Download Edward Albee and Anton Chekhov: Evolution of

Gomez 1
Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull and Edward Albee’s The Lady from Dubuque are
comparable because of their similarities in themes and techniques, including elements of
dark comedy. Chekhov introduces experimental elements that were initially
controversial, but Albee makes use of the same techniques to include a wider audience.
According to Rayfield, Chekhov’s The Seagull, written in 1896, was the first comedy to
make light of death (142). The play centers around Konstantin (also known as Kostya),
more of a caricature than a character, who is a struggling artist searching for an identity
and for a connection to humanity. Chekhov’s play was not well received because of the
grim tone and harsh ending. Edward Albee faced similar reviews for his play The Lady
from Dubuque. When Albee emerges from the theatrical world, an evolution has
occurred. Chekhov’s work and the reception it received reflect the difficulty of
accepting death in a comedic atmosphere. Death remains a difficult subject, yet Albee’s
innovation of including the audience as an integral element suggests that some of the
audience members will grasp one of the main themes, the importance of accepting death.
Chekhov introduces the elements of dark comedy, such as the use of both tragedy and
comedy, and the introduction of the comic-pathetic hero, and he manages to address
serious issues, yet he fails in relating to the audience and does not fully capture the
essence of dark comedy in the manner that Albee accomplishes with The Lady from
Dubuque.
Dark comedy should include both tragic and comedic elements, yet Chekhov
creates situations and characters that are so pessimistic that the comedic parts are
overshadowed. For example, Chekhov illustrates several comedic forms. Harvey
Pitcher, in “Chekhov’s Humour,” argues that there are four types of comedies: 1) comedy
Gomez 2
of situation, 2) comedy of subversion, 3) comedy of surprise, and 4) comedy of the
absurd. Chekhov utilizes each one. The comedy of situation involves the inclusion of
the everyday actions, such as eating and drinking, which Chekhov accomplishes. The
comedy of subversion, Pitcher explains, happens “within an authoritarian, hierarchical
system where the individuals and the relations between them becomes absurdly and
harmfully distorted” (“Chekhov’s Humor” 97). This, as I will later point out, is seen
between Kostya and his mother. The comedy of surprise, the third type of comedy
identified by Pitcher, is chiefly seen in Konstantin’s two suicide attempts. Pitcher
argues, “Chekhov deliberately sets out to surprise his readers, misleading them and
setting up false expectation in their minds” (100). The last type of comedy Chekhov
utilizes, the comedy of the absurd, is noticeable, Pitcher argues, in the dialogue.
Chekhov successfully uses the many types of comedy in this one theatrical piece. He
fails, however, to make the dramatic parts meaningful for the audience because the
characters are superficial and narcissistic. And, as I will argue, the characters are not
easy to relate to, which makes the tragic scenes impractical.
Chekhov successfully dramatizes both the tragic and comic but there are scenes
where the action is not realistic. The Seagull is often considered “mundane,” a play
where little action occurs (Strongin 367). Yet Chekhov argued that his works are
portraying everyday life, including the mundane. He writes, “Everything that occurs on
stage should be both complex and simple, as it is in real life” (Styan 75). He dramatizes
the everyday, the simple actions of life, such as humorous conversations. The first
evidence of this is in the opening scene of Act One between Sorin and Konstantin. Their
conversation is not meant to create a harsh environment. Kostya is erratic, moving from
Gomez 3
one topic to the next while Sorin attempts to soothe Kostya. He notices that Kostya is
anxious for his play to begin and attempts to reassure him. Sorin says, “Calm down,
now - your mother worships you” (4). Both Sorin and Konstantin are not attempting to
cause damage to one another. They are considerate and sensitive to each other’s
feelings. Also, the audience understands that Sorin is an amusing and peculiar character.
This adds to the comedic element in the scene. If the dark comedy is “the balance
between the tragic with the comic” then Chekhov succeeds in portraying both but the
tragic scenes are far too gloomy and thus unrealistic, leaving the audience outside the
play’s action and incapable of relating to the character’s experiences.
The character’s actions are exaggerated and are questionable. For example, in
Act One, after Sorin and Kostya discuss art, Kostya mentions the lack of love from his
mother. While the audience may understand their tumultuous relationship, they have to
question Kostya because of his theatrical actions of removing the petals from a flower
and reciting, “She loves me - she loves me not” (5). J.L. Styan argues that the
playwright’s goal is to connect with the audience, to have them relate to a character and
momentarily understand him or her (257). Few can relate to Kostya at this point because
of his unusual yearning for acceptance. The peeling away of petals opens the possibility
that Kostya may have romantic feelings towards his mother. This scene would be more
appropriate if that love were directed towards Nina. It is difficult to comprehend the
obsessive love Kostya shows for his mother, especially because of her insensitive
behavior.
Arkadina and the remaining characters are far too egotistical to be considered
realistic. As Harvey Pitcher explains, the other characters are “non-productive” because
Gomez 4
they are individuals and not members of a group (66). The connection between audience
and actor is never made because the four main characters (Konstantin, Nina, Arkadina,
and Trigorin) are too self-absorbed, and they are disconnected from the others as they are
from any audience member. For example, in Act One, after Kostya cancels his play,
there is little concern for his well-being. Everyone continues to converse and it seems
that Kostya and his actions have not made an impression. Nina and Trigorin meet in this
scene, and continue to talk about fishing and writing but only mention Kostya when
referring to the peculiar dialogue of his play (15-16). Chekhov was ahead of his time,
and was the first true dark comedian (Styan 74), yet he fails to fill the gap between art
and life.
Chekhov was known for straying from the traditional forms of theater, and he
dared to introduce characters and situations that would shock the audience; one such
example is Masha. In the very opening moments, the audience is introduced to this
unconventional, non-traditional woman. She is much like Kostya, a morose individual
who dwells in her loneliness. Then, to shock the audience further, she pulls out her
snuffbox. She is unlike the other women in physical appearance, and she stands out
because of her odd behavior. She enters each scene wearing black and acts in accord
with this dark tone. It is likely that the audience begins to withdraw in these opening
moments because of the peculiar behavior of Masha and the others, as well as dialogue
that does not fit the description of a comedy. For example, the second line of the play,
spoken by Masha, “I’m in mourning for my life,” does not typically correspond with
comedy.
The Chekhovian “superfluous man” was another device used to shock or confuse
Gomez 5
the audience. This character was the talented intellectual who was misunderstood by
society. This “superfluous man” was a device and an expression of frustration that the
audience would likely not understand. The use of such a character demonstrates
Chekhov’s defiance of traditional theatrical roles. Just as the individuals that surround
Kostya do not understand him or his play, the audience is excluded from his motivation.
Kostya attempts to create a new form of theater, but it only leaves everyone bewildered.
His “intellect” places the “average” individual on the outside of the action. Even
Arkadina, an individual who knows the theater well, questions Kostya’s non-traditional
play. She says, “There’s a smell of sulphur. Is there supposed to be?” (12) If those
who know this “superfluous man” well can not understand him, how is the audience
expected to?
The use of non-traditional devices and characters stray from standard forms and
so include Chekhov into the Theater of the Absurd. The Seagull is considered his most
daring play and a piece that is comparable to those in the tradition of the absurd. He was
searching for new forms, just as his character Konstantin articulates. Chekhov was
breaking conventions of the theater. He was conscious that he was writing a play that
was “in defiance of all the rules of dramatic art” (Kataev 172). One such defiance was
the exclusion of major events from the stage, such as Nina’s seduction and abandonment,
the death of her child, Trigorin’s return to Arkadina, and Kostya’s two suicide attempts
(Senelick 80). Eugene Ionesco, an important figure in the Theater of the Absurd,
defined absurd as “that which is devoid of purpose… Cut off from his religious,
metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless,
absurd, useless” (Esslin 23). As I will discuss further, Konstantin expresses his own
Gomez 6
views on the absurd, including disillusionment with life and the lack of meaning and
purpose in life. Harvey Pitcher describes the experimental elements in The Seagull as
“blind alleys” (The Chekhov Play 45). They were viewed as unsuccessful devices and
were never used again by Chekhov. While Chekhov broke conventions, he did not fully
realize the potential these theatrical devices carry.
Konstantin is Chekhov’s comic-pathetic hero, another standard of dark comedy,
but he becomes increasingly difficult to understand in his incapability to change. He fits
the definition of the comic-pathetic hero because he is a “creature who at the crisis is so
human as to remember and hope rather than heed and act” (Styan 269). But his behavior
does not seem “human” or realistic. For example, the comic-pathetic hero Kostya
continually holds onto the past, his young love, and continues to hope that perhaps his
love will be returned. In Act Two, after Kostya’s first suicide attempt, he kills the
seagull and Nina tells him, “You’re not the person I used to know,” he replies, “No, I’m
not. Not since you stopped being the person I used to know” (27). He continues to live
in the past. He does not attempt to change himself but falls further into depression,
causing Nina to withdraw from him.
As the play progresses, it becomes increasingly difficult to relate to Kostya
because of his inaction. He does little to change the unhappiness in his life. He expects
others to change for him. One such example occurs in Act Three. Sorin suggests to
Arkadina that she give him money. There are the beliefs that with wealth comes joy and
that fleeing home will help Kostya. Kostya relies too much on others, and he is received
by the audience as pathetic. In Act Three he again shows his sorrow for his present life
and a desire to return to the past. He expresses towards Arkadina how he wishes that her
Gomez 7
affection was the same as it was years ago (40). Two years pass between Acts Three and
Four, and Kostya continues his stagnant behavior. He is not a part of humanity because
he does not participate at all with it. When his love, Nina, returns he chooses inaction.
He could take her rejection in a positive manner and look elsewhere for fulfillment, but
instead he decides to commit suicide. His suicide becomes a way of avoiding any
further pain and heartbreak. It appears that he has done nothing to win her love or alter
the condition of his life to bring any joy.
Kostya’s desire to gain acceptance from his mother is also difficult to relate to
because of its over-dramatization. Kostya, in the first act, in preparation for his play,
reveals to Sorin that he desperately seeks the acceptance of his mother, Arkadina, a
well-known and successful actress (5). Robert Louis Jackson explains in his essay,
“Chekhov’s Seagull: The Empty Well, The Dry Lake, and the Cold Cave,” that
Arkadina’s attitude towards his play will have artistic and psychological effects (7). His
play is to form a bond between them. There are several times when Konstantin begins to
speak of other issues, such as new art forms, but then he returns to examine his
relationship with his mother; he says, for example, “What we need is new artistic forms.
And if we don’t get new forms it would be better if we had nothing at all. I love my
mother, I love her deeply” (5). Kostya wants to produce a play that a successful actor
(or actress) can love, for then it will prove that he is of worth. He will have gained the
acceptance of his mother and the artistic community. He is consumed by their bond or
lack of a bond. His obsession for acceptance keeps him from living his life.
It is difficult to understand his view on their relationship because of the hostile
reception he gets from Arkadina. First she calls his play a part of the Decadent School
Gomez 8
(11). Then after the stage effects of glowing red eyes, and the smell of sulphur,
Arkadina begins to laugh (12). The acceptance he seeks is understandable. He wants to
be included in the same life as his mother, yet the depression and stress their relationship
causes is not understandable. Kostya stops his play after rude interruptions from his
mother and stops his creation, his desire to become an integral part of expressive art.
Kostya again becomes immobile. He could easily ignore her comments and continue
with his creation. Yet he decides to stop his art and, thus, silence his voice, because of
her criticism.
Konstantin’s play holds great significance in that it is his attempt to create a name
for himself. It is meant to create an identity. He says to Sorin, “Who am I? What am
I?...according to my passport I’m a shopkeeper, a Kiev shopkeeper” (6). Konstantin
does not have an identity. He was given an identity that is not of his own creation. He
only knows himself to be what is written on his passport. As Virginia Scott writes in her
reading of the play, “…identity is a product of role or profession” (358). His play, his
creation, holds his future. He no longer wants to be known for being just “a Kiev
shopkeeper.” Its success or failure will determine who he will become.
Furthermore, much of his identity is based on a past that can no longer exist. In
the bandage scene, of Act Three, Kostya holds onto the affections his mother once
demonstrated. She has become a different mother after her successes and love affairs.
Konstantin states in respect to her new relationship with Trigorin, “These last few days
I’ve loved you as tenderly and whole-heartedly as I did when I was a child. I’ve no one
left apart from you. But why, why has that man come between us?” (40). He is
desperately seeking love from her. Arkadina’s main concern is her career and love life;
Gomez 9
her son is not important. Kostya holds onto the past, his childhood, real or imagined,
and thus can not have a future. Sorin confirms this idea in Act Three. He says, “He’s
no money, no position, no future…” (37). Konstantin has become a lost child. He is,
especially in his own perspective, an orphan without any bearings. Where he is flawed
is in his whining; as John Tulloch says, few identify with Chekhov’s “cry babies” (6). It
is difficult to understand Kostya because he seems hopeless. He is so far from humanity
that few could comprehend his condition.
Konstantin is not the only character who is distant and difficult to relate to.
Carol Strongin, in “Irony and Theatricality in Chekhov’s The Seagull,” explains that all
the characters are acting and not showing genuine feelings (369). This holds true for
Arkadina. Much of Arkadina’s identity will be determined by the outcome of
Konstantin’s life. If Konstantin can recover from his depression and become an
independent male, it will prove that Arkadina raised him well. Arkadina has difficulty
coping with Kostantin’s troubles because it reflects badly on her. The death of Kostantin
is evidence of her own failures as a concerned parent; as Freud wrote, “The death of a
loved one injures the ego” (126). Arkadina is so narcissistic that it is not hard to
conceive the idea that she is more concerned about how the death of Konstantin will hurt
her and her own image.
After her interruption of Konstantin’s play, Arkadina says, “I merely find it a bore
that a young man should spend his time in such a tedious way” (14). She feels that his
art is not of worth and that also reflects badly on her, the well-known and established
artist. In the second act she asks, “Can anyone tell me what the matter is with my son?
Why is he being so stern and boring?” (22). Again she is only concerned with her son
Gomez 10
because it reflects badly on her image.
Initially, she is presented as an egotistical woman. She must drive attention away
from Konstantin’s work back onto herself. She continues to mock the stage effects, and
she successfully draws interest away from Konstantin’s play. Arkadina says to Sorin,
“Let him write as his fancy takes him and his talent allows, just so long as he leaves me
alone” (14). She is afraid of his work making any kind of impact on her own life and
image. She also feels that Kostya reminds her of her age. Kostya tells Sorin, “When
I’m not there she’s thirty - two when I am she’s forty-three; and that’s why she hates me”
(5). Arkadina has a fear of the future since it may be the cause of her decline.
Nina tells Trigorin that she believed famous people to be “unapproachable” and
that they “despised the common herd” (27), but she doesn’t realize that people like
Arkadina and Trigorin himself rely on the “common herd” in order to feel superior.
Arkadina’s presence at Sorin’s home is not out of concern of Kostya or her ill brother,
but only for her own need to feel important. She gains that feeling of superiority through
those stranded by the lake. She tells Sorin upon her departure in Act Three, “I’m
leaving, so I’ll never know why Konstantin tried to shoot himself” (37). She leaves her
son in a desperate state to continue to live up to her image as an actress elsewhere.
Arkadina is problematic because of the detached, coldness she shows to almost every
character. Chekhov created an exaggerated image of a vain, brutally honest woman.
There are few people who know anyone to be like Arkadina. The theater world is not a
familiar place to everyone, and her portrayal is too distant from the real world.
Two other characters confirm Arkadina’s identity as a successful woman:
Trigorin and Shamreyev. Shamreyev is important in validating Arkadina’s role in the
Gomez 11
theater. He shows her affection with compliments and adoration, saying, “We’re all
getting older, we’re all getting a little weather - beaten - but you, dear lady, go on being
young…Dressed in light colors, full of life and grace…” (55). He tells Arkadina what
she longs to hear, as she has clear age issues. While Shamreyev is inferior by wealth,
Arkadina relies on his compliments, as seen at the end of the play. She takes him by the
arm and says, “I’ll tell you about the reception I got in Kharkov…” (60). She seeks
someone that will hold her in high esteem and confirm the identity she has sought for
herself.
Trigorin allows Arkadina to feel successful as an artist and as an aging woman.
Harvey Pitcher explains that Arkadina adores Trigorin because his attentions are
flattering to her self-image (The Chekhov Play 53-54). One scene that clearly depicts
their relationship occurs in Act Two when Arkadina reads from a book she later reveals is
Maupassant’s On the Water. She reads:
And, to be sure, it is as dangerous for people in society to make much of writers
and to entice them into their homes as it would be for a corn-chandler to keep rats
in his shop. And yet there is a vogue for them. So, when a woman has designs
upon a writer whom she wishes to take up, she lays siege to him with
compliments and attentions and little marks of favour. (21)
After her reading, she attempts to defend her relationship with Trigorin. Donald
Rayfield explains that the Maupassant passage serves as a warning (207). But again,
Arkadina fails to come to terms with reality because of her ego. She begins to argue, to
herself and to Dorn, that her relationship with Trigorin is not as the one she was
describing. But their relationship is considered “dangerous” because they both lack
Gomez 12
self-esteem.
Trigorin looks for validation through Nina and in Arkadina’s adoration. For
Arkadina, Nina poses a threat to her own validation. Harvey Pitcher explains that
Arkadina’s status needs to be constantly affirmed by outside sources (The Chekhov Play
57). Trigorin and Shamreyev are vital to her life, which is why she returns to the lake to
brag about her successes to Shamreyev and she pleads to Trigorin to stay in a relationship
with her. The natures of these relationships are not the everyday relationships the
audience would be likely to comprehend. Chekhov depicts an uncommon situation
between unrealistic characters. The audience can only question Trigorin and Shamreyev
as to why they, or anyone, would look for love with such a dreadful woman.
Chekhov masterfully depicts broken family ties and the complexities behind
family bonds. Konstantin and Arkadina struggle to keep their relationship intact. They
begin to grow close in Act Three, when she replaces Konstantin’s bandages (40). She
kisses him on the head, and he kisses her hand. (39-40). This is the only moment where
she shows motherly love and her only instance of genuine concern for anyone. The
moment does not last long, and their selfish feelings are finally expressed, which makes
them grow further apart. They both resort to making the other feel as badly as possible
by calling each other names which they are certain will injure. Konstantin calls his
mother’s work “mediocre,” and she calls him a “Kiev shopkeeper” (41). They both
know which words will do the most damage to their egos. Arkadina’s identity is reliant
on her work as an actress. If mediocre, then she is like everyone else. Her greatest fear
is being ordinary. As Harvey Pitcher explains, Kostya provokes his mother by revealing
her weaknesses as they are identical to his own (The Chekhov Play 58). When she calls
Gomez 13
Konstantin a “Kiev shopkeeper,” she knows how fearful he is of never finding a name for
himself or an identity. His greatest fear is of being ordinary as well. The greatest
tragedy presented by Chekhov is the lack of hope for redemption, and this holds true with
the mother-son relationship. These two individuals are too far from reality and too
self-absorbed for the audience to expect a positive outcome.
Arkadina’s coldness and refusal to be the traditional mother is unique for this
period in theater; the other female characters also refuse to accept the traditional roles of
homemakers. According to Scolnicov, women are defined by their relation to their
home (8). There are three roles which to assume: the mistress, prisoner, or escapee
(Scolnicov 8). In The Seagull, Arkadina and Nina portray all three at various times in
their lives. Arkadina becomes the prisoner, because she once was married and had to
care for Kostya. She becomes an escapee when she abandons Kostya, and she becomes
the mistress when she meets Trigorin. The order which Arkadina follows, from starting
as a prisoner to becoming the escapee, suggests that she has certain freedom. She does
not, as she becomes the chained to Trigorin. Becoming his mistress is similar to
becoming the homemaker, or wife, in that she becomes dependent on him.
Nina follows a similar pattern. She is first the prisoner, one who can not leave
her own home because of her strict parents. Kostya remarks, “Her father and stepmother
keep guard over her - getting out of the house is like escaping from prison” (4). Then,
she becomes the escapee when she gains the courage to leave home and pursue her goals
of acting. Finally, she becomes the mistress when she follows Trigorin and starts a
relationship with him.
Nina is different from Arkadina in that Nina becomes the
escapee again when she flees from Trigorin. There is some freedom and independence,
Gomez 14
but it is temporary. She returns to the lake and returns to her role as the seagull, a
prisoner to the lake.
The only difference between Arkadina and Nina’s paths in these roles is that Nina
never had the chance to play the role of mother/homemaker. Arkadina abandoned her
role as mother by choice while Nina did not. She may have been able to become a
nurturing mother, even when Trigorin deserts her and her child. However, the paths
Nina and Arkadina choose to take has little to do with the outcome of their lives, because
both are unhappy whether they are willing to admit it or not. Neither of these women
find peace, an outcome that makes the audience uneasy.
Arkadina’s leaving her traditional role of homemaker is what is problematic to
Konstantin. In fact, the two women whom he needs to be nurturing, Arkadina and Nina,
are not following the traditional role. Kostya makes it clear that he needs a woman to
comfort him. He is incapable of caring for himself and is desperate for help as he
demonstrates from his suicide attempts. He longs for the consolation Arkadina and Nina
have shown in the past.
The only one capable of showing Kostya that affection and the one willing to
accept the role is Masha. Yet she refuses the role as homemaker to Medvedenko. After
several years of pursuing Kostya, she finally complies with the traditional role and
marries Medvedenko. Masha attempts to convince herself that marriage to Medvedenko
is the reasonable decision. She says, “My schoolteacher isn’t very clever, but he’s a
kind man, and he’s poor, and he’s very much in love with me. I feel sorry for him” (35).
Masha surrenders the idea that Kostya will return affection and, in order to feel some type
of affection, submits to being the homemaker.
Gomez 15
Polina shows interest in Dorn, and this helps her to understand Masha’s own
condition in Act Four. Polina tries to get Kostya to notice Masha, but he ignores her.
Then Polina tells Masha, “Do you think I can’t see what’s happening? Do you think I
don’t understand?” (50). Polina knows her daughter is unhappy with her current
relationship, just as Polina is with hers to Shamreyev. Virginia Scott argues that “we
would have no way of knowing they were married unless we had read the dramatis
personae” (359). Polina and Masha begin the first three acts hoping they can break from
the traditional role, but finally realize that they must comply in order to survive. They
seek romantic relationships in which they would have little possibility of fulfilling the
traditional role because their love interests are unresponsive. Dorn and Kostya show no
interest in forming a relationship, and once Polina and Masha realize this they return to
other men for the support they require. Chekhov depicts women who break with
tradition and take on several roles, and other women who comply with tradition as if it is
the best decision for them. Chekhov seems to be arguing that marriage is not a solution
for one’s happiness. In the play, there is not one woman, whether independent and
single or dependent and married, who is content with her life. Again, Chekhov does not
give any chance of hope, and this takes the audience further away from the action.
The lack of a strong father figure type reveals the lack of a strong center to the
home. Nina’s father is referred to as “cruel“ by Arkadina and “swine” by Dorn (16-17).
He is strict, as he does not let Nina away from the home to act in Kostya’s play. She
tells Kostya, “I was so terrified!..” and later, “You mustn’t, mustn’t, for heaven’s sake,
make me late. My father doesn’t know I’m here” (7). In fear of her father, she leaves
promptly after Kostya’s play. Nina’s fear of her father becomes so disrupting that she
Gomez 16
leaves home soon after. This, combined with the affection given by Trigorin, allows her
to become independent. Nina’s father acts as a controlling and domineering force that
restricts her freedom in the beginning, but she later uses that force as inspiration to be
self-sufficient.
Masha shows a similar dislike towards her father, Shamreyev. There are no
scenes of affection between him and Masha. And, there are no scenes where either of
them have a pleasant conversation. They only argue about which horses are available
and which are not (56-57). In the first act, she shows no interest in conversing with him;
“You can talk to my father yourself,” she tells Sorin, “I’m not going to. Spare me that,
at any rate” (3). For reasons not revealed, Masha avoids her father. Then, she bluntly
admits to Dorn, “I don’t like my father” (19). There is an obvious rift in her family since
she is willing to speak to her mother, Polina, but will not associate with her father.
Shamreyev does not attempt to reconcile, and Masha is forced to seek a father-figure
elsewhere.
Dorn is a father figure or caretaker towards several characters such as Kostya,
Masha, and Sorin. He provides compliments to Kostya after his ego has been crushed by
the failure of his production saying, “You have talent; you must go on” (18). Dorn is
also Masha’s advisor when she is tormented because of Kostya’s lack of attention; she
says, “Help me. Please, help me or I shall do something silly […]” (19). Dorn is also
Sorin’s “caretaker.” He is the only character who is aware of everyone’s sensitivity.
He remarks in act one, “You’re all so over-sensitive!” (19). Yet, Dorn fails as the
father-figure because he does not provide the medical attention that Sorin requires:
Sorin: I’d be delighted to have medical attention. It’s the doctor here who won’t
Gomez 17
give me any.
Dorn: Medical attention? When you’re sixty? (22)
He also fails as the father-figure because, while he is aware of Kostya’s, Masha’s and
Sorin’s conditions, he does not continue to provide support throughout the play. Richard
Peace calls his behavior “perverse” to the point of “cruelty” (222). Dorn provides
answers and guidance, but only when issues are not serious. As the play progresses, his
guidance becomes nonexistent.
Act Four depicts two fathers who appear to be opposites: Trigorin and
Medvedenko. Trigorin is presented as the neglectful father who can only be relieved
that he does not need to be attached to Nina after the death of their child. He wanted
Nina for her youth and beauty but not for a wife. Medvedenko appears to be the
concerned father as he tries to get Masha home saying, “It’s a shame, though. This will
his third night without his mother” (49). But the word choice in his phrase causes
concern. He only believes that the mother is needed for proper upbringing of a child.
He suggests that Masha should be the one returning home. Then, he continues to visit
with those at Sorin’s home and asks Dorn about his wealth and travels (51-53). If so
concerned for his child, he would leave immediately. His character is also problematic
because he is also emasculated by Masha. She berates him constantly and wants him to
leave Sorin’s home immediately, saying, “Haven’t you gone?” (51). He can not be the
positive father figure because he lacks the authority needed to enforce structure in the
household. The fathers and father-figures presented are flawed, and even when they
appear to be concerned, they fail to show constant, encouraging support.
In addition to the many family problems depicted in The Seagull, Chekhov
Gomez 18
depicts the problems with class and social hierarchy, though the issue is never fully
developed. The opening scene with Medvendenko and Masha introduces this theme.
Medvendenko questions Masha’s emotional state and implies that happiness is measured
by wealth. She responds, “It’s not a question of money. Even a beggar can be happy”
(1). Medvendenko continues to ask questions about who earns what wages, such as his
seen with Dorn (51), but the differences that lie between himself, the teacher, and Dorn,
the doctor, are not realized. The differences in wealth should be evident; however, there
are few examples of class prejudices. Donald Rayfield comments that this reflects the
decline of the gentry (210). Rayfield points to the relationship of Shamreyev and
Arkadina as an example of role reversal between ruler and servant (210). Shamreyev
has an argument with Arkadina about the number of horses available (24-25). He is
willing to quit his job to prove his point to her, saying, “[…] I resign! Find yourself
another steward!” (25). Shamreyev would be the inferior individual in this situation, but
he is aware that Arkadina’s old power obtained from her wealth is quickly deteriorating.
After this incident, Sorin calls Shamreyev a “tyrant” (25), suggesting that the control has
shifted. There is not an authentic rift represented here, however. Arkadina does not
worry about the conflict and the issue is resolved promptly. They return to their friendly
relationship, he flatters her, and she gains the boost in her ego. As this example
demonstrates, the control one party has over another is inconsistent. At the same time,
control is desperately needed because everyone is lost and does not have any type of
structure to guide their lives.
Chekhov utilizes the lake as if it were a controlling force over the fate of those
surrounding it. Nina is the first to admit that the lake has certain power, saying, “But it’s
Gomez 19
the lake that draws me here, like a seagull…” (7). The lake has also kept Kostya and
Sorin from leaving. They frequently comment on their desire to leave, but seem
restricted. Sorin wishes for a different life as he tells Dorn, “I wanted always to live in
town - and here I am ending my days in the country, simple as that” (52). Harvey Pitcher
describes the lake’s power as “witchcraft” (The Chekhov Play 46). It seems to contain a
mystic quality as even Dorn acknowledges, saying, “Oh, the spells woven by this lake!”
(19). Sorin craves for a life elsewhere, as if living can not occur by the lake. Nina
leaves for Moscow in hope of living her life and escaping like Trigorin. Medvendenko
is yet another character who wants to leave the presence of the lake. He questions Dorn
about what city he loves best (53). The lake, Richard Peace explains, is a “reflecting
surface” and “mirror-like” to the nature of art itself. He continues, “The play is
obviously about artists, but is even more about the rapacious, destructive, and
self-destructive nature of art and artistic activity” (218).
Chekhov has all the characters restrained, living lives they regret, and he does not
provide much hope for them of ever changing their conditions. Nina leaves home but
returns because the outside world only brought her pain. The lake restores her comfort,
but it restricts her from living life elsewhere or ever becoming what she desires. The
image of the seagull also implies a stasis. Leslie Kane writes that the repetition of
certain words or phrases evokes the impression of stasis and perpetuation of conditions
such as entrapment and monotony (56). For example, Sorin frequently mentions
Moscow and his desire to live in the city, but as he explains, he is like an old boot, “stuck
here like a gudgeon in the mud” (37). Kostya, Trigorin, Nina and Shamreyev mention
the seagull. Some can leave the lake behind momentarily, but the return of the image
Gomez 20
suggests they can not forget the image of the seagull nor ever permanently leave the lake.
Konstantin’s play depicts the inability to distinguish reality from the imaginary,
which is also a condition the characters suffer from. Konstantin exists in limbo,
somewhere between reality and imaginary worlds. Jackson explains that Konstantin not
only “projects a vision of a universe in biological limbo; he, or his alter ego, also inhabits
it” (4).
His play reflects his fantasy state of being. Konstantin believes that a piece of
drama should only include fantasy, saying, “The point is not to show life the way it is, or
the way it ought to be, but the way it comes to you in dreams” (8).
By the end of Act
Two, Konstantin displays his refusal to live a meaningful life. He is detached from
everyone, from humanity and from himself. He no longer shows the same desire to
become successful. In Act Four he says to Nina, “I am still moving in a chaos of dreams
and images…” (64). Konstantin continues to exist in an in-between state. While Nina
escapes the fantasy world and lives in reality for a short time, she returns to the fantasy
world because she believes it is comforting and safe. Konstantin does not show any
hope of leaving limbo. Jackson explains that Konstantin lives in Plato’s cave among the
shadows and illusions (14). Jackson continues, “Socrates, discussing the return of the
wanderer to the cave, observes that the wanderer would find it easier ‘to endure anything,
rather than think as they do [in the cave] and live after the manner’” (Jackson 15). Nina
leaves the cave and experiences the harshness of reality. She faces disappointment and
misfortune and death. She finds Konstantin’s condition comforting because he is never
forced to experience that reality. He is ignorant of that world, and as Jackson writes, “It
is Konstantin who chooses to remain forever secure in his world of shadows, illusions,
and disembodied forms” (14). Chekhov demonstrates that individuals return to the cave
Gomez 21
of illusions because reality presents too much pain.
The confrontation of death is undeniably presented in the play, yet it is an issue
difficult to handle by the characters. Arkadina refuses to accept death. She says, “I
make it a rule not to look into the future. I never think about old age, I never think about
death” (20). Arkadina ignores the message brought forth by those who grasp mortality.
She interrupts Konstantin’s play and disregards its message. The opening monologue of
his play depicts the end of the world, with all life obliterated. Instead of dealing with
death, she mocks his play (12-13). Then, Konstantin stops the production of his play.
He stops voicing his message at her resistance.
Death should have a lasting image on the characters, especially since the stuffed
seagull returns in the second half of the play to remind them of their mortality. But it
does not succeed in helping those characters live fulfilling lives. The tragedy of this
play is found in the characters’ refusal to deal with death and in turn they are
simultaneously denying life. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross explains in her book, On Death and
Dying, “If all of us would make an all-out effort to contemplate our own death, to deal
with our anxieties surrounding the concept of our death, and to help others familiarize
themselves with these thoughts, perhaps there could be less destructiveness around us”
(12). The characters would benefit from their acceptance of death. The tragic end of
the play could have been easily resolved with that acceptance. But, the characters
continue to ignore their mortality. They continue their destructive patterns. They also
refuse to acknowledge Konstantin’s pain. After Konstantin’s first suicide attempt, one
might predict that they would finally confront issues and alter their lifestyles. Yet they
continue to ignore Kostya’s suffering and their own. Sorin thinks that money will solve
Gomez 22
Konstantin’s problems. Even if that were the answer, Arkadina refuses to help him.
After Konstantin’s death they appear to have not learned from the tragedy. Chekhov
leaves few doors of possibility open.
The death of Konstantin marks the death of change. Konstantin’s second suicide
attempt is not dramatized on the stage. Dr. Dorn’s final statement, “The fact is, he’s shot
himself…” may lead one to argue that the ending has a positive outlook because
Konstantin may have survived (67). After all, the statement does not read, “he’s killed
himself.” Chekhov not only eliminates hope, but he also leaves the audience on the
outside, because what occurs to the characters does not affect the lives of the audience.
That is, Konstantin’s death does not ruin our image as it might to Arkadina.
Furthermore, Chekhov, as Senelick explains, writes for an “in-crowd” (285). Most of
the parody is lost on the audience, and death is not completely dealt with by anyone, the
characters or audience.
Chekhov tackles serious issues surrounding the troubles of life and death, yet
there is no mention of faith, religion, or God. Miller explains that the characters are
“spiritual orphans” (149). What is interesting is the selected worship the characters
demonstrate. For example, Arkadina and Nina worship Trigorin. When Trigorin
threatens to leave Arkadina for Nina she falls to her knees and exclaims, “Leave me for a
single hour and I’ll never survive it, I’ll go mad, my amazing man, my magnificent man,
my sovereign lord…” (43).
Nina follows Trigorin to Moscow as if she were a
worshipper following her lord for guidance and support (47). Finally, the distraught
Konstantin states, “I’ve no faith, nor any idea where my vocation lies” (64). There is an
assumption here that because these characters have no spiritual ties, they struggle to find
Gomez 23
meaning. Kubler-Ross writes, “The belief has long since died that suffering here on
earth will be rewarded in heaven. Suffering has lost its meaning” (Miller 150).
Without faith, whether it be in a higher being, or just in themselves, they can not ever
leave their current state. They will keep repeating patterns and will be forever seduced
by the lake. The farther they are from humanity, the more distant they become to us, the
audience.
Chekhov includes Russian humor that would be lost on outside audiences. He
also wants to shock the audience. Concerning the ending, Chekhov writes, “Isn’t that
the way life happens? People are joking and laughing, and suddenly - bang! Curtain”
(Kataev 186). Chekhov’s quotation reveals his attempt to create a realistic situation.
But to understand what is realistic, one must first look at Russian life and humor. I.D.W.
Talmadge compares Chekhov with Mark Twain, meaning Chekhov fully captures the
beauty of his nation through his comedic writing. Talmadge also argues, “To
Westerners, Russians are incapable of humor […] they are cursed with somber
introspection and are chronic pessimists” (45). The Seagull’s reception by American
audiences confirms this statement. Konstantin is, of course, pessimistic. Chekhov is
portraying accurately the stereotype of the morose Russian for comedic purposes. The
ending of Chekhov’s play not only reveals the possible hasty end to Konstantin but
correctly portrays the dark humor that exists in Russian life. This realism is not viewed
as realistic to the outside audience. The shocking moments only confuse the audience.
As Talmadge argues, it is difficult for Westerners to laugh at the shocking or disturbing
scenes. Serious depictions of death, suicide, and depressed individuals are not typically
humorous unless dealt with carefully in a lighter tone. The scenes about death would be
Gomez 24
more effective if humor were involved. Including more scenes with humorous
conversations and situations creates a comfortable atmosphere. The atmosphere created
by Chekhov is too bleak, and it leaves the audience uneasy. Dark comedy becomes a
matter of combining the tragic and comic adequately so as not to treat the audience as an
outsider.
Chekhov introduced numerous elements of dark comedy, including the blend of
tragic and comic and the use of the tragic-hero. He connects well with the audience
through using the four types of comedy, and there are examples of each type, but few can
grasp Russian humor. Chekhov fails to connect with the audience during the tragic parts
of the play. In addition, the characters are more like caricatures. They are
over-dramatic, which keeps the audience distant from the action. A rift is created
between the actor and audience because of the flaws within the characters.
As a counterpoint to Chekhov, Edward Albee uses the same elements of dark
comedy, but is successful in areas that Chekhov is not. Albee connects with the
audience mainly because of the use of interesting and engaging, complex characters.
Albee also uses a better balance of tragic and comic scenes than does Chekhov. And
Albee’s scenes include the audience, rather than excludes them, as happens with
Chekhov.
Albee and the Elements of Dark Comedy
In The Lady from Dubuque, the comic and the tragic are balanced adequately.
Albee utilizes Harvey Pitcher’s four types of comedy and also manages to connect with
the audience by breaking the fourth wall. The audience is not just a spectator, but a
participant. With this innovation, the tragic and comic are felt. Albee’s work is more
Gomez 25
accessible than Chekhov’s because it involves the audience as an integral component.
All of Harvey Pitcher’s four types of comedies are demonstrated in Albee’s play.
While Pitcher was referring specifically to Chekhov’s humor, Albee is capable of using
all four types, capturing serious issues while still keeping the situation light and easy for
the audience to comprehend. The first type, the comedy of situation is seen with
common and familiar setting of a house party. The characters are involved in a
recognizable action. The second form of comedy, the comedy of subversion, is seen in
the complicated relationships between all of the characters. They call one another
friends yet treat each other harshly. The third and fourth types of comedies, the comedy
of surprise and the absurd, are demonstrated through the use of the characters Elizabeth
and Oscar. Their presence disrupts the familiar setting and allows for confusion
amongst the party guests and the audience. And because the audience acts as a
participant and not just a spectator, Albee succeeds in connecting art with life.
The shift from tragic to comic occurs from line to line. The party guests will be
jovial, but then the suffering of Jo enters in the following line. The shift is immediate.
As an example, this situation occurs during the Twenty Questions game:
Sam: Who am I! Come on! Who am I!?
Jo: (Rote) Your name is Sam; and this is your house; they’re drinking
your liquor….
Sam: Awwww, Jo…
Jo: Your name is Sam, and this is your house, and I am your wife, and I
am dying…
Sam: (Private.) Don’t Jo. (To the others.) Come on, gang. Who am I ?
Gomez 26
(10)
From this scene, the tension in Sam’s and Jo’s marriage is clear and so is Sam’s desire to
forget her illness and enjoy himself for a brief period. The audience is able to deal with
the quick changes of tone because of the characters’ connection with each other and the
audience. In Chekhov’s work, the characters are too interested in their own feelings to
be receptive to others. Albee presents Sam and Jo as being a loving couple struggling
with serious issues as a couple. Jo plays the Twenty Questions game to satisfy her
husband, and later they reminisce about a romantic evening they shared (13). They
cooperate with one another, and they even flirt while telling everyone about their
romantic night.
The audience is included as a character from the beginning. Jo addresses the
audience the most in the first act. She includes the audience to express her frustrations.
For example in the first act she reveals to the audience how she feels about the party
games, saying, “Don’t you just hate party games? Don’t you just hate them?” (10).
Later, Sam addresses the audience. It is as if he finally trusts the audience to expose
himself as well. He wins the Twenty Questions game and tells the audience, “Really;
it’s no fair” (13). Sam may be referring to the condition of Jo and the condition of their
relationship. He has gained the confidence of the audience to reveal his own thoughts.
He is first embarrassed by Jo’s candid telling of their romantic encounter. The stage
direction reads: “Sam: (Embarrassed, therefore cold.)” (13). Then Jo assures him that
the audience can be trusted. The text reads, “Jo: It’s all right. (To the audience.)
You don’t mind if I talk about my breasts, do you? Humor the lady a little? (To Sam.)
They don’t mind” (13). Later in the first act, the other characters begin to address the
Gomez 27
audience. Lucinda, who receives verbal abuse from Jo, expresses her own frustrations.
The text reads: “Lucinda: (Generally.) Good night, now; good night. (No one reacts.
To the audience; quite peeved.) No one says good night to me, you may have noticed”
(22). Every example depicts the trust each character has with disclosing certain feelings
or emotions that others will not comprehend or would like hearing.
The breaking of the fourth wall is, as Gerry McCarthy explains, the way that the
audience suffers the experience with the characters. Albee had to include the audience
by breaking the conventions of the theater. Ruby Cohn expresses that Albee created a
theater that was “without tradition but with a rebellious spirit” (McCarthy 2). Albee is
usually argued to be an integral component of the Theater of the Absurd. Albee explains
the absurd as, “Man’s attempt to make sense for himself out of his senseless position in a
world which makes no sense - which makes no sense because the moral, religious,
political, and social structures man has erected to ‘illusion’ himself have collapsed”
(Amacher 32). Martin Esslin argues that the Theater of the Absurd does not attempt to
use reason (24). He also argues that the senselessness of the human condition can not be
explained with rational devices.
This could not be more evident than in Albee’s The Lady from Dubuque and his
use of the characters of Elizabeth and Oscar. Albee uses the two characters as a way of
disrupting the recognizable atmosphere of a party. Albee understands Elizabeth and
Oscar’s presence may be a shock to the audience as seen in the stage direction:
“Elizabeth sees the audience, puts her finger to her lips, lest they start commenting, or
applauding, or whatever” (34). He anticipates that the audience may be alarmed by her
entrance. June Schlueter defines this theatrical convention as “seducing the audience
Gomez 28
onto familiar ground, then activating the tremors” (14). The uncertainty that surrounds
Elizabeth and Oscar in the following acts demonstrates how Albee belongs to the
tradition of the Theater of the Absurd.
Sam demonstrates his own confusion over the roles of Elizabeth and Oscar, and it
causes him to fit the description of the comic-pathetic hero, yet he is easier to relate to
than Konstantin. Sam is the comic-pathetic hero of the dark comedy because he wants
his relationship with Jo to be as it was in the past. He is unable to live in the present and
accept the changes that have occurred to the relationship, including Jo’s illness. After
Sam has lost his consciousness, Elizabeth tells Jo, “He wasn’t happy with the way things
are” (57). Sam also shows great reluctance to Elizabeth and Oscar, while the other
characters do not question their presence. Sam, like Chekhov’s Konstantin, does not
accept change and uses any means necessary to escape from doing so. Sam does not
commit suicide but regresses and becomes child-like. Elizabeth tells him of her dream
about a quiet sunset as Sam sobs; he is described here as, “A shivering little boy” (67).
In various other scenes, Sam is the victim of the guests’ ridicule and even Jo’s. She
continues to mock him and it makes him appear weak. She tells the audience, “Sam’s a
real egalitarian. Sam pretends to like everyone equally” (17-18). In a moving scene
between Jo and Sam, he sobs in her lap. He begins to vent his emotion to anyone who
will listen as the stage direction states, “To the audience/to himself/to anyone” (30).
Sam becomes the pathetic character of the dark comedy, yet the audience can not help but
feel sympathetic since he is struggling to cope with his wife’s illness and death.
The following monologue depicts true emotions and pain:
Each day, each night, each moment, she becomes less and less. My arms go
Gomez 29
around…bone? She…diminishes. She moves away from me in ways I…The
thing we must do about loss is, hold on to the object we’re losing. There’s time
later for…ourselves. Hold on!…but, to what? To bone? To air? To dust?
(30)
Such emotion is not seen in Chekhov’s work because Kostya is difficult to understand.
Sam is able to relate to the audience not only because he often refers to them but also
because his sorrow is more realistic. Kostya’s depression is irrational and his suicide
was problematic because it was a cowardly solution and incomprehensible for rational
minds. Sam’s retreat is more pleasing to an audience because it allows for a recovery.
As the play opens, Sam is in search of his identity. The play opens with a game
of Twenty Questions and Sam asking, “Who am I?” (9). Then Jo teases him and jokes,
“Poor man: he doesn’t know who he is” (10). Sam, like Konstantin, hopes to find an
identity. His relationship to Jo validates his own identity. When Elizabeth asks who he
is, he responds, “I’m Jo’s husband; this is my house” (36). He only knows who he is in
relation to Jo. He has yet to define himself on his own. Yet, he does take possession of
the house, so he recognizes himself in the traditional role as husband and caretaker.
Sam’s relationship with Jo is realistic in that they show affection for one another
even when they appear to be at odds. Sam wants Jo to be pleasant to their guests and Jo
wants to be honest. We are more sympathetic towards her coldness, than towards
Arkadina’s, because we can understand why she longs to be candid with her “friends.”
Jo’s coldness towards Sam is acceptable since the audience is aware that she is near death
and being polite is not required. Sam and Jo understand one another, and this becomes
clear in the scene where Sam and Carol act as if they are arguing (19). They pretend that
Gomez 30
Sam has sexually violated Carol, then they break the charade with laughter. Jo does not
react violently to the matter like Fred. She seems to know that such an act is not like
Sam. They seem to have a close relationship while the others do not.
Sam’s identity is also relying on his meeting with Elizabeth and Oscar. Their
appearance is meant to serve as his awakening. Sam’s identity relies on another person
for successful development. His identity is defined by his relationship to Jo, but he must
develop himself once she is gone. He has the task of developing who he is on new
terms. Identity is the only issue that matters, according to Elizabeth. She tells Sam near
the end of the play about life changing issues and questions and says, “There’s only one
that matters: ‘Who am I’?” (64). Allan Lewis writes that the games in Albee’s plays
have a designated set of rules that if violated can lead to pain (36). His essay was
written before the publication of The Lady from Dubuque, but does apply to the Twenty
Questions game. Sam wants to find an identity, whether he is conscious of it or not, and
as the play progresses his quest becomes painful. The entire play can be considered a
game of Twenty Questions since Sam expresses confusion throughout. Sam attempts to
convince his friends that Elizabeth is not Jo’s mother (52). Then Oscar leaves Sam
unconscious (53). Sam could have accepted their presence and the inevitable death, but
he broke the unwritten rules and must suffer from his decisions. Matthew C. Roudané
explains that the rules were broken during the Twenty Questions game in Act One and
the rules of the real-life questioning of Sam in Act Two will not be fairly played either
(Understanding 171). Chekhov’s work introduces the concept of how death will affect
all the individuals confronted with it but the death of Konstantin marks the death of the
possibility of redemption; here, Albee demonstrates the same concept, but also shows the
Gomez 31
struggle of how the individuals must build an identity after experiencing the death of a
loved one.
The lack of a family structure is clear from the first act of The Lady from
Dubuque yet the characters have the possibility of finding solace. Jo denounces her
mother and continually shows resentment towards her ancestry. She says, “Fuck New
Jersey,” “Fuck Jo’s mother’s sister,” and “Fuck Jo’s mother” (14-15). Gabriel Miller in
his essay, “Albee on Death and Dying,” explains, “Jo has bitterly repudiated her own
mother, thus, in Albee’s terms, denying her origins and her past-major components of the
sense of identity lacking in her generation” (157). Jo needs a mother figure for support
as much as Konstantin does. Jo may resent her mother, but in her final moments she
makes peace. Whether Elizabeth is Jo’s mother or not is irrelevant as Elizabeth is the
“catalyst” for bringing Jo to the point of acceptance (Miller 158). Albee’s work is
representative of the growth of a relationship that can be attained when one is willing and
mature.
Albee also presents the idea that one does not need the traditional family in order
to be at peace. June Schlueter, in “Domestic Realism: Is It Still Possible on the
American Stage?”, explains that the nuclear family is no longer what it used to be and the
audience is let into the home (12). We see the broken family in Chekhov’s work, but he
presents little hope of a successful or positive future. A broken home means a broken
life. However, with Albee’s work, we see the need for Jo to have someone bring her
closer to the acceptance of death. Since Sam could not fulfill her need, others came to
her side. Jo finally embraces her past, accepts what life has dealt her, and accepts her
death. She tells Sam, “Please…just let me die?” (65). Even the party guests seem to
Gomez 32
understand the reason for Elizabeth and Oscar’s presence. Carol tells Sam, “Jo thinks
she’s better. They make her think so” (65). Chekhov depicts the unpromising end that
waits for us, where no one is left with support. Konstantin and his mother use words that
damage, while Albee, who tackles identical issues that are just as bleak, expands the idea
and allows one to think that peace can be acquired through different means.
Where Albee succeeds most is in the comforting nature which Elizabeth provides.
Jo, of the three roles that Scolnicov describes, is the prisoner. She is trapped in her
home to play ridiculous games with people she shows distaste for. She also is trapped in
life. The only way for her to transition into the escapee is through Elizabeth. Elizabeth,
whether or not she is Jo’s biological mother, is still the mother figure. Yet it is not the
traditional role of the homemaker. She is a means by which Jo can leave her painful life.
As Gerry McCarthy argues, her relationship to Jo is not as important as her function
(157). Elizabeth releases Jo from her prison and allows her to be the escapee. Jo, while
weak with illness, is still a stronger woman than those in Chekhov’s work. Roudané
writes, “Albee suggests that, although Jo’s life is physically about to cease, she radiates
more life than do the physically healthy characters” (Understanding 155). She gives in
to the traditional role of homemaker, but she is not a slave to Sam. She becomes
stronger as she comes closer to death. She was a prisoner or slave to her illness, was
imprisoned by it, and was incapable of living like her friends. Once Elizabeth and Oscar
appear, she embraces death and can become free of the illness that kept her constricted.
There is a lack of a strong male character through the first act. Edgar and Fred
are not affectionate or pleasant individuals. Sam seems to be the initial caretaker for Jo,
and somewhat of a father figure. However, he fails to provide the assistance she needs.
Gomez 33
The next available father figure is Oscar. From their initial meeting, Sam has trouble
accepting that Oscar is related to Jo because of his race. Albee’s decision to create a
character that is physically unlike the others presents the idea that Oscar is a stranger.
Oscar and Elizabeth are presented as strangers in the home by never revealing exactly
who they are. Oscar is a stranger to everyone but Jo, as she willingly goes into his arms
(66). He even wears Sam’s clothing so as to show everyone that he the true caretaker
(64). Oscar may be visibly different in his manners as well, but he provides a comfort in
the home that was unattainable from the other men in Jo’s life. The father figure here is
the mediator, Jo’s way to end her suffering.
The lake setting in Chekhov’s The Seagull holds the characters in a stagnant
position, but the party guests are free to continue their lives outside Sam’s home . They
can leave the pain that the household brings whenever they wish. They do return but it
is for unknown reasons. The home brings death, and perhaps they return to confront
death and Jo. Because Jo’s death occurs within a home, and because the fourth wall is
broken, the audience can experience death with the characters. We are invited to a
private space, and we become part of the group, instead of outsiders, as in Chekhov’s
work. Death does not occur behind the walls of a distant place. We are made to realize
that just as death invades Jo and Sam’s home, it can easily invade ours.
It may appear as if Albee does not address class, social, or racial issues because
they are so well hidden behind the comedy and drama. For example, Elizabeth and
Oscar serve as superiors in that they are well-mannered and well-dressed. They are
recognizably different from everyone else, especially from Fred who uses vulgar
language, saying, “I gotta go take a dump!” (56). Elizabeth responds, “Do you say that
Gomez 34
to offend us?” (56). Elizabeth and Oscar’s behavior makes them stand out from the
others.
Of course, Oscar is also recognizably different because of his race. Yet,
the many racist remarks are not offensive to Oscar. Lucinda responds to Fred’s
demands:
Lucinda: “What am I!? Some sort of a colored maid, or something? (To
Oscar) No offense.
Oscar: (To Carol; smooth.) Oh, none taken! (55)
The racist remarks are taken in jest, and because Oscar is not offended, the audience may
be able to respond with laughter without feeling guilty. The serious issues are masked
with comedy and do not need elaboration because they are not the central issue of death.
Oscar’s race has little to do with his function or role in the play. His race causes some
discomfort or uneasiness for the party guests, but the comfort he brings to Jo is what is
important to the plot.
Albee creates a world that disorients the characters of the play and the audience,
and it is a world similar to that of Chekhov’s The Seagull because it creates confusion
between reality and imaginary worlds. The opening of The Lady from Dubuque presents
a comforting and familiar setting. The second half of the play disrupts that comfort.
There is a shift from a world of reality to a world of fantasy. The characters are thrown
into an unsettling situation that is filled with questions. Sam seems to be the only
character who struggles to distinguish reality from fantasy. The other characters can not
see Elizabeth as a threat. They only see her as Jo’s mother. Not only are they in
between worlds of reality and fantasy, but they exist between the living world and
nonliving world. Elizabeth and Oscar serve as reminders to move from the falsehood
Gomez 35
and return to the worlds in which they live, as Lawrence Kingsley explains (72). What
makes Albee’s work more accessible is the possibility of leaving limbo in the final events
of the play. Once Jo is dead and Elizabeth and Oscar are gone, there is the possibility
that Sam is able to successfully find an identity and cope with death. Albee creates
possibilities and hope out of dying as where Chekhov ends possibilities with death.
Sam and his companions are “dead” characters or characters that are not actually
living life. Roudané explains, they live “wasted lives” and continues, “The physically
healthy characters, with the exceptions of Elizabeth and Oscar, conduct themselves as if
they were anesthetized to both their inner and outer worlds” (“On Death” 79). The party
guests are unhappy in their current situations. Fred and Carol are involved in a
relationship that neither of them want to be in. Edgar and Lucinda are in a similar
relationship. No one is living a happy life, and the party guests are in relationships so
that they will not have to face reality on their own. They cannot accept the reality that
Elizabeth presents, that they will one day meet their end. Once they confront death,
however, they will be capable of living. Albee explains, “I think we should always live
with the consciousness of death. How else can we possibly participate in living life
fully?” (“A Playwright” 195). For the remainder of the play, the characters exist
somewhere between life and death. Albee demonstrates that individuals are capable of
leaving the cave. While the party guests remain in the cave, or illusionary world, there is
a possibility that they will eventually exit. No one can predict what will occur after they
leave Sam and Jo’s house.
Near the end of the play, Sam attempts to stop himself from hearing the message
of death in Elizabeth’s dream about the end of the world. Sam says to her, “I don’t want
Gomez 36
to know” (66). The difference between these two scenes is that Elizabeth forces Sam to
hear. She does not stop giving details about her dream. She wants him to cope with
death. Chekhov’s characters never completely deal with the issue of death. They are
merely presented with the idea from Kostya’s first suicide attempt. Rarely is it
mentioned again. Albee wants the message to be heard. And if Sam doesn’t
understand, perhaps the audience will. Gabriel Miller explains that Elizabeth speaks
directly to the audience because most of what she says will be lost on the characters who
share the stage with her (155). Albee’s message is forced onto the audience even when
the characters fail to comprehend the same message.
What separates Chekhov from Albee’s work is the possibility for a positive
ending. Virginia Scott argues that the audience can successfully predict the ending to
The Seagull because of the patterns that repeat, such as the feelings of unrequited love
from Polina and Masha (359). It can be assumed that because Polina will not have a
romantic relationship with Dorn, then Masha will not have a romantic relationship with
Kostya. But the audience expects a happier ending when dealing with comedy, even
dark comedy.
Chekhov and Albee use the same elements, yet the audience is more receptive to
Albee because of the dramatization and of the breaking of the fourth wall. Chekhov
wrote on the same issues as Albee, but it was Albee who made the issues more
accessible. The audience is not left on the outside of the action, not excluded from the
issues at hand. In addition, the audience is able to recognize realistic suffering in
Albee’s work because of the characters’ actions. Sam does not resort to drastic measures
to end his suffering. Albee breaks the convention of the past and introduces ways to
Gomez 37
involve everyone so that art connects with life.
Both works deal with significant issues such as the broken family, the struggle to
deal with our own and others’ differences (such as economic or social differences), and
the importance of accepting death. In Chekhov’s play these issues are clearly depicted.
Arkadina and Kostya’s relationship is complex, but the overall effect is one of
indifference. The outcome of their lives has no effect on our own. Whether a suicide or
an untimely death, the issue of accepting death will remain a difficult subject to address,
as both plays are often criticized for their subject matter. Yet Albee leaves questions
open and allows one to think that peace and acceptance of death are possible.
Even
when the atmosphere is awkward or confusing, as is the case with Elizabeth and Oscar’s
entrance and behavior, the message and emotions are received by Albee’s audience.