Comparative Essay Example: The Simpsons and Waiting for Godot

Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot introduces a new type of irrationality and absurdity to the audience that rejects logic and reason. This rejection of reason and acceptance of irrationality is now known as a cornerstone of postmodern fiction, making Beckett a true pioneer of postmodernism. Beckett’s impact can be seen in modern television, specifically, the animated sitcom The Simpsons. Airing for over 30 years, The Simpsons has been widely popular, winning over 30 Emmy awards. When we compare The Simpsons to Waiting for Godot, we can see that the creator of The Simpsons, Matt Groening, took lots of inspiration from Beckett. Using The Simpsons as a comparison to Waiting for Godot allows us to better understand Beckett’s work and see the impact that he had.

One of the most striking similarities between The Simpsons and Waiting for Godot is their irrationality and absurdity. In Waiting for Godot, nearly everything is irrational. Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for a mysterious figure, “Godot,” who can never manage to show up. The entire plot consists of the pair meeting in the same spot over and over, hoping to see Godot. Estragon mentions a tree in the background in the first act, saying, “where are the leaves” (Beckett, 121). At the beginning of the second act, the same tree is described; however, it has multiple leaves this time. This minute detail implies that a significant amount of time has passed between the two acts. Vladimir and Estragon have come to the same spot over and over, continually waiting for Godot to appear. Despite the fact they know almost nothing about Godot, at some points even questioning the existence of Godot, they endlessly wait, defying all reason.

Another irrational aspect of the play is the forgetfulness of the characters. During the first act, Vladimir and Estragon meet Pozzo and Lucky, a master and his slave. After their lengthy conversation, Pozzo and Lucky exit, and Vladimir and Estragon discuss the two, saying,

“Vladimir: How they’ve changed!

Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: Those two. 

Estragon: Very likely. They all change, Only we can’t

Vladimir: Likely! It’s certain. Didn’t you see them?

Estragon: I suppose I did. But I don’t know them.

Vladimir: Yes you do know them.

Estragon: No I don’t know them

Vladimir: We know them, I tell you”  (Beckett, 153).

In their conversation, Vladimir implies that they have met Pozzo and Lucky before, despite Pozzo showing no sign of recognition to the pair. When Pozzo and Lucky are reintroduced in the second act, Pozzo once again has no remembrance of Vladimir and Estragon. Pozzo’s failure to recognize the pair despite seeing them meet twice leaves us to question just how many times they have met. The reintroduction of characters over and over helps create a sense of repetition of Waiting for Godot that sets a gloomy tone.

In Waiting for Godot, we feel trapped in an endless loop of a story. We see the same events repeatedly as Vladimir and Estragon await Godot. The repetition presented by Beckett creates an overwhelming sense of irrationality that we can also see in The Simpsons. While Beckett uses irrationality to create a bleak tone, Matt Groening uses irrationality to create humor. 

The Simpsons follows an unusual family through their everyday lives in the city of Springfield. We are introduced to numerous characters, creating a bizarre and chaotic world. There is no clear storyline in The Simpsons as individual episodes branch off into different events. The randomness and the chaos of The Simpsons creates a sense of irrationality, one that is much more lighthearted than the one presented by Beckett. Episodes will involve bizarre and unpredictable events occurring, such as when the protagonist, Homer, became a clown impersonator for an episode in “Homie the Clown.” In another episode, “Das Bus,” a school trip disaster leaves the children stranded, leading to them forming a Lord of the Flies-like society. 

The randomness in every episode of The Simpsons creates an irrational world full of humor. With no coherent plot, the show is unpredictable and fresh.

We can see that Groening uses irrationality to create a humorous and bizarre world, but when analyzing how he makes that irrationality, we can see that it is very different than in Waiting for Godot. Groening creates his irrationality by utilizing a plethora of bizarre characters and putting those characters into perilous situations. The irrationality in The Simpsons stems from the fact that characters are always in new odd predicaments that defy reason. For example, it defies logic that a low IQ individual who is out of shape, such as Homer Simpson, would be chosen for a space mission as portrayed in the episode “Deep Space Homer.” Whereas Groening uses constant illogical events in The Simpsons, Beckett uses a lack of events to create his irrationality. Waiting for Godot’s repetition and utter lack of change establishes a very dark sense of irrationality, as we realize Vladimir and Estragon are trapped, awaiting something that will never come.

Understanding the difference in the irrationality presented in Waiting for Godot and The Simpsons is key to understanding Beckett’s impact. Not only has his use of irrationality continued in postmodernism, but it has also evolved. Irrationality can now be used to create not only dark hellscapes but also light-hearted humorous worlds. The usage of irrationality is limited to The Simpsons but can be seen throughout television, art, and music. While Beckett’s work was not well received initially, we can see how his play laid the groundwork for countless other authors and artists. 

In conclusion, comparing Waiting for Godot and the Simpsons provides us with a better understanding of how Beckett used irrationality and the impact he had. We see that Beckett used repetition to create a sense of irrationality, while Groening used logic-defying chaos to create irrationality in The Simpsons. The usage of irrationality in modern fiction shows us just how big of an impact Beckett had, inspiring many to reject reason and embrace irrationality.