Transformations of Henrik Ibsen’s Life-Lie in Eugene O’Neill’s Strange Interlude and Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and the Didactic Approach to the Topic Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie an der Philologisch-Kulturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck Institut für Amerikastudien Eingereicht bei: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Gudrun M. Grabher Eingereicht von: Lisa Sophia Trixl Innsbruck, April, 2018 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 2. Theoretical Approach to Lying and Life-Lies ............................................. 7 2.1. Lying and Lies throughout History ......................................................................... 8 2.2. Henrik Ibsen and the Life-Lie ............................................................................... 17 2.3. Lying versus Life-Lies .......................................................................................... 29 3. Eugene O’Neill’s Strange Interlude and the Life-Lie .............................. 32 3.1. Eugene O‘Neil: Life and Legacy of the First Great American Dramatist ............ 33 3.2. Life-Lies in Strange Interlude .............................................................................. 38 3.2.1. Extrinsic Life-Lies in Strange Interlude ........................................................ 38 3.2.2. Intrinsic Life-Lies in Strange Interlude ......................................................... 46 3.2.3. Résumé: Life-Lies in Strange Interlude ......................................................... 53 4. Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and the Life-Lie ..... 57 4.1. Edward Albee: Life and Legacy of one of the Greatest American Dramatists of the Twentieth Century ................................................................................................. 57 4.2. Life-Lies in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ...................................................... 62 4.2.1. Intrinsic Life-Lies in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ................................. 62 4.2.2. Mutually Constructed Extrinsic Life-Lies in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?....................................................................................................................... 72 4.2.3. Résumé: Life-Lies in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ................................ 73 5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 75 6. A Didactic Approach to the Topic of Lying and Life-Lies in American Drama ...................................................................................................... 79 6.1. The Teaching Unit on Lying and Life-Lies and the Austrian Curriculum ........... 81 6.2. Lesson Plans ......................................................................................................... 83 6.2.1. Lesson 1: A Philosophical Introduction to the Topic of Lying ...................... 83 2 6.2.2. Lesson 2: Getting to Know American Drama ................................................ 86 6.2.3. Lesson 3: Strange Interlude‘s Third Act and the Life-Lie ............................. 88 6.2.4. Lesson 4: Moral Evaluation of Nina‘s Life-Lie in Strange Interlude and an Introduction to Albee‘s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ....................................... 90 6.2.5. Lesson 5: Martha and George‘s Life-Lie in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? ...................................................................................................................... 93 6.2.6. Lesson 6: Nina‘s Extrinsic versus Martha and George‘s Intrinsic Life-Lie .. 94 7. Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 96 8. Appendix ............................................................................................................... 101 3 1. Introduction Throughout history, people have always dedicated themselves to discussing the question whether lying and the deception of another person is morally acceptable or not. From approaches of Ancient Greek philosophy to medieval religious debates up until more recent discussions on the topic, the role of the lie has always been of interest. This interest has not ceased to exist through the centuries due to the fact that lies have always been part of everyday life. A moral evaluation of the telling of lies already starts in childhood when parents frequently try to convey to their children that lying is unacceptable. It is estimated, however, that the majority of people lies once or twice a day, which means that lying can be said to be a daily habit comparable to brushing one‘s teeth (Indvik and Johnson 323). In a conversation that lasts ten or more minutes, it is estimated that on average around a fifth of what is said can be considered untrue, which in the course of a week sums up and leads to the conclusion that 30 percent of one‘s interlocutors are being lied to (Indvik and Johnson 323). Despite the fact that the telling of lies is part of most people‘s everyday lives, people‘s reactions are usually negative toward them (Turri and Turri 161). As studies have shown, in general lying for one‘s own benefits is considered more acceptable in the professional than the private life (Cantarero et al. 229). However, differences exist between various cultures since in some countries, such as Mexico or Poland, the deception of a superior is generally considered as unacceptable as lying to a person of one‘s private sphere (Cantarero et al. 229). It can be argued, though, that to tell a lie to a relative or friend is in most societies more negatively connoted than deceiving someone at one‘s workplace if the aim is to create a benefit for oneself (Cantarero et al. 229). It is without doubt that lying, which is the conscious telling of something one believes is untrue with the purpose to deceive (Turri and Turri 161), and the discovery of a lie cause mistrust among the persons 4 involved (Cantarero et al. 231). In in the course of deceiving, suspiciousness additionally grows within the liar himself and, as George Bernhard Shaw says, ―The liar‘s punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else‖ (qtd. in Indvik and Johnson 325). It may be ―tempting‖ (Indvik and Johnson 326) to think that if society does away with all sorts of lies, a conflict-free, genuine communal life is guaranteed (Indvik and Johnson 326). However, if one is confronted day by day with nothing else but the plain truth and ruthless honesty, social interactions may not be able to connect people the same way as they do when now and then the truth undergoes slight adjustments (Indvik and Johnson 326). Lies and deception will most likely continue to be connoted negatively by society despite the fact that not every alteration of the truth can be considered immoral and unethical per se. Lies and deception are, hence, ubiquitous and belong to the human life and nature as well as the dilemma of how to morally evaluate the liar‘s actions. Due to this, it is not surprising that also in literature writers‘ attention has been drawn toward this topic. In various plays by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, a representative of nineteenth-century realism, the role of lying and deceiving is discussed. In his play The Wild Duck, which was published in 1884, the characters are confronted with lies and the consequences they entail, which are addressed and examined by Ibsen in addition to the topic of lying. His characters are, moreover, faced with the general question of ―how much truth […] a person [can] take‖ (Davis 165) and, in the course of the play, Ibsen portrays how they deal with this truth after the lie has been revealed to them. In The Wild Duck, the playwright confronts his characters with a certain form of lie which is called the ―saving lie‖ (WD 243), mostly referred to as the life-lie. In contrast to other forms of lies, a life-lie is a carefully constructed lie which has been kept alive and maintained over a longer time span and, thus, influences the respective person‘s life considerably. Doctor Relling, a minor character of The Wild Duck, emphasizes how 5 important it is to keep the life-lie alive and states, ―Take the saving lie from the average man and you take his happiness away, too‖ (WD 244). A person‘s happiness or even the ability to endure life itself depends, hence, on the life-lie (Sternberg 256), which functions, as pointed out by Relling, as ―the stimulating principle of life‖ (WD 243). In Ibsen‘s The Wild Duck, the life-lies of various characters are destroyed, which forces them to confront themselves with reality. The destruction of the respective life-lie and the implications for the characters‘ happiness is the central theme of The Wild Duck. In the course of his play, Ibsen illustrates how the characters live with their life-lies, shows in which ways they are confronted with them and eventually portrays the consequences that this confrontation with the life-lies entails. With his plays, such as The Wild Duck, Henrik Ibsen considerably influenced not only European drama but also the American theater. By introducing the topic of the life-lie and its implications for happiness to drama, he drew other playwrights‘ interests toward this topic. American dramatist Eugene O‘Neill, who was at the beginning of the twentieth century the first American