Responses -- Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
Hey Peoples!
Please post your work here. I will comment from time to time. I'm also going to ask you to comment as well.
I miss you!
Please post your work here. I will comment from time to time. I'm also going to ask you to comment as well.
I miss you!
Tanvi Kasliwal
ReplyDeleteMarch.23.2020
Virginia Woolf + Video Response
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
I think that the ending of George overcoming Martha’s cruelty makes sense. He kept saying that he was going to unleash total war and he delivered on that statement. And now, I think that Martha will not have any ammo left that can hurt George the way he did her, which makes me think that they’ll keep things more civil or less abusive. Just because all the worse things have happened, and nothing matters to them anymore.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
I was very confused with if there actually was a son, and if he actually died. And when George speaks in Latin I was unsure of anything that he was saying.
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
I believe that George was first a victim turned survivor with tendencies of a persecutor. When I started reading this book, George was obvious to me as a victim. He was a victim of Martha’s cruelties. And during the exorcism, he finally challenged Martha in a way that would affect her and cause her pain. However, in doing so, he also seems like a persecutor because he was relentless in his approach, and we see that when Martha says she is afraid of Virginia Woolf.
I think when he's speaking latin he's saying prayers because he says "God deliver us from evil" at one point
DeleteOh dear...I thought I posted the translation. Audrey, you are right. George is reciting a prayer that would have been uttered at a Catholic funeral mass.
DeleteEdward Albee’s characters are relatable to any reader because they are each deeply flawed and insecure, but hide behind an illusion. Honey and Nick pretend to be a perfect, happy young couple, but their issues are revealed as the play progresses. Honey doesn’t want to have kids, and takes birth control. She refuses to submit to expectations of what she should be doing as a 1960s wife. Nick is willing to cheat on his wife, and he only married her because they thought she was pregnant and her family had money. Meanwhile, Martha and George each hide their true feelings behind a mask of hatred and pettiness. Although their issues are to the extreme, this is relatable because every person has some aspect of themselves they hide from others. Additionally, Nick and Honey’s fears that they would eventually become Martha and George are relatable. Relationships don’t remain the same over time, because the people in them change and evolve. Therefore, there’s a possibility in any relationship that hatred might replace initial affection, just as Martha and George’s relationship decayed over the years.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the play's ending is unsatisfactory because it leaves the aftereffects of the fight between George and Martha unresolved. Clearly, they had fought many times before the night depicted in the play, but this night is different because Martha finally “killed” their son and talked about him with other people. Their son seems to represent their illusion of a happy marriage; he is a story in which they indulge to escape their reality. In truth, their relationship is hanging by a thread. I believe Martha loves George deep down, but her insecurities make her lash out because she thinks he will leave her anyway. George has no choice but to fight back, but his inadequacies are also a source of his attacks on Martha. He is insecure about his body, his age, and position in the university, and Martha magnifies these insecurities. Their relationship is incredibly fragile. In that sense, the ending of the play is a bit of a cliffhanger. You are left without answers to whether or not Martha and George will continue with their game of pretend, attempt to resolve their problems, or finally break off altogether.
Karpman’s Drama Triangle relates to the relationships in the play because at some points, Martha is the victim, George is the perpetrator, and Nick is the rescuer. Martha sees herself as the victim of George’s attacks. From an outside perspective, Nick “rescues” her when they (attempt) to have an affair. However, Nick submits easily to Martha’s seduction in part because he wants power in the university, and Martha only wants to hurt George. At other points in the play, Martha is the perpetrator and George is the victim, like when she tells the guests about his book that her father deemed too trashy to be associated with the university. I agree with Tanvi on the point that Martha and George often alternate between the roles of victim and perpetrator. Sometimes, Nick and Honey are the victims, like when George plays “Get the Guests” and reveals to Honey that Nick told him about her hysterical pregnancy.
I felt like the realization that George and Martha's son did not exist made sense in the context of the play. The entire plot centers around mind games, and George and Martha are the most adept at playing them. Therefore, it makes sense that they have constructed an entire fantasy world around their fictional son, one that can be used as a weapon against each other. I also enjoyed this plot twist as a literary device. It came as a surprise for the audience, and yet its revelation made the play make more sense.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly unsatisfied by the ending and by how quickly Nick and Honey left. I felt like there were many more things between them and the hosts that had yet to be resolved, even if the focus of the ending was supposed to be on George and Martha's relationship.
In terms of the drama triangle, I agree with Caprice that at some points Martha seems to be the victim, George the perpetrator, and Nick the rescuer. At others, George becomes the victim and Martha the perpetrator, while Nick and Honey could also be seen as the victims. However, I think this is less based on specific actions of the characters and more on whose perspective one is considering things from. Each character sees themselves as the victim. In a play where everyone refuses to accept responsibility for their own actions, all are quick to place themselves in the role of innocent victim and blame someone else (the perpetrator) for all the things that have gone wrong. For example, instead of accepting responsibility for telling Honey's secret to George and taking the consequences, Nick blames George for exposing him and potentially damaging his reputation, thus making himself the victim.
I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. I do not think it ended abruptly. Honey and Nick are merely pawns in George and Martha's game. Like you said, their whole thing is mind games. Once George wins and finishes the game, it is time to put away the chess pieces. It shows just how useless Nick is, and how lost Honey is. Nick finally puts the pieces together and realizes it was all a game -- that Martha was using him from the moment he walked into their house. Honey is being Honey by claiming she now wants a child, not being able to express what she has been feeling throughout her whole marriage (almost like a rag doll that's been played with for too long that she has even less structure than, well, a rag). When George tells them that it is time for bed, they accept it like the children they are.
DeleteThe story focuses on the depth of the characters and the issues they are each dealing with personally and how it affects their relationships. We don't quite know how either relationship works in the real world, we just see them both on this one night where everybody is very drunk, but we do know that each character is struggling with something deep, and each character is three-dimensional and "gray." I can sympathize with every character to some degree, even though all of them have dark sides. Unlike Caprice, I felt the ending was appropriate and satisfactory because George and Martha are left with nothing except to face the reality of their relationship, which is a different story than the one that is told in this play, where George and Martha have spent so long keeping their fake son to themselves to hide from how unhappy they really are together.
ReplyDeleteOverall I wish more details of the backstory of each character were more clear. I don't know if that would take away from the conflict or strengthen it, because I think an important part of the experience of reading this play is not quite knowing what's real and what isn't. But I wish I knew more about George's parents, for example, or Nick and Honey's relationship when they were kids.
The Drama Triangle relates to George and Martha's relationship because their roles constantly switch. At first, George is a clear victim of Martha's attacks on his life and career, but I think he had more of a persecutor mentality for the majority of the play. For one thing, he quite obviously antagonizes Nick, but he also antagonizes Martha in a subtler way by refusing to respond to her attacks in the way that she wants him to. The video offered "that person will get what's coming to them" as an example of a thought the persecutor might often have, and George operates on trying to figure out what will finally get Martha. He succeeds at this when he kills off their son. The role of rescuer isn't really present, as no character really looks past themselves to reach out and help. Martha cheats on George with Nick to fight George, and she isn't playing the victim card when she goes to Nick.
After reading the play, I was able to understand that George was hurt by the humiliation when Martha exposed all his secrets. He first responds with the fake gun but as the night progresses, he is able to get back at Martha by exposing her and what she did to their child during his childhood. Martha always gets uneasy or emotional when their son is brought up and she seems broken by the end of the book. During the beginning and middle parts of the book, Martha always has energy and is not afraid to say anything to anyone. But, at the end of the book, she is not o.k and is shook. The topic of their son always gets Martha.
ReplyDeleteI was confused about why they couldn't talk about or mention their son to anyone and why he would be killed if his parents mentioned him to others. I also don't get the Virginia Woolf reference at the end.
The characters on the drama triangle can be fitted to characters in the poem as the night passes. When George is playing his own games, he take the role of the persecutor. He attacks Martha who plays the victim during his games and also gets at Nick from time to time. At the start Martha is not afraid no say anything and possess characteristics of the protagonist and shoots shots at everyone for fun. But as George loses patience, he takes over as the protagonist and controls the night. He thinks that Martha and Nick deserve what he's saying to them because they've done worse to him (cheating with each other).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I think a lot of what happens in the book doesn't make any sense. For example, when we look at how Martha and George interact with each other, we might think it's crazy how Martha laughs and even get excited when George pretended to shoot her. Martha had been coming at George the whole night and of course, George got upset but his reaction wasn't what the readers thought was normal. Nick and Honey are stunned at this relationship as well but at the end of the night, they kind of expect the unexpected from them. Nick and Honey are what people would call normal or maybe even perfect on the surface but when we look further into their relationship, we realize that Nick married Honey for her money(haha that rhymed) and Honey is keeping secrets about her hysterical pregnancy. The whole book is a little crazy, with Martha constantly flirting with Nick and their eventual escalation while George was present. However, I do think that there are human instincts and reactions that come through when George gets angry about their affair. Of course, what he does after this anger-going out to pick snapdragons for Martha and tell her that her son is dead- was not a normal reaction.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the ending was pretty much expected from what we read in the older version of the book; George tells Martha that their son is dead. I didn't think it was very satisfying because, after the entire play of surprises, I expected something more dramatic. I know that telling someone their son just died and that you ate the telegram that said it is dramatic but I felt that there was something missing. There were mysteries, however; the readers don't know when or if George will eventually tell Martha the truth about their son and what is in the cards for Nick and Honey as a couple after all the secrets that came to light that night. Also, this is picky and personal but I would like to know what their son has been up to and why they keep him a secret.
3. The Karpman Drama Triangle relates to relationships in the play in that there are definite victims and persecutors. The most obvious example is Martha's constant humiliation and degradation of George. In this case, Martha is the persecutor and George is the victim. However, as the video said, these roles do eventually change. All the characters took turns being the victims but only some were the persecutors. Nick had his secrets about his intents on marriage exposed, Martha was told that her son died, Honey is throwing up and laying on the bathroom floor while Nick is "busy" with Martha, and George is just Martha's punching bag. I don't think anyone was the rescuer in this play unless we can consider casual changing of topic as mercy. As for the changing of the roles, no one becomes the challenger from being the persecutor because the other person retaliates and they end up becoming the victim and George is an example of a victim that became a survivor, then a persecutor. George's response didn't have a lot of self-reflection and it was more of how can I stop being the victim and get Martha back? I think that the fact that both Martha and George can't become a challenger makes their relationship toxic. For them, everything is fair game and they both end up sad and humiliated.
The aspects of the play that speak to me are the ones that deal with the idea that people are flawed and that these flaws can get in the way of making the most of one's life. On the surface, the lives of Nick, Honey, Martha, and George are idyllic. They live in a nice suburb and have steady, if not very large incomes. However, nobody can be completely satisfied by the economics of their living situation. George and Martha are people in good situations who stop themselves from enjoying their lives by being petty and vengeful. Nick and Honey seem to live the perfect life, even more than Martha and George, but their flaws also get in the way of them making the most of their time on earth. Nick is disrespectful to everybody, including his wife, and Honey carries secrets that place a heavy burden on her soul. Flaws are human. The play, however, is about how some flaws of character can ruin lives, which I have seen in many people, whether they are too easy to persuade, or have bad judgment, or even just hate themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the play that makes the least sense to me is why Martha and George came up with their imaginary son. This could never have ended well and both of them are pretty well-educated people, so I don't see why they would do something this detrimental to their marriage. I also was confused by why Honey continues to drink after passing out the fist time. I understand that she was impaired but why didn't anybody stop her?
One way the drama triangle applies to this play is that the roles each have a match in Edward Albee's work. George, throughout the play, is the victim. Martha starts off as the persecutor, and then turns into the rescuer when she has sex with Nick. Honey is also a victim for most of the play, whereas Nick is a persecutor at first and then turns into the victim. A second way the drama triangle applies to the play is that there is a natural role for somebody to play. George seems most natural as the victim, as he can take a pretty sustained verbal beating from Martha pretty well. Nick is most comfortable in the persecutor role, ordering people around and exuding confidence. Honey is most natural as the victim, as she is a very pitiable and does not respond well to shocking events. This is revealed when Honey learns that Nick has told George about her phantom pregnancy. Martha seems natural at being the rescuer, as when Nick is down in the dumps, she offers him sex as a pick-me-up. This gesture of course does nothing to mask Martha's intense personal problems, as she hates herself with a passion. She becomes a victim when she reveals her self-hatred and then says that her fondest wish for her husband would be for him to divorce her, as that was his only path to happiness.
Do you think Martha and George are unhappy? Or that Nick and Honey are happy? I saw it more as that Martha and George are honest with each other but enable each other in an unhealthy way, but they have a functioning relationship. Nick and Honey don't really communicate and don't seem to really know each other or trust each other that much.
DeleteAfter reading, one aspect of the play that really “spoke” to me was the continuous conflict that occurred between the two couples, especially Martha and George. Pretty much right off the bat, we begin to see the multiple oddities of this relationship whether it be Martha’s shifting moods, George’s maniacal pranks, or Martha’s unexpected arousals from George’s awkward jokes (I’m talking about Martha’s reaction when George pulled out a gun!). I like to think that this part of the play really spoke to me because it serves as an example, or a warning against getting involved with other people or situations in general when a connection is based on deception.
ReplyDeleteI think that like others, I was a bit disappointed/confused by the ending of the book. Obviously, after we learned that George “killed” his “son,” the one fantasy which bonded his relationship to Martha, it is a bit disappointing to hear that George and Martha’s troubles aren’t either resolved or explained. Furthermore, the fact that Nick and Honey pretty much just leave without a conclusion is somewhat confusing. Maybe Edward Albee had to leave to go somewhere??
I think that the drama triangle does a really good job of explaining how the roles of individual characters are subject to changing from time to time. Obviously at different parts throughout the play, almost every character (except, of course, Honey) can be seen as a perpetrator. However, because of the complex relationships between the characters, especially George and Martha, characters can inhabit different roles or even more than one at the same time. For instance, I would argue that Martha consistently acts as both a perpetrator and a rescuer (a really awkward one) simultaneously both because of her harsh attitude toward George (perpetrator) and her belief that she has the ability to fix other people’s situations (rescuer)
The part of the play that made the most sense to me was the idea that a pair of people can have a relationship so unique and their-own to the point where it can be described as crazy. George and Martha have a wild relationship and their life is built on games, but that is what brings them closer together. They can't be understood by Nick and Honey because they have a different type fo relationship. I think that it's important to have unique relationships with people because that is what is going to bring you together. Martha could never have the same relationship with Nick as she does with George and George couldn't have the relationship he has with Martha, with Honey. Although George and Martha are crazy, loud, and quite nearly abusive to one another they still love each other and the fighting is part of their love.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to know what happens after the night ends and Nick and Honey leave. I'm curious as to if they remain "friends" with George and Martha or if they were so disturbed by the entire situation that they pretend it never even happened. I was also disappointed that we don't really get to see what happens between George and Martha after the end of the fight. They've clearly had major fights before so I'd like to know what made this one meant for their marriage long-term.
I agree with my other classmates that the roles of the characters in terms of the Drama Triangles change a lot. At first Martha is nearly abusive of George and she is the perpetrator, taunting the victim while Nick comes in and saves her from her boring husband. However, later on, Nick and Martha draw apart from each other and Martha admits her love for George at which point George has become the perpetrator. George ends up hitting Martha with the biggest blow of all: claiming that their imaginary son is dead. The one person who seems to maintain their place in the Triangle is Honey who is constantly the victim of Nick and George's torment.
I definitely don't think that Honey and Nick will remain friends with George & Martha. Best case scenario: they talk about what happened honestly and compassionately. But I doubt that will happen. It's much more likely that they will, as you said, pretend it never happened and go back to their status quo, or they will get divorced. Honey will have her inheritance and Nick, his ambition.
DeleteEach character from the book was completely different from their first impressions, and often I'd forget that all of this was happening within the context of several hours, and some bottles of liquor, in fact Edward Albee's ability to write a whole interesting book based on one night is astounding. However, this completely made sense as people are far more complex than who the character they project and are initially seen as. Martha and George live in their own fantasy world, and this is understandable to some extent, as reality is often too hard to face. However, the ending was also very fitting and satisfying as their real relationship, although seemingly toxic, was one I interpreted as them both deeply loving one another but being too afraid to show that emotion as whoever admitted it first would be vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteAt some points, the play was extremely confusing, but in the end, most of it makes sense. Part of the confusion and sarcasm/jokes were to conceal the true emotions and sensitivity of the subjects they discussed. Like Tanvi said, some of George's lines which were in Latin I could not understand, but gives us a hint of what Nick and Honey were feeling listening to Martha and George's banter, and their mood swings. I agree with Dashiel that both couples didn't have a real resolution and that I would have liked to read more for a better sense of closure, especially that of Nick and Honey.
Karpman's Drama Triangle demonstrates efficiently the fluctuation of the roles of the characters and their actual personalities. Between Martha and George, they mostly go back and forth between being the victim and being the persecutor. Nick also changes between being victim, rescuer, (although more of a bystander) and persecutor, and Honey remains victim for most of the book. However, Karpman's Drama Triangle makes it seem like only one person can play one role at once, but in this case, it seems more people are victim at a time than any other role, and even when Martha and George are victim/persecutor, they seem to always be on the same side which was also a point of confusion but also a key to their relationship and suppression of their true feelings. But overall, the depth of each character is to some extent reflected in Karpman's Triangle, although it fails to do so completely.
I think what spoke to me the most throughout the play was how I could relate to the characters. Edward Albee does an excellent job of portraying how each character is afraid of something. Each character has their secrets which makes them so much more relatable. I agree with Caprice, each character puts up a front and is insecure, but I also think that's what sparks their actions and their behavior towards each other. On the surface, scenes like the one where George brings out a shotgun seem overdramatic and nonsensical. However, its a clear display of how their once loving relationship has turned into a power struggle, and it seems like Honey and Nick are afraid of turning into them. I think that there were certain elements that really spoke to me too, especially the scene in Act II where Martha has her monologue about her relationship George. In that scene, simple sentences like "George and Martha: sad, sad, sad" means so much more than it seems. I think Albee's writing was raw and flowed well, considering this all happened within the span of one night.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I loved the ending. I think it was fitting with how the play was written. It let George win the game that had been going on for years and finally put an end to the game, even though it leaves everything as a cliffhanger. One thing I didn't like about it was how quick it felt. Nick and Honey just left within seconds. It left me with so many questions. What happens to George and Martha? Another game? What happens with Nick and Honey? I also disliked how we never fully got to see Honey develop as a character, and she was always a 'ditzy' character and I think we didn't get to see much of her.
The Karpman Drama Triangle can be seen in the different relationships between the characters. Like most of the replies, I think that the continuous power struggle between Martha and George would be a persecutor-victim one. Martha continuously plays with George's feelings, taunts him, insults him, and has cheated on him multiple times. George tries to defend himself by deflecting and trying to make fun of her. George, towards the end, ends up becoming a survivor, and gradually a persecutor when he tries to get back at Martha. However, George's standard role doesn't seem like victim, with Nick and Honey he was usually a persecutor. Each character switches between these roles (besides Honey, she just seemed like a victim). They often took turns in placing blame on the other or simply attacking the other person.
The characters of “Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf” all spoke to me because all of them had their own inner conflicts that they did their best to hide from one another all throughout the night. The relationship between Martha and George, for example, can quickly be identified as problematic and the actions of Martha and George questionable, to say the very least. Martha verbally abused George for his lack of success and George had violent outbursts of emotions at times, which made their relationship very shaky. However, as the plot progresses, we are able to learn more about the personal issues of Martha and George which resonated with me more than the abuse did. I was able to see the pain that both Martha and George were going through, which was the underlying cause of the instability of their relationship. It is easy to see George as the victim in this case, but after further reading and brainstorming, I was able to see that Martha was also experiencing her own internal abuse. I thought there had to be a reason why Martha was so verbally aggressive to George; it hit me that Martha was so broken inside because of how much she used to love and have faith in George, before all of his failures, which tore her apart. In order to cope with all this, Martha drinks to numb the pain and glossess it over by bringing those around her down.
ReplyDeleteI found the ending to be a little unsatisfactory just because it all ended so abruptly with Honey and Nick leaving without any warning and the significance of Martha and George’s imaginary baby being so unclear after George reveals that he killed the baby. I think if, at the end, there was some more dialogue between Martha and George, then many loose ends could’ve been tied up. I am also still confused about the significance of all the Virginia Woolf references made in this play and what being afraid of her has to do with anything.
The different roles of the Karpman Drama Triangle can be applied to pretty much any character at any time throughout the play, except for Honey, who was a victim to alcohol the whole time. The play begins with Martha being the persecutor to George, the victim, through her verbal abuse to George, who felt humiliated. George also had his moments when he would become the persecutor by retaliating and devising evil plans to get even with Martha and even targeting Nick and Honey. Nick also went through two roles of the drama triangle, starting off as a persecutor and a threat to George’s pride and dignity, but then becomes a victim to Martha’s vengeance-seeking tactics to get back at George.
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you? –
ReplyDeleteTo me, every character represents part of ourselves. Martha represents the part of us that lashes out at others, makes up fantasies, and loves a good time. George represents our seeing ourselves as failures. He knows in his heart that he a failed, and in a way, so do we. Nick is our exterior, our facade. People do not lead with their problems when they introduce themselves to you. Many people like to project their "perfect life" and plaster it all over social media. That is Nick--the handsome, young, brilliant professor, the college athlete, and the wife of the pretty Honey. Honey, like Nick, deals with delusion. But Honey represents the personality we delude our_selves_, not others, into thinking we have. This aspect of the play truly speaks to me.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader? –
I am not the type of reader who really ends books/plays feeling unsatisfied. It all made sense in the end; even though Albee did not tie up every loose thread, the ending doesn't not make sense. The fact is, in life we do not always get the full picture. So yes, I would like to know if George and Martha's marriage falls apart (my guess is that it does not), and if Nick becomes chair of the Biology Department, and if Honey leaves him. But I am not unsatisfied.
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play? –
In this play, the characters tend to vacillate between different points on the Drama Triangle. Martha tends to vacillate between persecutor and victim. She ruthlessly attacks and degrades George, yet feels as though he is extremely cruel to her. She also almost feels like a victim because she loved George and broke him, and their relationship makes her sad. Yet she paints herself as the victim. George is both a victim and a persecutor: he does get attacked by Martha, but he ends up breaking her at the end of the play (or so it seems) and arguably has been breaking her down just as she has been doing to him their entire marriage. Nick tries to be the rescuer, but the victim side shines through with his easy manipulation toward the end of the book and his ambitiousness (the negative definition) throughout. Honey is a victim, but is something of a quiet persecutor--she lets a lot of things slip (for instance, she pipes up, saying that Martha told her about their "son") and ruins a lot of situations. She also manipulates Nick, both with her "pregnancy" pre-play and at various points during it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that Martha and George invite Nick and Honey so they can act as rescuers, but I think Martha is a persecutor the whole time and the ending shows her defeat which is a trait of the persecutor, I don't think it makes her a victim.
DeleteAn aspect of the play that speaks to me is one of despair. George, Martha, Nick, and Honey each have some sort of hope or wish -- George’s novel, Martha’s child, Nick’s success, and Honey’s freedom. However, none of them truly get their happiness. George literally throws his dream to the flames. Martha creates a fake son. Nick is a gold digger who, as Martha exposes, is just like every other desperate man who would sleep with her to get ahead. Honey is a lightweight who hides from her husband the fact that she is scared of being tied down with children, which leads to her lying about being infertile. Each person’s perfect little facade crumbles down before them and leaves the audience looking at four lonely people filled with despair. None of these people can be truly happy with the situation they are living. Once the final domino falls when George exposes the truth about Martha’s fake child, everyone goes to bed, ready to wake up and hide the despair once again.
ReplyDeleteI am left a little unsatisfied with the way Honey’s character was treated. I wish Albee would have given us a little more of her side of the story as most of her background we learn from Nick. I think that her story would actually be very interesting, especially as a foil for Martha. They each hold two extreme thoughts when it comes to childbearing. Martha creates a fake child, and Honey lies about being infertile. Martha’s delusional state makes sense, considering her own relationship with her father and mother and how she would wish to have someone who would be dependent on her so they could not leave. However, I do not believe we know enough about Honey to deduce why she would not want a child. I am not completely unsatisfied with this point as I believe it speaks a lot for both Nick and Honey that he is the one who talks about her while she keeps her personal life personal.
Karpman’s Drama Triangle relates to the characters as the roles between the characters are constantly switching. Martha is usually a persecutor, but Nick establishes a rescuer role whenever George shifts the situation and becomes the persecutor. The most interesting application of the triangle in this book is that everyone is put in a position of victimhood, but not everyone has a rescuer. Honey is usually a victim, but a naive one so Nick sometimes becomes a persecutor against her. George rarely has a rescuer, the rescuer being Martha when Nick insults him while George is out of the room. This play is messy when thinking of these straight dynamics, which is probably the most entertaining aspect of it.
I was also very unsatisfied by Honey's character development. I understand that her aloofness is comedic relief and tied to the fact that she's on birth control, but I think it would have added a lot of drama if Honey revealed straight up her feelings about motherhood. Also, I want to know how nick and martha hooking up affects nick and honey's marriage. Is she really that naive? Has nick cheated on her before?
DeleteThe dynamic between George and Martha became clearer to me as the book went on, and it clicked when Martha confessed her true feelings for George. Previously, I had guessed that Martha was not attracted to George anymore, or that she was excited by the prospect of cheating. However, her inability to love herself or let anyone love her made a lot of sense to me in the way it drove the plot. It matched with her background, dependent on her father and leading a lonely, unfulfilling life. Left with a void and depression, she could not let herself be happy, and each time she let these thoughts control her actions for the worse she had more ammo to use against herself the next time. George’s actions and resistance made a lot more sense to me as well. I was curious at first why he didn’t just bend all the way to Martha, and let herself wear herself out. He seemed like a broken man. However, later I became sure that he sensed this internal struggle in Martha and put up just enough resistance so she felt she wasn’t punching the air, so she felt she was struggling against him for a valid reason. Sometimes, understandably, he did snap and go too far, but it made sense why he practiced so much self-control at some times and not at others.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I enjoyed the ending, and I am satisfied with how abrupt it was. I thought it was very fitting to end a night of nervous energy and sudden outbursts with a sudden deafening silence. However, I was confused about why George was making up things about his imaginary son to the guests. I don’t think it was only to antagonize Martha, because she knew it wasn’t true and wouldn’t get offended, but I think he definitely had a reason for doing so, even though I can’t think of it.
Martha and George are obviously in the victim-persecutor dynamic, although I think they are both at the same time. Both of them attack at once, and wound each other at once. Sometimes one only takes the insults and the other gives, but overall it seems to be the exchange of two victims hiding in the shell of persecutors (if that makes sense). Nick is the rescuer in this dynamic, drawn to the struggle as he chooses who to support. Although he supports Martha for most of the book, he also supports George at the end. It seems as if he thinks he is helping a victim, and the persecutors use this to their fullest advantage to hurt the other. I am not sure where Honey fits into this dynamic, as she seems to be only a tool to be manipulated by the persecutors, which they do to hurt each other and Nick. Honey plays a large role as sort of a proxy in projecting insults.
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the complexity of the characters in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf; that there were no "bad guys" or "good guys", there were simply people, defined by their flaws and quirks. Martha is never the monolithic villain, and George the damsel in distress, they alternate roles, dancing around each other in an aggressive dance that wears the both of them down. I especially enjoyed when George had the opportunity to stand up for himself and give Martha a taste of her own medicine, in his own way. I could empathize with George's humiliation and his sense of powerlessness, and the vindication he felt in his one-upping of Martha in the final moments of the play. Furthermore, I love the sense of continuation of Martha and George's relations in Nick and Honey, or more specifically, the power struggle that defines it.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
The ending of the play is particularly irritating to me, as it leaves a multitude of loose ends. I would have appreciated more insight on how the party changed Nick and Honey's relationship, instead simply cutting them out of the story when they exited Martha and George's household. I also would like more background information on George, as he alludes to a wild childhood fraught with tragedy early on in the play. He even suggests he may have killed his parents.
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
Karpman's Drama Triangle seamlessly outlines most of the relationships in the play. George and Martha are a perfect example of a persecutor-victim relationship, although their roles are somewhat fluid. Martha will usually be the one tormenting George, but George is sometimes able to reverse the roles, again, in his own way. Nick sometimes takes the role of rescuer for Martha, but has the role of victim thrust on him rather quickly after the kitchen scene.
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, a lot of the play didn’t end up making sense to me.The characters created are multi-dimensional, possessing complex relationships with one another. I think a prime example of this is Martha. We as readers learn a lot of who she is comes from her childhood and father. She originally marries George believing he will one day run the University, this way she can stay connected to her father's work. In some ways this speaks to me as I wish to build on my parents successes, but I don’t understand why Martha is driven to do this in the manner that she does. What I mean by this is that she gives up on George, and perhaps herself, and I don’t really get why. Sure, George failed when given control of the history department in wartime, but why not try again? I raise this question because Martha essentially says she loves George and that only he makes her happy, I wish she tried to make things better rather than burning them to the ground, she tortures him throughout the night. I guess this does somewhat speak to me as words and actions can be very different.
I appreciated how the positions of power shifted. I felt like in the beginning of the play Martha had been holding all the cards, Nick was the jock, George the victim, and Honey was just there. As I read on and the plot developed the script flipped. Martha was now the one at George’s mercy. Nick, the former jock, was reduced to being a “houseboy”. Furthermore the clumsy, vomiting, unintelligent, Honey secretly turned out to be taking birth control pills, leading to most if not all the aforementioned traits. I really just appreciated the development of the power struggle, I thought it made it more realistic and entertaining.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
I just wish we got more in depth to character motivations and past. For example I’d really like to know about George’s past, he alludes to killing his parents earlier in the story but it’s never stated as fact. I would appreciate that being expressed further in detail. Also, and this seems to be always the case for me, I want to know what happens after the play ends. Do George and Martha fix their marriage? Who controls the University when Martha’s father passes? What happens with Nick and Honey? Do they ever have children? Has Nick ever known or found out about birth control? There are plenty of questions but I do think the play did end up satisfying me overall.
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
Karpman's Drama Triangle relates to the dynamic between George and Martha best. I think everyone can agree there is a Persecutor-Victim relation going on there. The complication with this is that the two characters switch roles at different times throughout the play. In the beginning I’d say Martha was more of the persecutor, and towards the end I think it was George. I would argue that Nick somewhat attempts to play the third side of the rescuer. I think this fits him well as Karpman mentions the rescuer often forgets their own flaws seeking to fix others. Nick really ignores his vulnerabilities, exposing them to George while conversing with him. George gets a fair bit of ammo from this and eventually it helps turn Nick more into a victim, as he gets pushed around by both George and Martha in the end of the play. Finally there's Honey, she originally appears to be the victim as she is essentially powerless. However, we find out she was manipulating NIck, secretly taking birth control, leading to her symptoms. Perhaps in some regards she remains the victim as “the pill” creates a huge toll on her mental state and body, as she constantly vomits.
1. The play speaks to me because it’s about such a strange couple, that you have to keep reading more. They play such weird games and are always going after each other that you’re never entirely sure what’s going on which makes it so much more entertaining. I like that you can understand the characters’ motivations and who they are without understanding what it is that they are doing to achieve that. For example, at the end, we know George is trying to hurt Martha by talking about their son, and saying he’s dead, but you don’t know why he would say something so terrible until the end.
ReplyDelete2. I felt unsatisfied at the end because they never really explained the whole “who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf” part, we just know it’s a song. Also, I felt like the character dynamics at the end of the book were confusing because no one seems too mad about what’s happened, George and martha go back to their life, and nick and honey go back to theirs. Overall, I found it well-written but confusing because the characters are so strange and quirky.
3. Karpman’s drama triangle relates to the drama in the play in that martha is mainly a victim (but can lash out and become a persecutor), George is a persecutor (in this play specifically but I think he really is a rescuer in martha’s life), and Nick is a rescuer trying to “save martha” from George because he doesn’t really understand the dynamic.
What really spoke to me was the dynamic between Marty and George in that although they bickered and fought, it was always trivial and deep down they still loved and respected each other on a deeper level. To me it almost felt like a relationship that two siblings would have. They compete and push the other to see what they can get away with but in the end they are there for each other and they do love each other and they are secure enough in their relationship to play these games with each other. They certainly have an unconventional marriage but it is a marriage and after the dust settles the still go to bed together. They’re partners and that’s what’s really important and that’s what spoke to me most.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t satisfied with the background that we had on Nick. I thought that as someone so ambitious and with such complex motivations, he should have his back story explained so as to justify it. All we know about him is that he has a ditsy wife and that he’s an up and coming researcher, but he also has a sense of self importance that isn’t typical of a researcher, and once his guard is down, he really does seem to have some sociopathic traits. I would also like to know more about Martha’s father, since he’s a very accomplished person and he’s very influential in the lives and actions of George and Martha but the book really doesn’t go into specifics about him beyond the superficial.
Karpman’s drama triangle seems to very accurately describe the relationships in the play. Martha and George have the victim-persecutor dynamic, and so do George and Nick. In both bases both seem to switch off who does the persecution and who plays the victim. Nick seems to take the rescuer, and at different points in the book he attempts to rescue whichever character he is more sympathetic or deferential to. For much of the book it is Martha, but at other points it’s Honey, and towards the end of the book he even defends George. Honey does not fit into any of the three roles, rather she seems to be pathetic in the most literal sense of invoking the emotions of the reader. I agree with Michael that for the most part she’s used as a tool by the persecutors to hurt the victims, but at the same time she is not directly attacked unless it’s to hurt nick, nor does she ever defend. This is because none of the characters respect her enough to involve her as an equal player in their games, since the games are played by people who do seem to hold the other in some regard, at least begrudgingly, who stand on an equal intellectual footing with the other.
Throughout the play, Martha and george’ relationship makes sense to me. Nobody’s life or marriage is perfect and I think the play shows a very realistic marriage and explores the struggles of marriage, especially in the time period the play takes place in. I think even today divorce is taboo, and it’s the reason why so many married couples stay together despite not being happy, this was especially true in the 1960s. George and Martha have been together for so long, and even though we see throughout the play how unhealthy their relationship is, I understand that they don’t see divorce or separation as an option. Even though they resent each other, they are also heavily dependent on each other in a twisted way. They know each other well so that they could never remove each other from their lives, and on top of it their lives are intertwined because of George's job. They stay together because they have broken each other, George for example has been emotionally broken by Martha's tormenting, so he would probably not be able to love another woman because of this. The two are also at a stage in their lives where if they leave each other, it's not like they would have the time to start a new family and find that kind of emotional fulfillment. They are scared to leave each other so it does not surprise me that the end of the play is very anticlimactic. It is a very harsh reality for George and Martha, but in the end I think they have just both accepted that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together, which is why they play games and even create an imaginary son, to distract themselves from how miserable they are to be together.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the book, and throughout the book, I am unsatisfied with the development of Honey’s character. She is so naive and dumb that she acts mostly as comedic relief, but i think it would have added to the plot if she confronted Nick the way George confronts Martha.I think if Honey were less airheaded the play would still be funny due to George and Martha's jokes, so I dont think developing her character would have harmed the comedic aspect of the play. We see Nick cheat on Honey and bad mouth her to the other characters, but she never really defends herself which is really disappointing. I think it would have been much more dramatic if by the end of the play Honey found her voice and opened up to one of the other characters. I also wish Honey opened up about motherhood more, because it’s implied that she secretly doesn't want a baby and is on birth control, but then she also screams at one point that she does want a baby.The way that Nick and Honey just leave is very unsatisfying and I wish I could have seen some stuff go down between them.
Karpman’s drama triangles relate to the book because everyone in the play can be labelled as one of the three roles. I don't think the roles change that much throughout the play, I think we just see conflict between the characters which is normal because their roles are centered around how they deal with conflict. Martha is obviously a persecutor and George is her victim. Martha insults, cheats on, and abuses George throughout the play but she gets what's coming to her in the end when George “kills their son”. Killing their imaginary son is killing Martha's way to distract herself, so she is forced to come to terms with how messed up and unhappy she is. Nick is a rescuer because he wedges himself in the middle of George and Martha's problems and makes them his own. I don't think doing this makes him a persecutor, but he does try and ease the tension at points. I think Honey is also a rescuer because throughout the book she tries to deescalate the fighting and for the most part she uses George and Martha's issues as a distraction and she doesn’t focus on her own issues. As Aisha said, George and Martha invited Honey and Nick over so they could be rescuers and make George and Martha’s problems their own.
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
ReplyDeleteWhat speaks to me most in the play is George and Martha's relationship. They have a very dynamic and interesting relationship that made them unpredictable at the beginning of the play. As the play continued we understood more and more about what made each of them who they are, be it Martha's abandonment issues or George's struggle to rise up the college's ranks. This made for a very enjoyable character-driven play in which every character was pit against the others. The part where it all clicked together was Martha's confession about how she really felt about George because it made sense that she isn't able to understand George's feelings or his actions.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
I did not like how abruptly the book ended. Nick and Honey just leave without resolving the issues or fully understanding what's going on. I also want to see how George and Martha's marriage turned out but I think such an expansion would be more fit for a sequel rather than an addition to this book.
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
Karpman's Drama Triangle accurately parallels the relationships in the play. From the beginning of the play we saw Martha and George's relationship as that of a persecutor and victim but they begin to constantly switch roles as the triangle suggested. I found there to be a lack of rescuers however, as no one really came to save anyone from a relentless persecutor throughout the play. The dynamic between persecutor and victim, on the other hand, is consistent and constantly appears between George, Martha, and Nick with appropriate fluidity.
The thing/aspect of the play that I would suppose made the most sense to me was the role of Nick. He is experiencing George and Martha's relationship for the first time, so we can relate to him in that regard. Throughout the play, he makes his confusion with their dynamic extremely apparent, something that I completely related to. Nick not being able to understand George and Martha's "games" spoke to me. It feels like with everything he says he is treading on thin ice, having only a surface-level grasp of what is going on at any given time. He also seems to be the most lucid of all the characters: George is pretty much psychotic, Martha hysterical, and Honey blackout drunk for the majority of the play. This does not mean he is redeemable in any way, shape, or form, however: it is revealed that he is much of a scumbag himself, marrying Honey for the shallow reasons of her family's money and the fact that he thought he got Honey pregnant, and even having sex with Martha (at George's allowance).
ReplyDeleteThe aspects of the play that leave me with questions are, for the most part, George and Martha. They speak in their own language throughout the play and they never finish anything, be it a conflict, a conversation, or a "game," before starting a new one. Also, what kind of drugs were they on when they decided to come up with a story about a son that didn't exist? One that Martha was able to go on a minutes-long spiel about, to the smallest details, be it the way he ate his lunch, or a toy that he kept under his bed? It confuses me and freaks me out at the same time. At the beginning of the play, we know nothing about them, and throughout it, we learn more, but I also feel like we learn even less. Because the son didn't exist, and we never learn if George actually killed his parents, and so many other unanswered questions that I had no choice but to let slide.
Karpman's Drama Triangle can be applied to every character in the play, I believe, and every character has a role that they seem to be set in (but they assume different ones throughout, with the exception of Honey). I guess I can start with Honey. For the entire play, Honey feels like a filler character if she isn't knocked out drunk in the bathroom, and when she isn't, she almost always best resembles the Victim. George attacks her, Martha treats her with contempt, and Nick treats her like an idiot. She is emotionally unstable and struggles the most to handle the things that are thrown at her, be it the secret of George and Martha's "dead son," holding her liquor, or being treated like the airhead she is. Meanwhile, Nick, I believe, constantly assumes the role of Rescuer for Martha and Honey, and Persecutor of George. He is constantly brushing off the thinly-veiled insults directed toward his wife, and coming to Martha's aid whenever George is particularly ruthless. However, as described in the video, the Rescuer is known to try to force their own values onto the Victim in order to save them from their problems, as shown with how he tells Martha how much of a psycho George is (but she doesn't listen, of course). Martha plays the Persecutor, attacking George and Nick. She is quite ruthless with George, going after him while treating him like one big joke, and doing something similar to Nick when he feels wounded in his masculinity after she tears into him. George plays the role of Persecutor and Victim. He lays into everyone, revealing their deep secrets and reveling in their despair. However, he takes a fair deal of abuse from Martha as well, as she shares the stories of how she beat him in a boxing match, alluding to him murdering his parents, explaining how pathetic he was, etc.
The humor and bickering between Martha and George was memorable. Throughout the night, they were always spontaneous, going from one game to the next, keeping their guests entertained, while also having deep, meaningful conversations. Although some of it was fictional and lies, Albee was still able to portray their unique personalities and internal struggles to the readers. In the course of one night, it’s crazy how much we learn about their relationships and feelings. At the beginning of the party, Nick and Honey seem to be a well-mannered, young couple. As things progress, they’re wasted and reveal ugly truths (such as the hysterical pregnancy). Not to mention, Nick hooks up with Martha, and Honey is left in the bathroom throwing up. It’s quite a night for all of them. Martha and George do a great job of loosening them up through their chastising and insults, similar to the behavior of children, which is one of the main subjects in the book. In the end, the killing of their “son” might’ve just been a part of a party game, but it could also be seen as a failure. They have failed to be adequate parents, and most importantly, produce a child, while Nick and Honey are still trying to achieve this. It’s interesting to see how everything unraveled from just one interaction. They’ve never met each other before and yet they totally lose their guard, causing conflicts to escalate.
ReplyDeleteThe ending seemed abrupt when Nick and Honey simply turn to leave. I thought there would be more resistance towards George once he announced that the party was over and it was time to go home. Much of Honey’s backstory is also left unanswered. The most readers get in act III is a glimpse of her peeling an alcohol bottle, acting like a bunny, and crying as George announces the news of their son.
Karpman's Drama Triangle relates to relationships in the play, since the couples constantly change roles, especially between the victim and persecutor. Although rescuers aren’t prominent in this play, there were times where Martha comes to Honey’s defense when George throws insults and Nick recuses Martha from George’s wrath from time to time. As discussed in the video, the dynamic between the rescuer and the victim is something we see often in romances, but it can also lead to an unhealthy relationship. As Isaiah mentioned, Nick defends his wife, Honey, against insults. But he also shuts her down when he wants her to be quiet. So, a rescuer can gain power and control over a victim, which can result in an unhealthy relationship, and cause the rescuer to become a persecutor.
What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that there are so many types of humour throughout the play is quite interesting. The fact that Albee was able to go from some light hearted jokes to some pretty hardcore and mean insults shows how good of an author he is and how creative he is. Some of the phrases and insults used by George and Martha specifically are quite funny and ingenious. The ones that really stand out for me are, "By God, you gotta have a swine to show you where the truffles are" and "I swear ... if you existed, I'd divorce you." The fact that Nick was so inclined to sleep with Martha makes since because as we know Nick is the type of person to do everything he has to so that he can rise to the top. For example, he married Honey not because he loved her but because of money (and because of her hysterical pregnancy) Also, the fact that Honey acts so weird and tipsy all the time makes sense because as we discussed she is most likely taking some sort of contraceptive medicine. Moreover, I was really intrigued at the fact that Mr. Albee didn't go for the super masculine and frail princess setup with Martha and George. He made them seem like they both had equal power in the relationship. (However George did become meaner and less victim like as the play went on)
What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
I really wanted to meet George and Martha's supposed child. From the beginning of the play their hypothetical chil played a huge role in the story, the second their child is brought up both George and Martha feel a sense fear and anguish. Even though the child probably never existed, the fact that they cared so much and pretended to care for him so deeply really confuses me. Another thing which is kinda bizarre but I really thought was gonna happen is Honey actually being pregnant. If she was actually pregnant after taking birth control pills and a hysterical pregnancy, that would have provided the story with a plot twist that could lead to a sequel. Who knows maybe Martha could have also gotten pregnant. (I really thought there would be a child by the end of the play)
In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf is not like any ordinary play or novel. It is very complex and there is no clear Victim, Prosecutor or rescuer throughout the. entire play. The triangle really shifts around and the angles change so much that I don't think it can be called a triangle if anything it's more like a rhombus or something. At times, George insults Martha and viceversa. But, then there are times in which Martha defends George like when she told Nick that George is the only person she really loves and explains that he is too good for her because he puts up with her and plays along with all her weir "games." The only role I thought was clear was Honey being the Victim, but now I don't think that's the case. It is quite possible that she faked her pregnancy to manipulate Nick into marrying her.
All in all, this book was amazing and very entertaining. I laughed a lot while reading it and I really enjoyed doing so. However, there are some plot holes that still don't make sense to me. How are people so promiscuous in New Carthage? It seems like the norm is sleeping with other people's spouses to rise to the top.
I shy away from teaching poetry (my high school English teachers absolutely traumatized me!) However, song lyrics ARE my poetry, and since we are talking about Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Karpman's Drama Triangle, I'd like to share lyrics I consider relevant:
ReplyDelete"Save Me" -- Aimee Mann
You look like a perfect fit
For a girl in need of a tourniquet
But can you - save me
Come on and - save me
If you could - save me
From the ranks of the freaks
Who suspect they could never love anyone
'Cause I can tell
You know what it's like
The long farewell
Of the hunger strike
But can you save me
Come on and save me
If you could save me
From the ranks of the freaks
Who suspect they could never love anyone
You struck me down like radium
Like Peter Pan or Superman
You will come to save me
C'mon and save me …
The speaker clearly sees herself as "damaged goods", referring to herself as "a girl in need of a tourniquet." We don't know who or what "bit" her -- maybe it's the sum total of everything and everyone in her life, but she has been poisoned very badly, and she is crying out for a savior. It's the classic victim/rescuer dynamic -- and likely as not, the same dynamic probably existed for years between Martha and George.
We know that Martha has been seeking "Daddy's" attention and approval for her entire life. George even refers to his father-in-law as "a father who doesn't really give a damn whether she lives or dies, who couldn't care less WHAT happens to his only daughter." On top of that, Martha is also a victim of the limited opportunities available to women in the middle of the 20th century. In spite of her education and her charisma (she is far better suited to the trustees' dinner and fundraisers that she lambastes George for failing to finesse,) it is unthinkable that she could be her father's successor. And since her talents are of no use to her, she puts all of her hopes in George. "I had it all planned out...he was the groom...he was going to be groomed." George had the power, Martha believed, to rescue her by winning the big prize for her: Daddy's approval.
Continued in next post...
But the key word in Martha's statement is "I". Is this what George wanted? I do not think it is, and for this reason, I do not think he truly sees himself as a failure. I agree with Melissa that George has been driven to despair. How terribly sad that he has so much talent, and that whenever he attempts to put it to good use whether that be through scholarship, teaching or even writing fiction (or memoir -- we'll never know for sure,) he receives nothing but scorn from his wife, his father-in-law and, presumably, the rest of the staff of the university. And thus, George's status vacillates between rescuer and victim.
ReplyDeleteMany of you have asked about the title of the play. Edward Albee was originally considering titling the play "The Exorcism". One night, he saw "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" scrawled in the bathroom of a bar in Greenwich Village, and scrapped his original title. He has explained that the line spoke to him, asking "who's afraid to face reality", i.e., the "big bad wolf". George and Martha have plenty of reasons to be afraid to face reality, so what do they do? George tries to tune Martha out, Martha seduces young faculty members, and of course they drink. Martha's and George's alcoholism puts the drama in drama triangle (or drama rhombus, as Chris put it.) It allows both of them to put on a lively show, as Aisha and Sydney noted, for Nick and Honey, complete with audience participation: interpretive dancing! Vomiting! Sex! And it keeps them locked in the endless dance between the three roles of persecutor, victim and rescuer indefinitely. Will their marriage survive the loss of the make-believe son? Probably. But like Suzuki pointed out, neither George nor Martha evolves from persecutor to challenger or from victim to survivor, and I do not think Martha or George ever will if they refuse to face that their lives are unmanageable because of alcohol.
This website really doesn't like AnnaBelle, so I am posting her response here:
ReplyDelete*What aspect(s) of the play make sense to you, or "speak to" you?
To be completely honest, I have been very confused with the play from the very beginning. It is clear that there are two couples, Martha and George and then Honey and Nick, and that Martha and George are both genuinely crazy. They both seem to have toxic relationships, as Nick only married Honey because he thought she was pregnant, and Martha sleeps with other men while George is also just insane. It makes sense to me that Martha as a character has many flaws because the play describes her childhood and how she has been abandoned her whole life. Every character in the play is flawed, even Honey who lies about her birth control, which, like Caprice said, makes them somewhat relatable because they all hide behind masks.
*What aspects of the play leave you with questions, or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
A lot of my confusion throughout the play was rooted in whether I should take something literally or figuratively. For example, it is not unusual for Martha and George to have a son, yet we find out the the end that the son does not really exist (or maybe he does? I am a little confused about this). However, it is unusual for George to kill his parents, but we have gotten multiple signs that he actually did. For me personally, things like this confused me because it was hard to keep track of what is real and what isn't. In my eyes, it is hard to follow and enjoy the plot when I cannot tell real from fake. That being said, the ending confused me because I think that George and Martha's son is not real, but really just a weird fake person they created as a fantasy. However, I did expect it to be confusing, which was not a surprise since their entire relationship is made of toxic games and even more toxic make-ups.
*In what way does Karpman's Drama Triangle relate to relationships in the play?
I agree with what Tanvi said--I believe that George and Martha are both victims and perpetrators. Similarly to her, in the beginning of the play I thought that George was completely the victim and felt terrible that he had to deal with Martha. However, by the end, we can see that George is capable of being the perpetrator as well. They both play awful games on each other, like Martha ends up cheating on him (which wasn't the first time based on other clues from the book), and George tells her casually that her son has died. I think that both of the characters like to think of themselves as victims and that is what makes their relationship so toxic. They both see nothing wrong with what they are doing because to them, they are just "getting back" at each other and harming each other because they feel like they are the victim and must strike back. This creates a cycle of wanting to get back at each other, like they did the entire play.
What aspects of the play make sense or speak to you?
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most relatable aspect of the play was the dynamics. Not that I often find myself getting drunk into the morning at the house of my colleagues, but the way in which the characters spoke was really familiar. They rarely said things clearly; they relied on euphemisms and subtle implications instead. I especially connected to Martha and George’s dynamic, the way they played games with each other that were meant to seem like jokes to the outside perspective, but were actually rooted in real issues and insecurities they had. I think to a less extreme degree, we all play games like that with people we’re close with. I also think we’ve all been in the situation Honey and Nick were in, witnessing an argument like that and being really uncomfortable when it gets too real.
What aspects of the play leave you with questions or fail to satisfy you as a reader?
I was unsatisfied with Honey’s character. Yes, we were given a bit of background when we learned about her father from Nick and her use of birth control when she drunkenly confesses to George, but I felt like there could’ve been a lot more done with her character. I kind of wish she had sobered up, to contrast with Martha, or expressed some emotion other than drunken frustration and confusion. Even being as inebriated as she was, she brought out a very different side of Nick, a much softer and more patient side than he expressed with Martha and George. I would’ve been curious to see what their dynamic was when she was sober, and how she’d deal with everything that was going on if she had been fully aware of it.
In what way does Karpman’s drama triangle relate to the relationships in the play?
George and Martha seem to both play the perpetrator and the victim, and I think the triangle helps explain why they pull new people into their dynamic. Without a rescuer, it’s just an endless cycle of attacking each other and achieving nothing. Both George and Martha are a fan of “games,” and the reason they search out a third party is to fill the third role of the triangle and really make their conflict a game. Once they add a rescuer, the roles start to become more fluid and at times, every character in the play fills every role. Martha and George are more obvious, taking vicious swipes at each other and swooping in to save Nick and Honey, but even Nick plays the perpetrator at times. Nick is cruel to George, often as a response to George’s attacks. He’s usually beat when George starts to fight back, but he lands a few good blows. It seems like when sober, Honey has some manipulative tendencies that might make her the perpetrator (like lying to Nick about being on birth control!), but she doesn’t show much of it in the interactions we see.