東洋大学人間科学総合研究所紀要 第７号（2007） 3-10 3 Steinbeck’s Miscalculation in Burning Bright IWASE Tsuneko ＊ Burning Bright, a play in story form, was published about the same time as when the play opened on Broadway on Oct. 18, 1950. In spite of Steinbeck’s ambition and the utmost atten- tion from New York theater professionals, the play was closed very soon, and categorized as a failure in his works. But it seems incomprehensible to me why Steinbeck introduced this so- called poor piece of writing just shortly after his first play, Of Mice and Men, and his second, The Moon is Down were named among the ten best of their respective years. In the light of Steinbeck’s post-mortem examination of his play-novelette, I would like to prove the deep rooted cause of his failure based on his miscalculation which the other critics of the first and the second generation have not covered. Key words : play-novelette, parable expression, morality play, mixing of novelistic and dra- matic, naturalistic and realistic, too much too soon There is much truth in the fact that Steinbeck’s play-novelette of Burning Bright attracted some1, and was serially negated by the others. Focusing on the arguments of detractors among the first generation of Steinbeck critics on Burning Bright in 1950, we find the targets of criticisms of Harrison Smith, and Milton Crane are that the play-novelette is a “puppet” show, and a “soap opera” (348,351) respectively, and Stephen Longstreet even says that “it shows no signs of any talent, it has no form, not one word that sounds real” (352). Generally speak- ing, critics are all united in their belief in the sense that Burning Bright is a miserable failure both as a play and a novelette. Burning Bright was published about the same time as when the play opened on Broadway on Oct. 18, 1950. Though the tryout in New Haven and Boston gave generally favorable reviews in both places, the play ＊A professor in the Faculty of Sociology, and member of the Institute of Human Sciences at Toyo University 4 東洋大学人間科学総合研究所紀要 第７号 was closed on Broadway after only thirteen performances, and categorized as a failure in his works. It is said the flaws lay in the script with its peculiar language, overly symbolic figures and cheap tricks displayed in the play (Cox 47). But it seems incomprehensible to me why Steinbeck introduced this so-called poor piece of writing just shortly after his first play, Of Mice and Men, and his second, The Moon is Down were named among the ten best of their respective years. Moreover, Steinbeck was sanguine of success as saying in his earlier letter written on August 30, 1950: “It’s a good play, strong and simple and basic with no smartness. ” (Life in Letters 408). It is definite that Steinbeck did not have the slightest doubt about his success, and had strong faith in the play. Reflecting on unfavorable criticisms of the play, Steinbeck tried to locate the cause of his failure and found the answer by putting this and that together: On October 21, 1950, Steinbeck wrote to Eugene Solow and sus- pected that the “sterility theme may have had something to do with the violence of the criticism” (412). One month after the play closed, Steinbeck recovered his composure and he could see his play with more perspec- tive. He wrote to the Wagners on Nov. 28, 1950.: It is very easy to blame the critics. They were not at fault. It was not a good play. It was a hell of a good piece of writing but it lacked the curious thing no one has ever defined which makes a play quite different from everything else in the world. I don’t know what that quality is but I know it when I hear it on stage. I guess we have to go back to the cliché “magic of the theatre.” This thing read wonderfully but it just did not play. And furthermore I don’t know what would make it play. (414) Admitting his failure, Steinbeck was still puzzled over what quality his play lacked. When Burning Bright, “play in story form,” was published it was a disaster. As I mentioned above, the first generation of Steinbeck reviewers jumped all over it, provoking him to write his famous reply, “Critics, Critics, Burning Bright.” In November. 1950 Steinbeck speaks of his “attempt at the parable expression of the morality plays” (45), and he remarks that the essential element of the art of a writer lies in “endless expression with his medium” (47) in his reply, by adopting a resilient attitude that turns harsh criticisms around. In the essay Steinbeck himself summed up the reaction of audience and critics to its production and the book saying, “We had favorable notices from two critics, a mixed review from one, and the rest gave the play a series of negatives—from a deci- sive no through a contemptuous no to an hysterical and emotional no, no, no” (46). In the light of Steinbeck’s post-mortem examination of the play by its author, it would be worthwhile examining the “foreword” of Burning Bright if Steinbeck could have fulfilled all the qualifications he had listed for the play-novelette. Thus, I’d like to prove the deep rooted cause of his failure which the other critics of the first and the second generation have not covered. In the foreword Steinbeck wrote for the book, he explained with great enthusiasm his purposes for writing a play-novelette. He introduced the new form as “a play that is easy to read or a short novel that can be played IWASE : Steinbeck’s Miscalculation in Burning Bright 5 simply by lifting out the dialogue” (9), and he continued that he created the form both to provide a play to be widely read and to augment the author’s intention for actor, director and producer, as well as reader. He found the difficulties of technique in the play: the character’s thoughts must be exposed clearly only in the dialogue; the writer must convince the audience of “the actors’ geographical wandering on the stage,” the action must be “close-built,” and something must happen to the characters. In short, the play should be clear and concise with “no waste, no long discussion, no departure from a main theme, and little exposition,” and its action must be “immediate, dynamic,” and dramatic enthusiasm must occur “entirely through the characters themselves” (12). Four years after the book’s failure, he admitted in a private conversation with Peter Lisca in Feb., 1954 say- ing that the play was a failure in writing, that “it was too abstract,” that “it preached too much,” and that “the audience was always a step ahead of it” (258). With much interest let’s look at a plot synopsis of Burning Bright. With the sounds of the merry-go-round in the back ground, Act I opens and we see Joe Saul and Ed Friend, a clown on the stage and Ed asks him the cause of his depression. Both are middle aged, around fifty and they are close friends. Joe was circus born and pledged his grandfather to continue the blood line but he cannot bear a child. Mordeen is his second wife and much younger but there is no sign of pregnancy after their three-year marriage. Ed leaves and Mordeen enters the scene. In a tender love scene with her husband, she asks the same question about his nervousness. Victor, Joe’s young and strong partner, comes to the tent. On the stage Victor quarrels with Joe. After Joe leaves in anger, Victor confesses his love for Mordeen. She accuses Victor of not knowing the secret ingredient, that is, affection, in marriage. Victor forces her a kiss. Just then, Ed returns and orders Victor to leave. She tells Ed that she is fertile and she is determined to do anything to give Joe content- ment. Ed objects to her plan to conceive a child by another man but agrees to stay with Joe that evening. When Victor returns to the scene, Mordeen apologizes to him and accepts his invitation to date him. Act II opens in a farm kitchen where Joe, a farmer talks with his neighbor, Ed, with the radio music of a circus band in the back ground. Mordeen enters and announces her pregnancy. Joe overjoys at the news and cries. Victor comes in and hears the news. Joe and Ed leave for party supplies to celebrate the occasion. Victor who feels trapped and exploited presses hard upon Mordeen about the child. Though she pities him, she advises him to go away. While Victor is wooing, the season changes from June to December and Joe and Ed return to the scene with a big Christmas tree. Joe is still in jolly spirits and announces that he had decided to give his child a present, a “gift of clean blood.” Act III, Scene I is titled “The Sea.” In the tiny cabin of an old freighter we see a little Christmas tree on the mantle. Victor, in a blue mate’s uniform talks with Mordeen. The time is close for her to deliver a child. He pleads with her to leave with him. When she refuses, he threatens to tell Joe everything, and he forces her to choose the alternative. She goes for a knife hanging on the cabin wall, and conceals it in her coat. Ed who over- hears the dialogues takes Victor on deck.