CHAPTER 7
Idea
The word idea comes from Greek meaning the inner form of a thing as opposed to its physical reality. From this root comes the current meaning of a thought or a mental image. Idea is also related to the word ideal, meaning a model or an original pattern. To some extent, idea has been discussed already in connection with given circumstances, background story, plot, and character. Earlier chapters, however, treated each feature’s contribution to idea, not the element itself. This chapter will concentrate on idea as a basic element of drama.
Many people think of idea in drama in connection with idea plays, sometimes called problem plays, thesis plays, propaganda plays, or social dramas. Idea plays began in France during the early nineteenth century with the works of Alexander Dumas the younger, Henri Bisque, and Eugene Brie. The tradition was expanded by Ibsen and Shaw and by later dramatists. They are a part of today’s theatre tradition. Idea plays treat controversial issues from a didactic, or instructional, point of view and offer, or at least imply, a solution. Sometimes idea plays call attention to shortcomings alleged in society; at other times, their intention is more radical. Shaw originated the discussion play, a kind of idea play in which current social, political, or economic issues are debated as part of the play’s action.
Although idea and discussion plays aim at social reform, the concept of idea under discussion now is broader than these two types of plays. Idea here means the thought pattern expressed by the whole play. Some writers refer to this as the theme, super-objective, spine, meaning, outlook, or world view of the play. Idea is present in all plays in one form or another, but we should stress that dramatic ideas are not always as significant as those found in Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, Angels in America, or Happy Days. Idea is most important in serious plays and satires. Idea appears in comedies, too, but in such plays, character and plot are more important. Idea is least important in farce and old-fashioned melodrama; the absurdists, however, even managed to invest farce with intellectual significance.
According to critic Francis Fergusson in The Idea of a Theatre, the idea “points to the object which the dramatist is trying to show us, and we must in some sense grasp that if we are to understand his complex art.” In other words, idea controls the direction play analysis and subsequent artistic work should take. Learning to deal with idea is also a good mental exercise because it tests the quality of our thinking about the play. Idea lays the foundation for intelligible discussions about plays and is essential for communication among the members of the artistic team.
Differences of opinion about the concept of idea illuminate one of the major differences between studying plays for purposes of performance and for other purposes. For despite idea’s centrality in script analysis, it cannot be everything in a production. The intellectual issue a play expresses seldom provides enough entertainment value by itself. In Mother Courage, Happy Days, Three Sisters, Angels in America, or The Hairy Ape, the idea may be stimulating, but the play’s characters and unusual style are what entertain audiences. In other words, idea may hold a play together, but normally it is not the chief entertainment value. Idea illuminates characters and plot, which in turn provide the entertainment value. That is why actors, directors, and designers should guard against the notion that playwrights are philosophers and that plays are meant to demonstrate intellectual issues. Idea is not imposed on a play by the author but rather formed from within it. Idea determines what a play is about on its deepest level, forming the organizing principle of the entire work.
Plays express idea in many ways, but there are two general methods, direct and indirect. The idea in Death of a Salesman is expressed directly because it is stated in the words of the characters. The same may be said of Tartuffe, The Piano Lesson, Angels in America, and Hamlet. On the other hand, the idea in Streamers is expressed through the implications of the plot and characters. The same is true for Happy Days, A Lie of the Mind, and Three Sisters. Intellectual discussion is not usually found in these plays. Nevertheless, the use of one method does not exclude the use of the other at the same time or in the same play.
IDEA IN THE WORDS
The standard verbal devices for conveying literary meaning include the titles, discussions, aphorisms, allusions, set speeches, and imagery and symbolism. In some plays the need to talk about idea is so strong that the plot seems a pretext for a discussion of intellectual issues—for example, in the plays of George Bernard Shaw or Tom Stoppard. Characters talk about ideas in such a way that their words can almost be removed intact from the dialogue and used for a composition on the intellectual issues in the play. But playwrights are subtler than this. Discussion or comments about ideas are embedded in conversations so that a feeling of continuous everyday speech is maintained. Dramatists may turn their attention to intellectual issues, but they seldom overlook the principal need for dialogue to advance the plot and reveal character.
Titles
Very often playwrights embed ideas in titles. The title of A Raisin in the Sun is a line from a poem by Langston Hughes about frustrated idealism. The titles of The Wild Duck, Happy Days, A Lie of the Mind, The Piano Lesson, and Streamers indicate the dramatic idea by implication. The important task with implications, of course, is interpreting them within their proper contexts. Often the title points to the main character of the play as in Oedipus Rex, Three Sisters, and Hamlet. A title that refers to both the main character and the idea is Death of a Salesman. Willy Loman, the salesman, is the main character of the play, but the title also points by implication to the dramatic idea. We would expect a title like “The Death of …” to refer to an important person such as a member of royalty or a famous artist. However, a salesman is an ordinary person, an illustration of the American common man. Thus Miller’s decision to use the word salesman (i.e., ordinary businessman) instead of someone more important is a clue to the idea of the play. The titles of The Hairy Ape, The School for Scandal, and Angels in America were probably chosen as much for their curiosity value as their ability to connect with the dramatic idea.
Discussions
Characters sometimes step back from the plot and engage in discussions about an assortment of ideas. When this happens, the principle of artistic unity ensures that the discussion topics will relate in some way to the main idea of the play. As was mentioned earlier, pointed debates are a characteristic of discussion plays, but shorter debates, or discussions, may occur in any kind of play. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles included discussions about the capriciousness of the gods, the nature of political power, the role of chance in human affairs, and the credibility of oracles. Shakespeare is not an intellectual dramatist, but he included discussions about a wide assortment of ideas in Hamlet. Some of them are grief, love, duty, afterlife, revenge, divine Providence, indecision, ennui, ambition, suicide, the art of acting, the responsibilities of public office, divine forgiveness, honor, and guilt. The working-class characters in Mother Courage discuss their opinions about the war, economics, means and ends, military strategy, religion, and politics. Angels in America contains many discussions about politics and religion. The Piano Lesson contains discussions about moral issues presented in the form of homespun anecdotes.
Discussions exist in serious plays as well as in comedies. Discussions about religious principles and tolerance in Tartuffe have already been pointed out. In The School for Scandal, there are discussions about reputation, literary fashions, and relations among the classes. Three Sisters contains discussions about how best to conduct one’s life, which may or may not be reflected in the lives of the characters that offer it. Discussions may not always point directly to the main idea, but they can lead the way to it through careful consideration of the given circumstances in which they occur.
Aphorisms
The term aphorism comes from a Greek word meaning a concise statement of a principle, truth, or sentiment. We use the word in script analysis to cover proverbs, precepts, maxims, rejoinders, epigrams, famous sayings, mottoes, self-evident truths, sententious generalizations, and intellectual inversions—all the brief, quotable statements that compress human experience into a concise generality. For example, architect Miës van der Rohe’s observation, “God is in the details,” is an aphorism, as is Thoreau’s statement, “It is never too late to give up your prejudices.” Both statements consolidate personal experience about life into short statements. Unlike discussions, aphorisms are not mini-debates or reports of specific matters. They are brief remarks about general principles.
Sophocles introduced a number of aphorisms into Oedipus Rex. Some of the most notable are:
–There is no fairer duty than that of helping others in distress.
–No man can judge the rough unknown or trust in second sight, for wisdom changes hands among the wise.
–Time, and time alone, will show the just man, though scoundrels are discovered in a day.
Hamlet’s enjoyment of aphorisms is one of his personality traits:
–Frailty, thy name is woman.
–Foul deeds will rise, though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.
–That one can smile and smile and be a villain.
–To be or not to be, that is the question.
Hamlet takes so much pleasure in aphorisms that he writes them down in his table book, a personal accessory Elizabethan gentlemen kept handy for this purpose: “My tables—meet it is I set it down / That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”
The value of aphorisms in revealing idea depends on the intellectual acuteness and credibility of the character that is speaking. When unscrupulous characters speak aphorisms, they can express an opposite meaning from what is intended. For instance, in Hamlet, Polonius is also fond of aphorisms. His famous farewell advice to Laertes is often cited out of context as a model aphorism of moral behavior. Knowing what a hypocrite Polonius is, however, it is hard to take him seriously when he says things like “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou, canst not then be false to any man.”
Irony also characterizes the use of aphorisms in modern plays. In Mother Courage, Brecht uses epigrams that sound like simple folk sayings:
–If you want the war to work for you, you’ve got to give the war its due.
–On the whole, you can say that victory amid defeat cost us plain people plenty.
–The best thing for us is when politics gets bogged down.
An interesting aphorism appears in Angels in America when Rabbi Isador Chemelwitz declines to hear Louis confess his guilty feelings about leaving Prior. The epigram is underlined.
RABBI ISADOR CHEMELWITZ
… You want to confess, better you should find a priest.
LOUIS
But I’m not a Catholic, I’m a Jew.
RABBI ISADOR CHEMELWITZ
Worse luck for you bubbalah. Catholics believe in forgiveness; Jews believe in guilt.
Discerning readers may find in this aphorism an analogue for the two different world views expressed in Part I and Part II of this play. Dramatists employ aphorisms to highlight certain ideas that help to form a pattern of meaning throughout the play.
Allusions
An allusion is a reference to another work of literature or to a person or an event outside of the play. It is a way of sending a signal about the idea to the culturally literate members of the audience. Not everyone may recognize allusions. On the other hand, those who do spot them are rewarded with the thrill of additional hidden insights. Historically, the most common allusions came from the Bible, Torah and Koran, and classical literature, history, and mythology. In the present day, there may be a variety of hidden references in a play, including many that refer to current affairs and popular culture.
One playwright acknowledged for his use of allusions is Samuel Beckett. His play Happy Days contains many examples. Sometimes they are set off from the dialogue like aphorisms and at other times they are integrated into the dialogue and require very close reading to uncover. Scholars have discovered over two dozen sources for the allusions in Happy Days, ranging from the works of classical Greek playwright Menander to songs by Viennese composer Franz Lehar. Even the physical action of the play is an allusion. The reference is to Dante’s Inferno, where characters in one level of hell lie half-buried in the earth as punishment for their sins. All the allusions relate in some way to the nearness of death and the transitory nature of earthly things, issues that are connected to the main idea of the play.
In Angels in America, Tony Kushner was fond of using allusions from all kinds of highbrow and lowbrow sources, including politics, religion, camp homosexual culture, and popular culture, to cite some of the obvious examples.
—Annie Hall
—Bayeaux tapestry
—Belle Reeve
—Berlin Wall
—Big Mac
—CBS Mike Wallace
—Cecil B. Demille
—Central Park
—Chernobyl
—Christian martyr
—Clinique
—Come Back, Little Sheba
—Conran’s
—D Train
—Democracy in America
—Ed Koch
—Ed Meese
—Ethel Rosenberg
—George Schultz
—Grace Jones
—in vitro
—J. Edgar Hoover
—Jacob and the Angel
—Jesse Helms
—Jessie Jackson
—Joe McCarthy
—Kaddish
—King Lear
—land of the free, home of the brave
—Lazarus
—Legionnaire’s disease
—Louis Farrakhan
—Macy’s
—Mikhail Gorbachev
—Morticia Addams
—Newt Gingrich
—Ollie North
—Pepto Bismol
—Perestroika
—prodigal son
—Profiles in Courage
—Rosemary’s Baby
—the Rosenberg case
—Roy Cohn
—San Francisco
—Stephen Spielberg
—Tab
—The Ramble
—The Twilight Zone
Perhaps separately these references don’t mean much to readers who understand them, but collectively they fulfill a particular artistic purpose that harmonizes with the thematic heart of the play.
Allusions may be difficult for some readers to catch, but they are meant to be more than mind games. In the hands of a skilled playwright, allusions enrich plays with their associations. The Yellow Dog talked about so often in The Piano Lesson is a piece of Southern folklore that refers to an ill-tempered dog that turns on its own master. This moral precept could have a bearing on our understanding of the play. More specifically, on our understanding of Berniece, who behaves as though she is rejecting her own heritage. Comparable to other conventions described in this chapter, allusions such as this one can lend themselves to a coherent pattern of meaning that points to the main idea if not completely illuminating it. Moreover, allusions are a practical test of artistic awareness because their understanding depends on our cultural literacy, or knowledge of our common cultural heritage.
Set Speeches
Set speeches are extended speeches in which important issues in the play are emphasized. They stand out from the surrounding dialogue because they are longer and because they are so rationally composed and orchestrated, like operatic arias or arguments in a formal debate. There may be one or several set speeches (or none) in a play on a variety of subjects or viewpoints. In all cases, however, they embody at that moment the thematic essence of the scene or play. Because of their self-conscious craftsmanship, set speeches appear more often in nonrealistic period dramas where poetic language is used. Laertes’ admonition to Ophelia in 1,3 of Hamlet, in which he warns her against expecting too much from Hamlet’s affection, is an example of a set speech. In the context of saying good-bye to his sister, he concisely explains the responsibilities of kingship for Hamlet. Laertes’ speech lifts the story out of the realm of individual personalities and reinforces the social and political significance of the play. There are three set speeches in Tartuffe. The first two appear together in Act 1, when Cleante describes the ideal traits of a religious person, and the third takes place at the end of the play when the Officer pays tribute to the wisdom and generosity of the king.
Set speeches present plausibility problems in modern realistic plays, but Arthur Miller managed to include one by Charley in the Requiem scene of Death of a Salesman, and David Rabe included several in Streamers. Louis Ironson’s role in Angels in America contains several set speeches about political liberalism. In the same play, Aleksii Antedilluvianovich Prelapsarionov’s remarks at the beginning of Part II form a set speech. Because set speeches are intended to call attention to important intellectual issues in the play, they are reliable sources of information about the main idea. Moreover, as windows into the core of the play, they also provide excellent acting opportunities for clever actors. They’re longer than adjacent speeches, are orchestrated to achieve particular emotional effects, and emphasize crucial issues in the play.
Imagery
What has already been written in literature textbooks about imagery (and the next topic, symbolism) doesn’t need to be repeated here. It is enough to point out that imagery refers to figurative words used to represent people, places, or things; feelings or ideas; or sensory experiences. By expressing issues in sensory form, imagery increases the resources for understanding plays. Critics have found that the image of light, for example, is important in Oedipus Rex. G. Wilson Knight (The Wheel of Fire) and Caroline Spurgeon (Shakespeare’s Imagery and What It Tells Us) have found that imagery plays a role in Shakespeare’s plays. Hamlet, for example, contains many images of decay. Various post-apocalyptic images are found in Happy Days, and imagery about bodily functions is seen in Mother Courage. Images of frontier America can be found in A Lie of the Mind. Imagery creates sensory patterns of meaning that help to illuminate the play as a whole. Studying the imagery may not be as immediately productive as analyzing other features, but it can clarify thinking and help resolve confusions that might otherwise exist. Perhaps the main practical value lies in the ability of imagery to influence designers’ imaginations in harmony with the main intellectual issues of a play.
Symbolism
A symbol is something that represents something other than itself. The word symbol comes from a Greek verb meaning to throw together; its noun form means a mark or a sign. Symbols vary in complexity and purpose, but here we will consider two kinds. Intentional symbols are those in which there is a direct equation (that is, scales equal justice, owl equals wisdom) either because of a commonly accepted meaning or because of being designated as a symbol in the play. In contrast, incidental symbols are imposed on the play from outside, that is, from readers. They are of minor or casual interest and have little practical value in script analysis.
Normally, the author who uses intentional symbols slips them in cunningly. If they stand out from the context, they may distract from the play and make it too much like a sermon or a book report. In the hands of a skilled playwright, intentional symbols can enrich by association, like allusions or imagery, except more noticeable and therefore more potent. By evoking abstract ideas and feelings in concrete form, intentional symbols function as connections between the play and the outside world. They can often reveal more about the main idea, and reveal it more emphatically, than any other literary element.
The wild duck in the play of the same name is an example of an intentional symbol. We learn from the play that when a Scandinavian wild duck is wounded, it doesn’t try to escape but dives into the water and clings to the weeds on the bottom. Readers also learn that a wild duck is easily tamed and despite its name thrives in captivity. Notice that Gregers, the radical idealist, is the one who designates the wild duck as a symbol of Hjalmar when he says to him in Act 2, “I almost think you have something of the wild duck in you.” The symbol of the wild duck reinforces behavior patterns that Gregers thinks he sees in Hjalmar. According to Gregers, the wild duck represents Hjalmar’s inability to cope with the misfortunes in his life. He also believes that Hjalmar has forsaken his youthful ideals for a comfortable existence. The meaning of the wild duck is clear because the playwright has made it part of the story.
Other intentional symbols are the ape in The Hairy Ape, Mama’s potted plant in A Raisin in the Sun, the pregnant ant in Happy Days, Anna Fierling’s canteen wagon in Mother Courage, the spinning top that Fedotik presents to Irina in Three Sisters, the piano in The Piano Lesson, Bethesda Fountain in Angels in America, and the name Oedipus (wounded foot) in Oedipus Rex. As was said before, symbolism should be treated carefully as a device for expressing idea. It may be an appealing exercise to impose symbols onto a play, but there is a risk that the result may express merely marginal notions. By definition, intentional symbols are legitimately present in the play, therefore they are more helpful in script analysis than are symbols that are imposed externally.
Prologue and Epilogue
The prologue and epilogue are other literary devices used for directly presenting idea. The prologue (literally, the speech before) introduces background story and sets up what the play is about. The epilogue (the speech after) summarizes idea by restating it at the end of the play within a larger context. In a classical Greek tragedy such as Oedipus Rex, the prologue and epilogue frame the action according to accepted tragic form. They highlight the main idea by their characteristics as formal parts of the play and through the words of the Chorus. The Requiem at the end of Death of a Salesman is a formal epilogue that has a similar function. The nature of the funeral scene leads us to expect a summing up, which we find in the words of Linda, Biff, Happy, and Charley. Angels in America has a formal epilogue, which helps to concentrate the idea in this lengthy play made up of so many dissimilar elements.
IDEA IN THE CHARACTERS
Another way idea may be expressed is through conventional kinds of characters. Expressing idea in this way involves definite technical restrictions, however, because characters cannot speak for the meaning too much without hurting the play’s plausibility. They can only say what is permitted within the limits of their own identities and while addressing other characters. With these limitations in mind, playwrights have developed conventional characters that can embody idea without straining logic or risking entertainment value. These conventional characters do not appear in every play. Moreover, when they do appear there is no rule against a single character fulfilling several playwriting functions at the same time.
We should not depend too much on conventional characters to learn about idea, for that comes close to one of the reading fallacies discussed in the Introduction. Interest in the ideas that characters express and the technical functions some characters carry out should not lead to misunderstanding the characters as characters. Some characters may give emphasis to idea, but in the best plays, they are never just mouthpieces for the playwright. Characters behave as characters because they are governed first by artistic considerations and only later by technical requirements.
Narrator or Chorus
The narrator or chorus tells a story to the audience and participates in it with the other characters. Because they always know more about the circumstances than do the other characters, they can be looked to for information about idea. In Mother Courage, Anna Fierling, Eilif, Yvette, and the Chaplain step out of the action several times and speak or sing to the audience as narrators. They explain the play in musical numbers like “The Song of the Old Wife and the Soldier,” “The Song of Fraternization,” and “The Song of the Great Capitulation.” Choruses in Greek tragedies also play the dual roles of narrators during the choral odes and ordinary characters during the episodes. In Part II of Angels in America, Aleksii Antedilluvianovich Prelapsarionov addresses his colleagues in the Kremlin Hall of Deputies in a way that functions like a narrator, and Prior Walter steps forward and speaks to the audience at the end of the play. When the narrator or chorus interrupts the action to talk about ideas, the purpose is usually to explain something about the meaning.
Raisonneur
Another character that knows more than the other characters is the raisonneur, a type of narrator, but one who always remains within the action. Although participating in the action, the raisonneur has little direct effect on it, thus furnishing this character with objectivity and credibility. The raisonneur is often a doubter, wishing to offer sound advice or to convince through reason. A classic example of a raisonneur is Cleante in Tartuffe. He always remains within the action, yet his skeptical personality encourages him to editorialize without obviously appearing to do so. Although he has no major influence on the plot, he expresses his opinions about intellectual issues in the play. Dr. Relling in The Wild Duck is another example of a raisonneur. After his introduction during the lunch scene in Act 3, he appears in the plot four more times. He objects to Mrs. Sorby’s marriage plans, admonishes Gregers’ misplaced idealism, locates the missing Hjalmar, and provides medical help for Hedvig. Relling says that he is “cultivating the life illusion” in others. Despite an inclination to moralize, raisonneurs like Relling are most effective in performance when they are understood as part of the world of the play and not merely as sermonizers. For example, as a character Cleante expresses outrage when Orgon treats his religious skepticism as the rantings of an atheist. Similarly, Dr. Relling becomes angry when Gregers Werle accuses him of being indifferent to the welfare of his friend Hjalmar. Their words are part of their characters, not merely stuck on to explain the meaning.
Confidant
A confidant (or feminine confidante) is a character with the technical function of sympathizing with the private feelings and thoughts of the main character. Like a raisonneur, this character has little direct influence on the action even though remaining within it continuously. Since others confide in this character, however, the confidant is more often a trusted friend than a skeptical observer, a well-adjusted character without serious personal conflicts. An actorly objective for a confidant might be to help the main character adjust to a difficult situation. In this capacity, a confidant provides an opportunity for talking about matters that are important to the main character.
Charley, Willy Loman’s next-door neighbor in Death of a Salesman, is a typical confidant. Aside from Willy’s brother Ben, he is the one with whom Willy shares his private feelings. In Act 1, Charley listens sympathetically and helps Willy to take his mind off his troubles. In Act 2, he gives Willy practical help with offers of money and a job. Other examples of confidants are Horatio in Hamlet, Ruth in A Raisin in the Sun (she’s Mama’s confidant), Roger in Streamers, Belize and Hannah in Angels in America, and Sally in A Lie of the Mind. By definition, confidants function outside the main action most of the time. This apparent weakness is compensated for by their strong desire to help. By offering the main character a chance to talk in safety about private matters, confidants provide support and encouragement unobtainable from anyone else in the play.
Norm Character
Literary critics borrowed the term norm or normative character from the social sciences. It describes someone who is prudently adjusted to the dominant social standards in the world of the play. The norm character is another example of a character that knows more about the situation than do the other characters, but in this case superior awareness results more from personal insight than from direct information. Norm characters do not appear in every play. As a rule, they appear in comedy, in which their common sense serves as a technical reference point against which to compare the eccentric behavior of other characters. Comic writers know that eccentricity is more clearly illuminated if it is displayed against a background of cheerful common sense.
In Tartuffe, the norm character is Orgon’s wife, Elmire. Despite Madame Pernelle’s harsh opinion of her, Elmire is prudently adjusted to the peculiar social standards of her society. She is independent-minded, good-natured, tolerant, and wise in the ways of the world. For her, religion is a private matter, not a commodity for public discussion. Although Elmire disapproves of Tartuffe, she does not overreact by publicly condemning him, an act she knows would almost certainly backfire. Instead, her objective is to save Orgon by exposing Tartuffe as a fraud. This is part of her main objective, which might be to rescue Orgon from the influence of his mother.
In The School for Scandal, Rowley performs the dual functions of norm character and confidant, as does Charley in Death of a Salesman. Mrs. Sorby is the norm character in The Wild Duck, as is Joseph Asagai in A Raisin in the Sun. For sound dramatic reasons, norm characters are of central importance in their plays. A crucial point is that they are too intelligent to be pressured by social conventions. And since they don’t take themselves too seriously, they frequently display a well-developed sense of humor. They should be understood as attractive characters, not colorless or insipid, or else the comedy may misfire.
Having reviewed the ways playwrights present idea directly through the words, we should be careful of assuming that the words spoken by a character invariably reveal the main idea. This does not mean that characters never say anything trustworthy. It’s that they have their own personalities, and what they say is shaped by their situation from moment to moment. Although their words may be appropriate in one instance, they may not explain the entire play.
IDEA IN THE PLOT
Thornton Wilder, author of Our Town, said that playwriting springs from an instinctive linkage between idea and action. Although dramatists may present the idea directly in the words of the characters, a successful play works mainly through action, not verbal statements. Plays are not philosophical essays. There is seldom much obvious talk in them about ideas. And no matter how intellectual a play may seem on the surface, its main idea is presented most convincingly through the plot, the pattern of the actions. Plot is part of the expressive system of drama. Just as dialogue and character conventions can express idea, so too can technical conventions in the plot. This section will study those conventions in an effort to understand how dramatists express idea through them.
Parallelism
Playwrights who feel the need to express a series of equivalent or similar ideas sometimes use a plot device called parallelism. When characters have matching counterparts in other characters, the issues connecting them will be reinforced by means of repetition and contrast. Shakespeare used parallelism to point up idea in his plays. An analysis of Hamlet, for example, reveals a number of parallelisms linking the characters of Hamlet, Fortinbras, and Laertes. Hamlet’s and Fortinbras’ fathers were both deceased warrior-kings. Both Hamlet and Fortinbras are princes as well as rightful heirs to their thrones, yet neither holds the throne in his own country. Hamlet and Fortinbras’ uncles are usurpers who have gained their thrones by dishonest means. Moreover, there are or were close personal relationships between the three sets of fathers and sons: Hamlet and King Hamlet, Fortinbras and King Fortinbras, and Laertes and Polonius. Certain actions of Hamlet, Fortinbras, and Laertes are also parallel. Hamlet has embarked on a course of revenge for his father’s murder. For equivalent reasons, Fortinbras threatens to retake lands his father lost in Denmark and Poland, and Laertes threatens to revenge the murder of Polonius. Such character parallelisms are considered foils, meaning characters that are presented as contrasts to another character to point to or show to advantage some aspect of the other character. From these and other connections, it seems clear that technically Laertes, Fortinbras, and Hamlet are foils for one another.
When there are enough similarities to make certain that parallelisms exist in the play and are not projected into it from outside sources, clues about idea can be uncovered. Although all three parallel foils in Hamlet aim to revenge the deaths of their fathers, Fortinbras and Laertes are fully committed to their tasks. Hamlet’s hesitation is a sign that he’s more like a poet or philosopher than a soldier. The contrasts between the personality traits and willpower of these three characters provide clues to the main idea of the play. The parallelisms also emphasize the complex personality traits Hamlet displays compared to those few traits displayed by Fortinbras and Laertes.
Parallelism in modern plays appears in subtle forms. In The Wild Duck, the activities of the Werle and Ekdal families constitute parallelisms. The main idea expresses itself through Gregers and Hjalmar’s contrasting ideals and through their relationships with their parents, above all with their fathers. The parallelisms in Death of a Salesman also reiterate the relations between fathers and sons. The sub-plots in this play are of minor importance, but Miller has shown enough about them to reinforce certain key issues connected with the main idea.
The two families in A Lie of the Mind form parallelisms, for their links are brought to our attention by the alternating construction of the plot. The question is, what about the two families should the reader compare or contrast and how does it help us to understand the play? The same question arises with Angels in America in the obvious parallelism between Harper and Joe Pitt on one hand and Prior Walter and Louis lronson on the other. Of course readers shouldn’t look for parallelisms all the time or in every play, but whenever parallelisms can be established, readers are justified in studying them for clues about idea.
Conflict
Chapter 6 explained that some kinds of conflict produce intellectual tensions that may be useful for directors and designers in their artistic work. In this context, artistic work means work on the play for production. Intellectual conflict stems from the opposition of the customs or beliefs of a society against a different social order or perhaps against no social order at all. The tensions between different social systems, between character and environment, character and destiny, or character and the forces of nature are inherently interesting. When intellectual conflict of this kind appears in the plot, the resulting tensions illuminate ideas.
Consider the ideas that can be drawn from the intellectual conflicts in the plot of Streamers. At first sight, mindless violence appears to be the main interest in the play, but after deeper analysis, this violence begins to illuminate one of modern society’s most pressing intellectual dilemmas: the decline of moral values. Billy believes in the orthodox values he grew up with in the American Midwest, but society has changed since he was a boy and so has its values. The play offers no glimpse of what the new values might be, but it does show the moral disarray that characterizes modern American society and the fate that awaits a naive idealist who clings to an extinct set of beliefs (like Hamlet?). Gregers in The Wild Duck is an impractical dreamer just as Billy is. His idealism causes serious harm to others (again, like Hamlet?), but Gregers survives, albeit to influence society in problematic ways. Billy destroys the lives of others as well as his own. Moreover, by his stubborn refusal to deal with reality, he contributes to the kind of moral anarchy that so horrified him.
The opposition between Billy’s stubborn, old-fashioned morality and modern society’s so-called amorality is a source of the intellectual conflict in the play. Combined with the supporting issues of racial tensions, sexuality, and militarism, Streamers offers a rich supply of intellectual tensions. With its frequent discussions of religion and politics, Angels in America also offers rich opportunities for intellectual conflicts. Abstract conflicts like these are too general to be of more than minor interest for actors, but they can be directly useful for directors and designers. By setting the play in a context larger than itself, intellectual conflicts contribute to those aspects of staging and design that depend on seeing the play in its imaginative entirety.
Climax
Director Elia Kazan observed that the climax of a play is the most concrete illustration of its main idea. All the parts of the play converge at this point, and everything appears in its most vivid theatrical form. The quality of a play’s climax is judged by how it fulfills these functions. All the essential forces of the play are found at work in the climax.
This may be explained by studying an effective climax in detail. In The Wild Duck, the climax begins almost at the end of the play when the characters learn that Hedvig has shot herself. She killed herself, but it’s the various responses to her death that are illuminating. Old Ekdal attributes her death to forest demons. He flees into the garret to comfort himself with his pets and with liquor. Reverend Molvik is always drunk anyway. He mumbles a few prayers over Hedvig’s body, but his gesture is embarrassing rather than consoling. Hjalmar Ekdal, Hedvig’s father, reacts in typical fashion by thinking of himself first. When Dr. Relling tries to comfort Hjalmar by assuring him that Hedvig’s death was painless, Hjalmar cries melodramatically, “And I! I hunted her from me like an animal … She crept terrified into the garret and died for love of me!” Idealist Gregers Werle looks at Hedvig’s death as a symbolic validation of his mission in life. “Hedvig has not died in vain,” he moralizes to Dr. Relling, “Did you not see how sorrow set free what is noble in him [Hjalmar]?” Relling scoffs at this. He warns Gregers that even Hedvig’s suicide will not change Hjalmar’s natural selfishness, but Gregers refuses to believe it. “If you are right and I am wrong,” he replies, “then life is not worth living.” But Relling, the raissoneur, sees things more skeptically. He recognizes that Hedvig’s death has become for Hjalmar little more than an opportunity for extravagant declamation, self-admiration, and self-pity. In addition, he knows that Hedvig would not have died if Gregers hadn’t misled Hjalmar with his foolish notions of “the claim of the ideal.”
The death of an innocent child is a heartbreaking event. It should bring out feelings of unaffected sorrow and remorse in the characters. The family picture Ibsen provides at the climax of The Wild Duck, however, is one of drunkenness, petty vanity, and thoughtless insensitivity. Gregers had hoped to inspire Hjalmar with passionate idealism; instead, he has had the opposite effect. This climax shows in concrete form that Gregers is a dangerous failed idealist. Although Relling provides a few remarks about the situation, Ibsen has chosen to express the idea of the play through the actions and attitudes of the characters. Notice that Dr. Relling can only talk about others’ indifference to suffering; long ago he lost the ability to feel anything himself.
The climax of A Lie of the Mind is another useful model. Three moments late in the play offer possibilities for the major climax: the moment when Lorraine learns from her daughter Sally that her son Jake murdered his father; when Baylor kisses Meg, thereby reversing their uncaring relationship; and when Jake relinquishes his wife Beth to the care of his brother Mike. Sam Shepard described this play as “a love ballad … a little legend about love.” Which moment best expresses that statement? Studying the major climax can help to give us an idea about how idea works in plays. This is how to understand that idea in drama is not an abstract concept but rather the philosophy of the play in action.
THE MAIN IDEA
Some readers think it is necessary to see a play in concrete physical terms, then rise above it one way or another into an abstract world of meaning. Dramatic ideas, however, are too complicated to be expressed by abstract thinking alone. Rather by using selection and compression, playwrights transform ideas into concrete physical experience. They do this by putting audiences through a controlled series of events intended to make them feel as the characters do in similar given circumstances. Every word in the play exists for this reason, and every detail and incident has been prepared with this end in view. The result is that, even though the dramatist isn’t there in person, the main idea is understood by the actors, director, designers, and audience as an obvious conclusion. This main idea is a result of the entire presented experience of the play. Incidentally, the main idea should not be confused with the production concept. The main idea is an issue that relates to the written script. The production concept, on the other hand, is an original idea, design, or plan for producing a play. Of course, a production concept should be based on a sound understanding of a play’s main idea, but this does not always happen in practice.
To be studied in itself, the main idea must be changed from its original concrete expression in the play into literary form. This is accomplished by applying a process of radical reduction to the entire play to disclose its underlying form. An automobile, for example, stripped to its bare frame is still an automobile; though most of the details have been removed, it still retains its underlying form. The other parts are extensions and elaborations of the basic framework. Similarly, the main idea represents the underlying framework of the play that unites all the details, the internal structure or second plan of the play. This process of extreme reduction is more than academic, it is professionally essential. By stating the idea in simple, condensed form it remains close to its original unified illustration in the play. As soon as minor qualifications—more words—are added, information enters that may obscure the main idea’s basic unity. Moreover, whenever the formulation of the main idea is confused or contains too many qualifications, there is a strong chance that some basic misunderstanding exists about the play.
Of course, radical reduction comes after the fact, when the play has already been written. Most playwrights don’t create their works backward; that is, they don’t begin with an intellectual conception of the play’s meaning then work backward to the finished play. In the initial stages of work at least, they usually have an incomplete awareness of what they’ve written, at least in intellectual terms. Nonetheless, this fact doesn’t mean their plays lack coherent main ideas, nor does it lessen the importance of the main idea for the artistic needs of actors, directors, and designers.
Although there are no fixed rules governing how to state the main idea in reduced form, it can usually be expressed in one of four ways: (1) super-objective, (2) action summary, (3) thesis sentence, or (4) theme. No single method has any particular advantage over the others, and any or all of them may be used for just about any play.
The super-objective (some writers say spine) is Stanislavski’s method of describing a play’s main idea. It seems to be the most common form, even for those who are not influenced by Stanislavski. Therefore we’ll begin with it and since we already know about character objectives, the principle is not that difficult to understand. According to Stanislavski, all of the individual minor and major character objectives in a play should come together under the command of a single, unified objective called the super-objective of the play. We might think of the relation between the super-objective and all the supporting objectives as the popular Russian nesting dolls (matrushka dolls), each of which is found to contain a smaller one.
Naturally, like other objectives, the super-objective is seldom directly observable in the play but must be deduced from the action. It is the reader’s responsibility to search for the logic that frames all the character objectives to relate them to the super-objective. Any character objective, no matter how small, that does not relate to the super-objective is considered incorrect or at least incomplete. To repeat an earlier discussion, it is important to choose an infinitive form of an active, concrete verb for character objectives to energize the action in the right direction. The same principle applies in the formulation of a super-objective.
How does the process actually work? To produce Hamlet, for example, the super-objective of the play might be to search for a father’s murderer or to revenge a king’s death. It is possible to imagine how all the character objectives could relate to these choices because a great deal of information in the play supports them. Strictly speaking, however, they are incomplete. The problem is that, by treating the play as a murder mystery or a revenge play, the other issues in it will have only accidental importance. The play’s social, political, moral, and religious implications will be afterthoughts. If the super-objective were to rescue Denmark, the through-action would be more developed. Hamlet’s love for his fellow citizens and his country would receive the emphasis. The social ideas would also grow in importance, giving the whole play larger social and political significance. The play can be enriched still further if the super-objective is to reawaken everyone’s conscience. This is a paraphrase of the formulation Edward Gordon Craig and Stanislavski devised for their production at the Moscow Art Theatre in 1924. It proved to be effective for them because it unified the character objectives under an appropriate commanding idea without omitting anything they believed to be significant in the play. Hamlet’s goals became greater, and the whole play became less personal than it was when he was occupied with only his father or his country. The implications behind this super-objective are no longer merely social or political but universal in scope. Moreover, the poetic dimensions of the play now take on enormous significance, an important issue for Craig because of his affection for symbolism in design.
We can see that the super-objectives were described in three ways: (1) personal (to search for a father’s murderer), (2) social and political (to save a country), and (3) universal (to breathe life back into morality). Each choice had a great deal in the play to support it, but each was also progressively broader in scope and carried more meaning to the play. In the classroom, the exact wording of the super-objective is up to the individual reader. In production, however, the director is usually responsible for communicating the super-objective to the production team. The scope of the super-objective can be within any range of meaning the director desires—personal, sociopolitical, or universal—as long as the choice is supported by information in the play itself.
The same two-step procedure can be used to develop the other types of statements that describe the main idea. First, develop a concise literary statement that describes the important conditions in the play. Then present all the information in the play so that it is understood in a manner that relates to that description. In some plays, readers may choose to state the main idea as an action summary, without bothering about Stanislavski’s requirements. Actor Laurence Olivier used this approach when he described his film version of Hamlet as “the story of a man who could not make up his mind.” Olivier’s choice highlights the philosophical dimensions of the play with emphasis on its moments of philsophical anguish. Readers who are more socially or politically inclined may choose to express the main idea as a thesis sentence, a single declarative sentence that asserts a lesson about the subject of the play forcefully. For example, Ibsen wrote The Wild Duck to demonstrate that impractical idealists always go wrong, or Brecht may have written Mother Courage to show that capitalism destroys human feeling. Three Sisters may be a demonstration that love always gives back much less than we expect, and Angels in America a presentation of evidence that political freedom that fails to grow will not last. All four examples show that a thesis sentence is often useful for highlighting social or political issues. In contrast to a thesis sentence, a theme is not an arguable message but rather an expression of the main idea in more universal terms. For example, the theme of The Hairy Ape might be a struggle for identity or that of Oedipus Rex, a quest for truth. Theme statements seem to work best when they are expressing the broad philosophical and poetic aspects of a play. Chapter 1 presents a different but related explanation of Theme.
All these formulations are legitimate appraisals of the main idea for their respective plays. The logic behind them should be plain. The statement of the main idea is an effort to describe in condensed form the basic conflict at the center of the play. Regardless of the formulation, the cardinal principle is to state the main idea in a single declarative statement. Main ideas stated as questions (“Is idealism worthwhile?”) or calls to action (“Let’s fight to preserve our ideals!”) can obscure the issue. They have a reluctant or ambivalent feeling about them. The main idea will be clear if its formulation confidently asserts or denies something about the meaning of the play.
Developing a statement of the main idea tests artistic awareness because it forces the artistic team to determine at the beginning of the process just what it is they want to say. It will stimulate thoughts about acting, directing, and design. Often it takes considerable practice to acquire the skills needed to define the main idea accurately. The growth of this skill can be nurtured by making it a habit to describe the main idea for any plays read or seen. As was said earlier in this chapter, sometimes the playwright helps by stating the main idea somewhere in the dialogue. The task is to find that statement. In most cases, however, the main idea is not stated anywhere and so must be extracted from the action of the whole play. The ability to draw out implications this way is one of the last skills acquired in learning how to analyze a play. If actors, directors, and designers cannot learn to extract the main idea in some convincing way, it is unlikely they will be consistently successful in their artistic work.
SUMMARY
This chapter concerned itself with some of the ways in which the main idea may be found in plays. It takes considerable experience to develop the ability to understand and describe a play’s idea with clarity and simplicity. Nevertheless it is a skill that must be acquired if students expect to communicate successfully with others involved in the artistic process, as well as with the audience. Sometimes the clearest understanding of the main idea may not occur until late in the process of analysis or even during rehearsals. Sometimes the main idea does not become completely clear until after the play has opened, and it can at last be comprehended whole as it was originally intended. Nevertheless, for professionals the search always continues. Most of the audience will never judge the play on the basis of its main idea but rather as drama and feeling. But one way or another, for reasons already discussed, the main idea shows the way for actors, directors, and designers. The main idea gives each play its unique identity. It is the starting point and focusing device that propels the artistic team toward its final result. Regardless of whether a particular statement about the idea is definitive, the practice of determining the main idea is one of the major goals of play analysis.
QUESTIONS
Words Does the title reflect the meaning? If so, does it do so directly, indirectly, or ironically? Any discussions about ideas in the dialogue? If so, who is involved? What specific ideas are discussed? Are there any examples of aphorisms? If so, who speaks them? What ideas do they illustrate? Any literary, religious, or cultural allusions? If so, who speaks them? What are the sources? What ideas do they illustrate? Any speeches putting forward specific ideas (set speeches)? If so, who says them? What ideas do they illuminate? Are there any images or intentional symbols in the dialogue? If so, what are they? What ideas do they suggest? Is there a prologue or an epilogue? If so, how does it point up the main idea of the play?
Characters Is there a narrator or chorus? If so, when and how do they express the main idea? Is there a skeptical character that offers advice or tries to reason with others (raisonneur)? If so, how does the character express the main idea? Is there someone in whom the leading character confides private feelings (confidant[e])? If so, how does that character relate to the main idea? In a comedy, is there a character that has maturely adjusted to the behavior code of the world of the play (norm character)? If so, how does that character illustrate the main idea?
Plot Are there any characters or situations that repeat or highlight others (parallelisms or foils)? If so, how do they relate to the main idea? Are there any intellectual conflicts involving the social order, destiny, or the forces of nature? Can any intentional symbolism be found in the dialogue or action? If so, how does it relate to the main idea? How does the major climax embody the central idea?
Statement of the Main Idea What is the main idea of the play? Frame the description in the form of an action summary, a super-objective, a thesis sentence, or a theme. Justify the response with detailed information from the play itself.
POSTSCRIPT FOR ACTION ANALYSIS
This chapter on Idea completes our investigation of the formalist origins of Action Analysis (Chapter 1), of which the theoretical underpinnings should by now be fully evident. The Sequence of Events and Three Major Climaxes stem from External and Internal Action (Chapter 4) and Progressions and Structure (Chapter 5). Reviewing the Facts stems from the Given Circumstances (Chapter 2) and Background Story (Chapter 3). Through-Action and Counter Through-Action are outcomes of the study of Character (Chapter 6). And Idea (Chapter 7) can be seen as a comprehensive treatment of the concepts of the Seed, Theme, and Super-Objective.
The following chapters continue to explore the method of Formalist Analysis; however, they deal with subtler and more complex issues than Action Analysis was intended to address. Because Action Analysis depends by definition on the study of action, by itself it can provide few practical insights into Dialogue (Chapter 8), Tempo, Rhythm, and Mood (Chapter 9), or Style (Chapter 10). Formalist Analysis is equipped to sort out advanced subjects such as these. The going will be slower because it involves a microscopic look at numerous fine points in the play. If it is true, as architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe famously stated, that “God is in the details,” then advanced Formalist Analysis may be a factor in the magic of inspiration.