Upload
rachel-lewis
View
46
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ljnl;lj;lj;j
Citation preview
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 1/11
Language: Truth and Illusion in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"Author(s): Ruth MeyerSource: Educational Theatre Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, 20th-Century American Theatre Issue(Mar., 1968), pp. 60-69Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3204876 .
Accessed: 02/09/2014 12:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Educational Theatre Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 2/11
RUTH
MEYER
Language:
Truth and Illusion
in
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
AS
GEORGE
TRIES
TO
DETERMINE
WHETHER
GUEST
NICK
IS
"STUD"
OR
"HOUESBOY,"
Martha
pleadingly
accuses
him
of
the
inability
to
judge:
"Truth
or
illusion,
George;
you
don't know
the
difference"
(202).1
And
the
audience,
too,
at this
point
near the end
of the
play
may
readily
concede
that
they
along
with
George
have
lost
contact
with
the
neat distinctions between
truth
and illusion.
For
indeed
in Edward Albee's
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
the
distinction
be-
tween
truth
and illusion
is
not
readily
perceived.
If
one
accepts
as
truth
that
which the
characters
say
is
true and
ignores
their
later
contradictions,
he
can
find
a
fairly
clear-cut differene
between
truth
and illusion.
Daniel McDonald
seems
to
distinguish
between
truth and
illusion on
merely
this
literal
basis.
Such
over-simplification
leads
to statements such
as
"Honey
rejoices
in her
husband's
career and in her own
youthful
enthusiasm."2 In
actuality,
the
only
enthusiasm
she
exhibits
in
the
play
is for
"[dancing]
like the wind"
(126)
and
drinking
brandy.
Similarly
McDonald's
statement
that
"Martha mortifies
her
husband
by
revealing
his
part
in
the death
of
his
parents"3
ignores
two
basic facts:
George
claims
this
happened
to
a friend
of
his,
and he also attributes
circumstances
similar
to
the
murder
to
the death
of
their
imaginary
son.
Truth
and illusion
is
indeed a
major
theme of the
play,
but
on
a more com-
plex
level than this.
A more
perceptive
evaluation
is
given
by
Robert
Brustein:
Albee seems less
interested
in the real
history
of his
characters
than in
the
way
they
conceal
and
protect
their
reality:
the
conflict
is also
a
kind
of
game,
with strict
rules,
and what
they
reveal about each other may not be true. This comedy of concealment reminds me of Piran-
dello,
and
even
more
of
Jean
Genet.
For
George
and Martha
. .
. shift
their
identities
like
reptiles
shedding
skins.4
Language
is
a
principal
means
by
which
Albee
achieves this
"comedy
of
con-
cealment."
The
dialogue
of the characters
which
both
reveals
and conceals
identity
establishes
the
ambiguity
between truth
and
illusion
and
in
part
ac-
counts
for
the
violent
disagreement
among
the
critics
as to the
"message"
of the
Miss
Meyer
is
an
assistant
professor
of
English
at
Morningside
College,
Sioux
City,
Iowa.
1
Edward
Albee,
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
(New
York:
Books,
Inc.,
1962).
Subsequent
references
in
the
text
to
the
play
will
be
designated
Virginia
Woolf
and
page
number.
2Daniel
McDonald,
"Truth
and
Illusion
in
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?"
Renascence,
XVII,
64.
3Ibid.,
p.
65.
4
"Albee
and
the Medusa
Head,"
New
Republic,
CXLVII
(November
3,
1962),
29.
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 3/11
Language:
Truth
and
Illusion in
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
61
play.
For
example,
George's
use
of cliches reveals
a
characteristic of
his
person-
ality;
at
the
same
time,
it
protects
him
from
any exposure
of real
identity.
In
order
to
discuss
illusion,
one
should
first define and
identify
truth;
to
dis-
cuss
exaggeration,
there must first
be a norm. "Truth"
is
generally
considered
a
verifiable
fact,
"illusion" a
false
mental
image,
thus
one
that is
unverifiable.
It
is
from
definitions as
clear cut
as
these that
difficulties
arise,
because
through-
out
the
play
there is
a
constant
interpenetration
of
truth and
illusion;
similarly,
so
many
false
roles
are
assumed
by
the
characters
during
the
night's
performance
that
no
definite
norm can
be
established.
Although language
is the
principal
means
of
creating
the
ambiguity,
it
is
not
the
only
means,
as seen in
the
frequent
stage
directions
concerning
facial
expression
and
stance.
Throughout
the
play,
situations
and
experiences
are hinted at: Did
George
actually
experience
the death
of
his
father
and
mother
as
related
in his
novel,
the
novel
Martha
claims
he said
"really happened"? (137)
Does
Martha's father
actually
"not
give
a
damn"
for
her,
as
George
says? (225)
Did
George
sail
past
Majorca,
or
for
that
matter,
did
the
moon,
after
going
down,
"pop
. .. back
up
again"?
(199)
Has
Honey
been
committing
secret
abortions,
as
George
hints?
(177)
Is Nick "stud"
or
"houseboy,"
and
is
liquor
the
only
excuse for his
failure
to
"hump
the hostess"?
(188,197)
Albee's
dexterity
in
creating
ambiguity
is
perhaps
best
demonstrated
by
the
scene in
which
George
confronts
Honey
with her fear of
having
children.
The
audience is
already
aware
that Nick married
Honey during
her
false
pregnancy;
it
is also
aware that
she
"[gets]
sick
.
.
.
occasionally,
all
by
[herself]"
(119).
Having
heard
Honey's
admission of
"I
...
don't
... want
...
any
...
children.
I'm afraid I don't want to be hurt .
...
,"
George
sums
up
the
evidence:
"I
should have known . .
.
the whole business
.
. .
the headaches
.
. . the
whining
... the
...."
He
quickly
concludes:
"How
do
you
make
your
secret
little
mur-
ders
stud-boy
doesn't
know
about,
hunh?
Pills? . . ."
(177)
Honey
has admitted
fear
of
having
children;
she
doesn't "want
to be
hurt."
Through
the
use of
"hurt,"
ambiguity
is
already
created;
does she fear
the
physical
pain
of child-
birth
or the
psychological pain,
unverifiable but
nonetheless
very
real,
involved
in
being
a
parent?
George's
quick
conclusion
furthers
the
ambiguity;
unfortun-
ately,
many
critics
pounce
on
George's
accusation as
the revelation
of a
truth.
Alfred
Chester,
however,
has noted
a
significant
factor in this
scene: "So
the
truth is out at last. But what truth?" Chester continues:
...
we
realize
that,
after
all,
Honey
has said
nothing,
and
George's
mind
has
said
it
all...
But
somehow
George
has hit
home
. .
.
We
begin
to
realize
that the
"truth" about
Nick
and
Honey's
reproductive
dilemma
will never
be revealed as
an
objective
fact.5
Even
at the
start of the
play
the
focus is on the
language
of the
characters.
With the first
lines,
Albee
establishes
a
device he will
use
throughout
the
play.
Martha's drunken
"Jesus
H.
Christ"
is
not
only
shocking
but
is also
distorted.
The "H."-a
good
old
American
middle
initial,
no
doubt-is
sufficiently
un-
familiar
to
draw
attention to
itself.
Walter Kerr
points
out
that
Albee
"peppers
us with them [Jesus Christ's and God damn's] as a kind of warning rattle, to
5"Edward Albee: Red
Herrings
and
White
Whales,"
Commentary,
XXXV
(April
1963),
299.
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 4/11
make
sure
that our
ears
will
be attentive
when
he
decides
really
to
burn them-
with
something
else."6
This
may
be
evidenced
by
the
incongruity
of
George's
term
"Chastity"
(199)
applied
with
knowing
inaccuracy
to Martha
after her
attempted
adultery
with Nick
or
his
"Whatever love wants"
(19,
italics
mine)
as she badgers him to greet their guests. Calling Martha "Chastity" does not
make her
chaste;
referring
to
her
as
"love"
does
not
make
her loved.
But her
adultery
attempt
has
been
unsuccessful,
and
there
is
some sort
of
mutual
con-
cern,
a rather
distorted
love,
existing
between
George
and
Martha.
Through
the
use of
a term
which in
context
seems
highly
inappropriate,
Albee focuses on
the
fine
distinction
between truth
and
illusion.
As
has
already
been
noted,
the
ambiguity
between
truth and illusion
is
a
major
concern
of
the
play.
The
occupation
of the characters
is
significant:
col-
lege
professors
and their
wives have achieved a
level
of education
that
would
imply
precise
and
fluent
use of
language
and also an awareness
of the use
of
cliches.
Albee exploits both of these factors, principally through George, who
early
in
the
play
evidences
an
exaggerated
concern
for
precise
diction
and
later
retreats
from
painful
reality by
assuming
a
false
role,
the
falseness
of
which is
indicated
mainly
by
dialogue. Litany-like
repetitions support
the
ambiguity,
since
a
litany
is
an
artificially
structured
response
and
may
not
represent
the
truth
of
the
moment.
The
false roles and the
litany-like
repetitions
culminate
in the
oldest
and
most
universal
of
rituals-the
Mass,
but
even
this
in
the
context
of the
play
furthers
rather than
resolves
the
ambiguity.
In
the
play
the characters
themselves
acknowledge
a
concern with
language.
They
are
aware
that
certain
levels of
speech
belong
to
certain
groups.
As
George
warns
Martha
not to
start
in
on the
"bit"
(about
their
"child")
(18),
Martha
replies,
"The
bit?
The
bit?
What kind
of
language
is
that?"
and
then,
"You
imitating
one
of
your
students,
for
God's
sake?"
George
warns
Nick and
Honey
that
"Martha's
a
devil with
language" (21).
Martha defends her
intellect
by
clarifying
her statement
that
biology
is less
"abstruse" than math
and taunts
George
with
"Don't
you
tell
me words"
(63).
As
George
recovers
from
their
round of
Humiliate the
Host,
he
badgers
them with "I
mean,
come
on
We
must
know
other
games,
college-type
types
like us
.
.
.
that can't
be
the
.
.
.
limit
of
our
vocabulary,
can it?"
(139) By
emphasizing
the
importance
of
"vocabulary'
to
"games,"
George acknowledges
the
centrality
of
language
to
their
existence,
since
much
of
their existence consists in
playing games.
At the same
time,
since
their games involve mainly the concealment of the truth about themselves,
through
the
assumption
and
abandonment of
false
dialogue
and false
roles,
George's
statement comes
very
near to
identifying
Albee's
technique
in
creating
the
ambiguity
between
truth and
illusion.
It
thus
seems
fairly
evident that
George
and Martha
are
quite
aware
of
the
language they
use. And
there
is,
particularly
on
George's
part,
a
willingness
to
haggle
over
vocabulary
and
to search for the accurate
word.
George
argues
with Nick over whether
a
bunch
of
geese
are
a
"gaggle"
or
a
"gangle"
(113),
6"Along
Nightmare
Alley," Vogue,
CXVI
(April
i,
1963),
119.
Certainly
not all critics
share Mr. Kerr's evaluation of the
dialogue.
For
example,
John
McCarten,
who
assesses
the
play as "vulgar mishmash," writes: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? could be cut in half by
the
elimination
of
the
'God-damn's,'
'Jesus
Christ's,'
and
other
expressions
designed,
presumably,
to
show
us
that this
is
really
modern
stuff."
See
"Long Night's
Journey
Into
Daze,"
The New
Yorker,
XXXVIII
(October
2o,
1962), 85.
62
RUTH
MEYER
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 5/11
Language:
Truth
and
Illusion
in
Who's Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
bickers
again
with
him
over whether
Honey
is
"slim-hipped"
or
"frail"
(89),
points
out
the
inadequacies
of
"courting"
(23)
when
used
to
refer
to his
time
spent
with Martha
prior
to their
marriage,
and uses
"Life" because
of
"lack
of a
better
word"
(ioo).
His
exaggerated
precision
in
use of
language
becomes
for him the norm, or as near to a norm as we will find amid the slippery truth
presented
in
the
play.
Nevertheless,
he
is
amused that
Nick
will admit
to
being
"testy"
(99),
but
resents
being
told
that
he
is
"upset."
He knows that
"Got
the
ice"
is
correct,
albeit
a
bit
archaic-like Martha
(166).
His
awareness
of
the
stupidity
of
conventional
euphemisms
comes to
a
peak
when
he
tells
Martha
to
show
Honey
"where
we
keep
the
. .
euphemism" (20),
a
phrase
totally
lost
on
Honey's
liquor-fogged
brain.
Despite
the
fact
that
she tells
George
he
doesn't
need
to
"tell
her
words,"
Martha is much
less
precise
in
her
use
of
them.
Almost
in
a
manner
remi-
niscent
of Holden
Caulfield,
she
adds
an
"or
something"
to her
phrases.
She
says that Nick is "in the math department, or something" (9). As Nick points out
the error in
her
quotation
of
her
father's favorite
phrase,
she
admits, "Well,
maybe
that
isn't
what he
says
.
.
.
something
like
it"
(55). Similarly,
she
accuses
Nick
that he
"Plucked
[her]
like a
goddamn
... whatever-it-is
...
creeping
vine"
(185),
and
then
calls,
"What
are
you
doing: hiding
or
something?"
(185)
Martha
"swings
wild"
(193),
as
Nick
observes;
she hits
her
target,
but
she
frequently
takes
in
the
surrounding
area
as
well.
She
shoots,
but
frequently
with buckshot-
the
whole
area,
or
something,
is
riddled
with her fire.
Never does
she
evidence
George's
concern
with
precision
in
speech.
Her references to
Bette
Davis,
who
is
married
to
Joseph
Cotton
or
something,
is
merely
a result
of
her
carelessness
with language; her reference to Nick and Honey (prior to their arrival) as
"What's
their
name"
is,
as
she
puts
it,
the
result
of
meeting
"fifteen
new
teachers
and
their
goddamn
wives"
(63).
The
contrast between
Martha's
disregard
for
precision
and
George's
meticulous
and
exaggerated
insistence
upon
the
right
word seems
clear.
And
yet
at
times
George,
too,
pretends
to
slip.
As
he
tells
Nick
that "since
I
married
. . .
uh,
What's
her name
. . .
uh,
Martha"
(32)
it
is
not because of
the
forgetfulness
or
confusion
which
causes
Martha
to
use
"What's their name" in
reference
to
Nick
and
Honey.
How better
to
show
detachment
and
disregard
of
someone
or
some-
thing
than
either
to
forget
the
name
or to
get
it
wrong.
As
he
discusses
the
proposed
scientific
advances with
Nick,
he
says,
"You're
the
one's
going
to
make
all
that
trouble
. .
.
making everyone
the
same,
rearranging
the
chromozones,
or
whatever
it is"
(37).
Contempt
could
scarcely
be
more
clearly
expressed.
When we
consider
George's
occasional
disregard
for
precision
in
light
of
his
usual
even
though
exaggerated
concern for
accuracy,
we
see
Albee's
device
of
presenting
a
masked
truth-for
example,
George's
contempt
for
science.
Be-
cause
the
norm
is
an
exaggerated
one,
and
therefore
not an
unquestionable
norm,
the
ambiguity
between
truth and
illusion
remains.
Much of the
dialogue
of the
play
consists of
cliches,
and
Albee
uses
them in
a manner
that
contributes
to
the
truth/illusion
situation.
Albee,
like
Ionesco,
is a master of the
cliche,
but
while
Ionesco
demonstrates
the
inadequacies
of
language to describe phenomena, Albee demonstrates the
adequacy
and
power
of
words. The
power
of words is
perhaps
best
demonstrated
by
their
ability
to
both
reveal and conceal
truth,
frequently
at
the
same
time. In
Virginia
Woolf,
63
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 6/11
Albee
often
reveals a
significant
facet
of
his
characters
through
a
slanted clichE,
one
that
has
been
tampered
with
in order
to indicate
a
special
meaning.
The
effectiveness of
this device rises
out of
the contrast between
what
one
expects
to
hear
and the
significantly
pointed
distortion.
But since
any
cliche
by
its
very
nature is seldom considered a particular and applicable truth, even the distor-
tion
of
one has an
air
of
ambiguity
about
it.
Albee,
nonetheless,
comes
closer
to
presenting unambiguous
truth
through
the use
of
cliches
than
in
any
other
in-
stance
in
the
play.
This
use
of
cliches
may
be
seen in
the
following
incidents.
As
Martha
taunts
George
at the
beginning
of
the
play
with
"Georgie-Porgie,
put-upon
pie" (12),
the
slanted
cliche reveals
George's
position;
he is made
the
unwilling
host
for
a
2:00
A.M.
after-party party. Similarly by
switching
from
"musical chairs"
in
George's
statement
to
Nick that
"Musical
beds
is
the
faculty
sport"
(34),
Albee foreshadows
the
night's
activities.
A
slanted cliche
appears
again
as
Martha assures Nick that a "friendly little kiss" won't matter since "It's all in
the
faculty"
(163).
And as Martha recalls her life at
the
opening
of
Act
III,
she
bemoans
the fact that
she
was
"left
to
her own vices"
(185),
a
fairly appropriate
statement
considering
her action
just
prior
to
this.
One other slanted
cliche
is
particularly
important
to
the
play,
George's
ac-
cusation that
Martha
is
a "child
mentioner"
(140).
"Child
molester"
is what
an audience would
anticipate,
and for
a
flesh-and-blood
child
it
would
be the
appropriate
term.
But
just
as
appropriate
to an illusion is
the
word
"mentioner,"
for
talking
of
ideas
corresponds
to
touching
objects.
Thus the illusion that some
critics7 feel
has
been
sprung
at
the end of the
play
has
been
foreshadowed
by
Albee's slanted cliche only halfway through the play.
Albee
also uses
cliches
as
they
are
normally
used,
but
attaches
great
importance
to
them
by
showing
that,
rather
than
being
devoid of
meaning
because
they
are
usually
not a
consciously
thought
out
expression,
they express,
because
of
their
very spontaneous
composition,
significant meaning.
Personalities are
revealed
by
balancing
a
cliche
with
a
responding
literal
application
of it. As Martha
says
that
George's Dylan
Thomas-y quality
"gets
[her]
right
where
[she]
lives,"
George
applies
this
quite
literally
and comments
on
Martha's
obsession
with
sex
by responding,
"Vulgar
girl " (24)
In
the same
manner,
a few
moments
later
Martha,
in
ridiculing George
for
not
taking
advantage
of
being
the
son-in-
law of the president of the college, says "some men would give their right arm
for
the
chance "
(28)
Taking
the
cliche
literally again,
George
corrects
her
by
remarking,
"Alas,
Martha,
in
reality
it
works
out
that
the sacrifice
is
usually
of
a somewhat
more
private portion
of the
anatomy."
As
George
and
Martha
bicker over
why
Honey got
sick-neither of
them
acknowledges
that
the
brandy
she's been
downing
all
night might
have
some-
thing
to
do with it-Martha
nags
at
George
to
apologize
for
making
Honey
throw
up.
George
rejects
his
responsibility
for this:
"I did not make
her
throw
up."
As
Martha
continues
her
assault,
"Well,
who
do
you
think did
.
.
.
Sexy
over
there?
You
think
he made his own
little wife sick?" To which
George-
"helpfully,"
Albee
directs-concludes,
"Well,
you
make me sick"
(118).
The
7
Richard
Schechner,
"Who's
Afraid
of
Edward Albee?" Tulane
Drama
Review,
VII
(Spring
1963),
8.
64
RUTH
MEYER
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 7/11
Language:
Truth
and
Illusion
in
Who's
Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
cliche
goes
both
ways:
figuratively,
he is "sick" of
Martha;
literally,
Nick
might
have
made
Honey physically
ill. In a
similar
situation,
George
is able to turn
Nick's
threat of
"You're
going
to
regret
this
[telling
the real
basis for Nick and
Honey's
marriage]"
to
futility
by admitting, "Probably.
I
regret
everything"
(150). In these instances, by taking literally and giving specific application to a
cliche
which
usually
functions in a
figurative
and
general
manner,
Albee comes
closest to
presenting
unambiguous
truth.
Although
Martha
still
considers herself
the
Earth
Mother,
ironically
since she
is
beyond
menopause,
it is
George
who
is
the
Creative Force
in the
play.
One
might
call him
a
director
who
attempts
to
set
things
in motion
yet
remain
de-
tached. In
the
movie,
he
openly
announces:
"I'm
running
this
show."
His
attempt
to
assume
the
role
of
director is an
integral part
of the
truth/illusion
situation,
for as
he
vacillates
between
detachment
and
involvement,
his
statements
attain
their
ambiguity.
He
is
presented
with
his audience-the
new
biology
professor
and
his
wife.
As
the
guests
wait
at
the
door,
George
assumes his
controlling
roll
by
admonish-
ing
Martha
not to
"start
in
on
the
bit
[about
their
"son"]"
(18). Obviously
he
intends to run
the
show,
to
direct the
conversation.
Despite
his
attempts
to
re-
main
an
outside
creator,
from
time to time
he
is
involuntarily
drawn
into
the
action itself.
There
are
four
major
painful
confrontations for
George,
all times
during
which
he
contributes
to
the
ambiguity
between
truth
and illusion
by adopting
a
false
stance.
Involved
in
the
false
stance
is
not
only language,
but
gesture
and
action as well; all function in George's attempt to remain a director, and each
interacts and
supports
the
others. The first
is
the
revelation
that
Martha
beat
him
in a
boxing
match,
a
revelation
made
more
painful
and
more
personally
degrading
by
the fact that
Nick
was
"inter-collegiate
state
middleweight
cham-
pion."
Just
prior
to
this,
George
has
resisted
Martha's
goading
to
gush
over
Nick's
having
received
his
masters when
he
was
"twelve-and-ahalf."
Albee
notes
that
George
is
to strike
"a
pose,
his
hand over
his
heart,
his
head
raised,
his
voice
stentorian"
and
announce:
"I am
preoccupied
with
history" (40-50).
Under
the
guise
of an
actor,
using
words
which in
another context would seem
normal,
not
pretentious,
he
states the truth.
But because
it
is
obviously
an
act,
he
can
admit the truth with
no
involvement.
(Later, p.
178,
he
admits,
sincerely
this
time,
that
he
has turned to a
contemplation
of
the
past.)
After
being
able
to
admit
the
truth,
he
is
confronted
with
Martha's
"Hey George,
tell 'em about
the
boxing
match
we
had."
His
only response
when
caught
without
the
defense
of
role-playing
is to
exit
"with a sick look
on
his
face"
(57).
But
he is
not
gone
long.
He
returns,
as
an actor with a
gun.
His
"Pow
You're dead
Pow You're
dead "
is
again
his
assumption
of a
role,
because
he had been
pushed
to
involve-
ment and
disgrace.
To
understand the
Chinese
parasol
which
substitutes
for
a
bullet,
we
need
only
to
consider
his
stentorian
pose
for
the admission
of his
life's
focus;
the
"Pow
You're dead " is
as much of a
reality-in
his mind and
intention-as
his
preoccupation
with
history.
Both
are masked in
false
dialogue
and action. His role as director has been challenged, he is forced to involvement,
and
he
meets
this
challenge by
ostentatiously playing
a
part.
He
retreats
to the
realm of illusion
in
the
face of what is
for him a
painful
truth. But
the
degree
65
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 8/11
to which this is
an
illusion
is difficult
to determine
because,
as
has
already
been
pointed
out,
the
norm
is
by
no means
clearly
established.
As
in
the
first
conflict,
Martha is
the
instigator
in the second
conflict.
During
George
and
Nick's
get-acquainted
session
while
Martha and
Honey
were
up-
stairs,
George
has told of an
experience
that
happened
to one of his friends
during
their
youth.
Now Martha
brings
up
the
fact that
George
has written
a
novel
dealing
with
this
experience,
one
which
elicited
from
her
father the
judg-
ment: "You
publish
that
goddamn
book and
you're
out
. .
. on
your
ass "
(135)
George's
pained
"Desist
Desist "
gets only
laughter
from
Martha
and a
mocking
"De . . . sist " from
Nick.
His
equally
false
formal
dialogue,
"I
will
not
be
made
mock
of "
again
gets
only
a
mocking
response
from Nick.
George
is
pushed
to
the
breaking point
as
Martha
concludes,
supposedly quoting
George's
statement
to
her
father,
"No, Sir,
this
isn't
a novel
at all . . .
this
is the
truth
.
. .
this
really
happened
. .
.
to
me "
(137)
He
lunges
at
Martha,
grabbing
her
by
the
throat. His threat, "I'll kill you," now is carried out; the Chinese parasol is
replaced
by grasping
hands.
In
both
instances,
however,
George
has
first
relied
on or
been
pushed
to
dialogue
which
is unnatural for
him,
which
both
masks
and reveals
his
intention.
Similarly
in
the
third
crisis,
the one
in
which Martha
challenges George
to
intervene
in
her
proposed
adultery
with
Nick,
George
retreats to
the
most ob-
vious of all
detached
roles-reading
a
commentary
on
the situation.
This retreat
is
preceded
by
a reliance on
making
literal
application
of
a
cliche,
the
humor of
which
allows
him
to
remain a
director,
a
detached
person
controlling
or at least
only
viewing
the antics
of
the
others.
Consider
the
scene
near the end of
Act
II
as Martha seeks to get George:
Martha:
I'm
entertaining.
I'm
entertaining
one
of
the
guests.
I'm
necking
with
one of the
guests.
George:
Oh,
that's
nice. Which one?
(170)
Grammatically,
Martha's
speech
has
left
her
vulnerable
for
George's
bitter
question.
It
also affords
him
a chance to be
"seemingly
relaxed and
preoccupied"
as the
directions
indicate. Humor
becomes
his
shield.
And
later,
as he
reads:
Martha:
Oh,
I see
what
you're
up
to,
you lousy
little.
...
George:
I'm
up
to
page
a hundred
and . . .
again he finds refuge behind a humorous literal application of her statement.
By taking
the
cliche
referring
abstractly
to
anticipated,
frequently
unorthodox
action
and
applying
it
literally
to
the
present
situation,
George
does reveal the
truth-he is
"up
to
page
a hundred and
.
. ." But
he also creates for himself
an
escape
from
the truth of Martha's
proposed
adultery.
As
Martha's
fury
rises,
she
says:
Martha:
Why, you
miserable
. ..
I'll show
you.
Georgia:
No
.
.
.
show
him,
Martha,
he hasn't
seen it.
As
in
the
preceding quotation,
George
protects
himself
from the
threat
of
Martha's statement. At the same time, he caustically degrades Martha's sexual
attractiveness,
the
very
things
she
is
trying
so
desperately
to
prove
to
him
and
to
herself.
And
George's
final
deadly, revealing
reversal
of
accusation
shows
the
skill
66 RUTH
MEYER
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 9/11
Language:
Truth
and
Illusion
in
Who's Afraid
of
Virginia
Woolf?
with
which
George
is
able
to
shatter the
moral
illusion
under which the
others
operate
while
protecting
his
own:
Nick: You're
disgustingl
George:
Because
you're
going
to
hump Martha,
I'm
disgusting?
(172)
As
with
humor,
so
the
quotation
from the
book serves
as a screen
for
his
emotions.
"'And the
west,
encumbered
by
crippling
alliances,
and
burdened
with
a
morality
too
rigid
to
accomodate
itself
to the
swing
of
events,
must.
.
.
eventual-
ly
...
fall'
"
(174).
This,
by
the
context
surrounding
it,
should
be
a
sort
of
thesis
statement of
the
play.
But
who
actually
has the
"crippling
appliances,"
whose
morality
is
"too
rigid"?
George,
because the
circumstances
of
his
novel
really
happened
and
he
cannot
ignore
or
depreciate
them?
Martha,
because she
is
the
president's
daughter
and is bound
to the
college,
the
faculty,
and its
sports?
Or
perhaps
does
it have
application only
in the
literal,
the universal-the
West?
Once again, a "great truth" has been
presented-almost.
And again, the ambig-
uity
is
a
direct
result
of
the
language.
Finishing
the
quotation,
George
"gathers
all
the
fury
he
has
been
containing
within himself
...
he
shakes
.
.
.
with
a
cry
that
is
part
growl,
part
howl,
he
hurls
[the
book]
at
the
chimes"
(174).
Once
again,
false
dialogue
has masked
temporarily
his
involvement
and
pain.
The
final
encounter is
one
manipulated by George:
the death
of and Mass for
their
"son."
George begins
the action
by appearing
in
the kitchen
doorway,
snapdragons
covering
his
face;
Albee
notes that
he should
speak
in a
"hideously
cracked
falsetto":
"Flores;
flores
para
los
muertos. Flores"
(195)
(Flowers;
flowers
for
the
dead.
Flowers),
he
announces
to
Martha and
Nick.
Here is
Al-
bee's most
complete
interposing
of
dialogue
which in another context would not
be
unusual,
but
which in
this context
again
both reveals
and
conceals.
As
with
the
reading,
so with
the
foreign
language;
George
can
say
exactly
what he
means
without
being
involved.
George
shifts roles at
this
point;
his
face
"gleeful,"
he
opens
his
arms
to
Nick
and
says, "Sonny
You've come
home
for
your
birth-
day
At
last "
A
moment
later,
"Affecting
embarassment"
Albee
directs,
"I
.
.
.
I
brung
ya
dese
flowers,
Mart'a,
'cause I
...
wull,
'cause
you'se
.
.
. awwwwww
hell. Gee"
(196).
George
is
therefore
able,
actor that
he
is,
to
argue quite
convincingly-concrete
examples
and
all-with
great
logic
that the "moon
may
very
well have
gone
down... but it came back
up"
(199).
The
argument
is no more
superficial
than
any
other
transactions at this
point.
From this Martha moves to a
taunting jibe
about
George's parents
and the
novel;
next
they
focus
on whether
Nick is a
"stud"
or
"houseboy."
The
main
elements
of
conflict are
thus
reinstated
in
the
drama;
the
stage
is
ready
for the battle-and
George
again
assumes a role
to
escape
the
pain,
this time the role of a
priest.
Albee's
"message,"
if
indeed
the
play gives
one,
is
largely
determined
by
the
attitude
George
assumes
in
reciting
the
Mass.
Is the murder of the
son an act
of
revenge,
as the
conclusion of
Act
II
would lead us
to
believe?
Or is
it,
on
the
contrary,
an
act
of
compassion,
the
act of
an
uninvolved director
freeing
his
actors of their illusions? If Virginia Woolf elicits disagreement from critics con-
cerning
dialogue,
the motivation for
George's
action
has
called
forth a
stand
from
nearly everyone writing
about the
play;
an
account
of
their
opinions
would
67
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 10/11
be
little
more
than
a
list
under
"Revenge"
and
"Compassion."
Rather
than
merely tally
up
the
votes,
let
us look
at two
performances
of the
play.
In the
recording8
of the New York
play,
George's (Arthur Hill's)
voice
indi-
cates
a
determined,
almost
angry attempt
to
kill,
once
and
for
all
time,
this
cherished illusion. "Requiescat in Pace" sounds as though it were to be followed
by
the
stomp
of
a
foot and
perhaps
a
quick
"Damn it " not
altogether
unantici-
pated
at
this
point
in
the
play.
There
has been
no
switch from
the
revenge
mo-
tive;
this is
the
thing
that will
"get"
Martha;
therefore
George
does
it,
does
it
well,
does
it
determinedly,
does
it almost with
glee.
In
a
presentation
of
the
play
by
the
Repertory
Theatre
at the
University
of
Nebraska a
rather
striking
difference was
apparent.
Martha's rendition
of
the
"child's"
life
was
not
merely
a
defense
or
a
justification
of
his
existence;
it
was a
confession: "I
have
tried,
O
God,
I
have tried
. .
.
through
one
failure after
another
...."
(227)
On
her
knees,
in a
voice
of
restrained
agony,
she becomes
the figure of man tormented with sudden awareness of his condition. But to the
confession
there
can
be no
Absolution. Martha the confessant receives
counsel
but no
pardon.
And
this
it
seems
is
central
to
understanding
the
character of
George throughout
the
play.
To
give
Absolution,
the Confessor must be
con-
secrated,
set
apart,
uninvolved. This
George
would
like
to
be,
tries
to
be,
but
is
not.
Creator
he is:
his
novel,
though
unpublished
and
scorned
by "respectable"
New
Carthage
standards,
is
the
mark in
the
academic
jungle
of a
creative
mind.
The
past
histories
(Nick
and
Honey's marriage
and the
part played
by
"Jesus
money,
Mary money,"
for
example) originate
in
his mind
(143).
The actions off-
stage (Honey's being
curled
up
fetus-like
on
the bathroom
floor,
for
example)
reach
us
through George's
reports (167).
Therefore he can function
at
times
as
a
director.
But
as
we
have
seen,
he does
not have
the
ability
to
remain
separate
from
his
creation;
his
retreat
behind
false
dialogue
does not
protect
him
from
the
slings
and
arrows
which
plague
the others.
He
is
not
set
apart;
he
is
not,
therefore,
able
to
give
Absolution to
Martha.
Significantly
he can
only
say,
"We
couldn't
[have children]"
(238).
It
seems,
considering
the
pattern
that
Albee
has established
in
the
play
itself,
that
the
presentation
of
George
as
a
compassionate,
but
deeply
involved
person
is
more consistent with the whole.
George's
action
is
no
longer
one of
revenge,
nor
is it
solely
one of
freeing
Martha
from
illusion,
illusion which she
may
or
may
not
be better
off
without.
He
is
painfully
involved;
the altar
upon
which he
celebrates
the
Mass
holds
a
part
of him:
"There are
very
few
things
in
this
world
that
I
am sure
of
...
but
the
one
thing
in
this
whole
stinking
world
that
I am sure of
...
is
my
partnership,
my
chromosomological
partnership
in
the .
. . creation of
our
.
.
.
blond
eyed,
blue
haired
.
.
.
son"
(72).
He
is
director become
actor
in a
play
he
had
hoped
to
control,
an
unconsecrated
priest
playing
one more
painful
game.
The
interpenetration
of
truth
and illusion
is nowhere more
vividly
presented:
he did
create
the
"son,"
but
paradoxically
the
"son"
does not
exist.
Just
as we cannot
separate
the
discussion
of
language
in
the
play
from
the
characters, so can we not
separate
Albee's
manipulation
of
language
from the
8
Columbia
Records
No.
DOL
287.
68
RUTH MEYER
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:10:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/18/2019 Language- Truth and Illusion - Meyer
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/language-truth-and-illusion-meyer 11/11
Language:
Truth
and Illusion
in
Who's
Afraid of
Virginia
Woolf?
overall
meaning
of
the
play.
Repeatedly
Albee
pounces
on the
word
"know,"
showing
how
little
we
really
do
know
of
another's
experience.
Communication
is
frequently
a
theme
of
Albee's
works,
and
Virginia
Woolf
is
no
exception.
The
fact
that there
may
be a
discrepancy
between what
someone
says
happened
and
what did happen, as well as our inability to appreciate an unexperienced situa-
tion,
receives
attention
in
the
play.
Truth
for the
person
merely observing
a
particular
situation
may
not
be
truth for the one
experiencing
it;
what
is
truth
for
one
may
seem
illusion
to
the
other.
Early
in
Act
I
George
clears
up
a
humor-
ous
confusion
of
pronoun
references
by
reminding
Nick
that
George's
wife
is
Martha.
"Yes ...
I
know,"
Nick
responds. George
counters: "If
you
were
married
to Martha
you
would
know
what
it
means.
(Pause)
But
then,
if
I
were
married
to
your
wife
I
would know
what
that
means,
too
. . . wouldn't
I?"
(36)
This
scene is
picked
up
later as
Nick
reminds
George,
".
.
.
your
wife is
Martha."
"Oh,
yes
. .
. I
know
(with
some
rue)"
(89).
Similarly,
as
Martha
sums
up
the
story of her quick marriage to the "lawn mower" with "It was very nice," Nick
is
quick
to
agree:
"Yes. Yes."
Martha's
response,
"What
do
you
mean,
yes, yes?
How
would
you
know?"
(78)
again
focuses on
the
inability
of
one
to
know
another's
experience,
and
hence
to
know the
"truth."
There
is,
then,
no
clear
cut
distinction between truth
and illusion
in
the
play.
Although
non-existant
and
known
by
George
and Martha
to
be
non-existant,
the
"son" is
nevertheless
a
reality
in
their
lives,
a
reality
by
which
they
define
their
relationship
to each
other.
Similarly George's
"murder" of his
parents may
be
real in
his
mind
only,
but
it,
too,
is a
reality
which
shapes
his life. The
same
could
be said
of
Honey's hysterical
pregnancy
or
Nick's
"potential."
Although we have seen the exorcism of an illusion, there is no truth revealed
in its
place. Reality,
Albee
seems
to
be
saying,
is a
painful
interpenetration
of
verifiable fact
and
imagination,
with
the
"fact"
of
the
mind
often
far
more real
than that of
the
body.
When
Martha accuses
George
of
not
knowing
the
difference
between truth and
illusion,
he
admits,
"No:
but
we
must
carry
on
as
though
we did."
In
this
play,
set
in
one
room which becomes a world in
itself
with
its own
games,
its own
rules,
"All
truth,"
as
George
admits,
"[becomes]
relative"
(222).
And
language
is a
major
device in the
play by
which
the
relativity
and
ambiguity
of
truth
are
accomplished.
69