THE CONFLICT BETWEEN REALITY AND ILLUSION IN TENNESSEE WILLIAMS’ THE GLASS MENAGERIE
Keywords:
reality, illusion, conflict, misfits, dysfunctional familyAbstract
Tennessee Williams is considered to be one of the three most renowned American dramatists of the twentieth century as well as one of the most distinguished playwrights in the history of American drama. Being a Southern writer, his plays are undoubtedly dominated by his personal experience and social realities of the modern materialistic world which established new norms and values. His plays are metaphorical illustrations of the clash between the Old and the New South, and most of them depict the traditional themes of Old South versus New South, agricultural versus urban society, and aristocrats versus nouveau riche. The new materialistic and utilitarian age evaluated people based on their resourcefulness, the ability to sell themselves profitably and their financial success, which intensified the feeling of society as threat, anxiety, insecurity and alienation, especially after the World War II. Lacking characteristics necessary for success, Williams’ characters are the castaways of society, trapped by circumstances and unadapted to life in the contemporary world. This accounts for another major theme of his plays – the conflict between reality and the world of illusion into which his characters retreat in a futile attempt to escape from the harsh reality of life. The aim of this paper is to analyze the theme of conflict between reality and illusion in Williams’ masterpiece The Glass Menagerie. Williams depicts characters who, having failed to adjust, attempt to escape cruel reality and suffering by seeking shelter and solace in their illusory worlds. These illusory worlds take a variety of forms. They retreat into romanticized past or into the artificial world of glass figurines, or indulge in art and frivolous pleasures. However, as it appears, the world of illusion can only offer transient comfort and protection, as clashes with implacable reality of the contemporary American society are inevitable.
References
Aldalabeeh, Y. A. N. (2016). Torn between the real and the illusion: Tennessee Williams’ protagonists. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(2), 144-149.
Bhawar, P. (2020). Conflict between reality and illusion in Tennessee Williams’ play The Glass Menagerie. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(6), 2166-2170.
Bigsby, C. W. E. (1997). Entering the glass menagerie. In M. C. Roudané (Ed.), Cambridge companion to Tennessee Williams (pp. 29-44). Cambridge University Press.
Bigsby, C. W. E. (1984). A critical introduction to twentieth-century drama: Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Edward Albee. Cambridge University Press.
Böszörményi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1973). Invisible loyalities: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy. Harper and Row.
Cardullo, B. (2007). The blue rose of St. Louis: Laura, romanticism, and The Glass Menagerie. In H. Bloom (Ed.), Bloom’s modern critical views: Tennessee Williams (pp. 65-75). Infobase Publishing.
Castellitto, G. P. (2010). Connections between modern American drama and contemporary drama: Sociological and metaphysical correlations. The Arthur Miller Journal, 5(2), 21-28.
Chojnacka, B. (2020). The loneliness and isolation of the parentified child in the family. Paedagogia Christiana, 1(45), 83-99.
Corrigan, M. A. (1997). Memory, dream, and myth in the plays of Tennessee Williams. In R. A. Martin (Ed.), Critical essays on Tennessee Williams (pp. 221-233). G. K. Hall & Co.
Da Ponte, D. (1997). Tennessee Williams’s gallery of feminine characters. In R. A. Martin (Ed.), Critical essays on Tennessee Williams (pp. 259-275). G. K. Hall & Co.
Falk, S. L. (1961). Tennessee Williams. Twayne Publishers.
Freud, S. (1962). Civilization and its discontents (J. Strachey, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1930)
Fromm, E. (1947). Man for himself: An inquiry into the psychology of ethics. Rinehart.
Gassner, J. (1997). Tennessee Williams: Dramatist of frustration. In R. A. Martin (Ed.), Critical essays on Tennessee Williams (pp. 234-242). G. K. Hall & Co.
Gellman, E., & Rung, M. C. (2018). The great depression. In J. Butler (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of American history. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.336
Goldenberg, I., & Goldenberg, H. (1985). Family therapy: An overview (2nd ed.). Brooks/Cole.
Kozdon, S. (2005). Memory in Samuel Beckett’s plays: A psychological approach. Lit Verlag.
Krasner, D. (2006). American drama 1945-2000: An introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
Maiti, A. (2018). A kaleidoscope of fluctuating memories: Exploring Tennessee Williams ‘The Glass Menagerie’. International Journal of English Research, 3(5), 1-7.
Single, L. L. (1999). Flying the Jolly Roger: Images of escape and selfhood in Tennessee Williams’s The Glass Menagerie. The Tennessee Williams Annual Review, 2, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.2307/45344359
Subashi, E., & Veliaj, M. O. (2015). Tennessee Williams’s dramatic world. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 1(3), 76-81.
Vukčević, R. (2018). Istorija američke književnosti. Akademska knjiga.
Williams, T. (1959). A streetcar named desire and the glass menagerie (E. M. Browne, Ed.). Penguin Books.
Young, W. H., & Young, N. K. (2007). The great depression in America. Greenwood Publishing Group.
