Open Prompt VI Revised: March 6th--The First Scene of the American Dream (the Sequel)

1972. In retrospect, the reader often discovers that the first chapter of a novel or the opening scene of a drama introduces some of the major themes of the work. Write an essay about the opening scene of a drama or the first chapter of a novel in which you explain how it functions in this way.

The first scene of a great literary work traditionally provides a "road map" of the plot and introduces many key themes of the work .  The American Dream, by Edward Albee, uses parallel symbolism to hint at the plot of the play, and the problems Albee sees with our society.  From the moment the curtain rises, the reader is alerted to the tensions in the all American family and the consumer ideals of modern society—all the problems that Albee wants to address. 

                Even before a single word is spoken, the reader is introduced to a prevalent issue in the work: Mommy and Daddy’s bad relationship.  Albee gives few stage directions, but when he does give them, they are meant to serve and very important and significant purpose.  The stage that the audience sees as The American Dream begins is the means through which Albee introduces the problematic American household.  In the stage directions, Albee indicated that there are to be two chairs, facing opposite one another at an angle, so that they do not directly confront one another, but instead halfway face the audience, with a two-person couch between them.  Mommy and Daddy are to be seated in these chairs.  The fact that Mommy and Daddy are not seated comfortably together in the “love seat” alerts the audience to the fact that theirs is a relationship which is clearly rocky or even lacking love altogether.  The result achieved by their opposing positions shows the audience that they are in fact on opposing sides, perhaps even locked in a two-person argument, while the angling toward the audience both foreshadows the audience’s later connection with the characters through Grandma, and hints toward the passive-aggressive nature of their relationship.  Albee introduces perhaps the most obvious issue of the play in the first scene, and so begins to make his argument: something is wrong here; something is wrong with the American family.

                Once the characters do begin speaking, another major theme of the play is introduced: the impending arrival of “them”; that is, the corporate entity that is Mrs. Barker.  Mommy opens her disjointed conversation with “I don’t know what can be keeping them.”  Initially, the reader does not realize that “them” is in fact Mrs. Barker, but in hindsight, she is the expected visitor. Toward the end of the play, it is apparent that Ms. Barker represents big business and corporations, and this is hinted at in the early part of the play through the use of the third person plural.  Her arrival is not just alluded to in this first scene, but openly discussed.  This is also the second thing the reader notices, and in this way Albee sets up a chronological summary through his first scene: first, the problem relationship, second, the arrival of Mrs. Barker.

The third major subject of the play is foreshadowed later on in the conversation between Mommy and Daddy, when Mommy begins to tell Daddy of her consumer woes.  She tells him, in great detail, that she bought a beige hat, but then the chairman of her woman’s club (a figure of power and wealth) told her it was wheat, and so she took it back to the store, and got another hat back, exactly the same color as the one before.  Bizarrely, Mommy seems to realize that it was the same exact hat, but the satisfaction of her outing seems to come from throwing a fit and getting what she wanted.  This story introduces several themes which are on Albee’s radar throughout the play: consumerism, the American way of pandering to those rich and powerful to “climb the social ladder”, and the childishness of Mommy and Daddy through the childish language Mommy uses when telling the story.  However, the most important function this story serves is to essentially summarize Mommy and Daddy’s lives.  They bought a baby, the twin of the Young Man, symbolized by the beige hat Mommy first purchased.  They were then unsatisfied with him, and so through Mrs. Barker (who is the chairman of the woman’s club) got another child.  This child was the Young Man, the spitting image of the child before, just like the second hat was exactly the same as the first one.  In this simple hat story, Albee outlines for the reader the entire plot of the play and also shows the problematic society in which people treat everything, including their family, as a shallow consumer item, through the parallels between the hats and the children.

                Mommy’s story about her customer dissatisfaction both introduces major themes of consumerism and shallowness prevalent throughout the play, and takes the reader (or viewer) through the entire plot.  By introducing Mommy and Daddy’s flawed relationship first, through the cold and opposing set, Albee sets a chronological summary of his play and its arguments in motion.  He shows the reader that in the beginning of the work, Mommy and Daddy will have a bad relationship, in the middle Mrs. Barker will arrive, and in the end, they will get a new hat and a new baby, and be temporarily satisfied.  In this microcosm, the reader can clearly see that Mrs. Barker (big business) is the enabler of the vicious cycle.  Through showing the reader that the hats, and in turn the first child and the Young Man, were the same, Albee hints to the reader that at the end of the play, the “satisfaction” will not last.  Because the characters have only been temporarily fooled, and because the “hat” is exactly the same, Albee shows the reader that the consumer and materialistic society in the play, and the society in real life which Albee intends it to comment on, is a problematic one which will never end with happiness.

Open Prompt II Revised: March 6th--Social Critique in Oliver Twist (the Sequel)

2009, Form B. Many works of literature deal with political or social issues. Choose a novel or play that focuses on a political or social issue. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the author uses literary elements to explore this issue and explain how the issue contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

During England’s industrial revolution, there was a prevailing theory that the poor were inherently immoral and to blame for their own situation. Charles Dickens’ famous novel Oliver Twist explores this idea through several key characters: Oliver, Mr. Bumble, Monks, and Nancy.  Dickens encourages his readers to be more benevolent toward the poor.  He reinforces this through the motif of eyes watching, suggesting that our treatment of our fellow man is being being seenand judged by God.

Dickens uses his innocent protagonist, Oliver Twist, as a demonstration of the moral purity which can exist despite poverty. Oliver begins life hopelessly doomed.  This shows the reader that he himself was not to blame for his own misfortune, and is not born inherently evil or weak. Indeed, far from portraying Oliver as weak in any way, the narrator notes that had Oliver been born into a wealthy home, he would have died at birth, and that it was the necessity of a struggle which caused him to gain the strength to live. From that point on, Oliver is hit with misfortune, and yet never wavers from his saint-like disposition. Despite thievery seeming the only way to survive, Oliver is appalled at Fagin’s pickpockets and refuses to steal. Through this, Dickens presents a society in which the poor are pressured to turn to evil as a means to survive, and where the poor can be virtuous despite this pressure. At the same time, Dickens critiques the solutions presented for poverty, especially the workhouse.  Demonstrating his biting humor, Dickens wrote that the lower classes choose between “being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it.” In this environment, Dickens argues, it is extremely difficult for the poor to remain virtuous—if they cannot, like Oliver, they will meet their demise as victims of society.

Dickens juxtaposes Oliver’s purity with an array of evil characters of upper or middle class, showing the reader that bad can exist in the rich as easily as in the poor. One example of this is Mr. Bumble, the cruel owner of the parish-house in which Oliver spends his early childhood. Mr. Bumble embodies the type of human who is supposed to be helping the poor and is instead using his power for personal gain. Mr. Bumble ends his life in the very workhouse he once presided over, representing the ultimate downfall of those who act immorally. Another “evil” and wealthy character is Oliver’s half-brother, Monks. Monks is Oliver’s rich brother, but he is both unhappy and horrible, and likewise meets his demise. Dickens shows us that the rich and poor alike can be horrible people. Indeed, the only “good” people in the novel who are wealthy, like Rose, are the ones who assist the poor.

Though the novel contains mostly characters morally “black and white,” there is one morally ambiguous character: Nancy. This ambiguity serves to demonstrate the good which can exist in everyone, no matter their social status. By all of society’s standards, Nancy is evil: she is a thief, a drunk, and a prostitute.   However, she commits a clearly good action in sacrificing herself to save Oliver’s life. This surfacing of Nancy’s conscience shows there is good in everyone and that by changing the flawed system which forces the poor into a life of crime, we may eliminate evil brought on by poverty, and the evil the upper class commits by oppressing the poor.

As the reader is presented with these characters, they are confronted with recurring themes of being judged and watched by God. Oliver and Mrs. Mann watch Mr. Bumble approach the workhouse in the very beginning of the novel . Noah watches Nancy, and has to form a conjecture about her actions—a judgment which will ultimately decide her fate.   Later, Sikes is afraid that Nancy’s ghost is watching him—when he finally sees “her”, he sees only her eyes, loses his balance, and plummets to his death.  The reader can see that these “eyes” are the eyes of God, or God acting through Nancy’s soul, pushing Sikes to his death so he can be punished. Indeed, all of the characters in the novel are watched and judged by God, and only those characters who are good and help others have a happy conclusion to their tales. Those who do not, like Sikes, or Nancy—still an ultimately “fallen” woman—are punished.

The tales of Oliver, Mr. Bumble, Monks, and Sikes show the reader that the relationship between class and morality is more complicated than some thought: morality and vice can occur in poor and rich alike.  Dickens encourages his upper class readers to genuinely help the lower class, showing many positive upper class characters helping the poor and being rewarded, and negative upper class characters ignoring or exploiting them and being punished. Dickens shows the reader that God is always watching them, and if they do not help the poor, they will pay.  Handed a second chance to be good, Monks throws it away and end his life in suffering. Dickens’ readers are handed the same chance as they read Oliver Twist, a chance Dickens hopes they will take.   

Open Prompts II Revised: March 6th--"Passing" Over Answers (the Sequel)

2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

Readers tend to look for an “answer” in the text: an argument which can be clearly stated, and is conveyed through all of the texts thematic and stylistic elements.  However, Nella Larsen’s novel Passing offers no such clear-cut solution.  Passing takes place in Harlem during the 1920’s, a time when issues of racial and class identity were especially uncertain. The novel debates these issues, asking the reader to question what it means to be “black” or “white”, among other topics.  But the novel never gives answers to any of these questions, instead implying that they are unanswerable. 

The novel is narrated in 3rd person, but the narration is closely allied with the protagonist Irene Redfield, an upper middle class, light-skinned black woman.  As the novel follows her life and her family—focusing on her relationship with her friend Clare, an African-American woman “passing” as white—the reader can see that they cannot rely on Irene’s perspective to tell the tale.  Unfortunately, it transpires that Irene is deluded, prejudiced, and unaware, causing her account of events to be extremely suspect in the reader’s eyes.  The limited narrative perspective makes it more difficult for anything to become clear, especially the definition of race.

The setting of the novel, 1920s Harlem, is crucial, because at that period in history the idea of the “one drop theory” was being debated.  Did “one drop” of African blood make you “black”?  If the reader only considers Irene’s perspective, this is the definition of race.  Irene says that Clare “cared nothing for her race; she only belonged to it”—but whether she acted as Irene thought “blacks” should, she was definitely Irene’s “people” because she had African ancestry.  However, for Irene, this became a sort of positive idea of kinship, not a negative and demeaning reference to slavery.  But the reader can see that Irene’s views on class made her simplistic definition problematic.  In Passing, middle and upper class blacks like Irene see themselves as separate from working class blacks.  Here, class culture becomes almost like another race.  The reader sees that Irene is prejudiced against poorer blacks, and delusional in her definition of race because she does not treat her darker servants as equals.  Her opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt, and so the reader turns to her husband, Brian, for possible answers.

Brian brings up the possibility that race is the magnetism felt by all members of the race toward each other.  This theory is supported at the end of the novel, when Clare’s white husband storms into an all-black party she is attending (he has discovered she is actually “black”).  All the “blacks” in the room—regardless of their own personal tensions, class, or percentage of African ancestry—band together to defend Clare against the unquestionably white intruder.  By Brian’s definition, Clare is “black”, because Clare uses Irene as a guide to her “poorer darker brethren”, and attempts to insert herself into this society any way she can.  However, this is paradoxical, because if Clare was completely a part of Irene’s “race”, then she wouldn’t need a guide.  In this way, Clare is “white”, just like the Caucasians who would go to African American clubs like the Cotton Club, and observe the culture but only be able to spectate.  As we hear the story from Irene’s point of view, we are invited to scorn Clare as a “passing” African American.  She is part of the African American race, and yet seems to belong simultaneously to another race of passing individuals.  Every time a definition of race is offered up in this novel, there is a problem with it, and race remains ambiguous and the reader without answers.  

One could argue, though, that in this non-argument there is, in fact, an “answer”." Larsen could be arguing that there is no way to tell what “race” is; it is impossible to define because our own limited perspective on the world will blind us from the truth.  Larsen could be showing the reader that we are all Irene Redfield—all be prejudiced and blinded, our own worst enemy in the human quest for certainty.  But Larsen doesn’t even definitively make that argument—in Passing, there is no way to tell anything for sure, and there is no way to define anything with certainty.  And so perhaps, Larsen suggests, we shouldn’t try. 

Open Prompt I Revised: March 6th--"The Ambiguous Witch of the West" (the Sequel)

2002. Morally ambiguous characters -- characters whose behavior discourages readers from identifying them as purely evil or purely good -- are at the heart of many works of literature. Choose a novel or play in which a morally ambiguous character plays a pivotal role. Then write an essay in which you explain how the character can be viewed as morally ambiguous and why his or her moral ambiguity is significant to the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

In fairy tales such as Hansel and Gretel or Sleeping Beauty, the princess is always good and the witch is always evil.  In his novel Wicked, Gregory Maguire plays on this archetype with many morally ambiguous characters, especially the protagonist, Elphaba, the “Wicked Witch of the West”.  Throughout the novel, Maguire tests the reader’s preconceptions of the fairy tale “wicked witch” in order to make the reader think about their own prejudices and ethics. 

Elphaba’s moral ambiguity is established as soon as the novel begins in two principal ways.   First, the entire novel has a narrative structure closely allied with Elphaba.  The reader essentially sees “her side of the story.”  This is an allowance never given to the indisputably, inexcusably evil witches of fairy tales, or the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz (the novel Maguire is actively responding to).  Maguire is offering the reader the chance that there is a reason for the “wickedness.”  Secondly, the baby is identified as Elphaba.  She is not the Wicked Witch.  She has no affiliation with good or evil one way or the other.  The reader goes into the story assuming Elphaba is “wicked”, and when that title is striped—when the character is given a name—the reader is a) shown that perhaps Elphaba was not always “bad”, and b) if this is the case, we must consider the possibility that some outside factor caused Elphaba’s fall into “the Wicked Witch.”

As the novel continues, the reader sees that Elphaba is alienated because of her skin.  Here Maguire shows the reader the tendency of society to judge based on appearances, to be scared of diversity.  Because of this fear, society expects Elphaba to be “wicked."  Their fear is hypocritical, because Oz is quickly revealed to be a corrupt and lawless place, where nothing is certain, despite its many positive qualities.  Furthermore, Elphaba is surrounded by people neither “good” nor “bad”, whose actions create a “gray area” of ethical certainty.  As time goes on, Elphaba spirals deeper and deeper into that gray area, continually making morally uncertain decisions.  For example, she becomes an assassin—but the government is oppressive, and may be corrupt and killing its own people.  She has an affair with a married man, but they are in love and the man is a Prince who has an arranged marriage in which he had no say.  Maguire forces the reader to question the very existence of good or bad, and also to consider the relevance of intentions.  Elphaba tries to do good, but her actions often result in atrocious results.  Certainly, she has done “bad” things, but is she really “evil” if her intentions were good?  Also, Elphaba suffers greatly throughout her entire life, and many questionable deeds stem from problems in her childhood.  There is a reason (not always logical, but a reason) behind every action she takes, and that reason is not an inherent desire to make others suffer.  Outside factors pushed Elphaba into “the Wicked Witch”—and so Maguire forces us to ask whether she is then wicked at all.

Elphaba’s skin color also serves as a symbol which contributes to the ambiguity of Elphaba’s character.  From the moment of her birth, she is “green as a sin.”  Elphaba seems to have the mark of Cain—she is the embodiment of sin, of original sin, and she is indeed “wicked”, so impure that water cannot touch her (curiously, though, she is born in the rain).  She even goes out into the desert as Cain does.  However, her skin could be interpreted in a more positive light for Elphaba.  Her hue marks her not as a sinful person, but the scapegoat on whom all of Oz’s sins have been cast--not wholly "evil", but society needs someone to blame and picks her because she is different.  Through this interpretation, we see another explanation for her desert exile: she is goat with the red thread.  Here, Maguire shows the reader the tendency of society to create a scapegoat, and blame one particular person or group for their problems, based on prejudice.  This interpretation is supported by Elphaba’s inability to touch water.  She carries all of society’s sins in the pigment of her skin, and so she is too impure for water to touch her. 

The reader can never decide whether Elphaba is really “good” or “evil”, and through this ambiguity, Maguire argues that there is no such thing: good and evil cannot be defined or even exist alone.  Everyone has both good and evil in them.  Maguire forces the reader to realize society’s tendency to jump to conclusions, judge a book by its cover, force labels on people, and blame one person or group for all of society’s problems.  He even raises the idea that those who are viewed as “bad” are that way because they have suffered in their own past.  The Wicked Witch of the West is that scapegoat, and that adult with the difficult past.  The ambiguity of her character not only gives her a second chance to tell her side of the story, but gives the reader the opportunity to look at the world with a more open mind.

Response to Course Material V: December 10th

                I have been really enjoying the discussions of Ceremony in the last two weeks.  The book is so fascinating and complicated, and I love how there are so many different interpretations of something as seemingly insignificant as the color yellow.  Actually, this novel is sort of turning out to be a novel I really love.  I love stories about stories, and things that explore the power of words and cultures.  I also find it interesting to be reading this novel from the “white person” perspective, because I think the culture from which we’re approaching novels, this novel especially, probably alters our perceptions significantly. I doubt there’s really a way to try and see the novel from a Native American perspective.  That being said, one question we haven’t asked in class is, “who do you think Silko is writing to?”

                Annotations, however, I find unusually difficult in this novel because initially there are so many different interpretations of one word, that I can’t really put down one more definitive conclusion, as I could with, especially, The American Dream.  In that play, I had a pretty firm idea of how I saw the text.  In this one, I often have no idea what Silko is arguing, so this may turn out to be one of those fun ambiguity-filled no-answer situations like Passing or Wicked, or how Stephenie Meyer could even bring herself to write Twilight.        

Close Reading V: December 10th--"54 Iraqis Die In Not Our Problem Anymore"

                The controversial satirical news site The Onion is constantly pushing the boundary between humor and revulsion, and sometimes the journalists of the so-called funny paper decide to throw away that boundary and write a very forceful article with humor so dark the reader really doesn’t want to see it.  One such article is “54 Iraqis Die In Not Our Problem Anymore”, which describes a recent and devastating suicide bombing in Iraq, but makes clear to the reader that this “not our problem” anymore, because we’re out of there come January.  Using gory details, ridiculous syntax, and innapropriate language, the author of the article conveys his opinion that withdrawing from Iraq is inhumane and ridiculous.  The effect is to convince the reader that America needs to be there regardless of their political views or position on the war that first placed U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003.

                The grisly details used to describe the bombing, and other grisly events occurring in Iraq, are the first thing which grab the reader’s attention, sympathy, and anger towards those who endanger the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq.  In case the actual act of the bombing does not sicken the reader enough, the author supplies more details to tug at the reader’s heartstrings, such as describing how “four trucks loaded with explosives detonated…wounding more than 200”, and how the bombing coincided “with the height of Friday prayers”.  The act was also described, using very negative diction, as “senseless” and “cowardly”.  To disgust the reader further, the sheer horror of the human injury and death sustained by this bombing, the author describes the situations as a “grisly, chaotic scene of scattered body parts, [and] shattered storefronts.”  Finally, the author repeats these horrors, demonstrating that this bombing is more than an isolated incident, occurring alongside the “kill[ing of] six police officers and 19 children”, and “four [people] gunned down outside a nearby army recruiting station.”

                However, the reader does not read these details uninterrupted: powerful and obviously pointed syntax is used to convey to the reader how America is inhumane and crazy to be withdrawing their help from such a suffering nation.  At the end of each sentence, to stress this point, the author emphasizes how “none of this matters” because it’s “not our problem anymore”, and how “they’re just going to have to deal with it on their own from now on”.  Furthermore, this grabs the reader’s attention by interrupting the actual news and the details of the explosion, creating an effect of denial and a refusal to hear or care about the suffering of the people in Iraq.  For example, a typical “interrupted” sentence reads this way:  “according to city officials, local morgues have been overwhelmed with we're seriously not going to give this a second thought”.   Other examples are “President Obama offers his deepest condolences to the it's completely outside our mandate at this point, and his thoughts are with those Iraqis and their families who frankly none of this matters much one way or the other.”   These quotes both alert the reader to the ridiculousness the author sees in the prospect of US withdrawal, and juxtaposes the seriousness of the topic with a casual tone that unsettles readers. 

                That being said, the casual dismissal exhibited in that instance is nothing compared to the obscene or just plain inappropriate language used predominantly in the second half of the essay, to both create a mood of desperate denial.  This gives the reader the impression that the US is struggling to stop caring about Iraq, alerting to the reader that there is hope for our empathy.  As the tone of denial grows more frustrated, the article becomes more obscene: “somebody else's problem now, goddamn”, the article states, and “look, we did the best we could here, okay? We tried. We fucking tried.”  This both minimizes the professional credibility of those supporting withdrawal and emphasizes how hard we must be trying to not care about the tragedies in Iraq.  Other language which is innapropriate in a different way achieves the same affect.  Due to the seriousness of the situation, the reader recognizes that whoever is saying “it was a lousy situation to begin with. That really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. And now it's time to cut our losses and go. It's over. Done-zo. So best of luck to all of you” is not someone who can have any empathy at all.  Diction such as “Adios” and “look, buddy” jar the reader because they’re totally at-odds with any feelings of empathy or maturity.  The reader can’t help but to associate denying the suffering in Iraq as ridiculous, and as what the US is doing when they withdraw.  The reader does not want to feel like America is saying “everything can go to shit for all we care, because we're leaving and never looking back.”  Therefore, there are inclined to say “let’s stay in Iraq, so we aren’t, and don’t seem, insensitive and inhumane.”

                Through this casual and dismissive language, the author puts his audience at odds with those supporting withdrawal from Iraq, because those supporting and enacting the withdrawal are acting so inappropriately and inhumanely toward the suffering described in the article.  First, the author introduces this suffering, gaining his reader’s sympathy, and then interrupts their horror by commenting that this doesn’t matter.  This statement shakes up the reader; they want to protest that no, they do care about this suffering.  The author’s “final blow” is that dismissive language, which puts withdrawal in a ridiculous light, making it both absurd and inhumane.  This article’s use of diction, details, and language is so effective that whether the reader actually agrees with withdrawal from Iraq or not, they definitely reconsider their opinion and can see the author’s point of view.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/54-iraqis-die-in-not-our-problem-anymore,26766/

Open Prompt VI: December 4th--"The First Scene of The American Dream"

1972. In retrospect, the reader often discovers that the first chapter of a novel or the opening scene of a drama introduces some of the major themes of the work. Write an essay about the opening scene of a drama or the first chapter of a novel in which you explain how it functions in this way.

Often, looking back on the first scene of a play or other work, the reader realizes that it introduces the major themes of the work.  The American Dream, by Edward Albee, does more than introduce major themes: it effectively summarizes and reflects the play’s plot as a whole.  Everything, from the setting, to the dialogue, to the topic of conversation that occurs right after the curtain goes up, in the first scene of this play shows the reader what is and is going to happen.  This includes Mommy and Daddy’s conflict in the beginning,  Mrs. Barker as the personification of consumerism and big business in the middle, and the Young Man’s replacement of the murdered baby at the very end of the play.

                Before the first scene really even begins, or a single word is spoken, the reader is introduced to a prevalent issue in the work: Mommy and Daddy’s bad relationship.  Albee gives few stage directions, but when he does give them, they are meant to serve and very important and significant purpose, and the stage that the audience sees as The American Dream begins is the means through which Albee introduces the problematic American household.  In the directions, Albee indicated that there are to be two chairs, facing opposite one another at an angle, so that they do not directly confront one another, but instead halfway face the audience, with a two-person couch between them.  Mommy and Daddy are to be seated in these chairs.  The fact that Mommy and Daddy are not seated comfortably together in the “love seat” alerts the audience to the fact that theirs is a relationship which is clearly rocky or even lacking love altogether.  The result achieved by their opposing positions shows the audience that they are in fact on opposing sides, perhaps even locked in a two-person, while the angling toward the audience both foreshadows the audience’s later connection with the characters through Grandma, and hints toward the passive-aggressive nature of their relationship.  Albee introduces perhaps the most prevalent issue of the play in the first scene, and so begins to make his argument: something is wrong here; something is wrong with the American family.

                Once the characters do begin speaking, another major theme of the play is introduced: the impending arrival of “them”; that is, the corporate entity that is Mrs. Barker.  Mommy opens her disjointed conversation with “I don’t know what can be keeping them.”  Initially, the reader does not realize that “them” is in fact Mrs. Barker, but in hindsight, one realizes that this refers to Mrs. Barker. Toward the end of the play, it is apparent that Ms. Barker represents big business and corporations, and this is hinted at in the early part of the play through the use of the third person plural.  Her arrival is not just alluded to in this first scene, but openly discussed.  This is also the second thing the reader notices, and in this way Albee sets up a chronological summary through his first scene: first, the problem relationship, second, the arrival of Mrs. Barker.

                The third major landmark of the play is foreshadowed and represented later on in the conversation between Mommy and Daddy, when Mommy begins to tell Daddy of her consumer woes.  She tells him, in great detail, that she bought a beige hat, but then the chairman of her woman’s club (a figure of power and wealth) told her it was wheat, and so she took it back to the store, and got another hat back, exactly the same color as the one before.  Bizarrely, Mommy seems to realize that it was the same exact hat, but the satisfaction of her outing seems to come from throwing a fit and getting what she wanted.  This story introduces several themes which are on Albee’s radar throughout the play: consumerism, the American way of pandering to those rich and powerful to “climb the social ladder”, and the childishness of Mommy and Daddy through the childish language Mommy uses when telling the story.  However, the most important function this story serves is to essentially summarize Mommy and Daddy’s lives.  They bought a baby, the twin of the Young Man, symbolized by the beige hat Mommy first purchased.  They were then unsatisfied with him, and so through Mrs. Barker (who is the chairman of the woman’s club) got another child.  This child was the Young Man, the spitting image of the child before, just like the second hat was exactly the same as the first one.  In this simple hat story, Albee outlines for the reader the entire plot of the play and also shows the problematic society in which people treat everything, including their family, as a shallow consumer item, through the parallels between the hats and the children.

                Mommy’s story about her customer dissatisfaction both introduces major themes of consumerism and shallowness prevalent throughout the play, but also takes the reader (or viewer) through the entire play.  Mommy’s whole conversation with Daddy demonstrates their focus on materialistic values, and references Mrs. Barker as a symbol for the big businesses which enable those values to exist.  By introducing Mommy and Daddy’s flawed relationship first, through the cold and opposing set, Albee sets a chronological summary of his play and its arguments in motion.  He shows the reader that in the beginning of the work, Mommy and Daddy will have a bad relationship, in the middle Mrs. Barker will arrive, and in the end, they will get a new hat and a new baby, and be temporarily satisfied.  However, through showing the reader that the hats, and in turn the first child and the Young Man, were the same, Albee hints to the reader that at the end of the play, the “satisfaction” will not last.  Because the characters have only been temporarily fooled, and because the “hat” is exactly the same, Albee shows the reader that the consumer and materialistic society in the play, and the society in real life which Albee intends it to comment on, is a problematic one which will never end with happiness.