The Absent Other

8/13/2019 The Absent Other

1/168

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript ha s been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films

the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thes is an ddissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may b e from any type of

computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

co py s ub m itted . Broken or indistinct print, colored or poo r quality illustrations

and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing

from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white

photographic prints a re available for any photographs or illustrations appearing

in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


2/168produced with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


3/168

THE ABSENT OTHER:

Absent/Present Characters as Catalysts for Action

in Modem Drama

by

Daniel W. Kulmala

B.A., University df Akron, 1988

B.A.. University of Akron, 1989

M.A.. University of Akron, 1992

Submitted to the Department of

English and the Faculty of

the Graduate School of the University

of Kansas in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

. Befgeron

Co-Ctrair. Paul Stephen Lim

i_y 4- ^ -Richard Hardin

Bernard Hirsch

heodore Johnsoni

Date Submitted: 3 PE>

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MAY 2


4/168

UMI Number 9985117

Copyright 2000 by

Kulmala, Daniel Wayne

All rights reserved.

UMI*UMI Microform9985117

Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.


5/168

Copyright 2000

-Daniel W. Kulmala

produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


6/168

Abstract

Knowledge o f our ow n absences often escapes us. How we influence others

even when we are not in their presence will remain unknown unless we become

conscious o f our influence. This reflection on absences provides worthwhile

interpretive possibilities for the study of drama. What do we make o f the absent

characters who nonetheless wield tremendous influence on the action and contribute to

the conflict of a play? What would Waiting fo r Godot be without Vladimirs and

Estragons waiting for Godot? What might happen to a play if all references to the

absentyet present characters were omitted? If Martin from That Championship

Season, Marthas father from Who's Afraid o f Virginia Woolf?and Mitch and Murray

from Glengarry Glen Rosswere removed, then what kind o f play do we have? I suggest

that a play loses the crux of its conflict and the catalysts for action if one eliminates

these absent characters. In fact, providing an active presence even in their absence,

these absent characters function as the absent Otherthey act as a form of reflective

consciousness w hich helps the audience to understand the motives and identities of the

characters who are physically present in the play. In other words, the concept of the

absent Other applies to those characters who do not appear on stage but serve as a mirror

by which we judge, identify, and/or understand the characters who appear before the

audience. And given that my own play,April in Akron,uses living absent characters,

I will focus my primary attention on living absent Others who occupy an absent

iii



7/168

presence in four American plays: David Mamets Glengarry Glen Rossand Oleanna,

Jason Millers That Championship Season and Edward Albees Who's Afraid o f

Virginia Woolf?.

iv

produced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.


8/168

To Anne Turner

my temple of sun, my pathfinder:

my deserts bloom in her grace

To Paul Stephen Lim

who taught me the action of words

and the drama o f graceful discordance

To David Bergeron

who taught me the hospitality of ideas

and the grace o f words o f stone

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited withou t permission.


9/168

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

Because much of this dissertation involves creative, dramatic work, I wrote most

of it during stolen moments from the general activities o f teaching and literary critical

research. Therefore, I am doubly grateful and thankful for the time others spent reading

my work and viewingApril in Akron's production. Paul Stephen Lim made this play

possible by encouraging m y writing of something I believed in; that we remain friends

even after he suggested that I eliminate fifty pages of the first draft and start over while

building on the remaining fifty pages is a tes tament to his exceptional qualities as a

teacher, mentor, and confidant. His provocative and inventive production and direction

of April in Akron remain forever fertile lessons in my career as a writer of plays.

Although I have felt like one who has crept into the house of drama, my intrusion has

been met by the open arms o f Paul Lim.

I cannot thank enough the encouragement and devotion of David Bergeron.

Whenever I have needed a lift to investigate a new window of opportunity and learning,

his concern, his nurturing, his fatherly guidance have always provided a sturdy ladder.

His love o f words and ideas imprint every step I take. And to the coach of my creative

steps. I thank with heart-felt fondness Bud Hirsch. I have been imbued by the

testosterone of his encouragement; every play I write bears his love for words and

drama. And depending on the height the ladder scales, every climber needs someone

to hold it still, to secure the foundation. To those who have kept the ladder on its mark

vi



10/168

I thank Richard Hardin, Ted Johnson, Jim Carothers, Amy Devitt, and Jim Hartman;

their continued interest in my work keeps the imaginative fires burning, keeps the eyes

ever-aware of new possibilities.

My vision, my essence would not be complete without my love, Anne Turner.

Her passion for life and living is as powerful as moonshine on a dry desert night outside

Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Through Anne I am discovered. No one could

temper my fantasies into reality the way Anne does; for she takes hold of my far-flung

thoughts and embraces the magic I endeavor to produce. I am always amazed at the way

she bears" my late-night Sami steps into abstraction and guides me toward fruition; I

have known no comfort like her generous, enfolding arms.

vii



11/168

T a b l e o f C o n te n ts

Abstract ............................................................................................................. iii

Dedication..............................................................................................................

v

Acknowledgments............................................................................................ vi

1. The Absent Other in Modem D ra m a .................................................................... 1

2. Increasing Cloudiness: Reflections on the Writing o fApril in A kro n 38

3. April in Akron ......................................................................................................56



12/168

The Abrent Other in Modern Drama

At me too someone is looking

Waiting fo r Godot

Knowledge o f our own absences often escapes us. How we influence others

even when we are not in their presence will remain unknown unless we become

conscious of our influence. This reflection on absences provides worthwhile

interpretive possibilities for the study of drama. What do we make of the absent

characters who nonetheless wield tremendous influence on the action and contribute to

the conflict of a play? What would Waiting fo r Godot be without Vladimirs and

Estragons waiting for Godot? What might happen to a play if all references to the

absentyet presentcharacters were omitted? If Martin from That Championship

Season,Marthas father from Who's Afraid o f Virginia Woolf?and Mitch and Murray

from Glengarry Glen Rosswere removed, then what kind of play do we have? I suggest

that a play loses the crux of its conflict and the catalysts for action if one eliminates

these absent characters. In fact, providing an active presence even in their absence,

these absent characters function as the absent Otherthey act as a form of reflective

consciousness which helps the audience to understand the motives and identities of the

characters who are physically present in the play. In other words, the concept of the

absent Other applies to those characters who do not appear on stage but serve as a mirror

by which we judge, identify, and/or understand the characters who appear before the

audience. And given that my own play,April in Akron,uses living absent characters,

1



13/168

I will focus my primary attention on living absent Others who occupy an absent

presence in four American plays: David Mamets Glengarry Glen Rossand Oleanna,

Jason Millers That Championship Season and Edward Albees Who 's Afraid o f

Virginia Woolf?.

Back in 5 Minutes

Office Note

Before I begin my essay proper, I want to relate an experience that underscores

my perspective and understanding o f the concept I have identified as the absent Other.

About three years ago I came upon the idea of the absent Other after a discussion with

a 101 English Composition student. Ill call the student Chet. During our conference

in my office, I noticed that Chet kept looking at the book shelf behind me. Thinking

that he was more intrigued by the titles and types of books on my shelf than in my

continued blah-blah-blah about the significance of a strong thesis and the importance

of eliminating comma splices, I asked him, Whats up?meaning, of course, what

was he reading? Im just reading, Chet replied quite casually. The books? I asked.

Books?! Chet indignantly answered, being startled that I might accuse him of having

an interest in books. No, I m reading your notes.

I looked behind me, and sure enough a wreath o f notes was taped on the book

she lf behind me. If one were to sit where Chet sat, one would see my head encircled by

a rainbow of sticky notes. Chet liked the colors. But what proved intriguing and useful

to me were the messages on those notes: Back in 5 Minutes, Return in ten minutes,



14/168

No Office Hours Today. See Me after Class, and A t Lunch. Back in an hour. I had

saved those notes and various other ones so that I m ight save myself from rewriting a

new note. But the messages on them clearly informed others of my absence. I couldnt

help but to comment on the rather humorous and paradoxical nature of the notes which

signified my absence versus my physical presence in the office. Chet found little to

laugh about.

Those notes made me think about my own absences. What do students think

when they come to my office, expect to meet with me to discuss their work or progress

in class, and only encounter a note telling them of my absence? Perhaps they experience

a series of responses: angerthey need to talk to me; frustrationthis has happened

again; reliefthey really did not want to talk to me about their poor grade; or

puzzlementIts his office, isnt it? The possib ilities are limitless. But in each case,

my absence prompts the beginning o f something new for them. Sartre refers to absence

as a certain type of reality called a negatite;other negatilesinclude change, otherness,

and distance.1 These concepts involve being and non-being in a state of affairs or

relations. But for them to exist, negation is necessary. For example, if someone comes

into a room and sees my book bag and books at a table, and I am not there, then my

absence refers to both my existent and non-existent state o f affairs.

When another person anticipates our presence and we are not in that locale, we

can only imagine the possible array of emotions and thoughts that the other person



15/168

4

experiencesunless, o f course, we have knowledge o f our absence; then our

consciousness of our absenceour need to be some place other than our present

locationanticipates the response by the other person. In this case, as I reflect upon the

other persons response to my being late or absent I might wonder, What must he be

thinking of me? The language I use underscores the move in subject/ to

objectme; I anticipate the others objectification of me. This experience illustrates the

absent Othera conscious awareness o f oneself in relation to some other person who

influences and affects our behavior despite the separation o f space and/or time.

Hell is other people

No Exit

Any discussion o f the idea of the Other needs to address the primary initiator of

this concept, Jean-Paul Sartre. For Sartre two fundamental truths explain our

existential situation: we are condemned to freedom, and life has no meaning other

than the fictions we construct about it.2 Therefore, since our interpretations o f the world

and our knowledge of the world around us depend upon our individual perspectives, we

only come really to know things through our interaction with our immediate

environment. And for Sartre physicality is an essential component for cognition.

According to Sartre, we exist through the body, the body-subject. Thus, Sartre is very

phenomenological in his be lief that an individual is his body in a way that he is not

anything else; and what one experiences one experiences through the body. The body

is its own metaphysical and ontological frame of reference. Freedom as an individual,



16/168

then, can only be maintained by repelling others. If I allow another to invade my body,

take it over, I have subjected my freedom to another; my freedom has become anothers

freedom. If, on the other hand, I subject another body to my own, then I have robbed

another of freedom.

The Other for Sartre occurs when one has consciousness of the sel f as an object.

The self I become aware of through my experience of the others gaze is a self that

escapes me and exists for the other. This se lf is the objectified self, the ego. I can

recognize and acknowledge this se lf as myself. In fact, Sartre claims the shame I

experience when captured by the regard of the Other is a confession that I am this self.

For Sartre, one experiences the Other when one becomes self-conscious of oneself:

The shock of the encounter with the Other is for me a revelation in emptiness o f

the existence of my body outside as an in-itse lf for the Other. Thus my body is

not given merely as that which is purely and simply lived; rather this lived

experience becomesin and through the contingent, absolute fact of the

Others existenceextended outside in a dimension o f flight which escapes me.3

This self-consciousness for Sartre depends upon the active, physical presence of the

Other. According to Sartre, the feeling of shame is an awareness of oneself as seen by

another; shame is one way we experience consciousness.

Sartres No Exit dramatizes the experience o f the Other. Garcin, Inez, and

Estelle make countless attempts to manipulate each other with the intention of gaining



17/168

6

an upper hand. Forced to spend eternity in one room together, their hell will be to

torment each other. At one point Garcin offers a solution to their torturous fate:

. .. the solutions easy enough; each of us stays put in his or her comer and takes

no notice of the others. You here, you here, and I there. Like soldiers at our

posts. Also, we mustnt speak. Not one word. That wont be difficult; each o f

us has plenty of material for self-communings.4

Although this self-imposed retreat into isolation from the others seems to be a solution

to their hell, they are unable to escape each others presence and the self-consciousness

ofeach other. Garcins solution, in fact, underscores Sartres concept ofbad faith, living

a lie that one is conscious of. His solution could actually make the situation worse;

for how does one forget a person when one consciously tries to forget that person?

Their continued torment o f each other leads Garcin to the famous dictum, Hell

isother people!5 Hell is the state of affairs where one imposes ones will upon

another.

In short, theres someone absent here, the official torturer

No Exit

My readings of plays with Other-glasses has led me to consider characters who

do not appear on stage; yet their presence remains in the script, behind the conflict, in

the characters memories, and behind characters motives for action. For Sartres

concept of the Other requires the physical presence of another person. Without that

other person, we remain in a pre-reflective state of consciousnessa consciousness



18/168

7

that is directed toward something other than itself . . . and so its awareness of itself is

only non-positional.6 In other words, a person might be self-conscious of something;

but he is not really self-conscious o f the Other in relation to himself unless the other

person is present. Like Nietzsche and Camus, Sartre believed that the only meanings

that exist are those that human beings create. Life itself has no meaning other than the

fictions we construct about it. Therefore, an authentic, positional experience with the

Other requires a physical presence.

Despite my understanding o f Sartres need for the physical presence o f the other

persons gaze to make the experience of the Other complete, I could not reconcile his

definition with my own observations o f the absent characters who inhabit many scripts.

Perhaps unlike real life, absent characters direct and influence the present characters

precisely because playw rights have a conscious purpose for those characters. And what

I find after repeated investigation is that the absent characters act as mirrors by which

other characters identities are reflected and by which the audience comes to know the

truth about the controversy brewing beneath the conflict of the play. Therefore, I argue

that the absent characters referred to, fixated upon, and tormented about on the stage do

provide a physical presence in the conflicts and actions in their respective plays.

The study of absent characters in Shakespearean drama has proven to offer

scholarship several avenues for exploration. David Bergeron argues, for example, that

The Winters Taleturns on the performative absence yet presence o f Apollo.7 Finding



19/168

8

that Shakespeare goes to great lengths to connect characters and action to Apollo,

Bergeron suggests that we clearly see on Shakespeares part an authorial choice to

include Apollo in this play, unlike his principal source for the play. Bergerons analysis

of Apollo's purpose in The Winter's Tale provides a solid study of what could be

defined as the absent Other. From Leontess name deriving from Apollo to the

representation o f Time to the restoration of Hermione at the plays end, we see how the

many associations connected to Apollo, the time-keeper and representative of the

apothecaries, weave their way through the text. In this respect, it is easy to imagine why

the University of Missouri, Kansas City would include Apollo in its production of The

Winter's Tale}The text permits Apollos presence even i f the cast member list does not

include him.

Three other Shakespearean scholars. Coppelia Kahn. Stephen Orgel, and Avi

Erlich, have also explored the realm of absent characters. All three of these scholars use

Freudian, psychoanalytic interpretations of King Lear, The Tempest, and Hamlet,

respectively. While focusing on the absent mother in King Lear, Kahn notes that

Shakespeare diverges from his immediate dramatic sourceKing Leirwhich begins with

a lament for the death o f the queen. So she looks for ways that the queen exists in the

play. For example, Kahn argues that Shakespeares audience would have recognized

Lears wailing as feminine, especially when he characterizes his sorrow as hysterical:

0! how this mother swells upward toward my heart!/Hysterica passiol down, thou



20/168

climbing sorrow! (2.4.56-57).9 Lear, then, sublimates the mother, trying to keep the

inner woman down inside. And since these traits are feminine, Kahn explains why Lear

wants to keep them in their place. Kahn writes:

Women and the needs and traits associated with them are supposed to stay in

their element, as Lear says, belowdenigrated, silenced, denied. In this

patriarchal world, masculine identity depends on repressing the vulnerability,

dependency, and capacity for feeling which are called feminine. 10

Kahn sees this masculine, patriarchal need for control as a crucial aspect o fKing Lear,

for not only must men control the volatile female element of hysteria, but they must

also control women.11

Avi Erlichs Hamlet's Absent Fatherperforms a psychoanalytic overload of

interpretation ofHamlet, with an embarrassingly rigorous attention to a therapeutic

analysis of Hamlets psychological milieu. Through Erlichs interpretation, not only do

we find that father figures fill Ham let, but the play contains an ambiguously strong-

weak father (King Hamlet) who contributes to Hamlets unstable superego and his

wanting a strong father.12 Stephen Orgel suggests that the absence of Prosperos wife

constitutes a space that is filled by Prosperos creation of surrogates and a ghostly

familythe witch Sycorax, Caliban, the good child/wife Miranda, Ariel, Ferdinand,

and the spirits o f the island.13

All four o f the studies above demonstrate the interpretive possibilities for absent



21/168

10

characters. But only David Bergeron perform s the type of interpretation that I would

endorse as a viable direction for the study of absent characters. In the three

psychoanalytic interpretations, the scholars base their perspectives on the expecta tion

that the families in these plays need to be complete families. Therefore, if no one makes

mention of a mother or if there is a vague reference to a mother, there had to be a

mother, and her absence is present in other forms, such as Lears hysteria. Bergeron s

study, however, focuses on the text and the way Shakespeare uses Apollo as a device

in the playas an allegorical representation o f Time, as a connection to shepherds when

Florizel justifies his disguise, and as a provider o f aid for the restoration of Hermione.

However, if I were to follow Kahns, Orgels, and Erlichs lead, then I might make

something o f Marthas mother in Who s Afraid o f Virginia Woolf? For in that play,

Martha only mentions her mother once in regard to her dying when Martha was young.

I could provide a discussion about Marthas imaginary mothering o f a nonexistent child

and how she wants to reclaim or identify with her own mother whom she never knew.

But I do not want to create an interpretation based on an abstraction that exists (or does

not exist) outside o f the play. The absent characters I focus on contribute to the plot,

action and conflict o f the play.

Some imaginary characters, however, can function as the absent Other. In No

Exit, Sartre does not list among the cast one character whom Garcin, Inez, and Estelle

repeatedly anticipate seeing in Hellthe torturer. A torturer in Hell is to be expected.



22/168

11

Garcin, for example, asks the Valet, Where are the instruments of torture? . . . The

racks and red-hot pincers and all the other paraphenalia?u Its an expectation the

audience has as well until we learn the truth as the three characters torture each other

without the help of anyone else. But without the initial expectation o f the torturer, we

do not learn of the alternative, existential hell these three characters put themselves

through. In this case the absent Other acts as a device of reflection which enables us to

understand the philosophical concepts Sartre intends to dramatize.

But, of course, the most obvious example of the absent Other occurs in Becketts

Waiting fo r Godot. Estragon and Vladimir wait for Godot to appear at the appointed

tree. Without Godot, Vladimir and Estragon cannot do anything else; and in existential

terms, if they cannot act or do something, their identities remain stagnant since doing

defines being. Godot, then, offers hope of an identity, a purpose. Yet we are left to

determine who Godot is. Beckett himself stated that if he had known who Godot was,

he would have said so in the play.15 But Michael Worton offers an explanation of

Godot that closely connects to my idea of the absent Other:

. . . whatever we think he is and not what we think he is: he is an absence, who

can be interpreted at moments as God, death, the lord of the manor, a benefactor,

even Pozzo, but Godot has afunctionrather than ameaning. He stands for what

keeps us chained to and in existence, he is the unknowable that represents hope

in an age when there is no hope, he is whatever fiction we want him to beas



23/168

12

long as he justifies our l ife-as-waiting.16

Perhaps seeing Godot as an absence, a gap, is what fuels our interest in this play, one

that resists closure and a clearly defined meaning. Godot is a variable who compels us

to complete the algebraic equation.

Whoever told you you could work with mertT'

Glengarry Glen Ross

When I first thought o f the concept o f the absent Other, I was teaching a course

called Crime Literature. In that course we study David Mamets Glengarry Glen Ross.11

Throughout this play we hear the names o f significant characters whom we never meet:

Mitch and Murray and Jerry Graff. I had not put much thought into their importance

until I connected them to the absent Other. For Mitch and Murray and Jerry Graff are

the catalysts for the criminal acts in this play. Without them, the play relies solely on

the personal motives o f the real estate agents who try to make a living off their lousy

leads. In fact, Mitch and Murray pose the biggest threat to Levene, Moss, and Aaronow;

for Mitch and Murray represent the angst-ridden boulder o f downsizing, ready to drop

on any employee who cannot close a deal. And if the agents cannot close the deal, they

suffer something even worse than their jobs: their masculine identity. Jerry Graff,

however, provides the out from beneath that boulderalbeit by illegal means.

For a play where manliness underscores success. Glengarry Glen Rossbegins

with a man behaving in a most unmanly fashion: Levene begs. He wants Williamson

to give him the good Glengarry Highlands leads, and he needs them desperately to get



24/168

13

back to the top o f the board. In this real estate business-world, to be a closer is to be a

man. And Levene tries to secure his manly identity when he tells Williamson, . . . put

a closeron the job. Theres more than oneman for the 18Levene not only fears the

loss of work, bu t he fears the loss o f his male identity. If Williamson does not give him

the good leads, then by reputation alone the business and Mitch and Murray do not see

Levene as a worthy agent and as a man. Therefore. Mitch and Murrays business tactics

threaten Levenes identity in vocation and sexuality.

As a representative of Mitch and Murray, Williamson bears the brunt of the

struggling real estate agents frustration. He insists that his job is to marshal [the]

leads and only give them to the successful salesm en.19 Anyone who falls below a

certain mark o f success will not receive the premium leads. This rule ultimately places

Levene in a catch-22: he needs the leads to survive, but he cannot have the leads i f he

does not prove himself worthy. This situation is akin to telling a drowning person that

he cannot have a life preserver unless he proves that he can swim. Having nothing to

show for his worth in the present, Shelly Levene turns to his past, venting his frustration

upon Williamson:

. . . talk to Murray. Talk to Mitch. When we were on Peterson, who paid for his

fuckin car? You talk to him. The Seville. . . ? He came in, You bought that

for me Shelly. Out of what? Cold calling. Nothing. Sixty-five,when we were

there, with Glen Ross Farms? You call em downtown.20



25/168

14

Like an appeal to an oracle to speak to the gods in control, Shelly Levene wants to

ensure the good graces of his past. His past performance even put him in one o f the

manliest of positions, that o f the father whose hard work enabled him to buy a car for

Mitch.

Williamsons reply, though, underscores the concept o f the absent Other: It isnt

me. . . .21 Only a messenger, William sons language does more than place the blame

on Mitch and Murray; it deflects the responsibility on to Mitch and Murray by avoiding

the use of the first person pronoun. It refers to Mitch and Murray, while the use of

me directs the responsibility to som e other aspect of oneself, not the / but the object

(me) who operates under the absent Mitch and Murray. Such a perspective intensifies

the frustration felt by all the characters in this play. Mitch and Murray are present in the

rules enforced upon them, but they are absent from any direct contact. Their absent-

presence acts like invisible strings, working the tension and conflict o f the play.

Also fearing the boulder of capitalistic ambition ready to drop, Moss and

Aaronow lament the loss of a glorious economic past. Moss recounts the wealth o f Glen

Ross Farms, telling Aaronow . . . didn7 we sell a bunch of th at. .. ?~ As Moss and

Aaronow think about the easy-money o f the past, they also address those who ruined

itthe very same people who make their lives a Hell now:

Aaronow: They came in and they, you k now . . .

Moss: Well, they fucked it up.



26/168

15

Aaronow: They did.

Moss: They killed the goose.

Aaronow: They did.

Moss: And now . . .

Aaronow: Were stuck with this .. .

Moss: W ere stuck with thisfucking shi t. . .

Aaronow: .. . this shi t . . .-13

Although Moss and Aaronow engage in obvious venting over the ineptness of Mitch and

Murrays business operations, they also operate under the control of the absent Other.

We hear their motive for action as they explain how Mitch and Murray have ruined what

was an easy life o f business for them. The anonymous they deflects the blame from

themselves to others who are absent from the reality of their hardships, yet they have

left them (Moss and Aaronow) to deal with the fucking shit o f poor leads and financial

failure.

With the pressure on from Mitch and Murray, Moss expresses his resentment and

his desire to escape the ir oppressive methods in terms that voice a consciousness of the

absent Other. Moss te lls Aaronow that they must leave the firm and act on their own

no matter how hard that might be:

To say Im going on my own. Cause what you do, George, let me tell you

what you do: you find yourself in thrall to someone else. And we enslave



27/168

16

ourselves. Toplease. To win some fucking toaster. . . . 24

Moss wants to play by his own rules, not those of others. And in words that echo the

Sartrean concept of the OtherHell is other peopleMoss wants to be free by

repelling himself from those who force him to conform to their rules.

Moss explains this need to be free to Aaronow while having knowledge of

another absent character. Jerry Graff. Financial security and revenge motivate Mosss

actions against Mitch and Murray. With the promise to buy the premium leads, Jerry

Graff provides the means and the opportunity should Moss or anyone comm it the crime

of stealing the leads. As opposed to Mitch and Murray, Graff represents the new

direction of real estate sales. To Moss, GrafF s practices are innovative, for Graff got

his hands on a list o f nurses as leads, and that list has made him a bundle selling to them.

According to Moss then, Graff is the new golden goose.

I think that the typical nature of these absent characters provides the groundwork

for much of a plays plot. Therefore, the exposition provides important information

about them. Once these first two scenes introduce Mitch and Murray and Jerry Graff,

the conflict and motives for action on the part of Levene, Moss, and Aaronow are set.

Only Roma, who sits happily on top of the selling board, has no motive to steal in a

criminal manner. However, Mamet shows how Roma steals in another way in his real

estate dealings with Lingk. His treatment o f Lingk is a superb example o f the Other at

work as Roma manipulates Lingk into buying some property. Later, in the play we are



28/168

17

introduced to another absent Other when Lingk tries to back out of the deal he made

with Roma; Lingks wife handles the money in their relationship and forces Lingk to get

their check back from Roma. Again, an emasculated man (Lingk) must beg his way out

of trouble. Besides Lingks wife, Levenes daughter also acts as an absent Other; for

she needs hospital care, and Levene must support her. Hence, by the end of the play

when Levene is revealed to be the thief o f the leads, we see that he has the strongest

motives for committing such an act.

The absent characters I have addressed in Glengarry Glen Rossfigure in the plot

in such a way that much of the drama is lost should they be eliminated from the script.

When Roma angrily asks Williamson, Whoever told you you could work with men?,25

the implications of his question refer to Mitch and Murray as some absent force who

have given Williamson the position of authority. In fact, the Mitch and Murray

characters are so important to this play that Mamets film version provided a messenger

for them. Alec Baldwin plays the man from downtown who tells the real estate agents

that if they don t sell, i f they dont close, they will be fired. During his tirade, he taunts

and attacks the agents with accusations that they are women if they cannot do the job

they are supposed to do. At one point, he asks them what does it take to sell real estate.

His answer, brass balls. And just as he and Williamson dangle the premium leads before

the agents, the man from downtown pulls a pair of brass balls from his briefcase to show

them, in a sense, that he has them. Although entirely speculative on my part, I like to



29/168

18

think that those two brass balls represent Mitch and Murray, suspended briefly before

the other agents but out o f reach.

The Tenure Committee. Come to judge me. The Bad Tenure Committee

Oleanna

Both David Mamets Glengarry Glen Rossand Oleannaare about placeactual

physical placesand what they signify as profitand place as status and position of

authority.26 However, whereas the characters in Glengarry Glen Rossprimarily concern

themselves with the selling o f ideal properties as a means o f securing their place in

a ruthless business world, John and Carol in Oleannaappeal to the ideologies of their

groups as a means o f securing an ideal place within an academic institution. Oleanna,

in fact, begins with a burst of tension about place as John expresses his frustrated

concern over the buying of a house which coincides with his getting tenure at the

university. Fearing the loss o f the property, John asks his wife, And what about the

land?27 This possible loss o f place foreshadows his loss of a tenured-position later in

the play. And in this play about place, Mamet, as he does in Glengarry Glen Ross,

creates absent characters who influence the place of John and Carol as well as the action

and conflicts of the drama. For the absent Others in Oleannathe tenure committee

and Johns wife and Carols groupnot only remind and inform John and Carol o f their

place but also define them as people. And John and Carol express a self-consciousness

o f their selves in relat ion to their absent Others.

In many respects, John, the educator, delivers his best lesson to Carol when



30/168

19

she visits him in his office. The information he provides for Carol the fictive quality

of the rules and standards of education and the attainment of tenure as a means of

securing his place in the institutionteaches her that power resides in those who control

the rules of the game. John explains to Carol that idiots (the teachers) design tests for

idiots (the students) to retain and spout back the misinformation provided by them (the

teachers).28Carol, believing in an ideal core o f knowledge, does not want to accept the

possibility that knowledge depends upon the perspectives and ideologies of those in

power. In an attempt to underscore what he means, John offers the Tenure Committee

as an example:

Look at me. Look at me. The Tenure Committee. The Tenure Committee.

Come to judge me. The Bad Tenure Committee.

The Test. Do you see? They put me to the test. Why, they had people

voting on me I wouldnt employ to wax my car. And yet, I go before the Great

Tenure Committee, and I have an urge, to vomit,to, to, to puke my badnesson

the table, to show them: Im no good. Why would you pick me?29

Johns self-conscious awareness of himself and the role he plays before the Tenure

Committee underscores the relationship with the absent Other. The language Mamet

uses helps to underscore this relationshipLook at me; John asks Carol to consider

him as an object in this game o f place he must play. Aware of the role he must play in

order to secure tenure, John remains mindful of the committee that influences his



31/168

20

behavior. He objectifies the practices o f the game, being ever aware o f him se lf in a role

that is other than who he really is.

Once Carol files a complaint against him, however, and John gets into trouble

with Carol's group and the Tenure Committee, he slips back into the role he is supposed

to play, telling Carol that the tenure process is a goodprocess and that the Tenure

Committee comprises Good Men and True.30 John reads the list of complaints

launched against him by Carol and her group. And although the list takes his actions

and words out of context, Johns culpability becomes apparent as he reads from her

accusations:

He said he liked me. That he liked being with me. Hed let me write my

examination paper over, i f I could come back oftener to see him in his office.

He told me he had problems with his wife; and that he wanted to take off the

artificial stricture of Teacher and Student. He put his arm around m e . . . . 3'

Audience members will re-account the truth of all of the accusations. But the irony o f

these accusations rests on the way in which Carol takes Johns actions ou t o f the context

in which they occurred. Carols fabrication o f the truth not only demonstrates how well

she learned her lesson from John about the fictive nature of power, but it also

underscores her groups attempts to undermine John as a fixture of the entrenched elite

at this academic institution. In this sense, Johns identity becomes re-fashioned by



32/168

21

Carols group. And the audience understands Johns sudden change in role-playing as

being due to the absent characters who now wield power in this situation. Carol, herself,

has been transformed by her group and into a spokesperson for her group. By the

Second Act John and Carol have new identities because o f absent Others.

The final climactic clash between John and Carol results from the pressures of

the absent Other. John has lost the land he wanted to buy because his tenure did not

pass, and he now faces the loss of his job . Although his own actions are largely to

blame for these losses, Carols group shoulders much of the reason for his predicament.

However, Carols group gives John a way out of the sexual harassment lawsuit pending

against him. If he removes his own book, along with other books her group has outlined

on a list, from off his course list and replace them with books her group advocates, then

they might be willing to drop the charges. John refuses and stands his ground. To

eliminate his book would not only destroy the academic legacy he wants to leave his son

but also take away the one thing w hich has assured him tenure. To John, his book is his

tangible link and offering to the absent Others with whom he wants to identify and by

whom he wants to be accepted.

Oleannacould end at that point. John and Carol would be at an impasse, and we

would be left to speculate the outcome. Yet Mamet ends his play with a confrontation

which amounts to a clash o f absent Others. Johns friend Jerry calls on the phone and

informs that Carol has filed rape charges against John due to his grabbing her



33/168

22

previously. John wants her to leave. But as Caro l leaves, Johns wife calls; and as John

tries to console her, he calls his wife the pet name Baby.32Now, once John stands up

for himself and no longer wishes to accomm odate the demands o f Carols group, he

establishes his allegiance and his identity with his ow n group, the absent Others we hear

via the phone. Therefore, when Carol tells John not to call his wife baby, she invades

the place of his absent Others and dictates the rules by which he can communicate to the

absent characters with whom he identifies. The violence at the end o f this play occurs

as a result of the violation o f the absent Others place. John reacts to Carols command

out of survival. If Carol dictates the rules of engagement with the absent Others in

Johns life, she threatens his identity. When John violently lashes out against Carol, the

play ends in a stand o ff o f violation of place. And our final understanding of the true

nature of the clash betw een John and Carol rests on our knowledge o f the absent Others

who influence their behavior.

Magnificent! My boys standing around me again!That Championship Season

The meaning behind Jason Millers That Championship Seasondepends entirely

on an absent character, Martin.33 In a play where the present characters identify each

other as champions and winners, Martins absence underscores the irony that they are

not winners but cheaters. Just as Martin broke an opponen ts ribs so that they could win

the championship, we discover that these men continue to cheat in their life as a means

to succeed. Martins presence would confirm their champion identity; his absence



34/168

23

makes them suspect. Ultimately, Martins absence explains all the hardships these men

endure and underscores the corrupt and dysfunctional plans they continue to make. The

absent Other for That Championship Seasonoffers a means to judge the other characters

as we soon learn why one would want to be absent from them.

As in Oedipus Rex, illness pervades That Championship Season: Tom is an

alcoholic, James has lost his teeth, Georges wife cheats on him and he is a very poor

mayor, Phil is an adulterer and his business practices are killing the town, and Coach

suffers from an ulcerated stomach, which in fact might be cancer. Many other

problems abound for this dysfunctional team. If a Teires ias-like seer were to appear,

he would probably provide some clue based on Martin and the truth which might set

these men on the course to restitution and rejuvenation. But instead the only character

who presses the truth about their championship is Tom. And he proves to be an inept

deliverer o f the truth, relying on sarcasm and wit to undermine the big plans the other

men make while using alcohol to build his spirit so that he can reveal the truth.

Martins continued absence signifies the corruption and the dysfunctional

direction of his former teammates. In the opening discussion between Tom and George

we discover that Tom has missed three reunions. George cannot imagine missing any

reunions because the winning o f that high school championship has proved to be more

important to him than even being mayor of his tow n.34 Within the contex t o f this

conversation we discover that Martin has never been to a reunion. Georges inability



35/168

24

to understand Tom s absence from a reunion that signifies the happiest moment in his

life counters the extended absence of Martin, the Brilliant playmaker.35 Martins

absence creates a gap in the team. And the mystery o f his disappearance makes the

audience want to know why he is absent. For as long as that question remains we

scrutinize the situation o f the reunion and the behavior o f the men at the reunion. In

other words, Martins absence forces us to search for closure.

Clues to Martins absence quickly accumulate. Early in the play we discover

that the opponent whose ribs Martin broke was an African-American. Coach refers to

this former opponent as an eight-foot nigger, [who] jum ped like a kangaroo.36To the

present day, Coachs racial discrimination continues. We discover, as they plan

Georges mayoral election race, that George is running against a Jew named Sharmen.

Sharmen wants to clean up the town and make it prosperous again. George, though,

banks his support on Phil whose strip mining operations pollute the town. Again, this

team faces a tough opponent and are certain to lose the election. But Coach has a plan

of attack that is based on discriminationSharmen had an uncle who was a communist.

This black mark becomes their new elbow to the ribs, even though Phil and Tom see

the ridiculousness of trying to blackmail someone for being a communist in the post-

McCarthy era.

Throughout the play, Coach remains blind to the truth about his team. He

excitedly exclaims, Magnificent! My boys standing around me again! when not all



36/168

25

of his boys stand around him.37 Martins absence, then, demonstrates how little o f a

team they really are. And as we see them bicker and fight among themselves, we realize

that the only thing holding them together is that championship season. Again,

Martins absence underscores the irony of Coachs belie f in his team and in his reliance

on the trophy as the proo f that they are champions. When Tom presses the issue that

Martin told the truth, that they are not champions, and that they stole the championship,

Coach turns to the trophy and puts it into Toms hands, stating: Deny that . You can

feel it. It has weight. Deny it. Read the names in silver there.38Coach sees the trophy

as hard evidence that they are champions. But in reality the trophy is as insubstantial

as Martins physical presence. When they rally together at the end of the play after a

good round of verbal Martin bashing, they stand as hollow examples of the virtues of

teamwork they proclaim to follow.

Well,Daddy knows how to run things.

Who s A fra id o f Virginia Woolf?

By the end of That Championship Season,the team led by Coach remains in

the grip of the absent Other. Unable to confront the truth o f the fraud, as signified by

Martin, o f their championship, they live in a continued state of absence themselves,

heading in an Augustinian-like direction of nothingness. But in Edward Albees Who's

Afraid o f Virginia Woolf? Martha and George free themselves from the absent Other,

Marthas father, when George kills their fictive child.39 One might imagine that their

fictive son is the absent Other, wielding control over the spectacle o f events o f the night.



37/168

26

But the son is only a manifestation o f the ideals and expectations o f Marthas father.

In fact, due to the tremendous influence of Marthas father on and over George and

Martha, her Daddy performs as the absent Other who is the catalyst for conflict and

the reason behind the games Martha and George play. Unlike That Championship

Seasonwhich ends without truthful closure. Who's Afraid o f Virginia Woolf?concludes

with Martha and George freeing themselves o f the absent Other, taking an existentially

heroic step toward freedom in spite o f the fear of isolation and uncertainty.

Martha expresses high regard for her father in masculine terms. The epitome of

control and power, he knows how to run things.40 In comparison to Marthas father,

George has become a disappointing heir-apparent for the president of the university.

While explaining to Nick and Honey Georges situation as the son-in-law of the

president o f the university, Martha asserts that George has an extraordinary

opportunity to be someone important. George, however, does not capitalize on the

opportunity. And because George does not have much push and isnt aggressive,

Martha sees George as a FLOP!41 Marthas emphasis on action, her belief that her

father can run things and that George cannot seize an opportunity imply that George

does not have the masculine traits necessary to be a leader. He has become a nothing.

Here, George is in a similar situation as Shelly Levene in Glengarry Glen Ross. Others

see both characters as failures in their profession and in their sexual identity. And in

both cases, the expectations o f an absent authority figure provide the rules for judgment.



38/168

27

George, on the other hand, sees his position as a less than opportune one.

Unable to live up to the ideals established by the father, he confides to Nick that there

are easier things than being married to the daughter o f the president of the university.42

And when Martha states that some men would give their right arm for the chance!

George admits that he has had to sacrifice a more private portion of [his] anatomy.43

These jokes reflect the ideals of Marthas father who as the absent Other dictates the

direction and expectations o f their life. In this respect, George and Martha are ever

conscious of the roles they play as prisoners of not only the college that Marthas

father built but o f the ideals to which they must conform under his rule.

The son Martha and George have represents the ideals of the institution built

by the father. If George is not a fitting replacement for the father, then their son could

prove to provide some hope for the future. Martha he rself constructs their son in the

image of her father, stating that he has the same green eyes as her fathers: Daddy has

green eyes, too.44 In a play where Marthas father dictates the direction and vision of

the college and the lives of those connected to it, the sons having the same eyes

provides a fitting metaphor for the absent Other. Marthas father continually watches

over George and M artha; and the fictive product of the fathers ideals (the son) also

keeps watch. That their eyes are green further implies the fertility of their vision. Of

course, the pervasive irony o f this play centers on George and Marthas infertility versus

the many fictions they devise to assert their fertility.



39/168

But because of the fathers demands, sacrifices have been made. Martha has lost

a childdue to an abortion of a child conceived by h er amorous encounter with the

lawn boy; and so has George: his novel. Marthas loving a lawn boy did not meet her

fathers expectations o f a suitor. So the son she has now could be seen as the son she

lost. And if academic emasculation existsand I am certain one could name types of

administrative knivesthen Daddys refusal to allow the publication o f Georges novel

should count as a form of emasculation or, in this case, also as infanticide. The

relevance of Georges story of a son killing his parents is not as important as the novel

itself which serves as Georges academic offspring. G eorges novel does not live up to

the respected, conservative ideals o f Marthas father, so George is told to withdraw the

manuscript from publication. Motivated by fear of exile from New Carthage, George

sacrifices his novel and ends up in servitude to the father.

Servitude to M arthas father, in fact, underscores much o f the action in this play.

Their entertainment o f Nick and Honey serves as an initiation into life at this college as

well as how to survive. But should the games Martha and George play continue, then

they would remain in servitude to the Marthas father. Therefore, Georges killing of

Marthas son sets Martha and him free from the expectations o f Daddy. Although the

death of the son can be read as an act o f retribution on Georges partjus t as Martha

and her father took away his son, his fiction, so will George take Marthas son

awayit becomes an act o f liberation, a way o f freeing themselves from the absent



40/168

29

Other who controls the roles they play. In the final moments o f the play, we hear

Marthas fear of facing the uncertainty of living a life without fictions:

George: It will be better.

Martha: I dont . . . know.

George: It will be . . . maybe.

Martha: Im .. . n o t .. . sure.

George: No.

Martha: Just. .. us?

George: Yes.45

George takes charge at the end and assures Martha that their life will be better facing the

truth rather than living a life o f fictions. I see this ending as a killing off of the absent

Other, the one who wields control and power over the actions of Martha and George.

By standing up to the absent Other, George becomes the heir apparent he is supposed

to be. And together they will face life on their own, relying on their own resources for

survival rather than the restrictions o f anothers expectations.

Lukes been in the house since October

Apr il in Akron

The reclusive Luke in April in Akron is the absent Other who controls the

behavior of the other young men who are forced to redefine themselves because o f his

absence. Without Luke, Cal, Bob, JD, Hank, and Adam must come to terms with who

they are now versus who they were when he actively engaged in their lives. And like



41/168

30

the sequestered dying grandfather in Scott McPhersonsMarvin's Room and the attic-

roaming John Gabriel Borkman in Henrik IbsensJohn Gabriel Borkman,Luke looms

about the house like a spirit who invades the psyche of its inhabitants. In fact, the desire

to be free of Luke underscores the motives for the party more so than the desire to de-

virginate Adam or celebrate the arrival of Spring. This exorcism o f Luke is necessary

for the other men so that they can get on with their lives and face the reality of the

dangers of masculine aggression. For Luke represents the sexual aggression against

womenthe type o f aggression that uses women as objects for personal gratification.

Luke influences the behavior o f Cal more than the other characters in the play.

Cal spends most o f his time trying to get Luke to join the group again. His true desire

is to get the old Luke back againthe Luke who guided them through parties and

women. To recapture the past, he organizes a party as a means o f renewal. Yet he

harbors the truth about the dangers of Lukes irresponsible and aggressive behavior

towards women. So Cal is caught between the allegiance he owes Luke and the desire

to go somewhere and begin anew. The party he organizes can be seen as an attempt to

offer a sacrifice to Luke. Women and booze satisfy the basics offerings o f the carnival.

But given what Cal knows about Lukes bisexual or multi-sexual pasteven though he

denies such knowledge from time to timehe also offers Adam as a sacrifice in two

ways: Adams virginity and Adam as sexual toy for Luke. If we see Cals character in

terms of the absent Other, we come to know that Cals blindness to the truth o f Luke



42/168

31

is really an attempt to bring Luke back to the group.

Adam has the least amount of historical knowledge about Luke, but he also

knows the most about Lukes most recent behavior. At times feeling trapped by Lukes

odd behaviorsitting on his bed nakedand being wowed by stories o f Lukes sexual

prowess, Adam is also caught between a desire to follow Luke and to break from him.

That Cal perceives Adams virginity as black mark on the house should be seen as ironic

given the sexually aggressive behavior of Luke and the crime he committed in October.

Not surprisingly, when Adam recounts his own sexual adventure not only are his stories

a variation of what he heard from the other young men, but he provides a tale of virtual

devil-like aggression, feeling women up, questioning one womans religion, and

checking out cyberspace pom sites. And Luke who watches and guides his protege

sanctions all of his behavior. Ultimately, Adam becomes in the moment of his first

sexual experience the absent Other, Luke.

The other three characters, Bob, Hank, and JD have the least knowledge of

Lukes recent behavior, so Luke influences their behavior by the sheer mystery of his

own peculiar transformation. Bob, perhaps, fears Luke the most. Yet his fear does not

necessarily stem from knowledge of Lukes sexually aggressive past; it comes from a

classic case of Kierkegaardian angst. In other words, Bob fears what he most desires.

Bob wants to be Luke in the way that Luke can party and get women. But he also fears

such aggressive behavior, as is evident in his over-protection o f his sister, Julie. Bob



43/168

32

operates under this angst throughout the play, and it fuels his own desires to behave

aggressively against Luke at the end of the play. Finally learning that Luke is truly

vulnerable, having learned further of Lukes questionable sexual predilections and his

culpability in a sex crime, Bob feels he has the power to take dow n that which he fears,

especially given the support o f the other men of the tribe. And in his attempt to free

himself from Luke, Bob lashes out against the absent Other.

Despite Hanks all-knowing attitudehis sense that he is the voice ofexperience

he is the most clueless person among the tribe of men. Arriving from work and

bringing sporting goods as gifts to the boys, he comes to the party expecting to be the

father-figure; but he proves to be a poor surrogate. His marriage is a failure because he

has not grown up. And he finds solace in reliving the glory years o f his undergraduate

youth among the young men who live above him. In an act o f paternalism, he offers for

Adam the most realistic type o f story for a first sexual experience a rather un-climactic

event, involving a casual, beer-induced encounter. But his whole speech about Sues

dissertation and its anti-game message is his way of asserting to the men that he does

not follow her philosophy and that he has not come under the spell o f feminism. His

livelihood is sports; and as we will find out later, his hobby is the collection of a whole

history of pom. Ultimately, as a salesman fully immersed in the investment of

organized sports and pornography, Hank is the messenger o f masculine aggression. And

when he enters the Carnival of the Sun party, he operates under the auspices of the



44/168

33

absent Other, venting his frustration with the oppressive regulations of feminism and its

anti-deposit slot message.

A non-inhabitant o f the house and coming to seek revenge upon Luke for a past

wrong, JD provides the biggest challenge to Luke. Because of Lukes criminal high

jinks. JD has lost his position as a member of an organized sport, the track team.

Therefore, when he comes to the Carnival of the Sun, he organizes his own sport

against Luke as a means to bring him down. Since Luke will not come down and join

the party, JD pokes and prods the others with reminders of their deficiencies and of

stories detailing Lukes dysfunctional past. And his telling o f his first sexual encounter

intends to make a mockery of the others and their stories. In fact, his assertion that

when he had sex with Cadillac Shannon that he disconnected himself from himself to

have his own private fantasy underscores all of the mens relationship with Luke, the

absent Other, the disembodied se lf who looms over their party of self-indulgence. This

point becomes clea r when we hear of Luke dressing up as Aurora. Whether or not

Aurora was Luke does not matter as much as the way in which the act underscores Luke

as the absent Other. If Luke was Aurora, then Luke maintained an absent presence in

the transsexual role. Every act JD performs attempts to exorcize the absent Other from

the house.

The final act o f aggression occurs because this group of men sanction it. No

rush to the upstairs to take Luke down would have happened had not every member

eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited witho ut permission.


45/168

34

agreed to it. Cal remains as the last hold out. And not until he discovers that Luke has

revealed the truth about C als false claims to a magical first-time sexual encounter does

he agree to act against Luke. This discovery of Cals does more than catch him in an

embarrassing lie. The truth that Cal could not perform when he had his first chance

at sex turns Cal into an object for the absent Other. Ca ls initial reaction is to lash out

against the one who has revealed the truth: Bob. But as JD makes clear, Luke is the one

who has been causing all the trouble. When they decide to attack Luke, they attempt to

arrive at a truth. However, because they are unwilling to admit their own culpability,

they seek out a scapegoat. Their Us versus Him attitude does not necessarily need a

specific target for their aggression, but any available, vulnerable person will satisfy their

desire for restitution. When the victim is revealed to be a woman and not Luke, Lukes

continued absent presence works like a mirror for the victimizers to see themselves as

a reflection o f him.

I think that the concept of the absent Other has far-reaching interpretive

possibilities. The absent Others I have focused on in the discussion above are living

characters who loom over a significant part of the plays action and drama. But it is

possible to categorize several types of absent Others to include: characters who are

absent but return for the latter part of the play (ONeills The Iceman Cometh and

Jonsons The Alchemist), characters who are dead including ghosts (Shepards

Buried Childand MillersDeath o fa Salesman),and characters whose absence forces



46/168

35

the other characters to wait and search for answers (Pirandellos Six Characters in

Search o f an Author and Stoppards Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead). The

absent Other can also be applied to characters who have undergone a transformation of

some sort and yet refer to their former self; I am thinking o f Joe in Ed Graczyks Come

Back to the 5 & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Deanwho returns to McCarthy, Texas as

Joanne. In each one o f these plays the absence of a character, even if the character is

conceptual, creates a gap that forces the characters and the audience to become

consciously aware o f the issues, circumstances, or conflicts associated with that absent

character. This paradoxical absent presence, then, directs our attention to the absent

Other as a means to find closure.



47/168

36

Notes

1. Kathleen Wider, The Bodily Nature o f Consciousness: Sartre and

Contemporary Philosophy o fMind(Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997),p. 48.

2. Albert Rabil, Existentialist Philosophy and Literature: Evolution of an

Historical Movement, Southern Humanities Review 16 (1982): 309.

3. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being an d Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on

Ontology,trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), p. 461.

4. Jean-Paul Sartre,No Exit and Three Other Plays(New York: Vintage Books,

1989), p. 17.

5. Sartre,No Exit,p. 45.

6. Wider, p. 41.

7. David Bergeron, The Apollo Mission in The Winter s Tale,in The Winter s

Tale: Critical Essays,ed. Maurice Hunt (1995), p. 362.

8. I thank David Bergeron for reminding me of this production which he saw.

9. Quoted in Kahn, The Absent Mother in King Lear, in Rewriting the

Renaissance: The Discourses o f Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe, ed.

Margaret W. Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers (Chicago: The

University o f Chicago Press, 1986), p. 33.

10. Kahn, p. 36.

11. Kahn, p. 34.

12. Avi Erlich,Hamlets Absent Father(Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1977), p. 49.

13. Stephen Orgel, Prosperos Wife, in Rewriting the Renaissance: The

Discourses o f Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe,ed. Margaret W. Ferguson,

Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1986), p. 51.

14. Sartre,No Exit,p. 4.

15. See Alan Schneider, Waiting for Beckett, inBeckett at sixty (London:

Calderand Boyars, 1967), p. 38.

16. Michael Worton, Waitingfor GodotandEndgame: theatre as tex t, in The

Cambridge Companion to Beckett,ed. John Pilling (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1994), pp. 70-71.

17. David Mamet, Glengarry Glen Ross(New York: Grove Press, 1983).

18. Mamet, Glengarry Glen Ross,p. 15.

19. Mamet, Glengarry GlenRoss,p. 19.

20. Mamet, Glengarry Glen Ross,p. 17-18.21. Mamet, Glengarry Glen Ross,p. 18.




48/168

37




26. David Mamet, Oleanna,in The Bedford Introduction to Drama,3rd edition,ed. Lee A. Jacobus (Boston: Bedford Books, 1997), pp. 1613-33.

27. Mamet, Oleanna, p. 1617.



30. Mamet, Oleanna,p. 1626 and 1627, respectively.


32 Mamet, Oleanna, p. 1633.

33. Jason Miller, That Championship Season(New York: Atheneum, 1972).34. Miller, p. 5.

35. Miller, p. 5.

36. Miller, p. 22.

37. Miller, p. 16.

38. Miller , p. 117.

39. Edward Albee, Who s Afraid o f Virginia Woolf? (New York: PenguinBooks, 1962).

40. Albee, p. 27.

41. Albee, p. 84.

42. Albee, p. 27

43. Albee, p. 28

44. Albee, p. 75.

45. Albee, p. 240-41.



49/168

Increasing Cloudiness: Reflections on the Writing of

Apri l in Akron

When I first started to writeApril in AkronI wanted to tell the story of a house

I lived in as an undergraduate student at the University o f Akron. Six of us lived

together in what has been one o f the best experiences of my life. We played, studied,

and partied together in a house full o f music, laughter, and mischief. But real life

seldom has the drama that makes for a good story. And as I worked on the script, my

focus centered on one particular event: a small adventure taken on a dismal April

weekend by two roommates, Mark and Joe, who ended up bringing a young woman

home with them. Mark and Joe were fed up with the cloudy weather; so they decided

that they wanted to Get the fuck out of Akron and go south to West Virginia and get

drunk in the first bar they saw when they crossed the border. In the course o f their travel

they ended up meeting a young woman who invited them to several parties. By the end

of that night, she had passed out in their car; and rather than leave her somewhere in the

street they took her back to Akron with them. She stayed in Akron for a day, mostly in

Joe's bedroom, and then went back to West Virginia on a bus.

This one event interested me because o f the way the rest o f us behaved while this

young woman remained upstairs in Joes room. We sat around the living room, music

blasting heavy-metal from the stereo while MTV played silently on the television, trying

to figure out who she was. Soon, we began to joke about different women we all knew

who might be in Joes room. The fictions we concocted about this unidentified woman

38



50/168

39

were amazing. But when I began writing the play, I wanted to turn the woman into

someone the characters all knew. And I had the idea that she would have been there for

a week based on two events which happen every late April and early May in Akron,

Ohio: Katherine Place party and May Day.

The May Day festivities in Akron have been a tradition ever since 1902.

Originating first as Tree Daya time for parades and May Queens May Day has

become a huge excuse to drink and freely party. Some suggest that it is a Yankee Mardi

Gras, but on a much smaller scale than what one would get in New Orleans. Most who

try to explain the reason behind this huge beerfest will point to the effect o f northeast

Ohio weather on a persons psyche. In fact, a 1999 guideline passed out by the

University of Akron on how to party safely during May Day begins its advice with a

reference to the weather:

Typically, the winter months in the Snow Belt seem to dampen the spirits of

students. In addition to the frigid temperatures and the snow, the Akron area is

also blessed with rain. So, inevitably, when the weather in Akron begins to

break, the natives begin to get a little restless.1

I have witnessed and participated in this restless spirit of the native Akronites. The

heavy cloud cover lingers from November until April and May. At times when the sun

came out from under the clouds in January or February for a few days or hours, I used

to resent the sunshine because I knew it wouldnt last. After being under the clouds for



51/168

40

so long, I also hated the brightness o f sun. It hurt my eyes, and everything about me

would have a jaundiced glow. But once late April and May came along and the weather

warmed and stayed warm for more than just a day or two, one felt like busting loose,

doing something that celebrated ones freedom from the oppressive clouds.

I have heard that northeast Ohio is the cloudiest region in the United States.

Much of the problem has to do with wind flow from Canada and Lake Erie. Moisture

rises from the lake and sweeps over northeast Ohio to become clouds. But the

cloudiness does not evenly develop; for pockets of clouds form heavier coverage over

some parts of the region rather than others. These pockets explain why various snow

belts exist in northeast Ohio. Ashtabula County, in the far northeast comer, gets hit the

hardest by lake-effect snow. And the Hinckley and Akron area get hit the second and

third hardest. These snow areas also explain the heavy cloud cover in these regions.

Sometimes I could drive from my home in Sharon Center, Ohioabout twenty-five

miles west o f Akron and experience light cloud cover, but by the time I would get to

Akron the cloud cover would be so thick that you felt as i f your lived in a gray shadow.

Needless to say, many anxiously await spring. And in Akron two traditional

parties occur: one the week before May Day and the second during May Day weekend.

These two weekends are exercises in debauchery: much alcohol, much drugs, and much

sex. On the weekend before May Day, a huge party occurs at Katherine Place a short

dead-end street of about twenty houses. Every house has kegs of beer, and the street



52/168

41

becomes filled with Akron University students ready to let o ff some aggression before

finals. This party usually culminates in a two-story high bonfire of old furniture and

trash. At the last Katherine Place party I attended in 1990 when the fire trucks came to

put the fire out, students launched bottles and cans at the fire officials who tried to put

the fire out. Soon. SWAT trucks came and a militia of police officers in riot gear began

arresting anyone they could get their hands on. A friend o f mine and I ducked into a bar

a block away from Katherine Place to seek refuge.

The city o f Akron remains at a loss of what to do about the students at this time

of the year. With no chance o f stopping this tradition, the city and the University o f

Akron have created rules which attempt to regulate the partying, such as no more than

one hundred people a t a house party, no loud music, and no public nudity. I have always

been fascinated with the event o f May Day. Why do the students behave in such a

manner? Does it have to do with more than just some meteorological phenomenon?

Does it have do to with looking for an excuse to behave badly but in some socially

sanctioned Mardi Gras manner?

When I began to writeApr il in AkronI wanted to use Mark and Joes adventure

plus the festivities o f the May Day activities to create the occasion o f the play. But my

initial plan for the play was to have the Luke character and the virginal character, Adam,

kidnap a young wom an from the Katherine Place party and keep her in their room until

the May Day party. Meanwhile, a search in the city would have been launched to find



53/168

42

the young woman, and Luke and Adam would keep her hidden in their room. I had

planned to work in this whole Dahmer-like incident where Luke or Adam had either

killed the girl in the heat of some kind o f lustmord or that she had died by accident, and

he did not know what to do with the body. But that plot did not really work for me. I

kept wanting the girl to represent something. And it was difficult to work that

information in without providing a lot of exposition.

But as I worked with the script, I continued to think about the weather in Akron,

and the idea of Spring rituals May poles, fertility and all that stuff. I also thought

about some associations of Spring from my own youth on the farm in Sharon Center:

the Spring-time slaughter o f cows and pigs. Violence and fertility and my near

obsession with Shirley Jacksons short story The Lottery kept rolling over and over

in my mind. The idea of the performance o f a Spring ritual even when the participants

no longer know why they participate in it has proved to explain some o f the reasons why

humans justify socially sanctioned violence. I love Jacksons story for the way the

reader is invited in to this small-town gathering only to witness a brutal, ritualized

killing of one of its own people . The more I thought about these ideas, the more I

wanted to write a play that provided a variation of these Spring elements I had come to

know.

I decided to use the weather as an element of oppression for both its

meteorological effects and as a metaphor for feminism. In this respect, I saw Mona as



54/168

43

an oracle-like figure broadcasting the claustrophobic conditions. At f irst I had the Pomo

Delivery Man in the headlines, a person who was randomly distributing pornography

on the doorsteps of the people o f Akron. I wanted him to be some pseudo-fertility, Pan

like creature passing out modern-day aphrodisiacs to a rather sterile world. Mona, in

this sense, tells on him by reporting his activities. I also wanted to suggest that Luke

was the Pomo Delivery Man. But Paul Lim suggested that I eliminate the Pomo

Delivery Man and replace him with a report of the coming of a feminist to Akron.

Suddenly, I realized how very important it would be to have Mona report that not only

is the weather continuing to remain cloudy but that a feminist is coming to town to

discuss the problematic nature of aggression in our society. To me, someone who has

read a good amount of drama from the Greeks to the present, I could not help but to see

Mona's initial weather report and the report of Anita Hills coming to Akron as the

pronouncement of fate upon these men. Yet they are blind to the truth o f their problems

with aggression.

I have made little o f the many absent Others inApril in Akron, but perhaps now

would be a good place to begin explaining how I see multiple absent Others. I have

stockpiled this play with absent characters: Mona, Anita Hill, Sue, Julie, Linda, and

Luke. Adam is fixated on Mona and Anita Hill as he anxiously awaits their coming,

much to the annoyance of the other characters. Julie influences Bob, but she also has a

hold on Cal who wants her despite his angry attitude about her. Linda influences Cal,



55/168

44

but JD also wants her. Sue has Hank by the balls, but Cal despises and resents her. And

Luke, as the one-time alpha male o f the pack, controls all the men below him, especially

Cal. In fact, my creation of the relationship between the men in this play is based on

what I have learned from documentaries about wolf behavior and the hierarchies of

power. Luke is the alpha male who has deserted the pack. But because he has not

entirely exited their lives, the other men are trapped between the allegiance they owe

hi

The Absent Other

Documents

Transcript of The Absent Other