borreca_1981
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
1/46
The Homecoming and
The
Cherry
Orchard;
Pin ter s Inversion
of
Chekhov s Subtextual
Method
Art
Borreca
Advisor:
Ms Carol Strongin
English Honors Program
Oberlin College
April
1981
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
2/46
[ u b t e x ~
is the manifest, the inwardly
fe l t
expression
of
a human being in a part , which flows uninterruptedly be
tween the words of the text , giving them l i fe and a
basis
for existing
I t
i s
the sub
text that makes
us say
the
words we do
in
a play.l
Constantin
Stanislavsky
I .
Introduction: The
Subtext
Problem in Chekhov
and
Pinter
The ever-present tension between l i t e ra ry cr i t ic i sm and
performance analysis makes one wary about suggesting a cause
and effect l ink between
the
work
of
a single
dramatis t
and
the
development of
a
major
acting
method.
And
yet , t is impossible
to
separate
the orig inal
concept
of
subtext ,
which emerged
upon
Stanis lavsky s stage, from Anton Chekhov s revolutionary drama-
turgy, which
made s ta r t l ing demands
upon
tha t stage. Chekhov
wanted
specif ica l ly
to
narrow the gap
between rea l
l i f e and
stage l i f e
- -
to
do away
with
the
worn-out
well made
play
for
mula
that
permitted actors to
declaim
and
gest icula te
broadly,
shouting
incredible
passions and
external iz ing
l a rger- than- l i fe
desi res . Chekhov s
oblique
dialogue had i t s most
immediate
im
pact upon
the
actor , who
could
no longer simply declaim
i f
he
or
she hoped to convey the
fu l l
content of
his
or her charac-
t e r s thought and feel ing. Subtext
was
and s t i l l is n
ac to r s
tool , a
method
of close
reading
which
permits
the
actor
to uncover emotional motivations and
aspects
of character not
expl ic i t ly
s ta ted in the
text .
s a c r i t i c s concept, subtext
i s too eas i ly misunderstood, too often t reated as a safety valve
for interpre ta t ions
not
rooted direc t ly
in
the text .
The danger of subtext as a cr i t i ca l tool has special re le
vance
to
the
work
of
Harold
Pinter,
where
t
has
received
i t s
most signif icant a t tent ion
since Chekhov.
I t is usual
to
discuss
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
3/46
Pinter
as a revolutionary dramatis t in
his
own
r ight .
Thus, i t
is also usual , in
analyzing
subtext in his work, to lose s ight
of
the
concept 's orig inal meaning. n accurate analysis of the
use
of
subtext
in
Pinter requires a
comparison with
Chekhov. ~ h e n
Chekhov wrote
his
four major plays
a t
the
turn
of the twentieth
century, he
attempted
to
pass human
interact ion as t actual ly
occurs through a
theatr ica l
medium more object ive
than that de-
f ined by
the
conventions of the nineteenth century.
t-Ji
th a
sc ien t i f i c
yet
compassionate
eye
for the
de ta i l s
of
human
re la -
t ionships,
he
took the focus away from
the
l inear
cause
and
ef fec t progression
of
events, and centered t on unresolvable
emotional interplay.
s
a resu l t ,
he se t
in motion a new
t radi-
t ion of dramaturgical
form:
his par t icular
use of subtext ,
fundamental to
the
new
form,
corresponds to the emotional in te r -
act ion
of
unful f i l l ab le
loves
and
aspirat ions
tha t
he
dramatizes.
Pinter ,
perhaps more
so than any other contemporary
dramatis t ,
has
wri t ten out of the t rad i t ion Chekhov generated, furthering
the drama
of unfulf i l lable aspirat ions by
writ ing a
drama
of emo
t iona l
possession
and
dominance,
and
uncovering
a new
technique
for the
use
of subtext to meet
the
special demands of this new
kind of
emotional
interplay.
Thus,
as
Andrew
Kennedy
claims,
the
emergence of subtext
in
Chekhov marked
a
s igni f icant develop-
ment in
the
fa l l ing apart of
speech
and act ion, and Pinter
has
taken the
concept and
pushed
t towards new and
systematic
f
. bl ' , , 2
subt le t ies ,
sometimes a t
the
cost
0 mannerlst 0
lqueness.
He has taken a concept tha t emerged
with Chekhov's
divorce of
speech
from
passionate
and
direc t
act ion,
and
devised
a new
method
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
4/46
for
i t s use a method comprising hi s own pa r t i c u l a r i nd i r e c t
correspondence
between verba l
contac t
and
emot ional
i n t e r ac t i on .
Stan i s lavsky ' s
or ig ina l de f in i t ion of
subtex t
i s , by
neces-
s i ty , the
ground upon which an ana lys is
of
the use of
subtex t
by
any
playwright i s b u i l t . The ~ r e t d i r e c t o r ' s no t ion ,
on
i t s most
fundamental
l evel , i s simply t h i s : a
charac te r ' s
emotional
ob-
j e c t i ve s - - what he or
she
wants from the other
cha rac t e r s
in
each
ind iv idua l
scene
are discoverab le in
Chekhov
only through
a
read ing of the
e n t i r e
play.
Although
these
objec t ives a re
not
always e xp l i c i t l y
s ta ted , the
ac to r
must
use
the
l i nes
of the
t e x t to h i n t a t them, because (as objec t ives ) they form the mo-
t i va t i ona l base for
the
s ta tement of those l i ne s . The
se r ie s
of
emot ional
objec t ives
thus
embodies
a subtex tua l stream,tl3
an
overa l l
emotional dr ive , conscious or unconscious ,
~ i n s t which
the s ta tements the
charac te r
makes
can
be
i n t e rpre t ed .
As
Ken-
nedy expla ins
simply and most
prec i se ly ,
subtex t
i s
the i n t e r
ac t ion o f t e x t
and
contex t : 4 t i s the i n t e r ac t i on of
the spoken
l i ne with the ob jec t ive t ha t compels i t s u t te rance .
To unders tand
Pi n t e r ' s
use of subtex t , t i s c l ea r l y neces
sary
to ge t a t the s pe c i f i c way in which he causes t e x t and con-
t e x t
to
i n t e r a c t i n
h i s
plays ,
and
the
way in
which
hi s
method
of i n t e r ac t i on compares
with Chekhov's manipula t ion
of
the
same
bas i c elements. A
few
c r i t i c s , most notab ly John Russe l l Brown
and Mart in Ess l in , have
noted
poin ts
of contac t between Chekhov's
and
Pi n t e r ' s
use of
language
in the cons t ruc t ion of dialogue.
Brown
makes
some genera l
observa t ions :
t ha t Pin te r and
Chekhov
bo t h
manipula te
t r i v i a l
de t a i l s to
focus a t t e n t ion on
var ious
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
5/46
aspec ts o f
charac te r
and ac t ion , t ha t they both in t ima te ly r e
l a t e language and ges ture ,
and t ha t
they are both
adept
a t
keeping
severa l
flows of consciousness
a l ive
in
a
s ing le con-
ve r s a t i on .
s
His observa t ions l ead him to conclude t ha t
Stan i s
l avsky ' s
techniques are appl icab le to
ac t ing
Pin te r ,
6
but he
f a i l s to weave these observa t ions
i n to a s ing le ,
i l lumina t ing
t hes i s concerning the def,ree to
which
Pi n t e r ' s dramaturgy
i s
roo ted in Chekhov's. E s s l in ' s ana lys is i s , a t l ea s t , more
coherent . Ul t imately perce iv ing
in
Pin te r
something
tha t
Nils
Ni lsson
f i r s t
saw
in Chekhov
t ha t a
s ta temen t ' s in tona t ion
i s
of ten more
s ign i f i c a n t than
i t s
semantic conten t
7
Ess l in
emphasizes Pi n t e r ' s
manipulat ion of the
emotional color ,
r a the r
than the d iscu rs ive and l og i ca l conten t , o f dia logue . He as
se r t s
t ha t Pin te r e s t ab l i shes a con t rad ic t ion between the
words
t ha t
are
spoken
and
the
emotional
and
psychologica l
ac t ion
t ha t unde r l i e s them, whereas
Chekhov
es t ab l i shes a cont ras t
between
what i s being sa id and what
l i e s behind
l l8
between,
presumably, what
i s
l i t e r a l l y
s t a t e d
and what i s ac tua l ly f e l t
and
thought . Ess l in
ce r ta in ly
seems
to deal with the
i n t e r a c t i on
of t ex t and context , because he needs , i n h i s
at tempt
to expla in
the under ly ing
ac t ion o f
any
P i n t e r
dia logue
( to explain
what
the
charac te rs
a re doing to each
other
through
language) , to pro
vide
a contex t
of
circumstances
wi th in
which
t ha t
dialogue occurs .
He cont r ives contex t
- -
s to r i e s for
the
sake of f i t t i n g Pin
t e r ' s
e lus ive
ve rba l
exchanges in to
a
framework t ha t answers
the
ques t ions they r a i s e ; as a r e su l t , hi s contex t s t ranscend the
l imi t s of
P i n t e r ' s
world. The contex tua l
component
of t e x t -
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
6/46
5
context interact ion
must be
deal t with
only
as
Pinter provides
t
(or does
not provide i t , for tha t
matter)
within
the
text .
Because both
Brown
and
Esslin
f a i l
to
uncover
a
specif ic re la-
t ionship between tex t and context
(as
t is defined by the text) ,
the i r analyses f ina l ly shed
l i t t l e
l i8h t on Pinte r ' s dramaturgy.
Fortunately,
the work
of Essl in
and Brown
has been
surpassed
by
tha t
of Bernard Beckerman,
who
provides
a t
leas t
a foundation
for
an understanding of text-context
interact ion
by
analyzing
the
ways
in
which
Chekhov
and
Pinter
manipulate the
foreground
and
the background of stage act ion to
create
an impression of
rea l i ty
for the audience. Beckerman
explains that
an audience
receives
such
an impression
from both
sources;
the background of
stage act ion may carry strong associat ional resonance
with
rea l
l i f e
events,
while the act
of
stage presentat ion i t s e l f
- -
the
structure
of
the
action
scene
by
scene
- -
engages
a t-
tention
on
a
more primal plane.
In the l a t t e r case, the scene
by scene structures
of character
interact ion
appear
to us as
f igures in the foreground se t against
the background
of associ-
ation
9
Both Pinter
and
Chekhov create an image of
r ea l i ty
out of lithe symbiosis between f igure
and
ground
the
fact
tha t ,
as
a
play
progresses,
features of
the
early
scenes
become
absorbed into l a t e r
groundwork:
the ground
of act ion i s
increasingly act iva ted, v i t a l
ized, made responsive
to successive
episodes.
Later
f igures
of action
become more
highly charged because
there
are more
points where they
can in te rac t with
the
act ivated ground
of
associa t ion
as
they
form these
f igures
of action
.10
Chekhov, Beckerman argues, manipulates a subtle interplay of
thought and feel ing against
a
background of socia l
decay
which
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
7/46
6
contains circumstances that he makes quite
expl ic i t ;
the audi-
ence is forced to
discr iminate
the
subt le
moment-to-moment
sh i f t s
of energy from
the background. Pinter,
in contras t ,
confuses the
ground
of act ion:
he
does l i t t l e
to establ ish the
off-s tage
world of his plays,
and
he par t icu la r ly obscures narra t ive
back
ground. e seeks to
separate
the f igure from the ground, forcing
the audience lito
attend
to the motions and
not
the meanings.
n
The
interplay
of ground
and
f igures of act ion
described by
Beckerman
revealingly
para l le ls
the
interact ion
of
context
and
text .
The concept of ground corresponds to
the
notion of
con
text .
For
Beckerman,
a play 's
background he
is
not
clear about
th i s seems to include
whatever
information the playwright pro
vides
about
location, se t t ing , period, and socia l
condit ions, as
well
as whatever facts
he establishes
about character
biography
and
the nature
of
the
part icular
re la t ionships
of
each
character
to the other characters. For Stanislavsky and his
def ini t ion
of
subtext ,
context
involves
mainly
the
l a t t e r kind of information
not , of course, in
lump sum but
in the order
in
which t is
revealed in the progress
of
the
p layas
t is
performed
(the
or
der
in
which the ground
is
increasingly
act ivated ) . Knowledge
of
th is
order
is
essent ia l
to the
actor .
While
discovering
the
sequence of his or her
character ' s
emotional objectives
through
a close
reading of the ent i re play, the
actor
also gains know
ledge
of
the s ta te
of
his or her character ' s relat ionships
a t
any
point in
the
stage act ion.
While Beckerman's
concept of
background corresponds to the
contextual
component
in
the
def ini t ion
of subtext ,
so
his
f ig-
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
8/46
7
ures of
action correspond
to
the textual
component.
The
text
comprises
the
l ine-by-l ine
structure
of character
interact ion
the format within
which
f igures of action are progressively
presented
to the
audience. In stage presentat ion, the actor
plays the text to
reveal
gradually the contextual
character
in
formation he has grained
from
his
or her
reading of the ent i re
play. Of
course,
in performance,
the audience
knows -- ideal ly
only tha t
contextual
information
which
has been revealed up
to
the
scene
that
t
views
a t
any
given
moment.
Subtext
operates
a t i t s
strongest when gradually establ ished contextual information
is fundamental to
an
understanding of the on-stage act ion a t any
point . In these terms, interact ion of text and context means
tha t the
act ion
contained
within a
part icular
scene
depends
upon
knowledge
of
the
establ ished
contextual
information
for
the emo-
t ions
passing
between
characters within
that
scene
to
be
under
stood fu l ly .
Part of Chekhov's explici tness of background, as
Beckerman
would have i t
is
the explici tness
with which
he
establ ishes his
character re la t ionships . In an i l luminating discussion of Ch ek-
hov's dramatic structure Harvey Pitcher explains that Chekhov
reserves
his
f i r s t
act
for the
careful
construction
and
elabora-
t ion of
his
character ' s emotional network. 1112
By the
middle
of
the second act the audience
knows who
i s
in love with whom,
and
how any character who is an
object of
love
i s l ikely
to respond
to his
or her pursuer.
s a
Chekhov play
progresses, the fore
ground
of
action
becomes less involved with the
establishment
of
information
concerning
characters
and
the i r
re la t ionships . Memory
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
9/46
and exposit ion give way to
increased
character
interact ion
-
especia l ly in teract ion within
part icular
re la t ionships . The dia
logue defining the interact ion obliquely hints
a t the emotions
passing
between
characters :
the emotions themselves
are
under
stood in terms of the already establ ished contextual information
concerning the
nature of
the re la t ionship that the immediate
stage act ion
involves.
Only because they are aware of this contextual information
can
the
audience
and
the characters
experience
the
emotional
act ion of
the dialogue.
The
dialogue screens the
emotional
in
terplay: the
verbal exchanges, often
dealing on the l i t e ra l
level with
some issue which has no apparent
bearing
upon
the
re la t ionship
is understood to deal direc t ly
with the
re la t ion
ship i t se l f . ~ f u t e v e r is said
on
the
surface,
the emotions
motivating the
l ines
have
already
been
establ ished
within the
elaborat ion
of
background
information. The
emotions exchanged
within
a
par t icular scene
might not
be
openly
declared
in
the
l ines
of
the
text which make up the
structure
of
interact ion
defining that scene, but they are understood as the
motivations
for what is said
in
the
l ines .
When
Beckerman
concludes,
in h is
analysis
of
Chekhov s
f igure-ground
symbiosis,
that
an
audience
must
adjust i t s
vis ion to
a
foreground of
act ion taking
place
against
an
apparent
ground,13 he thus
provides
a way
into under
standing
Chekhov s par t icu la r manipulat ion of
text and
context .
s the audience
must
adjust
i t s
vis ion to
the
foreground of
stage presentat ion, so must t
attend
to the subt le sh i f t s
of
emotional energy
within
the interact ion defined by the text
- -
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
10/46
Art
Borreca
English Honors Program
Reading
ist
Anton
Chekhov:
Ivanov
The
Wood emon
The
Seagull
Uncle Vanya
The Three
Sisters
The Cherry Orchard
Harold
Pinter: The
Room
The Birthday Party
The
umb Waiter
:::. Slight
Ache
The
Caretaker
The Homecoming
Old Times
No
Man s Land
Betrayal
Georg Buchner:
Woyzeck
Henrik Ibsen:
Hedda
Gabler
The Wild Duck
A Doll s House
Ghosts
Samuel
Beckett:
t-laiting for Godot
Endgame
Happy Days
K r a p p ~ Last Tape
Eugene Ionesco: The Bald
Soprano
The Chairs
Edward Albee:
Who
~ Afraid of Virginia vloolf?
A Delicate
Balance
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
11/46
9
sh i f t s
of
energy
capable of
being perceived
only against the es-
tabl ished contextual information
concerning
the
condit ions
of the
relat ionship with
which the
scene is concerned.
In contrast to his conclusion about Chekhov, Beckerman's
conclusion
about
Pinter -- that he seeks to separate the
f igure
from
the
ground provides only a s ta r t ing point for an under-
standing of Pinte r s text-context in teract ion:
The
trouble is
that we are not
used to
seeing
motion
without
context. We become disoriented. We have to put the
fore
ground
into
some
relationship
with
a
background.
nd
this
Pinter does not permit
us
With
Pinter , the foreground
is clear; we do not
have
diff iculty following the sequence
of
action. But
how do we re la te
that
action to a context?
We are not
used
to seeing the context
through
the se l f
contained
action of
a
sealed world. It;
By emphasizing that Pinter obscures
the
background
of
his plays,
Beckerman echoes Richard Schechner's
observation
that Pinte r s
plays are conceptually incomplete - - that
i s ,
tha t lithe frame-
work
around
the plays, the 'conceptual
world' out
of which the
plays emerge, is sparse,
fragmented.
1115
Questions about
Pinte r s
contextual
information, cer ta inly,
are always bound to be
l e f t
unanswered. Characters
seldom
reveal ,
a t
any point in
the
ac-
t ion,
what they want from each other. They make statements about
the i r
backgrounds in one scene, and refute these statements in
the next .
Focusing on
Pinte r s lack of available and ver i f iab le
factual data,
Beckerman
and
Schechner merely point
up the
main
problem
with attempting to
understand
Pinte r s
use
of
subtext , a
problem they do
not even t ry
to solve.
Because
character his tory
and motivation are never clear ly establ ished, Pinter
seems
not
to provide the
audience
with
contextual
information against which
textual
in teract ion
can
be perceived.
But
Pin te r s context is
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
12/46
1
ult imately a context
of
dramatic
information imparted by the
clear and straightforward presentat ion of emotional act ion
- -
a context of information about how characters
in te rac t with
each
other . The statements tha t characters make about themselves and
the i r pasts , as well
as
about each
other , are
rooted direc t ly
in the dynamics
of
character
exchange. Facts
of character and
character
relat ionships
simply
cannot be
establ ished, because
whatever
the
characters say
is
said in the
midst
- - and as
the
resu l t - -
of
the i r
attempt
to
gain
a
super ior
posit ion
within
the re la t ionships with which the i r in teract ions deal.
Austin Quigley's asser t ion tha t Pinte r s plays
char t
I the
progressive
development
of
character re la t ionships"
- - within
which each
character ' s self -concept
is e i ther corroborated or
challenged
6
is
ins ight fu l . While in Chekhov
the
subtext
comprises
an
emotional
act ion
obliquely revealed within
dialogue
between
characters involved
in relat ionships defined by ver i f i
able
and establ ished
conditions, in
Pinter the
subtext comprises
a submerged development of character ident i ty i t s e l f . Pin te r s
emotional act ion i s , again, straightforward
and
easy to
follow.
And yet , however much
he
confuses
the
exposit ion of character
data,
thus
seeming
to separate
f igure
from
ground
( in
Beckerman's
terms), he
cannot separate
the text defining his
straightforward
act ion
a t
any
point
from the context establ ished
by
the in te r
act ions that have taken
place
up to that
point . The subtext
of
submerged character ident i ty has i t s
roots
in
the fact tha t ,
as
a
Pinter
play
progresses, the
audience
gains
knowledge of
the spe
c i f ic
ways
in which
each
character deals with
and
responds
to
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
13/46
each other
character .
What Pinte r s characters say during
the i r
in teract ions
cannot
be
taken as
t rue
because
the i r
obscuring
of
the
t ru th
is fundamental
to how they
define
themselves in
re la
t ion
to
each
other .
They
confuse
expository data
dif fe rent ly
with
each in teract ion because they
asser t
themselves different ly
re la t ive to each
individual
with whom
they
in terac t .
Each
char-
ac te r s various assert ions correspond to the
contradictory
terms
of
a confused self -concept:
seen against
his
or her
actions
and
responses
within
the
changing
circumstances
of
in teract ion ,
th is
gradually developed self-concept obliquely reveals
the
character s
actual
ident i ty , Ultimately, Pinter
inverts
Chekhov s
subtextual
method:
whereas
Chekhov presents
character
re la t ion
ships
and implies the
emotional
act ion that takes place
within
them through an oblique text which gradually
becomes
rooted in
establ ished
contextual information,
Pinter
packs
his
dialogue
fu l l
of emotional action
from the r is ing of
the
curtain, submerg-
ing the development of character def in i t ion
and
ident i ty .
I I . Dramatic
Structure
and Subtext
in The
Cherry Orchard and
The omecoming
o
two
plays be t te r demonstrate Pinte r s
inversion
of
Chek-
hov s subtextual
technique than
The omecoming
the height of
Pinter s work prior to his recent move into wri t ing
plays
of
memory and The Cherry Orchard Chekhov s f ina l attempt to
perfect h is revolutionary dramaturgy. The specif ic s t ructures
of these plays, as seen in terms of
the
use of subtext as a mode
of
emotional interact ion and
character
def ini t ion, especial ly re -
veal the
degree
to
which
Chekhov
and
Pin te r s
different
subtextual
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
14/46
2
methods correspond to in te res t s in different
kinds
of
emotional
encounter. Chekhov presenting
characters who yearn for a
be t te r
l i f e amidst a
general
longing for
love
uses subtext to
explore
how emotionally preoccupied individuals subtly re la te
to
each
other
communicating
and not
communicating
to varying
degrees on a level of feel ing while taking around and over
what
they want from each
other
on the level of immediate
verbal
con-
tac t . Pinter whose characters - - especial ly in The Homecoming
are
caught
up
in a
never-ending attempt
to
dominate each
other uses subtext to hint a t the ident i ty of each
individual
character
as he or she makes his or her
way
up and
down
the
ladder
of emotional
possession asser t ing the
contradictory
terms
of his
or her self-concept along the way.
The
way into a
comparative
subtextual
analysis of the
two
plays
i s
to
be
sure
through
a
comparative
analysis of
the i r
dramatic s t ructures . In terms of text-context
interact ion
dramatic structure is a matter
of
the order
in
which the play-
wright
reveals his
contextual information. I t is the development
of context
through a
carefully ordered sequence of in teract ions
careful ly ordered
so
tha t the in teract ions reveal contextual
information gradually
and
in a
specif ic
way
and
so
that
any
interact ion within the sequence maintains
a
par t icu la r re la t ion
ship to the contextual information already
disclosed.
In both
The
Homecoming and The
Cherry
Orchard
overal l structure i s
com-
prised
of individual
s t ructura l
uni ts defined
by the occurrence
of par t icu la r in teract ions .
The
uni ts whose beginning and end
points are
marked by
entrances
exi ts
s i lences
blackouts
and
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
15/46
13
other such theatr ica l devices, are
generated from
one
to
the
next by
the emotional in terp lay contained within
them. In Act
One of The
Cherry
Orchard,
Varya,
Gaev, and Lyubov
discuss the
orchard
and
what
t
means to them; as Lyubov contemplates i t s
beauty, Trofimov enters, turning her joy to sorrow as she is
reminded of her drowned son.
A new
uni t
of
interact ion, focused
on Trofimov and how
he
has
changed,
thus
begins. In
The Home-
coming,
Lenny shouts up
the
s t a i r s a t
Ruth;
ax enters
and
de-
mands
tha t
Lenny
t e l l
him
who
has
been
making
noise.
Lenny
changes the subject. The play s act ion moves forward
as
s t ruc-
tu ra l uni ts
turn over
from
a focus
on Lenny and
Ruth
to
a focus
on
Lenny and Max.
In th is
way,
overal l
dramatic
structure is
ult imately
a product of content: basic
units
of character in-
te rac t ion are propelled forward by
the
in teract ions that
take
place within
them.
Given
the dependence
of
the generation of units within a
s t ruc tura l sequence upon the context
of a
play s
emotional in -
teract ion, the use of
subtext
involves the
manipulat ion
and
placement of points of
interact ion
whose fu l l emotional
implica-
t ions can
be
perceived only through experience of the
immediate
interact ion
in
combination
with
information gained
from
previous
interact ions. While the difference between
a
network
of emo-
t ional yearning
and a hierarchy of emotional dominance marks
the
difference
between
Chekhov and Pinte r s subtextual
methods
in
The
Cherry Orchard
and The Homecoming there i s
an aspect
common
to
both kinds of
emotional
interact ion which acts as a major
cata lyst in the
generation as well as
a
focal
point for
the
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
16/46
14
organization)
of
s t ructura l units
in
both plays: disrupt ion.
I t
is
necessary to credi t Pitcher with
pointing
out
disrupt ion
as a ca ta lys t of emotional
interact ion
in Chekhov's plays,17 and
t may seem s impl is t ic to claim that disrupt ion is basic
to the
world of Pinte r ' s The Homecoming but
the
aspect is
so
funda
mental to the generation and organization of
s t ructura l
units
- -
while so central to the content
of emotional
interplay - -
that
t
cannot be overemphasized. I t
is especia l ly
s igni f icant
because
t
has
a
major
effect
upon
dramatic
structure
as
t
re
la tes to subtext: t catalyzes character interplay often by
deepening
the
in teract ion of text and establ ished context, caus
ing the operation
of
subtext within re la t ionships to become
more
heavily concentrated as
the
pressure of disrupt ion becomes
greater .
In
Chekhov, as Pitcher explains ,
four
act construction is
bu i l t
around
a
framework
of
disrupt ion ,
the
working
out
of
a
process
of
the
i r rupt ion of outsiders - -
in
the
case of The
Cherry Orchard, of the external
pressure
to
se l l
the orchard
into
the l ives of those
characters who
belong
permanently
to
the
play ' s se t t ing and
who form part of a
well
establ ished way
of
life. 18
In
the
formula Pitcher suggests for a l l of
Chekhov's
major
plays, the
f i r s t
act
elaboration of
the
emotional
network
is
brought
about
by
the
interact ion of outsiders and
res idents .
n undramatic second act is
character ized
by an uneasy
atmo
sphere
in
which re la t ions become strained. In the dramatic
th i rd
act ,
emotional cr ises
peak.
And
an ant i -c l imact ic
four th
act contains departures
from
the
establ ished
world
which
comple
ment
the
f i r s t
act
ar r iva ls a r r iva ls
which i n i t i a l l y
se t
the
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
17/46
15
process of
outsider-resident
disrupt ion in motion. 19
Pi tcher s formula applies to The Cherry Orchard
in
a special
way,
revealing
the
dependence
of
the
play s s t ructure
upon
the
emotional in terp lay that is
i t s
content, and highl ight ing the
ro le of subtext within
that s t ructure . The homecoming
in
the
f i r s t act does not, in and of i t s e l f , represent
the i r rupt ion
of outsiders in to
the
l ives of res idents . But t does, while
serving as
the
event around and through which the play s emo-
t iona l
network
is
establ ished,
cause
external
pressure to
se l l
the orchard
to
affect the l ives
of
the
characters in
the
emotional
network
(and, thus, the nature of each
re la t ionship in
which
they
are involved) in
a very
par t icu la r
way Thus,
while the brooding
discussions of
the second
act a l l in some way re la te to
the
sale
of
the orchard, they also serve
to
intensify
the
conditions
of
each
re la t ionship
within the
network.
Lopahin
and Lyubov,
for
example, grow in
the i r misunderstanding of
each other :
the
more
Lopahin
ins is ts
that
Lyubov lease
the
cherry
orchard,
the more
Lyubov
thinks
about her past
and
her inabi l i ty to par t with
the orchard, which
holds
a special place in tha t past . The
party
in
the third act is fraught with ant ic ipat ion and wonder about
the
sale ,
ant ic ipat ion
which
reinforces
and
catalyzes the tension
within
par t icular
re la t ionships .
Trofimov s
indifference to
the
sale
of the es ta te leads Lyubov to ask him to
t ry
to understand
her
inabi l i ty
to
part
with i t . His
inabi l i ty to understand car
r ies over
to
his
fa i lure
to sympathize with Lyubov s
love
for the
man in Paris ,
and
the Lyubov-Trofimov re la t ionship almost reaches
a breaking point ,
as
both characters lose the i r temper.
Ultimate-
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
18/46
16
1y,
a l l eyes
focus on
the
inevi table sa le of the orchard: each
par t icula r in teract ion is in
some way
affected by i t , and the
s t ruc tura l units containing
the
in teract ions are
bu i l t
around
i t . As
s t ruc tura l uni ts are propelled forward
by the
pressure
of disrupt ion within
the context
of emotional interplay, the
sub text of submerged
emotional
act ion takes place to
a
greater
and greater
degree
within each par t icula r re la t ionship .
The
pressure of
the sale and,
of
course, the sale i t se l f
inten-
s i f i e s
the
emotional concerns
within
re la t ionships :
with
emo-
t ional
act ion
catalyzed
and
contextual
information revealed,
characters
can interact more
and more obliquely.
Thus,
in the
four th
act ,
Varya
and Lopahin
can hint a t
how
they feel about
each
other while exchanging
a
few words about
a
los t ar t i c l e of cloth-
ing. The sale of the cherry orchard
has
made t so that
Lopa-
hinTs
offer
of
marriage
must
come
e i ther
a t
that
point
or never;
both
characters
know that , and interact
without
ever saying a
word about
i t .
In
a
manner a t l eas t ostensibly similar to tha t
in
which
Chekhov generates his s t ruc tura l uni ts
of
interact ion by the
pressure
to
se l l
the orchard, Pinter
builds
the
s t ruc tura l
uni ts
of
The Homecoming
around
the
re turn
home
of
Teddy - -
and
the
impact of Ruth. J .
D Dawick
has
correct ly shown
tha t Pinter
employs
the
blackout to punctuate the act ion of the play in to
f ive sections:
Home,
Arrival , Confrontat ion, Acceptance, Take-
o v e r . ~
In
the
f i r s t sect ion of the play, Pinter careful ly
constructs
a
world
of men who
constantly
attempt to asser t
and
reasser t
the i r dominance over each
other .
Commencing
with the
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
19/46
7
power
play interact ion between
Max and Lenny, each
si lence with
in the f i r s t sect ion marks the i n i t i a l
entrance
- -
the
introduc
t ion of
a
character
belonging
to this male world, and each
new
introduct ion inevi tably causes
a new
power play interact ion
( taking
into account the
new character)
to
occur. Within
the
i n i t i a l struggle for dominance
the
straightforward emotional
act ion - - each character belonging to
the
world of the London
home asser ts
subtly
or firmly, some element
of his
past
or
pre
sent
tha t
lends
power
to the attempt
to
asser t
some
degree
of
dominance
over the
person
with whom he in terac ts . Max
reca l l s
the days
when he was
feared
throughout
the
West End. Joey
talks about his boxing. Sam
reminds
Max
and
Lenny that
he
is
the
bes t driver
in
the
firm. In
the
case of Lenny, asser t ion comes
by
way of sarcast ic and mocking react ions to
the
assert ions of
others.
With
each
assert ion,
each
character
puts
forth
an
aspect
of
his
self -concept
that he believes,
makes him
be t te r
in some
way than the character with whom
he
speaks. As aspects of
self-concept are in i t i a l ly asserted,
the
world
of
power
struggle
is constructed.
A
hierarchy is
not
clear ly establ ished
in
the
f i r s t sect ion
of
The Homecoming
but
t
begins
to
take
shape as
the
struggle
to
be
a t i t s top
is
act ivated. Teddy
and
Ruth s entrance, which
marks the
s ta r t
of the second section, catalyzes
the
i n i t i a l ac
t iva t ion
of
the power struggle ,
moving
the
almost establ ished
hierarchical
ladder towards
inevitable rearrangement. The struc
tu ra l uni ts containing each par t icular interact ion
following
Teddy
and Ruth s entrance are propelled
forwards
in such
a way
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
20/46
18
that
the characters within each
interact ion
f ind themselves,
with each unit , a t a new and dif fe rent stage in
the advancement
towards f ina l arrangement of
the
emotional
hierarchy.
While Teddy's re turn home is cer ta inly centra l to the pro
cess of disrupt ion around which the s t ructura l units
of
The
Homecoming are bui l t ,
the entrance of
Ruth
-- the
female
in t ru
der
in to a
male
world - -
is
much
more
s igni f icant . Richard H.
Coe has explained
that
Pinter portrays
the ~ e l a t i o n a l
base of
human
communications
in
the play
- -
in
which
characters are
more
concerned
with the re la t ional meaning of a statement than with
the
t ruth value of
i t s
information ( i t s
indicat ion
of
how
the
receiver should
respond
to the
sender
ra ther
than
the l i t e ra l
message t conveys),
and with the exchange value
of objects
as
s ignif iers
of power ra ther
than the i r use-value ( the i r
meaning
within the context of
a re la t ionship
ra ther
than
the i r
independent
functional
value)
.21
In a
world in
which
the
domin
ance
struggle is
in
constant
motion,
Ruth
becomes
an ult imate
s igni f ie r of power.
Her presence forces the
men in
the play
to
s t ruggle
to possess
her, for
possessing her
means
standing
on
the highest rung of
the
hierarchical ladder. Jus t
as the
pressure
to
se l l
the
cherry orchard
catalyzes the
makings
of
emotional
c r i s i s
already exist ing
within individual
relat ionships in Chek
hov's play,
Ruth's
entrance
catalyzes
the
establ ished
day-to-day
struggle
within the London home compelling the men to asser t
the i r dominance more furiously --
and,
thus,
to
define more em-
phat ica l ly the contradictory terms of the
individual
self-concepts
behind the i r assert ions, ax
recal ls
a
picture
of domestic bl iss
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
21/46
9
with Jess ie and the
boys, in
which he
is
the ever
so
kind
and
considerate husband and
father: he
thus contradicts an ear l ie r
asser t ion that
he
pat ient ly
suffered
through his marriage.
Lenny
t e l l s Ruth two stor ies in which
he
employs bruta l violence
to
assert
himself, and then
la te r
he challenges Teddy to a
philosophical
debate,
proposing
an argument
about how
the un
known
does
not meri t reverence. Joey
takes
Ruth
out of
Lenny s
arms, asser t ing
without words a
be l ie f
in his own
physical
power
and
at t rac t iveness .
While
Ruth s entrance with
Teddy
propels
the
s t ructura l
units of
power
play in teract ion towards a
f ina l
uni t in which the emotional
hierarchy
wil l
ult imately
be rear-
ranged,
the confl ict ing terms
of
the self-concept
asserted
by
each
character ,
seen against
the changing
demands
of interact ion,
gradually clash and mesh into emerging ident i ty .
Perhaps
the
most
s igni f icant
and
ins t ruc t ive
difference
between
The omecoming
and
The
Cherrx
Orchard, in
terms
of
both
the process
of
disrupt ion and
the
effect of disrupt ion upon
dramatic
structure ,
is
that the catalyzed
emotional action
of
The omecoming ult imately focuses on i t s
cata lyst : the
new as
ser t ions of dominance brought about by Ruth s
entrance
a l l focus
on
what
place
Ruth
wil l
ult imately
have
within the
emotional
hierarchy by
the
end of
the
play_ In contrast ,
the
disrupt ion
in The Cherrx Orchard is less direc t .
When
t
enters into
the
world of
the play
(with
the sound of the axes
a t
the end
of
Lopahin s and
Trofimov s dialogue in
the
four th
act ,
the char
acters prevent
t
from pervading unt i l they have
departed
from
tha t
world.
In
keeping
with
the
major
events
in
Chekhov s l as t
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
22/46
20
four
plays the sale of the cherry
orchard
takes place
off
stage.
The
focus
of the play remains on individual relat ionships
and
what
happens within them in the midst
of
outer pressure; the
sa le is important mainly
in
terms
of how
each
character
deals
with
t within his
or
her
re la t ionships. In
The Homecoming
the
process of disrupt ion
generates
the
interact ion
within s t ruc tura l
uni ts
towards
the conclusion of a single act ion. Each character
ident i ty obliquely revealed through the emotional act ion
o -
prised
of these
interact ions
has i t s
place within the
f ina l
emotional hierarchy the
focus
of the conclusion.
Thus as
ax
sobs
for
affect ion
from
Ruth the ear l ie r
asser t ions of
strength
centra l
to his self-concept combine
with
an
immediate
picture
of human weakness to display an ident i ty
within
which
ult imate authori ty i s a fantasy
and
desperate need for love a
rea l i ty .
In
The
Cherry Orchard
the
indirect
external
pressure
generates submerged emotional
act ion
in as
many direct ions as
there are re la t ionships
although
each
re la t ionship i s t ied to
the emotional network and i s accounted
for
by
the
end of the
play during the general
action
of departure. In
both plays
however the s t ruc tura l uni t s of interact ion
are
ordered around
a disruptive
element
- -
with the operation of subtext heavily
concentrated
within character
interact ion
tha t focuses on a
working out of the
process
of disrupt ion.
I I I .
Subtextual Analysis
Moving from general
analysis of
structure to c loser ana
lys is of dramaturgy
and
subtext
in
the two
plays
t is worth
while to digress
through
an observation with which
Beckerman
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
23/46
concludes
his
Pinter/Chekhov
study:
.
both
men . . . recognize and
dramatize
the fai lure
of
direct encounters. Character A makes a demand Character B
neither yields nor quite confronts the
challenge. Anya
in
vi tes a declaration of love, Trofimov talks of working for
the
future;
Max
insists
on
knowing
who has been
making
noise
in the night, Lenny
responds
by demanding that Max talk
about
the
night
when Lenny was
conceived.
For both writers ,
the
dislocation
between energy expended
and resistance
encoun
tered produces the strange effect of events skidding
along
22
21
y
observing
a dislocat ion
between
demand and response, Becker-
man is
writ ing
about
the
breakdown in normal and expected
ordering of
question
and
answer,
of longing
and reply
- -
about
the fa i lure of Character
B
to
respond
direct ly to Character
A
in a manner that
a t leas t deals
with
the issue presented and
a t
hand.
Beckerman
applies
the notion of dislocation to
both
par-
t icu lar instances
of interact ion as well
as centra l issues in
re la t ionships :
in
the former
case,
Character B fa i l s to answer
a
question posed;
in
the l a t t e r case, Character
B
fa i l s to con-
vey
his
or her abi l i ty or inabi l i ty
to provide
Character
A's
longed-for fulfi l lment.
Given the overuse of
the
notion of the
fa i lure
of cornmunica-
t ion, th is
observation
~ y not seem
incredibly
insightful . And
yet , when t is expanded beyond the realm
of
direc t encounter and
longing
( the
realm
of
demand followed
by resis tance , and broadly
applied
to include those cases
of in teract ion in
which Character
A does receive a response
re la ted to the
issue a t
hand,
but not
the response
he
or she expects, hopes, or wants to
receive,
the
notion becomes a basis for understanding
the
way character in ter -
act ion in The Homecoming and The Cherry Orchard generates act ion
in
general .
That i s , t sheds l igh t on the condition, fundamental
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
24/46
22
to the way characters in both plays deal with each other, that
makes
the i r interact ions so suscept ible to the process of dis-
rupt ion,
allowing
t
to
have the cata lyt ic ef fect that i t
does.
Ultimately, the
pervading
dis locat ion
in The
Cherry Orchard
and
The Homecoming is a
dislocation
between
expectation and
response
expectation
in
the sense of
both
hope and ju s t i f i ab le ant i-
cipat ion.
The general technique of denying Character A the re -
sponse
he or she hopes or expects to
receive
(or the
response
he
or
she
thinks
he
or
she has
dictated
or
deserved
by
saying
what
he
or she has
said)
is common to differ ing methods
of
developing
context
for
the
operation of subtext .
23
I t provides
Chekhov
with
an act ive foundation
for
exposit ion and for the explic i t es tabl ish-
ment of his character network; t provides Pinter
with
a focus
for variat ions within the i n i t i a l dominance struggle
within
the
London
h o ~ e
Then,
in the
wake
of
disrupt ion in
both
plays,
t
provides
a
focus
for the operat ion
of subtext i t se l f .
s a re -
su l t of
the
dislocat ion technique, events in
both
The
Cherry
Orchard
and
The Homecoming do indeed skid along, hut with an
unusual sense
of
forward
propulsion
coming out of each skid, the
dislocation f i r s t containing and
then
releasing the energy tha t
propels
in teract ion .
In The
Cherry Orchard,
dislocat ion occurs between a
wide
range of expectations hopeful questions, reminders, etc.
and an
equally wide
range of
responses.
Often
t
is
quite
subtle, as
in
the
f i r s t scene of the play, which i l luminates
Chekhov's method for actively establ i shing contextual infor-
mation.
The subtlety
of
dislocation
in . the
scene
stems
from
the
distance
between the specif ic ways in which Lopahin
and
Dun
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
25/46
3
yasha
experience the
same
general feel ing: both
excitedly
ant i -
cipate the
return of Lyubov, but
experience the
excitement in
manners so par t icular to
the i r own
selves that
they
fa i l
to
share
i t .
The centerpiece of the scene
is
Lopahin s
speech,
in which
he successively chides himself for fa l l ing asleep while reading
a book
(and therefore not
making
t to the s ta t ion) , recounts
a
tender
memory of Lyubov,
claims
tha t
he is
s t i l l a
peasant a l-
though he
i s
r ich ,
and
then
returns
to
chiding
himself.
y
placing a pause to
mark
the t ransi t ions
between these
four
major
segments of Lopahin s thought, Chekhov does not merely mean to
provide the actor with hints of how to play Lopahin s thought
process.
He also
creates thea t r ica l punctuation points a t which
the audience
may
be
made
aware that Dunyasha
is on stage while
Lopahin
speaks,
and
that
she
does
not
respond
l i s ten ing in tent ly
for
the
sound
of
carr iages
because she
is
e i ther to Lopa-
hints recol lect ion of Lyubov or to his observation
about
himself.
The fact that she is herself
excited,
but does not meet
up
direct-
ly
with his
excitement, creates a tension
between the
two
charac
te rs tha t permits
the speech to transcend i t s role as an exposi
t ion
piece
(which
t
cer ta in ly
i s ) ,
Motivated
by
Lopahin s
own
par t icu la r experience of ant ic ipat ion , and made
especial ly
power
ful because t is
directed
a t
a character who
mayor
may
not hear
parts
of t (while experiencing, again, the general
feel ing
tha t
is
i t s
source), the
speech
actively presents the play s
i n i t i a l
contextual
information:
t reveals
a
signif icant aspect
of
Lopa
hints
character (his
sense
of
having
peasant
blood
although
he
has
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
26/46
4
worked hard to become r ich) , and it displays
his fond feel ings
for Lyubov already placing
his character into
some re la t ion-
ship
with her.
This
interest ing effect
of tension in
the
midst
of
exposi
t ion
continues
throughout Chekhov's play, as the energy of dis-
locat ion
propels
in teract ion, and
remains more
or less consis t-
ent ly
focused on
those
parts
of the dialogue
in
which the
purpose
i s
the expl ic i t establishment of
character and character
re la t ion-
ships.
Thus,
when
Dunyasha
says she
can ' t
wait
another
minute"
to
t e l l Anya about Epihodov's
proposal,
Anya responds
by asking,
v.7hat time is it ". 24
the
dis
locat ion
between Dunyasha' s
anxious
remarks and
Anya's
uninvolved
responses
continues
un t i l
Dunyasha
switches
the
subject
to
Trofimov,
Anya joyfully
exclaims
his name
("Pet
yaH [po 295]), and Chekhov
employs
a
contrast
be
tween
dis locat ion
and
sudden
in teres t
to
establ ish
Anya s
' rela-
t ionship
to
Trofimov with one
word. In
an instance
in
which
s t ruc tura l uni ts are generated by dislocation, Varya welcomes
Anya with a
joyful
embrace,
matching
the mood
of Dunyasha and
Anya
in
the
preceding
uni t ,
and
Anya
responds with
sorrowful
memories of her t r ip ,
turning Varya's
joy to sorrow, and
provid-
ing
contextual i n f o ~ t i o n
about
Charlotta,
Lyubov,
and Yasha
- -
on top of
the
energy
generated
by
the
change in mood
tha t
ac
companies the turnover of units .
Examples
l ike these abound
throughout
the establishment
of
the
character network.
Dunyasha
reminds
Yasha
that
she
i s
Fyodor's daughter; Yasha
embraces
her
and cal ls
her
"a
l i t t l e
peach' (p.
295).
Lopahin ins is ts on
leasing
the
cherry
orchard;
Lyubov
ta lks
about
her
sins.
In
each
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
27/46
25
case, a l og ica l expec ta t ion or hope i s
dashed as
in format ion
about
charac te r and r e l a t i ons h i ps i s revealed. Exposi t ion ar i ses
from
d is loca ted ,
moving
po in t s
of
i n t e r ac t i on .
In The
Homecoming,
the d i s l oca t i on between expec ta t ion and
response
does not
involve
the same extens ive range of
hopeful
ques t ions and
des i res
which f i l l s out the development of charac-
t e r and charac te r r e l a t ionsh ips in
Chekhov.
The
dis
loca t ion in
P i n t e r ' s play
i s more
c l e a r ly t ha t cen t ra l
to
the
f a i l u r e of
d i
r e c t
encounter
as
Beckerman
def ines
it
While
serv ing
as
a
foca l
poin t fo r
var i a t ions
with in the power s t rugg le
tha t
pervades the
ca r e f u l l y cons t ruc ted world o f the
London
home ( the development
of the con tex t o f how charac te rs
i n t e r a c t ) ,
the di s loca t ion o f
d i r e c t encounter
plays
a
spec ia l
r o l e in the
ea r ly
as s e r t i on of
se l f -concep t .
General ly ,
as
Character A
becomes
f ru s t r a t e d by
Character
Bls
f a i l u r e
to
respond
in
a
way
t ha t
confirms
Charac-
t e r A's as se r ted
dominance,
Character A i s
forced
to
put
f o r t h
some
supe r io r
term of hi s se l f -concep t
tha t
charac te r izes himsel f
as a
b e t t e r
person than Character B. Charac te r B ' s
response
to
the
as se r ted
se l f -concept provides
add i t iona l contex tua l
informa-
t i on
- -
the in format ion
of
Character B's bas ic method or s t r a t egy
fo r dea l ing
with Character A
The d is loca t ion of d i r e c t encounter pervades the
atmosphere
of
The
Homecoming from the moment Max ente rs
and
asks Lenny
where
the
sc i s sor s are with the
impl ica t ion
t ha t Lenny i s respons ib le
fo r Hax'
s not being
able to f ind
thew: Hhat
have
you done wi
th
the
scissors?1'25 Hhen Max
grows more
and more
i n s i s t e n t , Lenny
c a l l s
him a daf t p ra t
(p. 7); when
Max t r i e s
to
a s s e r t au thor i ty
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
28/46
26
by ordering Lenny to give
him
a
c igare t te Lenny simply remains
s i len t .
The
dislocat ion
between tfax' s expectation to dominate
and Lenny's consistent
undercutt ing
of that expectation
contrasts
s t r ik ingly with
the dislocation between
Lopahin's expectation
to
share his excitement and Dunyasha's excited,
but
unrelated, re -
sponses
a t the beginning
of
The
Cherry Orchard.
The
distance
between
ax
and Lenny is
as
clear as the
emotional
act ion t em-
bodies, and as direc t as the
asser t ion
of
self -concept
that ar ises
from
~ a x s
need
to
feel
some
sense
of
superior i ty
in
the
re la -
t ionship:
You
think
I wasn't a tearaway? I could
have
taken
care of
you,
twice over.
You asks your
Uncle
Sam what I was. But
a t
the
same time I always
had
a kind hear t . Always (p. 8).
However much he lends
power
to his recol lect ion of physical strength
by
claiming
that he was
kind
as
well , ax cannot
establ ish
domin-
ance
over
Lenny.
Lenny
undercuts
Hax's
asser t ion
by
continuing
to
remain s i len t . When
he does
speak,
he
simply
echoes
his ear
l i e r a t t i tude by cal l ing ax
a
stupid
sod and te l l ing
him
he
i s ~ g e t t i n g demented (p.
9).
Pinter
thus
readies
the world of the London home for the
ca ta ly t ic
effect of disrupt ion by s t r ik ing
a tense
balance within
the
struggle
for
dominance.
The
dislocation
of expectation
and
response remains
direct although
sometimes
the
asser t ion of
self-concept - - or
the
response displaying basic a t t i tude is
subtle. When Sam explains
why he
is the best
chauffeur
(p. 13)
in the firm, ax asks him why he
never
got married, and accuses
him of
banging away
(p. 14) a t
the
lady customers;
Sam only
gradually
asser ts
the notion
tha t
he
was a
bet ter
companion
to
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
29/46
27
Max's
wife than Hax was, Max sof t ly says
"Christll
(p. 16),
Context and text
begin
to in te rac t as Max's
ear l i e r
s ta ted dis-
pleasure
with
his wife come
to bear
upon
understanding the fu l l
implicat ions
of
his
response; the
world
of
dominance struggle
i s
prepared for disrupt ion, and for
the
ca ta ly t ic e f fec t of dis
rupt ion upon the subtext
of
submerged ident i ty .
Both
Pinter and
Chekhov masterful ly intermingle
the
use
of
dis locat ion for the development of context with
i t s
use
for
the
emerging
operation of subtext
i t s e l f .
In
The
Cherry Orchard,
subtext within character re la t ionships
begins
to operate clear ly
early
in
the second
act , while Chekhov
is
s t i l l es tabl ish ine ex-
posi tory
data;
Dunyasha and Yasha
in terac t
obliquely before
Lyubov gives her speech about her past sins. At the end of the
second act , the
scene
between Anya and Trofimov provides a
good
example
of
a
dialogue
in
which
subtext
is
operating
to
convey
an
emotional
action intensif ied
by
the
pressure
to
se l l
the
orchard.
I t
is
the
f i r s t dialogue focused on a single re la t ionship
as
t
is
affected by the pressure
of
the sale. In The Homecoming the
f i r s t
encounter between Ruth and Lenny provides a scene comparable
to the Anya-Trofimov exchange; in terms
of subtext as
t re la tes
to
structure ,
i t
is
the
f i r s t scene
in
Pin te r s
play
to contain
the
sub
text
of
emerging
ident i ty
as
t
is influenced
by
the
i r -
rupt ion
of
Ruth
into
the
world
of
power play
already
constructed.
s
a l l but
Anya
and
Trofimov
exi t
a t
the
end
of
the
second
act
of
The
Cherry
Orchard, Anya laughs
and says:
We
can
thank the tramp
for
a chance to be
alone
He frightened
Varya so
(p.
316).
Any a s
laugh
recal ls
the joy \.vith which she exclaimed Trofimov
t
s
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
30/46
28
name
in
the f i r s t act , when her in teres t
in
him. was i n i t i a l l y
establ ished. Anya is very much in love; although she never t e l l s
Trofimov
openly
- - in this
scene
or elsewhere - - the
context
of
the
scene
includes the
in teres t
establ ished in the
f i r s t
act,
and
that
piece of
contextual information plays
upon her simple declar-
at ion that she is glad to be alone with him. Love
is
the
emotion
tha t wil l motivate her
l ines
and react ions throughout the scene.
Trofimov's i n i t i a l response to Anya seems to
deny
her love
for
him:
Varya's afraid - - she's
afraid
that we might fa l l in
love
She's so narrow minded, she can ' t understand that we're above
fal l ing
in love. To
free ourselves
of a l l tha t s petty and ephem-
eral , a l l that prevents us from
being free
and happy,
tha t s
the
whole aim and meaning
of
our
l i fe
(p. 316).
Trofimov
juxtaposes the notion tha t
he
and Anya are above love
with the declarat ion that the
purpose of
the i r l i f e is to become
f ree
of
the
ephemeral
and
petty;
he
implies
tha t
the
march
toward
happiness
includes becoming free
of
love, and
that
love i t s e l f is
t r iv ia l .
But Trofimov's remark cannot be taken a t face value,
especia l ly when
t is
perceived against the very end. of act
one,
when
- -
"deeply moved" -- he watches Varya carry Anya off to bed,
and says
gently:
Oh, Anya . . .
my sunshine
y
spring
(p. 306).
Jus t
as
Anya is in love with
Trofimov,
so Trofimov
yearns
for the
abi l i ty
to
allow himself to feel and to act
on
his love for Anya.
The interact ion of the immediate text , in which he ta lks about an
abstract future happiness, interacts with the establ ished context,
in which he has joyful ly and
movedly
gazed
af ter
her,
to
create
a
scene
in
which
much
of
his
abstrac t
happiness
is
ult imately
con-
ceived
in
terms of
him and Anya
together,
and
his yearning for
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
31/46
29
love subtextual ly motivates his declarat ions
about
the future.
Both
Anya and
Trofimov, then, establ ish the i r in teres t in
each other in
the
f i r s t
act with
simple, moving statements of
each other s name; now, when
they
are together ,
they
cannot de-
clare
or ident i fy
the i r feel ings for
each
other ,
but merely
hint
a t
them. The cherry orchard becomes the focus
of
an exchange
which submerges the i r separately declared feel ings,
as
well
as
in tensi f ies the need
to
deal with
them on some
level ,
however
submerged.
Thus,
Anya
is
enraptured
with
how
beautifullyl
(p.
316) Trofimov
ta lks ,
even though the declarations to which she
reacts seem to sk i r t any poss ib i l i ty that he wil l ever declare
love
for
her. She
cannot respond
direc t ly to
his
visions of hap-
piness, and
yet
because
she
is
in
love with
him she
can
re -
spond
to the way he presents
them.
Trofimov enchants her , and
she
a t t r ibutes
his
influence
over
her to
a
change
in
her
feel ing
about the orchard:
What
have
you done
to
me,
Petya?
Why
don't
I
love the cherry
orchard
l ike
I used to?
(p. 316).
n the surface, Anya is asking Trofimov why she
no
longer loves
the orchard; subtextual ly, she is t rying to convey to him that
he has
enormous power over her .
The cherry orchard means dif fe rent things
to Anya and Tro
fimov.
For Anya,
t provides
memories of a
happy
childhood,
in
which
"there wasn' t any
be t te r
place in
a l l the
world
than our
orchard" (p. 316). For Trofirn.ov, t
recal ls
a dark past
of
se r f -
owning from
which
Anya and her family must break.
Trofimov
as
sures Anya that there are other places on earth
as
beaut iful as
the orchard:
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
32/46
The
whole of Russia
is
our orchard.
The earth is great and
beautiful , and there are many wonderful
places
in i t (pp.
316-317)
.
30
His use
of our
here
hints a t his subtextual
yearning
to be with
Anya. While he conceives of an abst ract happiness for
a l l
people,
his notion
of
the beaut i fu l
world
- - the
immediate
world
waiting
to be
experienced
includes a sharing
of
that
world
with
her.
I t is
extremely
important to Trofimov that
Anya
understand his
theorizing about
the future,
as
well as
his
ideas
about
the
or-
chard:
TROFIMOV. You've got
to
understand that , Anya.
ANYA. The house
we
l ive in
hasn't
real ly been ours for a
long
time. I l l leave
i t ,
I promise you.
TROFIMOV.
Yes,
leave i t , and throwaway
the
keys. Be free
as the wind,
ANYA
in
rapture: How beautifully you say things.
TROFIHOV:
You
must believe
me
Anya,
you must (p. 317).
Trofimov's desire
that
Anya
understand
his
notions
about the or-
chard
and
the
es ta te
is
ult imately
a desire, in
the subtext ,
that
she
understand
him:
his
ideas
and notions
are
centra l to
his
con-
cept of se l f .
Certainly, however
much Anya
has broken
with her
childhood
vision of
the orchard, t cannot be
easy
for her to
make a
complete break
with
the orchard i t se l f .
The
fact
tha t
she
seems to, though, indicates the extent of what she is
will ing
to
do
for
Trofimov.
"' hen
she
says
she
Jil l
leave
the
es
ta te ,
she
is
not excitedly reacting to Trofimov's
ideas
about
future happi
ness, but to the fact that she is in love with him, and wants to
do
what makes
him happy.
Her
promise to leave
the es ta te is an
oblique
declarat ion
of her love
for him. ~ ~ n
he
responds
to her
promise by
t e l l ing her to
be
f ree
as
the wind
(p. 317), she
does
not
follow
up
with
any
resolu t ion
that
she
wil l
indeed be
free,
but ra ther
re i te ra tes her ear l ie r observation
about
how beaut i -
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
33/46
31
ful ly he says things. She is enraptured with him, not his ideas.
Trofimov
goes
on with his
vis ion
of happiness; Anya
notices
that the moon is r i s ing:
TROFIMOV
I have a premonition
of happiness, Any
a , I
can sense i t s coming
ANYA
pensively.
The
moon s
coming up.
EPIHODOV
is heard
playing
the
melancholy
on his
gui tar . The illQ.Q l comes' : p". Somewhere
the
poplars VARYA
is looking for
ANYA
and cal l ing.
VARYA off-stage. Anya Where
are
TROFIMOV.
Yes,
the moon
is r ising.
happiness
i t s coming
nearer and
hear
i t s
footsteps
(p. 317)
you?
pause. There
i t
is
nearer.
Already,
I
can
Anya is extremely sensi t ive to her current experience of
being
with Trofirnov, and the
r is ing
moon enhances tha t experience.
Trofimov t ransla tes the r i s ing
moon
into
a symbol of
the happi
ness
about which he has been
speaking. And
yet , because he has
already
suggested
that
his
conception of
happiness
includes
Any a ,
and
because
he
pauses
between
noticing the moon and returning
to
his
vis ion of the future , something more than agreement about
the
physical world
is clear ly happening between
him
and
Anya in
that
ins tant
in
which he
repeats her
observation. ~ ~ i l the
observa-
t ions
match
on
the
surface, they also put Anya and Trofimov
into
subtextual contact with each other . The moon that
enhances
Anya s
experience of being
with
Trofimov and the moon tha t symbolizes
Trofimov s
conception
of
happiness, which includes Anya, merge in
the contact of
subtextual
yearnings. These
two people, who
are
capable
of indicat ing
the i r love
when they are not with
each
other
through simple statement of
the other s name,
communicate the i r
in teres t here in
the i r shared observation
of
the r i s ing
moon,
but communicate on a
level so
submerged
tha t
they are
almost
not
communicating
a t
a l l . Their observation i s simple,
the
only in-
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
34/46
32
s tant
in which they are
clear ly
speaking about the same thing,
an
oblique
moment
in
a
sea
of
ta lk
about past and future that
covers over the i r yearning for each
other ,
but deals with the
very
issue
the cherry orchard -- that
catalyzes
the presence
of tha t
yearning as the motivation
for
the i r words.
The
Anya-Trofimov
scene i s , of
course,
bui l t upon
the
dis
locat ion of expectation and response: nva does not
receive
an
open declarat ion of love. and Trofimov s ideas wil l
never
be
fu l ly
understood.
~ f u t
nya
and
Trofimov
ult imately
share,
sub
textual ly ,
is
the
fact tha t
they yearn,
not a communicated under
standing
of each
other s yearnings.
The
dislocation
in
the i r
tex tual
interact ion
covers over
the
contact they make. In
the
scene between Lenny and Ruth, dislocation
is
more clear ly a
generator
of
subtextual
operation,
ra ther than a
vehicle for
t
t
plays
a greater
ro le , tha t
i s ,
in
causing
subtext
to
occur;
t does
not
simply
form
the screen
through
which
subtext can be
perceived.
The difference i s te l l ing of a basic dis t inc t ion
be
tween Pinter and Chekhov s dramaturgies: while nya and Trofimov
discuss the orchard, working out the pressure of the disruptive
element
as they hint a t what
they
feel , Lenny must
deal
direc t ly
with the
disrupt ive
element
in his
world.
The
undercutting of
his
expectations during his
interact ion with
Ruth causes him to asser t
ce r ta in aspects of his self-concept , and his submerged ident i ty
emerges through his asser t ions ,
and
how they stand
against
his
ac t ions .
At
the
s ta r t
of
the
scene, Lenny plays
the
role of the host ,
going through a l l
the
cordial
motions
that ,
ult imately,
inform
-
8/9/2019 Borreca_1981
35/46
33
Ruth tha t
the
house is his te r r i to ry .
I t is
not long before he
t r i e s to asser t
control
over
her .
While he is playing the ro le
of the host ,
she
t e l l s
him
that
she
does not want
anything
but he gives
her
a glass
of water
anyway. Then some
t a lk
about
Teddy and Ruth's t r ip
to Europe
ends abruptly as Lenny asks
Ruth i f he
can
touch her:
LENNY
Do
you mind
i f
I
hold your
hand?
RUTH Why?
LENNY
Just
a touch.
He stands
and
goes to her.
Just
a t ickle .
RUTH
1 Jhy?
He looks down at her.
LENNY
I ll tell-You why (p.
30).
By asking Ruth
i f
she
wil l hold
his
hand,
Lenny seems
to assert ,
very confidently, the notion tha t Ruth is a t t rac ted to him. He
has j u s t met her, and
he
knows she
is
his brother ' s
wife,
yet
he
seems to think that she is
impressed
enough
with
him
to touch
him
without
establ i shing
some
sort
of closeness. I f
she
were to sub-
mit ,
Lenny would
asser t indirect d08inance over
his brother
whose wife
would
admit
s igni f icant
at t rac t ion
to a man she has
known less
than ten minutes.
But Ruth undercuts Lenny's expectations. She asks hiro why
he wants to hold her hand;
she asks him, in
other words, for jus-
t i f i ca t ion
of his
desire . vlliat she
receives
from
Lenny,
in
re -
response,
is
a long story about how
he bruta l ly
beat up a woman
who made him
l1a cer ta in
proposal one night down by
the
docks
(p. 30). He
explains
tha t
he
would have
subscribed
to
the
proposal