After the near-apocalyptic end of World War II, an overwhelming state of fear and confusion would cause a major shift in the artistic expression of the time. Nothing remained sacred as doubt replaced any virtue of knowledge, hope, or stability. Artistic conventions were also replaced in favor of the new, radical heterodoxy, and the fundamental realities of human thought were questioned or abandoned entirely. In particular, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot highlights the “tragicomic” madness of language and communication at center stage with profound implications against the need to communicate in the first place. Shameless but dignified, Beckett mocks the ineffectiveness of human language and communication. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, Beckett's dialogue is steeped in repetition and irrationality, serving as a vehicle for both comedy and criticism. Waiting for Godot features verbal exchanges that achieve little in terms of traditional development and leave behind more confusion than there was before anyone decided to open their mouth. The most compelling example of this is Estragon's fascination with Lucky's bags during Act I. Estragon: Why doesn't he put his bags down? Pozzo: But this would surprise me. Vladimir: They asked you a question. Pozzo: (happy) A question! Who? What! (28) Here, Beckett presents the main distraction of Act I, Estragon and Vladimir's curious interest in Pozzo and Lucky. However, a seemingly fundamental issue regarding the servant's cargo takes ages to reach Pozzo amidst endless chatter of nonsense and confusion. Ironically, Pozzo immediately goes on to predict that “no good will come of” from disturbing activities like asking questions. In a certain sense Pozzo is right. The question is asked several times, tempers flare slightly, and a significant amount of time is wasted with no answer or explanation to show for it. The cause of this series of incidents is unexpected: Estragon's simple proposal of a simple question is the impetus for this miniature disaster. This great failure of communication is just one example of Beckett's acute deconstruction of language. Indeed, Pozzo and Lucky ultimately leave with Estragon and Vladimir no wiser than before. They know less now than they did at the beginning of the first act. Finally, to compound this frustration, the main source of any resemblance to “driving action” or “narrative” is gone, as are the lives of Estragon and Vladimir. The language that is supposed to be the source of any fundamental drama is in reality nothing more than a catalyst for the absurd. Language is the greatest barrier between absurdity and reality. Indeed, Beckett's language perception states that language works to reinforce this barrier rather than finding ways around it. This is evident as Gogo and Didi continue to parrot and draw circles in their speeches, reflecting the delicate cycle of their seemingly pointless lives. Furthermore, Beckett's most blatant criticism of language can be seen in the most nonsensical and verbose point of the play: Lucky's speech. Previously considered by the cast and audience to be nothing more than a mute slave, Lucky is welcomed as an oracle or prophet. He begins: "Given the existence, as stated in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann, of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time with no extension other than from the heights of divine apathy divine athambia divine aphasia.