Moby Dick (See, I told you it would be back...)

I know I said I was not going to post again until after the New Year, but I got bored one day and decided that this chart would prove useful. Enjoy, and Happy New Year!

Required Work: Song of Solomon

Ambiguous ending alert! Just thought I would go ahead and rip that band-aid right off. As someone who appreciates closure, I figured I would go ahead and forewarn you that Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon has an ending that remains (and will probably always remain) open to debate. But I will also go ahead and assert that it isn’t the result of sloppy writing, and it also is not an ending that Morrison tacked on simply because she needed an ending. I do believe it is intentional, and even for those of us who appreciate closure and become frustrated with unanswered questions in literature; I do believe she achieves the effect she was going for…whatever that was.

Genre

There are a couple of options we can go with here for Song of Solomon. Clearly, it falls into African-American literature. And here I am going to make a brief point that was brought up in the class I just finished: just because the author is of a certain race it does not automatically make their works “African-American literature” or “Jewish literature” or “Latino/a literature,” etc. The genre should be applied when considering the actual work, and not necessarily the author’s background. Both Robert Pinsky and Philip Roth are Jewish, but my professor would argue that Roth’s novels can be described as Jewish literature much more readily than can Pinsky’s poems. Although, and this is another issue, certain authors, such as Roth, do not appreciate these types of labels. They tend to be a result of readers and critics attempting to put authors in a box and keep them there, and no artist wants that. Song of Solomon, however, does qualify as African-American literature as it focuses on the experiences of an American-American community in early 1930s America.

This novel is also part slave narrative as it tells the story of Milkman’s great-grandfather, Solomon, and his escape from slavery by flying back to Africa. This also gives the novel the feel of an African folk tale as flying is a major theme in different ways. But more on that later.

The book can also be seen as a Bildungsroman as it does follow the moral and psychological growth of Macon “Milkman” Dead III from birth to adulthood (and arguably to death). Probably the biggest change that occurs within Milkman is his decision at the end to stop running from his best friend, Guitar, who is attempting to kill him (although I guess that would make him more of a former best friend). Instead of continuing to run, he turns and faces him, and the novel ends with the reader not knowing if Guitar succeeded, or if Milkman came out the stronger man, or if neither happened, or even if both happened. I will further discuss this event, as well as Milkman’s great-grandfather, in the Themes section.

Themes

Race is obvious, as is Milkman’s quest for identity as a black man in 20th-century America, so let us move on.

Flying becomes a central theme from the very first chapter, as the reader is shown the note of Mr. Smith, a North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Agent who is getting ready to attempt to fly from the Mercy Hospital building to the other side of Lake Superior. What he learns of course is that only birds and planes are meant to fly (and much like the ambiguous ending, I feel like it is never really clear whether Mr. Smith died or not, but I am not certain on that so don’t take my word on it). Even before this though, in the epitaph, flying is brought up: “The fathers may soar/and the children may know their names.” The narrator asserts that when Milkman learns at the age of four what Mr. Smith had already learned, that being able to fly was a gift that humans were not meant to have, that he became “saddened” and had subsequently “lost all interest in himself.” Later, Milkman will have dreams of flying, and still later when he visits the town of Shalimar with is aunt, Pilate, he learns of his great-grandfather’s escape from slavery by flying to Africa. In the final pages in the book, after Pilate is mistakenly shot and killed by Guitar (which is a heart-wrenching scene by the way), Milkman realizes that she too was able to fly “without ever leaving the ground,” making the idea of flight a much more symbolic or even spiritual thing than a physical one. And just a few short lines later, Guitar and Milkman have their final confrontation where Milkman finally gains his own freedom in much the same way his great-grandfather did. Whether he lives or dies, Milkman has learned that “If you surrendered to the air, you could ride it.” Flight is presented as one of the only ways to achieve freedom on an otherwise suffocating existence.

Because of this open ending, this book reminds me of Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire. The poem within the novel is a 999-lined poem that is written entirely in heroic couplets…except that last line…which happens to rhyme with the very first line of the poem…therefore throwing the reader back to the beginning of the poem is this weird (but oddly fascinating) continuous loop. Morrison achieves the same thing because while Milkman learns to fly, the reader isn’t sure if is has resulted in his death. But if we go back to the beginning, the novel opened with a man attempting to fly from the hospital in which Milkman is born in shortly afterward, thus creating another weird and fascinating loop. Through flight, the novel continuously rejects the idea of closure. The three men that “fly” are the three men whose endings we are not sure of: Mr. Smith, the great-grandfather, and Milkman himself. Instead, all of these different narratives interweave into each other. And gaps within the narrative get filled in because the reader is compelled to circle back re-read certain narrative sections.

Another theme within the novel is that of biblical names. There are Milkman’s two sisters, First Corinthians and Magdalena called Lena. There is his aunt, Pilate, who is actually the most nurturing and almost divine character in the book, despite her name. There is Milkman’s mother Ruth, and Pilate’s granddaughter Hagar, who is in love with Milkman and is actually the first person who tries to kill him because of that love. Then of course, there is Solomon, who only exists in the past, but is the one who, as far as we know, first achieved flight.

History

The book was published in 1977, but the story begins in 1931 with Mr. Smith’s flight and Milkman’s birth. It is mentioned that Guitar is a member of the Seven Days group, a group of black men that commits revenge murders against white people in response to the brutal murders that were taking place against innocent blacks at the time. Every time a black person was murdered unjustly (or the murder is at least deemed unjust by the group), one of the members picks and kills an innocent white person. Now I have not been able to find anything on any real Seven Days group that existed in the mid 1900s in America, but that is not to say that groups like this didn’t exist at the time of such racial tension in this country.

As Milkman looks deeper into his family’s history, the reader is shown the effects that slavery could have had on the African-American family long after it has ended. One of the effects is Milkman’s quest for identity as a black man. The effect of geological displacement of African-Americans because of slavery is also explored.

Also, at the beginning of the novel, it is explained that Milkman will be the first black baby born at Mercy Hospital, and that the only reason it is being allowed is because Ruth is the daughter of a black doctor.

Although I did enjoy this book, I do have to wonder why this book was chosen as a required work over Morrison’s Beloved or The Bluest Eye. I am glad it was chosen over those two in the sense that it doesn’t make a reader’s soul cry in the way that the other two would (at least they did for me). If this is the first book by Morrison that someone picks up, at least they won’t be immediately turned off by the severity and despair that the other two are so heavily with.

Next weekend is of course Christmas weekend, so I will be taking another break while enjoying the holiday season with my family. The following week, however, I plan to have finished Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. So until them, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Required Work: The Canterbury Tales Part II

Well, I managed to at least finish the last four stories of The Canterbury Tales that are required for the M.A. exam. One fun thing I realized about the edition I am using is that it does not include the Parson’s Tale, and after managing to print off a Modern English version of it from www.luminarium.org, I realized why. The tale is incredibly long and not really a tale. Fortunately, the exam only requires that the Prologue be read. I will discuss it later, after I first talk about the Clerk’s Prologue and Tale, the Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale, and the Nun’s Priest’s Prologue and Tale.

Clerk’s Prologue and Tale

The Clerk tells the tale of Griselda, a young wife whose new husband puts her through bizarre and brutal circumstances in order to test her loyalty. The torture she undergoes recalls the Biblical book of Job. The Clerk is portrayed as a diligent and well learned scholar, but the moral of his story is unclear and may have been left open-ended by Chaucer on purpose. On the one hand, he advises women to ignore Griselda’s passive acceptance of her husband’s cruelty. But on the other hand, he encourages everyone to face adversity with her same amount of fortitude.

Pardoner’s Prologue and Tale

Descriptions of the Pardoner as well as certain clues in his tale suggest that although he is a man of religion, he suffers extreme spiritual as well as sexual poverty. He admits to abusing authority and selling fake relics to make money. He tells a folk-tale of Oriental origin that has many versions. It involves three drunken and debauched men who attempt to find Death, but because of their own greed and subsequent plots to kill each other, they find Death by actually dying themselves. Despite the sins of the Pardoner, his teaching is ultimately pretty good.

Nun’s Priest’s Prologue and Tale

The prologue to this tale links it with the preceding Monk’s Tale about criminals and fallen heroes that is interrupted by the Knight. Because the Monk refuses to alter his story, the Host allows the Nun’s Priest to tell a new one. The new story actually follows a similar theme, but is more of a parody and has a happy ending. He tells the story of a rooster who is captured by a fox due to his own pride. However, the rooster manages to escape the fox because he manages to play on the fox’s pride. The story ends with the moral to be careful regarding reckless decisions and of those who flatter you.

Parson’s Prologue

The Host asks the Parson for a fable, a form that achieved success with the Nun’s Priest. However, the Parson refuses and instead condemns fable stories as folly and decides to therefore tell an improving tale in prose since he can neither rhyme nor alliterate. The tale that follows is the longest of all of the stories by the Pilgrim’s, and is really more of a treatise on virtuous living. It is not clear to the reader why Chaucer would choose to end The Canterbury Tales in this way, but the Parson does appear to be a positive character, and the general theme surrounding him is that we all need to help others to achieve salvation.

So there it is, one more monster has been slain. I hope (and “hope” is the operative word here) that I will have finished Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde by next week. I figured that if I have to choose one optional work from the Pre-1500 period then it might as well be one by an author that already has a required work. Plus, I was able to find it in a Modern English translation. If I don’t manage it (and this is a real possibility), then I may be exploring Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon instead.

Required Work: The Canterbury Tales Part I

Now this is what I mean by a monster novel (or at least a monster collection of short stories). Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales was written in the late 1300s, in Middle English, and mostly in prose. It is one of those books that just seem much scarier than it actually is. After reading the first half of what is required from the book for the M.A. exam, I realize that even with the dominant prose style, this collection of stories is actually quite accessible. Of course, it helps that the version I am using, the Barnes & Noble Classics edition, has the Middle English text on one page and the translation on the facing page. Almost needless to say, I am paying pretty much little to no attention to the Middle English. It would not do me any good to even try as I would get nothing out of it. But even so, I do like the fact that the Middle English is still available to me in the same volume.

For the sake of this blog, I will approach The Canterbury Tales the same way I did Flannery O’Connor’s short stories. I will begin with the usual information about genre, theme, and history, and then move into a short description about each individual tale covered on the M.A. list. Today I will cover the half I have already read, and hopefully by next week, I will have already finished the remaining stories so I can post about them as well.

And now, on with the post…

Genre

The Canterbury Tales is often called the first book of poetry in English. It is also recognized as the first anthology of English short fiction. It falls into the same genre as other works of the day as a collection of stories put together into a frame narrative or frame tale (an introductory story is composed to set the stage for the stories that follow). The Canterbury Tales differs from other stories of its type in that the stories within it are greatly varied. While other collections focused on a central theme, such as religion or politics, Chaucer used the setting of a pilgrimage as reason to have a wide range of characters from different backgrounds tell very different and distinctive stories. This makes The Canterbury Tales more about the characters than a central theme, and allowed Chaucer to showcase his ability in multiple genres of fiction.

Theme

As mentioned above, there is not a central theme such as religion, which was the popular one in Chaucer’s time that holds all of the different stories together. Some stories are funny, some are more serious, some have a lesson, and some appear to be just a story. The overarching theme seems to be the pilgrimage, which is the reason all of these characters are even together in the first place. However, Chaucer ignores the actual progress of the trip. There are no mentions of the amount of time that is passing or of any specific locations or landmarks along the way. It is generally believed that Chaucer left this work unfinished, which I am willing to buy as it doesn’t appear that the group ever reaches their destination (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that one as I have yet to actually finish the book).

A competition is introduced as something to do along the way, so what follows is this collection of various tales. A lot of the time one story will be in response to another (like the Miller with the Knight’s tale), and sometimes a storyteller will be momentarily interrupted by another traveler (like the Wife of Bath). The storytelling that occurs is definitely more of an interaction and not at all anything formal.

History

The Canterbury Tales was written during a time in England when the Catholic church The Great Schism (two different men were claiming to be the true Pope, a disagreement driven more by politics than any real theological differences). Lollardy, an early English religious movement led by John Wycliffe, is also mentioned as a specific incident involving pardoners (who gathered money in exchange for absolution from sin) who claimed to be collecting from a hospital.

Also occurring during this time were the Peasants’ Revolt and events ending in the deposing of King Richard II.

The religious views of the different characters seem quite diverse, but they still all fall under the established Church of England. Both the Pardoner and Summoner, however, are portrayed as deeply corrupt, greedy, and even abusive. The tale of the Friar is about a summoner who works on the side of the devil. The Second Nun tells a tale about chaste women bringing people to the church by example. The Monk and the Prioress, while not as corrupt as the Pardoner or Summoner, still fall short of what they are supposed to be.

The ultimate pilgrimage destination was Jerusalem, but within England, the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket in Canterbury was a popular pilgrimage destination. Miracle stories connected to the remains of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury who was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral by knights of Henry II during a dispute between church and crown, sprang up shortly after his death. The pilgrimage ties all of the stories together and allows a collection of Christians to strive for heaven despite weakness, disagreement, and diversity.

So that is what I have for genre, theme, and history. I will now continue with brief descriptions of the General Prologue, Knight’s Tale, Miller’s Prologue and Tale, and the Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale.

General Prologue

The collection opens with The General Prologue which basically sets the stage and introduces each of the characters the reader will encounter. The order the pilgrims are introduced places them in a social order with nobility, craftsmen, and then peasants at the end. It also sets up the competition and introduces the reader to the narrator.

Knight’s Tale

This tale deals with many typical aspects of knighthood such as courtly love and ethical dilemmas. It is written in iambic pentameter and uses 10 syllables per line. It is a story about how even two noble knights who are close like brothers can still be torn apart and have a vicious feud over the love of a woman.

Miller’s Prologue and Tale

The drunken Miller actually interrupts the Monk before he can tell his tale. The Miller even asserts that his tale as noble much like the Knight’s, but because he is drunk, he cannot be held accountable for what he actually says. It is a vulgar tale that is in direct contrast to the tale of the Knight. While the Knight told of courtly love, the Miller tells of a landlord being proved a cuckold as his young wife carries on an affair with someone else.

Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale

This is probably the most well known tale of the collection. Her prologue is actually twice as long as her tale, and it explores the role of women in the Late Middle Ages. The length of the prologue may just show how she likes to talk about herself and enjoys being the center of attention. She establishes herself (or at least tries to) as an expert on marriage because she has been married five times and has ready justifications and reasons for each of them. In short, a knight commits a rape, so the Queen punishes him by sending him on a year-long quest to find out what it is that women really want. If he can’t get the correct answer, he loses his life. While on his quest, he meets an old woman who agrees to give him the answer in exchange for a future favor. He agrees, returns to court with the old woman, gives the Queen the correct answer, and is therefore saved. As her favor, the old woman demands that the knight marry her despite his protests. While in their marriage bed, he confesses his unhappiness to his new wife and admits that it is because she is ugly and low-born. She gives him a choice between ugly and faithful, or beautiful and unfaithful. He gives the choice over to her, and is therefore rewarded with her transformation into a beautiful woman who remains faithful. Moral of the story: husbands are rewarded if they let their wives have mastery over them. Take that as you will.

For next week, if I finish the rest of The Canterbury Tales, then I will post on the remainder of the stories. If not…well…we’ll see.

Required Work: Waiting for Godot

For this week’s post I am going to explore the confusing yet somewhat surprisingly popular play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. As mentioned in the post for Harold Pinter’s The Homecoming, Beckett wrote in what became known as the theater of the absurd (two pages into the play and you begin to understand what that means). I have actually read several other works written by Beckett, including another of his plays, Endgame. Reading Beckett’s other work did help me better understand this one. And as usual with plays, it is probably a good idea to watch a performance of Waiting for Godot as plays are meant to be seen and not read.

Genre

Of course, there is the genre of the theater of the absurd. The play completely violates ordinary expectations, and the characters actions seemingly make very little sense. Beckett’s play has also been described as expressionistic minimalism. There is never a change in scenery, the characters stay in one place, and they seemingly will continue to stay in that place until Godot comes. But the assumption at the end of the play is that Godot never will come, and not only have these characters been waiting a long time for him, but they will continue to wait apparently until the end of time. This endless waiting for something causes many critics and readers to link Beckett with existentialism. They even want to walk away, but are paralyzed in place simply because they feel they have to wait for Godot. The two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, are waiting for a hope or saving force that will never actually come.

The cover of the play also announces that it is a “tragicomedy in two acts.” This is yet another one of those works on the M.A. list that is funny in spots, but ultimately it is incredibly depressing and void of hope (there seems to be a lot of those on the exam list). The back and forth between Vladimir and Estragon can be quite funny at times. In fact, for me, this play is an example of repetition used effectively (unlike that travesty of a novel I wrote about last week*). But of course, there are darker elements: at one point Estragon suggests that both he and Vladimir hang themselves; the mistreatment of Lucky as Pozzo’s slave; the fact that Estragon seems to spend every night in a ditch and is continually beaten by a group of men; and of course, that awful reality that these men are simply fated to live this same terribly bleak day over and over.

Theme

The very first words in the play are “Nothing to be done,” uttered by Estragon after multiple attempts to take his boot off. Beckett was a man that chose his words carefully. He was an Irish born writer who studied in England and spent most of his life living in France. The original text was actually written in French, and Beckett has been quoted as saying that he prefers to write in French because his vocabulary in that language is much more limited than it is in English. I believe (and I could be wrong on this) that his point is that if he writes in French, he has to pay more closely to what he is putting down on paper because the words do not come to him as naturally. Beckett actually loved language and loved words, and for proof of this I recommend you refer to his novel, Watt, where the narrator obsessively explores a situation of issue by playing out every possible scenario or combination (i.e. “my father’s and my mother’s and my father’s father’s and my mother’s mother’s and my father’s mother’s and my mother’s father’s and my father’s mother’s father’s…). Apart from a somewhat philosophical soliloquy by Lucky, there isn’t much extensive rambling in this play. Everything is fairly minimal, and a lot of the dialogue is used over and over again as the characters discuss the same issues. I am not sure if these issues of Beckett’s language would necessarily fall under theme, but it is important to the play and something that stands out to anyone who has read or seen it.

The general overarching themes seem to be along the lines of desperation and hopelessness. The mean are desperate enough to result to suicide, but even that means of escape is thwarted, twice. The first time they just realize that they both may not die and that would leave one of them alone, and that is completely unacceptable. The second time their “rope” breaks (Estragon’s belt), leaving them nothing to hang themselves with. They are waiting for Godot, seemingly so they can leave, but because he never shows up, they do suggest that they go without him, yet they never move from where they sit or stand. For me, this is a picture of utter hopelessness.

History

The original French text was written between 1948 and 1949, and some would argue that it captures a general feeling that followed World War II.

Because of it is an absurdist play, its out of the ordinary dialogue and sequence of events have invited misinterpretation after misinterpretation. Beckett quickly became sick of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations. He asserted that people were overcomplicating things. Nevertheless, there are political, religious, psychological, ethical, and even homoerotic interpretations. And the fact that the play was so open to a variety of readings led Beckett to sanction a famous mixed-race production of the play , which of course led to many more misreadings and misinterpretations. So my advice, do not try to fight the text. If you feel like you are trying to “win” or “defeat” it, then you are probably trying too hard.

Next week there will not be a posting as it is Thanksgiving break and I will be enjoying time with my family. So I will say Happy Thanksgiving, and happy reading.

*See the title of last week’s blog post.

Optional Work: American Pastoral

I am going to start off by saying that I do not like this book at all. The only other book I have read by Philip Roth is The Counterlife, and I didn’t care for that one either. American Pastoral does not make any sense, has absolutely no closure at the end, and it is a book that employs painful repetition and run-on sentences as literary devices. I can’t for the life of me understand how this book won a Pulitzer, but nevertheless, it made it onto the M.A. list. This is the type of book that makes me ask the question I posed in my second blog post.*

Genre

Genre becomes an interesting subject with this book because of its title. When it comes to literature, a pastoral typically portrays real life as an idyllic condition. But the characters in this book have lives that are anything but idyllic. For some of them, their lives may look idyllic on the outside: Swede was the popular blonde haired, blue eyed jock from high school who grew up to marry Miss New Jersey, have a baby girl, and inherit his father’s business, but this isn’t the whole story. Without giving too much away, things make almost a complete 180 for the Swede and it is clear that this is not the ideal. The point may be that the American pastoral does not really exist, and to portray anyone’s life as such is a lie. Swede Levov is part of a Jewish family that immigrated to the U.S. looking for the American dream, and at one point it would appear that they had achieved it. But in reality, they have gone from the first generation being poor immigrants, to the latest generation being terrorists. So the question really becomes how much have the actually accomplished?

The novel is of course fiction, but to take it one step further, this isn’t just a book telling the story of Swede Levov. It is actually the story of Zuckerman, a man who knew of the Swede in high school, imagining what the Swede’s life was really like, and that is the story the reader is getting. So we aren’t even getting the story by way of the usual narrator, but we are getting a story of what one of the characters imagined had happened. But in the end, he is simply doing what fiction writers do, and that is he is making everything up.

Theme

The main theme for me is what I mentioned under genre, which is the idea that the American dream isn’t real. But of course, there are many more themes that can be taken from the book.

For me, it is kind of weird to think of conflict as a theme, as all stories inevitably have some sort of conflict going on. But one of my classmates pointed this out and there are a few good points that can be taken from this. The characters, and mostly the main character Swede Levov, are trying to resolve the conflict between their past (the paradise remembered), and what has happened since to give them their future (the fall, and the paradise lost). There is conflict between people, generations, personal histories, family histories, and even American history.

Roth also makes use of repetition, mostly to emphasize a point, and a lot of the time it will be at a high intensity moment. The points could have been made in a different (and often much shorter in my opinion) way, but Roth chooses repetition instead. The repetition occurs usually when a certain character is making a speech or ranting, or when two or more characters are arguing. Instead of the argument being resolved, at least one character, and usually the one that is the most aggressive, will end up reiterating the same point over and over, therefore causing the argument to go nowhere.

There is also a running theme of shifting perceptions. On first sight, the Swede’s life can be seen as idyllic, but a deeper look will prove that it isn’t. The reader can see Swede as an idealist always trying to believe the best. However, his brother is a cynic and sees reality for what it is. However, this can also show cynics to be as deluded as idealists are, but in a different way, as nothing is purely either one way or the other. There is a real difference between perception and reality, for everyone. Jerry, Swede’s brother, actually says it best on page 35:

“…you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you’re anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you’re meeting them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception.”

Perhaps if the Swede was able to see this, and also his other limitations, he may have been able to better cope with the tragedies that befell him.

History

American Pastoral, I Married a Communist, and The Human Stain are part of a trilogy, as all of them include a character by the name of Zuckerman. They are also a part of a bigger collection of Zuckerman books that are nine books in total. In most of the other Zuckerman books, the character is known for frequently being in and out of the beds of different women, and he often gets in trouble for it. In this book however, Zuckerman is both impotent and incontinent after having surgery on his prostate for prostate cancer. Plus, he isn’t even the main character of the book, Swede is.

Also, the real Upsala College (the college the Swede attends and where he meets his future wife) closed its doors in 1995 due to financial difficulties. The book was published in 1997.

There is a part near the end of the book where Swede’s parents are obsessed with watching the Watergate hearings on TV. Nixon will end up being the first American president to resign in disgrace, and this disgrace happens to link up with the deterioration of Swede Levov’s life.
After World War II, there was a rise in ethnic literature in America. Roth was often lumped together with other Jewish authors Saul Bellow and Bernard Malamud (which Bellow began to resent after awhile). Roth actually did not appreciate having his literature tagged as Jewish-American fiction. He felt that it was a label “made up to strengthen some political agenda.”

So, if you actually liked and appreciated this book and choose to use if for your exam, then I really do hope this post will be of use to you, despite buy personal objections to the novel. As for my class, this was the last book we are covering that is on the M.A. exam; therefore, next week I will cover a different work on the list, and most likely one that is required.

*Please see the title of my second blog post

Optional Work: Glengarry Glen Ross

Once again I am covering a play that is on the M.A. list, but one that I did not choose myself. Glengarry Glen Ross is a play that has also been made into a movie starring a good amount of Hollywood Heavyweights such as Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alan Arkin, Alec Baldwin, Ed Harris, and Kevin Spacey. If you do choose this play for your exam, I highly recommend you see a production of it, or at least the movie, as, like most plays, it was meant to be seen and not necessarily read. Also, because of the plays pacing and rhythm that has become to be known as distinctly Mamet, it is actually quite difficult to read.

Genre

Mamet did not write in the Theater of the Absurd as Harold Pinter did with The Homecoming. Mamet’s plays have been viewed as realism as it is possible to relate to the characters, despite the language being somewhat exaggerated and the pacing of the dialogue far more intense while still maintaining a sort of poetic form. With Pinter, the characters were almost completely unpredictable, and it was difficult to know what their motives were. With Glengarry Glen Ross, it is clear that these are desperate men just trying to make a living.

Theme

Profanity and lots of it. Not really a theme as much as it is a literary device on Mamet’s part. There really is no need to go into it…if you read or see the play, you’ll encounter it. The use of it is intentional, brutal, aggressive, and in your face, just like the characters.

The way Mamet uses the language in general is brilliant in its simplicity. You can tell who is speaking by the dialogue. All characters use ellipses, but in different ways. You can immediately tell by the first page that Levene is someone who is generally struggling – to communicate, to sell, and to live. Williamson is always in control. He pauses, thinks before he speaks, is always calm, and always has a point, while many of the others are just talking. Aaronow is too weak to communicate his own ideas, and can only seem to repeat everyone else’s.

All of them, with the exception of Baylen, the detective, are always trying to sell something: Levene tries to sell Williamson on the idea of giving him the good leads even though he isn’t that great of a salesman; Moss tries to sell Aaronow on the idea of stealing the leads and making some real money for the both of them; Roma attempts (and almost succeeds) is selling Lingk a piece of property down in Florida; and the Roma oddly takes the place that Levene held at the beginning of the play in trying to sell Williamson in giving him the good leads, thus leading to the idea that Levene is what Roma will be in about ten years.

Another theme is the Neurosis of Masculinity. All of them want to be the top dog. They are all hunting, but instead of hunting in a pack, they are each going solo and turning on each other. In this scenario, Williamson would be the symbolic female of the group as he is the only one is on salary and has no need to hunt, instead, he lives off of the collected revenue of everyone else. Williamson can also represent women in the workplace and how men react when they are forced to deal with this new sort of competition. Even Lingk, who is not a salesman but a potential customer, wants to be a top dog like Roma. Even after he realizes he has been betrayed, he is the one who apologizes and states that it is his wife that doesn’t want to buy the property.

Two solid quotes on the issue of manliness in this play: 1. P. 75 Levene: A man’s his job and you’re fucked at yours (interestingly enough, so is he); 2. P. 20 Leven: Now I’m a good man (meaning not necessarily a moral man, but good at being a man).

This play has also been viewed as both capitalism without mercy, and capitalism gone awry.

It also seems to address that eternal question: How much of life is free will, and how much of it do we have absolutely control over? Is there such a thing as free will, or is some unknown entity pulling the strings all of the time? Levene seems to believe in luck and streaks, while Roma believes in making his own luck, and he is the one who is currently the successful salesman. So who is right? What do you do with the hand you’re dealt?

History

Bill Bryden, the director of play at the National Theater, described Glengarry Glen Ross as “a way of explaining Nixon’s America through seven of its citizens.” This play first premiered on stage in 1983, which is of course well after Nixon’s America. However, the 1980s were the “me” decade and the men in this play are definitely looking after themselves and no one else.
The 1960s saw the creation of the Peace Corps. There was also John F. Kennedy’s altruism and the famous “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” In the 1970s, the economy went south, the Vietnam War was over (and we lost), and Jimmy Carter is mocked for his attitude of self-sacrifice. Enter the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan emphasizes trickle down economics, the central idea of which I will very loosely summarize to mean that if you look out for your self and do well, everything else below you will fall into place. Also the age of excess and of never having enough. This is the America that these seven men are attempting to survive in.

This play has also been considered a sequel to Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman because here are four salesmen (plus Williamson) with very little hope, nothing left, nothing to grasp at, and get you get the sense that even for the ones that are doing well (like Roma), the success is short-lived and they all eventually end up like Levene.

So, for all of you Mamet enthusiasts, I hope this was at least somewhat helpful. This play was definitely easier for me to grasp that The Homecoming, but I can’t say that helped me like it any better. I do appreciate what Mamet has done here, but I probably need to at least see it performed before I can say that I “get it.”