1 Comic Technique and Characterization in Eugene O

1 Comic Technique and Characterization in Eugene O’Neill’s Ah, Wilderness! Takuji Nose Abstract Among Eugene O’Neill’s dramatic works, there is no other play like Ah, Wilderness! which can be regarded as a domestic comedy receiving a very favorable reception. With respect to this tragedian’s sole comedy, a number of arguments have been put forward among O’Neill scholars. However, little attention has been paid to stylistic analysis on the relation between dialogue and comic effects in the play. Thus, this paper aims to consider Richard’s (the protagonist) personalities and laughable speeches by Sid contributing to the formation of comic effects in the play. Through the stylistic analysis using the linguistic information obtained from the corpus data of the play, this paper deliberates over a pensive but less profound mood in Richard’s speeches functioning as a significant factor in the avoidance of the formation of a tragic atmosphere in the play. Moreover, this paper attempts to shed light on the important factors in Sid’s speeches that are effective in increasing the comic element in the dialogue. 2 2 3 Comic Technique and Characterization in Eugene O’Neill’s Ah, Wilderness!* Takuji Nose Introduction Ah, Wilderness! can be regarded as a unique exception among Eugene O’Neill’s dramatic works, in that this well-known tragedian created a domestic comedy. Moreover, this comedy received a very favorable reception and enjoyed a run of 289 performances at the Guild Theatre in 1933. Although he created various dramas with different kinds of theatrical experiments, the playwright himself called Ah, Wilderness! a “comedy of recollection” (Floyd 1985: p. 421), and “a nostalgia for a youth I never had” (Bogard 1972: p. 358). Taking these comments by the author into consideration, it is reasonable to count Ah, Wilderness! as “a comedy of family life” (Woodbridge 1938 [rpt., 1961: p. 318]). With respect to comedy, before Ah, Wilderness!, O’Neill wrote another comedy in 1922, The Hairy Ape: A Comedy of Ancient and Modern Life. As is shown in the subtitle, the playwright intended to project comic elements on the stage of The Hairy Ape. However, as Skinner (1964: p. 111) mentions The Hairy Ape as “the tragedy of being born a man,” there has been a general agreement among O’Neill scholars that The Hairy Ape cannot be recognized as a comedy but a tragedy of a man who loses a place to which he can belong. In this sense, Ah, Wilderness! is considered to be the tragedian’s sole comedy in a literal sense, and a distinguished play among his tragedies. Thus, it is understandable that a number of arguments about the comedy have been put forward among O’Neill scholars. In terms of the realistic aspects in Ah, Wilderness!, Floyd (1985: p. 426) argues that it is O’Neill’s nonexpressionistic play showing “a simple story in a realistic, straightforward manner,” and Tiusanen (1968: p. 246) thinks the play not only a realistic but a family play.(1) Some scholars (e.g., Tiusanen 1968; Bogard 1972; 4 Takuji Nose Chothia 1979) deal with the parallels between Ah, Wilderness! and other O’Neill dramas. Others (e.g., Chothia 1979; Manheim 1982; Floyd 1985) are concerned with autobiographical aspects in the play. Still others (e.g., Floyd 1985 and Eisen 1994) discuss the subject of family relationships. Eisen (1995: p. 125) points out that family relations and the significance of home were quite important matters throughout O’Neill’s career, and the playwright explicitly explores family relations in Ah, Wilderness!. Floyd (1985: p. 422) proposes that the Miller family in Ah, Wilderness! represents an ideal family relation whereas the Tyron family in Long Day’s Journey into Night shows the reality. As to laughter in comedy, Nicoll (1923: pp. 160-70) suggests five categories: Laughter arising (1) from Physical Attributes; (2) from Character; (3) from Situation; (4) from Manners; (5) from Words. Nicoll (1923: p. 162) thinks, “in character we may find one of the richest and highest media for the arousing of laughter.” With regard to “Words,” Nicoll (1923: p. 168) mentions, “there is the laughable that arises from the dialogue,” and “this comic spirit derived from the words in a play shares in point of importance equal to that held by character and by situation.” With respect to dialogical speeches exchanged among characters in Ah, Wilderness!, Tiusanen (1968: p. 242 and p. 244) argues “fluctuations in the dialogue are now used to achieve comic effects” by taking examples from a comic character, and points out “a tragedian uses his means of expression to achieve comic effects.” In this respect, Tiusanen offers an important suggestion concerning the relation between dialogue and comic effects, but it cannot be said that this subject has been fully researched because there has been little stylistic analysis on the dialogical speeches contributing to the formation of comic effects in the play. Thus, it is worthwhile considering how the development of the dialogical speeches and the projection of the characters’ personalities on the stage contribute to the formation of comic effects in Ah, Wilderness! by means of a stylistic analysis using the linguistic information obtained from the corpus data of the play.(2) In order to explore these issues, I will present a brief overview concerning the main 4 Comic Technique and Characterization in Eugene O’Neill’s Ah, Wilderness! 5 Chothia 1979) deal with the parallels between Ah, Wilderness! and other O’Neill characters’ personalities in Section 1; in Section 2, using lexical information, I will deal dramas. Others (e.g., Chothia 1979; Manheim 1982; Floyd 1985) are concerned with with key features of the speeches uttered by Richard Miller, the protagonist of the play; autobiographical aspects in the play. Still others (e.g., Floyd 1985 and Eisen 1994) in Section 3, I will conduct a stylistic analysis to investigate speeches by Sid who utters discuss the subject of family relationships. Eisen (1995: p. 125) points out that family laughable words that contribute to bringing a comic effect to the dialogue. relations and the significance of home were quite important matters throughout O’Neill’s career, and the playwright explicitly explores family relations in Ah, 1. Overview of the Main Characters’ Personalities in Ah, Wilderness! Wilderness!. Floyd (1985: p. 422) proposes that the Miller family in Ah, Wilderness! There are fifteen characters appearing on the stage of Ah, Wilderness!, but the represents an ideal family relation whereas the Tyron family in Long Day’s Journey play weaves its story through the following five characters: Richard Miller; Nat and into Night shows the reality. Essie Miller, Richard’s parents; Sid Davis, Essie’s younger brother; Lily Miller, Nat’s As to laughter in comedy, Nicoll (1923: pp. 160-70) suggests five categories: younger sister. With respect to Richard, some scholars (e.g., Bogard 1972 and Chotia Laughter arising (1) from Physical Attributes; (2) from Character; (3) from Situation; 1979) think he belongs as a “poet-rebel” protagonist, one of the typical types of (4) from Manners; (5) from Words. Nicoll (1923: p. 162) thinks, “in character we O’Neill’s protagonists. In the stage directions, Richard is described as “there is may find one of the richest and highest media for the arousing of laughter.” With something extremely sensitiveness added—a restless, apprehensive, defiant, shy, regard to “Words,” Nicoll (1923: p. 168) mentions, “there is the laughable that arises dreamy self-conscious intelligence about him”(Wilderness, p. 12),(3) and as Bogard from the dialogue,” and “this comic spirit derived from the words in a play shares in (1972: p. 359) mentions, this description in Richard’s stage directions is similar to that point of importance equal to that held by character and by situation.” With respect to of Dion Anthony in The Great God Brown, a famous poet-rebel protagonist in O’Neill dialogical speeches exchanged among characters in Ah, Wilderness!, Tiusanen (1968: p. dramas.(4) 242 and p. 244) argues “fluctuations in the dialogue are now used to achieve comic Nat Miller, Richard’s father, is a strict but understanding father, running a local effects” by taking examples from a comic character, and points out “a tragedian uses newspaper company. As Floyd (1985: p. 424) suggests, he is a wise and his means of expression to achieve comic effects.” In this respect, Tiusanen offers an warm-hearted husband and a father. Essie Miller, Richard’s mother, shows an important suggestion concerning the relation between dialogue and comic effects, but it idealized mother figure, even though she is an aggressive mother, scolding her children. cannot be said that this subject has been fully researched because there has been little Essie represents “what a mother should be” in all respects (Bogards 1972: p. 360). stylistic analysis on the dialogical speeches contributing to the formation of comic Nat and Essie seem to reflect an ideal model of parents that O’Neill never had in his effects in the play. Thus, it is worthwhile considering how the development of the own life. dialogical speeches and the projection of the characters’ personalities on the stage Sid Davis and Lily Miller live with the Miller family. Sid was once engaged to contribute to the formation of comic effects in Ah, Wilderness! by means of a stylistic Lily, but his alcoholism and associating with bad women made Lily break their analysis using the linguistic information obtained from the corpus data of the play.(2) engagement. Consequently, they are in a love-hate relationship, but at the same time, In order to explore these issues, I will present a brief overview concerning the main in an inter-dependent one.

Load more