Theater of the Absurd

I found it very interesting that the inmates  at the San Quentin penitentiary understood Waiting for Godot while many of the intellectual critics did not. Esslin explained that this happens because the convicts were unsophisticated enough to go to the theater without any preconceived notions and expectations in their minds, allowing them to avoid the mistake that the critics fell into of criticizing the play for its lack of plot and characters. I find this scenario to happen a lot with new things people experience whether it is a new movie, book, or something of the like. If the person has background knowledge about the subject and is very informed, then he or she will have preconceived notions about what the book, movie, etc. should be like and what should happen. If the book or movie doesn't turn out like the person intended for it to, then they will view the book or movie as very poor and not very good. On the other hand, if you take someone who has never heard of Harry Potter before and stick them in one of the movies or have them read a book, they will have no expectations as to what is supposed to happen. They will sit there and enjoy the movie/book for what it is instead of saying to them self, "OK now Harry is supposed to do this" or "Now Ron will say this". When watching Krapp's Last Tape and other Beckett plays shown in class, I did not have any preconceived notions ahead of time. I sort of felt like the inmates- I didn't know what Beckett's plays would be like or what the Theater of the Absurd even was. This allowed me to take in the play in its entirety, and enjoy it for what was rather then criticizing the play for what it should have been (Aristotelian plot, etc).