Estragon. Antihero always stands in such
character where the tramps makes plan but do not show any action.
T.S.Eliot in his most famous poem the love song of J. Alfred
Prufrok highlights such person who is antihero and depicts the picture of
society. He describes his character as a person who is just man of words.
He makes many plans in his mind but do not perform according to it.
When Vladimir and Estragon do this thing at this point they fit into the
character of antihero because their actions have similarity of T.S.Eliot
character, who is the best example of antihero or the hero of modern age.

58. 48
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

59. 49
5.1 Conclusion of the Study
In the light of the rational or sound discussion which have been
done by the researcher various conclusions can be drawn.
Antihero is the combination of two words anti-hero. He is the
mouthpiece of modern age and depicts the actions and mentality of the
layman. This character always stands between hero and villain position;
it’s not easy to find this character or to recognize him in some literary text
because of his absurd or complicated actions and dialogues.
Play waiting for Godot deals with such characters which are not
easy to understand because of mysterious dialogues and actions. His
characters have been a complicated subject for the critics .some critics
considered them hero while some critics fit them into the category of
villain but when the characteristics of hero and villain are concerned than
it can be concluded that no one fit into the obvious category of hero and
villain. Most of the characters of waiting for Godot stand between hero
and villain position. Its characters speak insignificant dialogues and
seemed to perform meaningless actions. Setting of the play is also absurd.
This thing shows a wild interpretation which throws light to the presence
of Antihero in this play.

60. 50
Third chapter of this study deals with the discussion on Antihero.
This chapter discusses Antihero with the difference of hero and villain and
throws light towards this point that how the character of antihero is
different from hero and villain and what is the importance of antihero in
literature.
This chapter gives clear understanding of antihero which is
necessary for the finding of Antihero in waiting for Godot which is the
purpose of this study.
Chapter three draws following conclusions:
First conclusion is:
A hero is one who is the central figure of the story. In other words
who moves the story. Although anti hero is a central figure of the story yet
like the classical hero he does not belongs to the royal back ground. Hero
usually highlighted in the story as a person who is the man of
extraordinary strength while antihero is the opposite of this; he is shown as
a coward and depended person.
Second conclusion is:
Villain always describes as a person who creates hurdles in the
way of hero while antihero does not have such intentions. He may
sometimes shown while doing such actions but the purpose of this is just
to get the benefit of his own self not to put hero in danger. It means if he

61. 51
does this than he does unconsciously while villain put hero in danger
consciously.
Third conclusion is:
Antihero is the only character who is the true representative of
modern man and always shows as a helpless creature. He is just man of
words and does not perform any significant action and dialogue but deep
study of his actions and dialogues show the real worth and purpose of it
and in this regard he is one of the significant characters which we cannot
ignore.
4th chapter of this research is related with the analysis or findings
of antihero in the play waiting for Godot by throwing light to the
following conclusions:
First conclusion is
The play waiting for Godot is written under theatre of absurd
which is famous for the character of antihero because he flourished
properly under this theatre so this thing makes direct link to the presence
of antihero in this play.
Second conclusion is
Characters of waiting for Godot are the representative of lay man
actions and antihero also a true representative of modern age.

62. 52
3r d conclusion is:
Characters of waiting for Godot especially Vladimir and Estragon
do not fit into the position of classical hero and villain; they stands
between them which is the position of Antihero.
4th conclusion is:
Last and the final conclusion is the characters of waiting for Godot
just waste their time in waiting for someone and do not perform any
significant action; this thing shows that they are antihero or the hero of
modern era.
5.2 The Findings of the Research
Findings of the research are the followings:
 Most of us do not know the real nature of antihero. We are
just familiar with hero and villain that’s why those
characters which are between hero and villain we are
confused about them.
 The character of Antihero is different from classical hero
and villain. He stands between the extreme of these two
characters.
 Antihero is the only character which is the true
representation of human situation, others characters like

63. 53
hero and villain sometimes describe in some imaginary
way.
 The characters of waiting for Godot neither have heroic
quality nor did they fit into the character of villain.
 Vladimir and Estragon are the mouthpiece of the society
this thing makes their direct link to the character of
Antihero.
5.3 Recommendations
One of the chief objectives of the researcher to do this research
was to make recommendations in the light of his findings to the readers.
Following recommendations are made to the readers and the people who
want to know about antihero and the real nature of the characters waiting
for Godot.
1. Clear establishment of antihero in literature or clear
consideration of his character:
Antihero has been part of literature very strongly but it’s very sad
that most of us do not know about him. We may familiar with its name but
most of us are ignorant the real nature of it that’s why those characters
which are infect antihero we are confused about them and cannot decide
the real nature of it.

64. 54
A character which is the true representative of human present
situation demands full consideration but because lack of knowledge
usually such character ignores. So there is a great need of clear
establishment and full consideration of this character which is necessary to
deliver the real message of the writing.
2. Perception of antihero in the play waiting for Godot :
Take the characters of antihero special Vladimir and Estragon as
antihero and true representative of society and by getting this point try to
understand or analyze the real status or position of human beings.

65. 55
5.4 Bibliography
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove press,
1954.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. London: Methuen
Publishing Limited, 1961.
Adade-Yeboah, A & Amankwa, A. S. (2012). The tragic hero of
the post – classical Renaissance. Studies in Literature and Language, 5(3),
119-123. Laval: Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture.
Adade-Yeboah, A. & Ahenkora, K. (2012). The tragic hero of the
neo-classical revival. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 2(14), 104 – 108.
Adade-Yeboah, A., Ahenkora, K. & Amankwaah, A. S (2012).
The Tragic Hero of the Classical Period. English Language and Literature
Studies, 2(3), 10-17.

66. 56
Atkins, D. G (1983). Reading deconstruction: Deconstructing
reading. Lexington: University Press of Kentuckey.
Beckett, T. (1994). Cambridge Companion to Beckett. Cambridge:
University Press.
Beckett, T. (1952). En Attendant Godot. Paris: Les Edition de
minute.
Brown, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Studying shakespeare, a case book.
London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Esslin, M. (1968). The theatre of the absurd. London: Pelican
Esslin, M. (2007). The theatre of the absurd (3rd. ed.). New York:
Vintage Books.
Hammersley, M. (2008), Questioning qualitative inquiry. London:
Sage publication Ltd
Miller, (1949). Death of the salesman. New York: Viking
Miller, A. (1957a). All my sons. New York: Viking
Miller, A. (1957b). The crucible: A play in Four Acts. New York:
Viking
Miller, A. (1957c) A view from the Bridge. Miller’s Collected
Plays. New York: Viking
Mc Caw, N. (2008). How to read texts: A student guide to critical
approaches and skills. London: Continuum

67. 57
Worton, M. (2001). Waiting for Godot and endgame. In J.Pilling
(Ed), The cambridge companion to Beckett. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. Manchester: Manchester
University press, 1995.
Kristinsson, Gylfi.G. “Waiting for the Absurd: An Analysis of the
Absurd in Two Works by Samuel Beckett and Tom Stoppard.”:
Reykjavik, 1984.
Beckett, Samuel. The Unnamable. John Calder (Publishers) Ltd.
1959.
The Tree of Life. 11/08/2011. http://symboldictionary.net/?p=34>.
Hotaling, Angela. Camus and the Absurdity of Existence in
Waiting for Godot. 12/08/2011.
<http://organizations.oneonta.edu/philosc/papers09/hotaling.pdf>.
Chadwick, Anthony. Waiting for Godot. 14/08/2011.
<http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/waiting-for-
Godot/>.
Beckett, Samuel. Proust and Three Dialogs With Georges Duthuit.
London: Chatto and Windus Ltd, 1931.