1975. Although literary critics have tended to praise the unique in literary characterizations, many authors have employed the stereotyped character successfully. Select one work of acknowledged literary merit and in a well-written essay, show how the conventional or stereotyped character or characters function to achieve the author's purpose.
While bland, the generic can sometimes be used effectively. In Edward Albee’s The American Dream, the stereotyped characters Mommy Daddy, and Grandma are all stock characters, designed to be generic on purpose. Albee uses these stereotypical characters to create ambiguity; this makes the play’s message relatable to as many people as possible.
Albee uses indirect characterization to make the characters flat and stereotypical. The characters call each other “Mommy” “Daddy” and “Grandma”. These are titles, not specific names. They correspond to family roles, which each character portrays generically. Daddy is the stereotypical submissive husband who just wants peace. Mommy is a gold digger who tries to control everything. Grandma is the wise old person no one listens to. While absurd, their formal manner is basically what someone would expect from the typical household in the late 1950s. They seem to have money, but may only be putting on airs. This makes the characters even more stereotypical because they do not even belong to a specific social class.
The author uses his stereotypical characters to broaden the scope of The American Dream’s meaning. Albee’s message is that the American dream is hollow and superficial, but by definition the American dream is open to everyone. Because of this, stereotypical characters must be used to convey that the dream has failed for everyone, not only for the characters. If not, Albee’s purpose would become limited and less powerful, expressing a truth about a subset of society instead of the whole.
I think that this can definately be expanded upon more. You touch the surface of why they are stereotypical characters but they also don't have to be. I think that also you can expand on their specific functions in the work and also what Albee wants them to be. I think also you only scratch the surface of its relatability to the rest of humanity especailly when Albee makes it so easy for you as a reader.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brock, you should have included some more support in this essay. Also, you address the meaning of the play ambiguously. You mention in your thesis that Albee uses ambiguity to create his meaning, however you fail to mention exactly what that meaning is.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with my fellows... I think this is a neat direction to go with the play's characters, and you support your argument with evidence. You might go into the individual purposes within the play though, and address how you see the character's specific actions furthering Albee's meanings.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Murphy