|
|
|
|
| James E | 4 | 4/14/2009 10:58 PM |  | New Student Hello all - this is Jim Ewing, Greg's dad. I've been interested in literature all my long life, and thought it might be fun to join the discussion of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." I saw this play on Broadway when it first came out, in 1963, I think.
My first impression was that it was a drawing-room comedy run amok. That is, take all the 'givens' of a polite British comedy of manners (the professors and their wives in the living room of the senior faculty), and invert same. It's not Sunday afternoon, it's 2AM Sunday morning. The chat isn't superficial and witty, it's cutting and to-the-bone nasty. The intellect isn't used to create art, it's used to deconstruct art and everything pertaining to art. The dominant character isn't George, but his wife Martha; George is passive-aggressive to the bone, and so on... So, this is (after "Heart of Darkness") your second work in a row that has as its working thesis that disorder undergirds the social world.
I will add note from a person who lived through the era - at the time of this writing, the feminist movement as a postwar phenomenon was just getting its footing. Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" was just being published. In fact, we read "Feminie Mystique" in one of my classes around the year of its publication (1963). No doubt in Albee's circles, feminism was asserting itself as an intellectual and artistic force. Note that this play immediately addresses the power relationship between Martha and George, and one reading of the material is that it's a long struggle between the two, so Virginia Woolf the writer of "A Room of One's Own" must be peeking in from the wings. | |
|
| James E | 2 | 4/14/2009 10:40 PM | | Drinking, disinhibition, and anarchy Step back a bit. Let’s look at the artifacts of this play.
These folks have supposedly been drinking since 9:00 PM, and it’s well after 2 the next morning. There is, from the beginning, a disinhibition on the part of G. and M. that is remarkable: one will never hear a married couple exchanging these kinds of insults, certainly not if they intend to stay married. Here we have Virginia Woolf: one of the founders of the “stream of consciousness” style of writing, a master of prose, a writer complex in syntax and structure, but not a writer to fear, a woman who, feeling a bout of mental illness coming on, walked into a winter estuary, her coat pockets filled with rocks, so that her husband would not have to be subjected to the sad sight of her decay (read her suicide note). Not a woman to fear (unlike Martha).
So, what is Albee getting at here? I’m beginning to think that, echoing Conrad, Albee is asking about what the stream of consciousness would really look like if it were to be actualized. He’s using a generic convention – the comedy of manners – and a social convention – the disinhibition of drunkenness - to explore the question in a proscenium presentation, where, by convention, one willingly suspends one’s disbelief. Albee’s thesis appears to be that the consciousness (of even a cultured intellectual) and its connection to its underlying unconscious drives is an unruly and even murderous terrain, filled with ghosts, spite, anger, cupidity, eroticism, narcissism, etc., etc.
| |
|
| JAM400 | 14 | 4/12/2009 2:00 PM | | Martha making comments towards Nick?! | |
|
| Sherene Battlemace | 4 | 4/12/2009 1:03 PM | | The breaking of traditional gender roles. Martha and George consistently cut one another down, but the more I'm conscious of it, the more its become apparent that the attacks pertain to cross-gender traits. Martha comments on how weak George is and George seems to eventuate the masculine physical features of Martha.
Much more can be discussed here, especially on the backgrounds of the couple. Go for it! | |
|
| cK | 9 | 4/12/2009 12:58 PM | | The End Obviously, DON'T read this unless you have FINISHED READING. So George and Martha couldn't have a child and they made up a son and fun little stories to go with him. George becomes upset because Martha is talking about the kid and so he pretends to have killed his pretend son. I think Martha’s reaction is so interesting, she is so upset by the news that it actually took me a minute to realize they didn’t have one. The story of his death is the give away though. Why was Martha so upset about the death of a son she never had? Had this lie been the last thing holding their marriage together, or was it tearing the marriage apart. The anger and fighting seems to subside at the end, what does this mean? And also, the last few lines where George sings "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to Martha and she replies, "I am, George... I am". It’s one of those influential lines, similar to “the horror, the horror.” But what does it mean? What exactly is Martha fearful of, everything? | |
|
| Sheepmaster Flack | 4 | 4/12/2009 12:53 PM | | Who's Afraid of the upcoming acting presentaion I think that I'm Martha, and I'm actually sort of, in a wierd sort of way, looking forward to it. This is wierd because I don't think that I have actually looked forward to anything acedemically related since...ever. Thoughts? | |
|
| LuisaBassdrum | 14 | 4/12/2009 12:03 PM | | Crazy twist of thought ...... I know this may seem a little odd, but in the begining I get the feeling as if this whole game is conducted to get george all worked up and to get Martha going....It is weird because for me I get hints that it is because it creates this thriving sexual connection between the two, and it def. shows when martha gets all excited and demands a kiss that george obviously wants very badly but cannot handle himself to not get excited... | |
|
| Cello Girl | 7 | 4/12/2009 11:55 AM | | Facade or truth? Because I'm a nerd, I wrote about WAVW on the mock exam the other day. I questioned whether, even if there was an answer to the question Albee raises (about truth really being a facade) if we would want to know what that answer was. If we really knew the truth, we would know exactly what others think about us - and I can guarantee none of us would like what we found out. Humans are unique in that they can put on a mask for society of being sweet and innocent, while thinking the vilest, basest thoughts possible. And no matter how much you try to deny that, everyone has done it. Even if we knew the truth, it would just make us that much more hostile. | |
|
| Joe Thomas | 11 | 4/12/2009 10:40 AM | | The Games So, I finished the book early on Friday. The one thing besides the er, um... different ending, was how everything is one big game.
The cruelty expressed by George and Martha is just a little game. Imagine what real cruelty is to them then. How do you think the games shaped the story? Did they change the way you read things, whether providing some humor or shocking twist? | |
|
| KRob | 16 | 4/12/2009 10:34 AM | | George and Martha From the very first few pages we find out that George and Martha have a weird dynamic to say the least. Is it an act or do the really not like eachother. I feel like they are playing a game with Nick and Honey. They are nicer to eachother before the young couple comes, but as soon as they arrive a switch is flipped. | |
|
| Adidas Girl | 7 | 4/12/2009 10:06 AM | | Martha and George's son I know that most people think that martha and george are playing a game, and I have been thinking that too, but lately I have been thinking that what if for the years the son was dead that they never discussed him or what happened and they have secretly been blaming the each other. when Nick and Honey get there they just let out all there anger abot there son because they are already mad at each other for other reasons so they just hash out all the feellings they have held in. So maybe it was not a game, but this is just a possibility. | |
|
| cK | 6 | 4/12/2009 9:45 AM | | The Exorcism
In the last act, we see the demons within George and Martha's marriage immerge. Is this the connection behind the title?
I also thought about the religious conotation that comes with "exorcism." There are other references to religion in this act, especially when George begins to recite sections of the Dies Irae (part of the Requiem, the Latin mass for the dead).
George and Martha do not appear to be religious, what then is the significance of the religious references? | |
|
| GabiR | 23 | 4/12/2009 9:30 AM | | The Movie Though highly entertaining the movie altered the content of Whos Afraid more than i would have liked. First, i pictured Honey as being cute. Second, Honey seems to have more going on upstairs then i thought (like where she's listening in on the stairs) Finally, Martha goes beyond obnoxious to just plain masculine (chicken leg?) | |
|
| TyHowell | 5 | 4/8/2009 11:25 AM | | George and Martha Anyone else read the books about the two hippos-George and Martha- or watch the TV show? I guess the names are kind of common. Coincidence? One of the few things I remember is that they fought constantly but always worked things out. | |
|
| Matt Foley | 5 | 4/6/2009 12:02 PM | | Parents killing children killing parents... So I'm sure this parallel has already been drawn, but I wanted to get some feedback. This play is such a quick read that every time I go back and look at it I find something else...
George tells the strange story about his novel and the son that accidently killed his mother and then his father and was finally committed to a mental hospital and never spoke again. There is the obvious connection that one parent and George and Martha's son died the same way. However, has anyone else thought it was odd that in George's story, (or childhood, either way you want to look at it) the child accidently kills the parents, while in Martha and George's real life, the parents accidently kill the child?
I don't think George intended to "kill" their son, it's rather vague when you read about it, he's sort of drunk and hears bells and then he has the apifinay that their son is dead. It doesn't seem to be premeditated, but there is a connection. | |
|
| James E | 0 | 4/6/2009 11:35 AM | | Link to the history of WAVW I was looking around on the web for critiques of WAVW. Here's an interesting link to the history, first performances, and historical context of the WAVW:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/35608/sample/9780521635608ws.pdf | |
|
| cK | 9 | 4/5/2009 10:03 AM | | George and Martha are based on... "In another interview, Albee acknowledged that he based the characters of Martha and George on his good friends, New York socialites Willard Maas and Marie Menken—although they are obviously named after George Washington and his wife Martha Custis Dandridge Washington, America's first First Couple."
Thanks to wikipedia, I found that stuff out. My question is, how could Albee base George and Martha off of his friends? Who would be friends with such people? My real question, is what is Albee saying about American families by naming the crazy couple after the first First Couple? | |
|
| Que Pasa Mufasa? | 10 | 4/5/2009 7:20 AM | | Honey Honey - You were the first one So we can all agree on the fact that Honey is a very childlike person. She gets all excited for the games, she has to be told quite down, when shes sleeping on the bathroom floor shes curled up in the fetile position sucking her thumb and holding a bottle, and she repeats people like its the best thing ever. So is it kind of ironic that Honey thought she was pregnant, but now shes the one acting like baby rather than the one she thought she was carrying? Or is it that she is simply used as a way to show how women were treated like children with the way that nick has control over her... I feel like its a bit of both but mostly just used as a symbol like so many things are. | |
|
| LongArmPerrin | 17 | 4/4/2009 8:29 PM | | Boom! So in the beggining of the play, George pulls out a fake gun and scares the bajesus out of everyone, but that whole part was really sketchy for me. From the way George and Martha played around the whole, i would've expected a real gun, which brings me to my question, if you had a wife who you dealt with like George would you shoot her out of frustration? lawl | |
|
| Holly | 10 | 4/2/2009 3:35 PM | | Did it all work out? In first hour we were discussing whether or not George was intentially trying to hurt Martha and whether or not the "death" of their child was going to help their relationship or hinder it even more. I find it hard to belive that George was not trying to hurt Martha when he went and killed their son, but at the same time I think that it may have helped their relationship. The son seemed to be a reason for Martha and George to argue, and if they truly did invent him at birth, then for 21 years he has been tearing their marriage apart. Maybe getting rid of him was the best idea? | |
|
| Cello Girl | 6 | 4/2/2009 8:25 AM | | Walpurgisnacht ...is like Halloween in Germany and the title of the second act. I looked it up and revolves around "the human desire to drive away the winter cold and welcome spring." The focus of the day is on a mountain, called the Brocken, which is always surrounded by fog and clouds, the "legendary home of witches and devils". Hmm. Unless Albee randomly picked a word to use here, is the living room perhaps a mini Brocken? Or is the rest of society Brocken? Who knows, but George, Martha, Nick, and Honey become very hostile in this act, more so than in any other act. Nick and Martha have their...thing... Honey gets drunk, and George yells at everyone. Complete chaos. Now, whether they wish to welcome in spring (which could be happiness or tranquility) is up for debate. Thoughts? | |
|
| cK | 4 | 4/1/2009 5:12 PM | | Reaching the nanika through insanity I think I get it, through this crazy situation, everyone is learning everything about everyone. From reading this, we get a really good sense of the characters and of their triggers and their sensitive areas. Have we discovered their essence? There were many similarities between WAVW and Murakami’s WUBC, including the mention of Crete and Manchuria, but mostly the description of digging inside a person. In WUBC, May describes going into a person’s inside, through the flesh and the bone to reach the center, believing that this center is the core of the person, the nanika. In this play, George says “we all peel labels…through the skin…through the muscle…and get down to the bone. There’s something inside the bone…the marrow…and that’s what you gotta get at.” (pg 212) I think this is one of the most important lines in the play because it seems to be one of the only explanations for why they’re acting the way they do, actually said aloud by one of the characters. Is that what George and Martha are trying to do, peel each other’s labels off?
| |
|
| Cello Girl | 12 | 3/29/2009 12:24 PM | | Spouse Confusion One aspect of the play I found very interesting was the fact that George, Martha, Honey, and Nick kept mixing up who was talking about whom. pg 99 for example: "N: No, no, my wife...my wife gets sick quite easily. Your wife is Martha." Is this because the couples are so similar they can't even keep their own spouse straight? After this confusion, Nick and Honey don't seem so much like the perfect couple: sweethearts since a young age, young, bright, etc. Instead, there are more striking similarities to George and Martha. Is Albee suggesting that marriage is a game? That society itself is suffering because we don't let down our facades? | |
|
| Que Pasa Mufasa? | 9 | 3/29/2009 11:54 AM | | Why does matha start the party? So I know Martha says she invited Nick and Honey over because her father said so, and perhaps it is nothing more than this, but I feel like there has to be something besides just showing her fathers pull over her. Yeah the symbolizsm is there, but I feel like theres other stuff going on. Has anyone else thought that maybe Martha did this just to start something up with George? I really don't think that she did this just for a Hook-up with Nick, but I think secretly she did this to start her game with George. Even before Nick and Honey show up Martha was already starting things with him, and perhaps she and her drama queen self just wanted an audiance to perform before. | |
|
| Cello Girl | 9 | 3/29/2009 11:27 AM | | Virginia Woolf Do Virginia Woolf's writings have any bearings on Albee's play? She suggested quite radical roles for women and is considered a feminist. So why have her name in the title? Is George as afraid of Martha's power as she claims he is? George, although at the beginning of the play meek, is the most boisterous character, yet recoils under Martha's dominance. Has Martha's freedom to control gone too far? | |
|
| EelsandColdBaths | 6 | 3/29/2009 11:01 AM | | Catching on When nick and honey first enter the picture, they don't really know what's going on. George and martha are aware of their game, of course, but Honey and Nick seem quite stunned by the whole thing. Then, we begin to see Nick catch on to what george is doing, and even arguing back. He goes through a definite transformation throughout the play. However, Honey doesn't really seem to catch on to the whole thing. I don't know if it's because she's too drunk, or just not intelligent enough to realize what's going on. Possibly both. But she isn't even in the room for lots of the play because she is too busy throwing up. Is this because she has nothing substantial in her to argue about? Or maybe she is just completely clueless the whole time. | |
|
| GregE | 5 | 3/29/2009 10:28 AM | | Life/Reality after Murakami Okay, so since my family is weird, my sister, my dad, and me have all read/are reading this play. In fact, for better or worse, my father is the one who suggested to Mrs. Para to do this for class. Anyway, after our deconstructive thoughts about the reality that Murakami displays within his novels it was hard for me to believe the statement my sister said about how WAVW "is truth." Can we take this as truth, or the reality of the world? Or is this just another personal perception of two couples relationship and their interactions with each other? Can we really take anything that goes on in this "reality" to be true? | |
|
| cK | 18 | 3/29/2009 7:25 AM | | Why do Nick and Honey stay? Why do Nick and Honey stay? This was my constant question while reading. It is possible that they stayed because they were so fascinated, that is why I couldn't stop reading. Or maybe, deep down, we all want a bit of drama even if we complain about it. It can't be that they were staying to be polite, the situation escalates far beyond the point of a civilized gathering. What do you think? | |
|
| cK | 12 | 3/28/2009 10:26 PM | | Apprehensive reading a play I have to say, I didn't think I was going to like reading this play at all. My only other experiences with reading plays has been Shakespeare and then The Crucible...you see what I mean. I found this play so intoxicating though, I couldn't stop reading. These people are so crazy, so manipulative and cruel that it's fascinating. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf has definitely changed my mind about plays. | |
|
| rêves des bohémienne | 3 | 3/27/2009 9:46 PM | | Feminism 'n More I think I've got something here. Albee's script has been set up expertly. There's so much going on here, that I find it hard to pin anything down, but this feminist thing almost became obvious as I started following it. After following it, I felt that it lead to more than just feminism, though I'm still a little blurry as to what.... I just know there's some huge revelation that will say something about everything in general, not just about women, at the end of this thought. So, if you are willing to explore this idea, maybe you'll find it.
So, when you read this play, you instantly hate Martha. Why? Is it (a) because she's a mean bitch or (b) because she is powerful? How about the gun in the first act? I'll ask the same question again, did you want George to actually shoot Martha because (a) she's a mean bitch or (b) she's taken away his position of dominance in a patriarchal society and should be aptly punished? Why is it too, that it occurs in the "Fun and Games" section of the story? Is it because in the 1960s, Martha and the type of woman she represents is considered a joke? Afterall, she at the end of this act, she is drowned out with that mocking twist on a child's song by both men present, and even Honey, the sterotypical woman. We notice in the end, as well, that Martha ultimately looses the fight for dominance because George finds a way to take complete control over their son. And why is it that the act is titled The Exorcisim? Because it sucessufully removes Martha's powerful behavior from her by destroying her son? Where does this lead?
Perhaps Albee is even satirising the ideas that he brings up. Maybe feminism is a game and a joke, just a clever excuse for one person to claim dominace over the other. More than any one theme or theory, the theme of "bringing it down to the bone" and reavealing these people to be complete primal animals, seems most prevalent. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|