The Birthday Party Memory – it’s human!. History and Lit Night Don’t forget! Poster design...

The Birthday Party

Memory – it’s human!

History and Lit Night

Don’t forget! Poster design competition – one entry per

class Theme: propagandist portrayals of women

The setting - menace World of menace A world of unmotivated cruelty and hate. Stanley is a victim of strangers who invade his

private world (territory) they ‘accuse’ him of an unspecified crime and seek

to undo him. Pinter: “people are scared about what is outside

this room. Outside the room is a world bearing upon them which is frightening….we are all in this, all in a room and outside is a world …which is most inexplicable and frightening, curious and alarming.

Note: Stanley creates a foreshadowing in the ‘wheelbarrow’ episode. Mysterious men out to take Meg away. At the end McCann and Goldberg take Stanley away from the ‘security of the room’ for an unknown outside.

Identity (and anonymity)

Fundamental question: Who Am I? (Problematic!) Identity is Multi-faceted: Name, family background,

culture / ethnic group, social network & Memory (unreliable)

Linked to existential qn of: what is the meaning of my existence? (significance of title – The Birthday Party)

Pinter’s shows how personality and character are unstable - never completely definable. Identity is fluid and may be marked by lack of self-knowledge or self-delusion e.g. Meg: ‘I was the belle of the ball!...They all said I was...oh, It’s true. ’ (pg 86)


Stanley’s identity is mysterious. He asks Meg “Mrs Boles, when you address yourself to me, do you ever ask yourself who exactly are you talking to?” => he has kept himself secret. (pg21)

He also gives several versions of his past life to Meg and McCann.

During the course of the play, Stanley can be said to be ‘re-born’ [hence birthday].

He is ‘given’ a new identity => his old one stripped away during the interrogation. In act 3, he no longer seems the same man as in act 2.


1. Goldberg also makes no secret of the fact he has lived under several names – at least 3 in fact. (Simey, Nat and Benny)

2. Pinter said to Joan Bakewell, “I’m quite interested in the fact that a good deal of the past is really a mist – my past anyway.”

3. If the past is in a mist and one cannot verify what happened, than the idea of a stable identity become impossible.

Therefore…MEMORY

A pervading theme is memory: the way our existence is haunted by a recollection, however fallible or imaginary, of some vanished world in which everything was secure, certain and fixed.

In Stanley's recollections of his days as a concert pianist, (pg 22-23 ) you hear the characteristic Pinter note: a yearning for some lost Eden as a refuge from the uncertain present. ‘Every single one of them. It was a great success’. (22)

MEMORY (& the past)

the past though is deliberately kept vague and is constructed to suit the demands of the moment. => memory is unreliable or the past is just part of self-deception.

The past is presented as un-verifiable => the unreliability of what is said is brought to our attention by the contradictions.

Past exists not as fact but as individual perception - Characters construct a past that is appealing at the moment. Hence we can never ‘know’ their ‘true’ identities.

Audience relies on knowing the past history of characters to understand their personality => lack makes us insecure and frustrated.

Pinter’s world is more uncertain for audience than characters. WE know less than the characters on stage. Deliberate mystification =>> dramatic technique for heightening sense of fear.

Eg ‘My father came down to hear me. Well, I dropped him a card anyway. But I don’t think he could make it. No, I – I lost the address, that was it. (pause.)’ pg 23

=> note the contradictions: did the father come? Could Stanley have dropped him a card if he lost the address?

Examples from the text - Stanley

“I had a unique touch. Absolutely unique…” p22-23

“My father nearly came down”, “I dropped him a card anyway”, “I don’t think he could make it”, “I lost the address” – each statement negates the last as if memory is entirely unreliable

Note the nature of Stanley’s ‘reverie’ – it is to be successful in the public eye (the establishment?)

“They were all there that night. Every single one of them.”

Examples from the text Goldberg’s memories are just as unreliable.

Who is the child he refers to? “When I was an apprentice yet…” p27 – apprentice to

whom? For what? “the sun coming down – golden days, believe me,

McCann.” – why does he have to demand “belief”? “He had a house just outside Basingstoke at the time.

Respected by the whole community.” – note the similarity with Stanley’s ‘piano recital reverie’ – the concept of social acceptance and conformity to an expected standard

“Uncle Barney taught me that the word of a gentleman is enough.”

Examples from the text

Goldberg’s memories in Act 2 seem to partially contradict those of Act 1 – they seem to be more explicitly focused upon Stanley’s shortcomings

“”I used to go for a walk down the canal with a girl who lived down my road…She wasn’t a Sunday school teacher for nothing… – I never took liberties – we weren’t like the young men these days those days. We knew the meaning of respect.” p43


“I know what it is to wake up with the sun shining, to the sound of the lawnmower, all the little birds, the smell of grass, church bells, tomato juice –” p45

Lulu: You got a wife?Goldberg: I had a wife. What a wife. Listen to this. Friday,

of an afternoon, I’d take myself for a little constitutional…back I’d go to my bungalow with the flat roof. “Simey,” my wife used to shout, “quick before it gets cold!” And there on the table… p59

(note direct link to the language of the earlier episode (p43) “Simey!” my old mum used to shout, “quick before it gets cold.” And there on the table…”

Goldberg’s memories

A ‘pastiche’ of genuine memories. They feature images of family, home, simple pleasures, sunlight, food and nurture.

They represent a concept of satisfaction with one’s ‘lot’ – the romance of the sunset over the dog stadium

Examples from the text - Meg

Meg’s recollection of Stanley’s earlier speech shows the vulnerability of memory over an absurdly short space of time. In dramatic terms, Stanley’s reverie is just moments earlier

“His father gave him champagne…The caretaker had gone home…And then they all wanted to give him a big tip. And so he took the tip. And then he got the fast train and he came down here.” p32 - note the infantile construction of the speech.


The birthday becomes a significantly troubling issue.

For the audience, it is disturbing to imagine that a ‘birthday’ can be assigned arbitrarily

“It’s your birthday Stan. I was going to keep it secret until tonight.” p35

“This isn’t my birthday, Meg.” p36 “No, I’m sorry, Stan. I didn’t know about it till

just now.” p44


Stanley’s anxious appeal to McCann early in Act 2 relies on memory

“I used to live very quietly – played records, that’s about all. Everything delivered to the door…I lived so quietly.” p40

“I suppose I have changed, but I’m still the same man that I always was.”


Stanley’s efforts at recalling memory for McCann suggest yet another clash with earlier memories.

The concept of “living quietly” contradicts his reverie of performing in public. The musical connection is reduced to “playing records” instead of the creative practice of playing the piano

Examples from the text – the sinister

Compare these two referencesStanley: There’s a Fuller’s teashop. I used to

have my tea there.

McCann: I don’t know it.

Stanley: And a Boots library… p39 “That’s the sort of man I am…tea in

Fullers, a Library book from Boots, and I’m satisfied.” p56

Examples from the text – the sinister

If we recall Stanley’s ‘reverie’ we remember the words “they were all there”

Note Goldberg’s speech p57“Well, my first chance to stand up and give a

lecture was at the Ethical Hall, Bayswater. A wonderful opportunity. I’ll never forget it. They were all there that night.”

The sinister

What is the dramatic impact of these ‘echoes’ throughout the text?

What is the connection between Goldberg and Stanley?

How do Goldberg’s speeches reflect the establishment and its expectations?

How does this help shape our expectations?

Memory in Act 3

Few ‘romanticised’ memories are delivered in Act 3

“A friend of mine was telling me about it only the other day. We’d both been concerned with another case – not entirely similar, of course, but …quite alike, quite alike. …sometimes it happens gradual – day by day it grows and grows and grows” p 72

Memory in Act 3

“My father said to me, Benny, Benny, he said, come here. He was dying. I knelt down. By him day and night…Keep an eye for low-lives, for shnorrers and for layabouts. He didn’t mention names. I lost my life in the service of others, he said, I’m not ashamed. Do your duty and keep your observations.”

Memory in Act 3

Meg’s final memoriesMeg: It was a lovely party. I haven’t laughed so much for

years. We had dancing and singing. And games. You should have been there.

Petey: It was good, eh? [pause]Meg: I was the belle of the ball.Petey: Were you?Meg: Oh yes. They all said I was.Petey: I bet you were, too. Meg: Oh, it’s true. I was. [pause] I know I was. p87

Significance

Memory in the play is clearly ‘fickle’ Pinter appears to establish a contradiction

between ‘approved’ memories and memories that challenge the establishment.

Stanley’s silence at the end of the play? “Still the same old Stan. Come with us.

Come on, boy.” p85

Problem of Human Communication

Pinter on communication: ‘…what takes place is continual evasion, desperate rearguard attempts to keep ourselves to ourselves. Communication is too alarming. To enter into someone else’s life is too frightening, to disclose to others the poverty within us is too fearsome a possibility.’

Sincerity, honesty, openness must be shunned because they create chaos. Survival is based on a policy of reciprocal misunderstanding and misinformation.

Problem of Human Communication

Critic Irving Wardle suggests that Pinter’s characters lie. “The Pinteresque hero seems almost inarticulate as a pig, stumbling pathetically in his words, covering a narrow area of meaning with his utterances, and blathering through his life. When he grunts, it is to lie.’

Pinter’s characters are always intelligent enough in their capacity as conscientious and persistent liars, whether lying to themselves or to others to hide the truth if they know truth’s abode (even if they are often abject, stupid, aggressive & vile)

It’s self-preservation, survival and for security. Fundamentally isolates and alienates the individual.

Silence and pauses

Pinter suggests: Language of silence becomes more powerful than words

“the more acute the experience the less articulate its expression.” =>Inadequacy of words when it comes to complex emotions.

The ‘Interrogation’

Its significance to Act 2

The ‘interrogation’

What is the purpose? Dramatic Thematic

Dramatically, the episode occurs when Stanley is most insecure. He is left for the first time with both Goldberg and McCann

The audience is well aware of dramatic tension created by the ‘build-up’

The build-up

Immediately preceding is Stanley’s attempt to assert authority over Goldberg “Don’t mess me about!” (p44) “Perhaps you’re deaf.” (p44) “Get out.” (p45) “I told you to get those bottles out.” (p45) “Let me – just make this clear. You don’t

bother me…” (p45)

The build-up – Goldberg’s role

During the build-up, Goldberg avoids confrontation “You’re in a terrible humour today, Mr Webber. And

on your birthday too…” (p45) The audience responds by perceiving that

Goldberg and McCann have no intention of moving or leaving.

The tension is increased by the apparently innocuous instruction – “Mr Webber, sit down a minute”

Sitting down

As we witness the progression of the ‘interrogation’, the concepts of sitting and standing take on symbolic significance in terms of the ‘Power-play’.

To sit is sometimes a position of authority (Goldberg) – “You’ve made Mr Goldberg stand up.” (p47) but can equally be a position of subordination and submission (Stanley) – “Get down in that seat!” (p47)

Sitting down

By using the simple stage device of sitting and standing, Pinter is able to utilise height contrast upon the stage

As the interrogation continues, the dual standing figures of Goldberg and McCann emphasise the nature of Stanley’s confined predicament

The interrogation reaches a dramatic ‘end point’ with Stanley subdued and helpless in a crouched position in the chair (p52). It is from here that Stanley resorts to animal violence and kicks Goldberg in the stomach with Goldberg falling to the ground.

The structure of the ‘Interrogation’

The episode begins with simple questions in a ‘police style’ – “What were you doing yesterday”

These rapidly descend into increasingly absurdist statements… Why are you getting in everybody’s way? Why are you getting on everybody’s wick? Why are you driving the old lady off her conk? Why do you force the old man out to play chess? Why do you treat the young lady like a leper? What did you wear last week, Webber? Where do you

keep your suits? (p 47-48)


This reaches an anticlimax with McCann’s ‘cross examination’ questions Why did you leave the organisation? Why did you betray us?

Such questions lead into the next barrage of questions related to Stanley’s ‘purpose’ in coming to the Boles’s house

Again the absurdist nature of the questions rapidly increases Did you stir properly? Did they fizz? Did they fizz or didn’t they fizz? (p48)


This brief sequence is again interrupted by McCann’s assertion You betrayed the organisation. I know him! (p48)

This is followed immediately by the removal of Stanley’s glasses – an incident which is echoed in ‘Blind Man’s Bluff’ during the party itself

Here, Stanley is placed in a state of absolute vulnerability – without sight and prone to attack both physically and verbally


The removal of Stanley’s glasses is followed immediately by questions about Stanley’s past which are full of symbols of conventionality and Stanley’s rejection of it Where was your wife? What have you done with your wife? How did you kill her? Where’s your old mum? Why did you never get married? Webber! Why did you change your name? (p49)


Increasingly towards the end of the interrogation the accusations increase and questions become more absurd and impossible to answer

The ‘846 sequence’ of questions is the most obviously ridiculous in the play (p50)

The conclusion, for the members of the audience, is that the is no satisfactory answer from Stanley’s perspective.


All along the line Right? Of course right! We’re right and you’re

wrong, Webber, all along the line. (p51) The dramatic motif of the line is significant

as it reminds the audience of the establishment’s requirement to ‘toe the line’

End of week 6 lecture

McCann’s role

Throughout the ‘interrogation’ McCann becomes the ‘accuser’

As the episode progresses, McCann’s language becomes increasingly moralistic You contaminate womankind Mother defiler! You’re a traitor to the cloth. What about the Albigensenist heresy? What about the blessed Oliver Plunkett? (p51)

Goldberg – triumph of absurdity

Who watered the wicket at Melbourne? Why did the chicken cross the road? He doesn’t know. Do you know your own

face? (p51-52)

Why so much absurdity?

The end result of the interrogation is one that brings us to an enduring image in the play – death and decay You’re dead. You can’t live…You’re a plague

gone bad. There’s no juice in you. You’re nothing but an odour! (p52)

The absurdity underlines the absolute futility of Stanley’s protests (Just like Oliver Plunkett and the Catharists)

Conclusions

The episode is a triumph of establishment forces over the transgressor’s efforts to resist.

From this moment onward, Stanley barely regains his voice – why is this?

Act 2

Core concepts and dramatic approaches

Act 2

Reinforces the ‘ambivalent’ in the plot, presentation of character, and ending.

Audience sees the psychological stability of individuals break down as their fears, jealousies, hatreds, sexual preoccupations, and loneliness emerge from beneath a screen of bizarre yet commonplace conversation.

Dramatic Strategies

Pinter uses; understatement, small talk, reticence and silence to convey the substance of the character's thought, which often lies several layers beneath, and contradicts, his speech.

The characters' speeches, hesitations and pauses reveal: alienation difficulties in communicating many layers of meaning that can be contained in even

the most innocuous statements.

Act 2

Develops the play's secondary themes the divided self the deluded self how the past haunts the present the individual’s struggle for

dominance.

Existential Perspective According to the R. D. Laing, the British psychiatrist and

existentialist the mind of modern man is a divided entity: the false self and the true self.

He believes that modern social communication and the family in particular is very damaging. He believes the family requires us to stifle our true feelings and to pursue meaningless goals.

According to Laing, the family discourages authentic (real)

behaviour. By the time we reach adulthood we are cut off from our “true self”. We might seem normal but we are really deeply impaired (Laing, 1967).

Interpersonal stresses could lead people to find they can no longer maintain their “false self” and hence they retreat from reality into their own inner worlds.

Freedom is a constant struggle, something people may wish to avoid, and that once embraced still comes with a price: existential guilt and anguish.

The Modern Mind as a divided entity - True Self and False Self

Especially evident in The Birthday Party and many of Pinter’s plays – Most characters have a true self and a false self and often we have difficulty distinguishing the true nature of a person.

Act 2 largely brings out unprecedented responses and reactions from the characters which make us wonder about the reasons and motives behind them.

The Divided Self

There are, for example, ironic discrepancies in characters, especially in Goldberg's case. On the surface, he is amiable and pleasant, a spokesman for old world values and familial loyalties, but he is also sexually abusive, even depraved. p.43, p.51 , p.54, p.58, p.62, p.64

McCann, his associate, possibly a killer, is a rather taciturn, finicky sort of fellow. He sits quietly, methodically tearing newspaper into strips, an ironic bit of activity given the fact that he has a brutal purpose.

"The Killers," the pair seem to be civilized and calm, not vicious or nervous. It is the ironic contrast between their normal exterior and their undisclosed but violent purpose that makes them so sinister and menacing.

The Divided Self

Stanley’s behaviour too is unexpected and unprecedented.

Stage directions on p.65 suggest that he almost rapes Lulu. “Lulu is lying spread-eagled on the table, Stanley bent over her.”

Stanley shows no remorse or guilt Like a mad man. His giggles, rises and grows as

he flattens himself against the wall.

Act 2

Develops the play's secondary themes relating to the divided self, the deluded self and the way the past haunts the present.

Stanley's present seems to be haunted by an offense he committed in his past

Goldberg's present is haunted by happy memories of his childhood. the clearly idealized nature of these memories

suggests that Goldberg, like the other characters, operates under a sense of delusion. In his case, he believes his past was happier than what it actually was.

Act 2 – The ‘interrogation’

In the middle of Act 2 p.44 the play's simmering violence erupts into vicious verbal confrontation and seems about to explode into a physical battle.

Goldberg and McCann's increasingly pointed comments, vicious attacks and veiled threats serve as manifestations of that suppressed inner self.

It's becoming more and more clear that Stanley's delusions about safety are being blown apart before his shortsighted eyes.

Act 2

Goldberg and McCann continue terrorizing Stanley even while the birthday party is going on.

Here again is an example of the play's core theme that nothing is what it seems.

Everybody is apparently having a wonderful time, but beneath the surface, something horrific is going on.

Shining the flashlight in Stanley's face to blind him, breaking his glasses and tripping him during the game are all manifestations of McCann and Goldberg's efforts at increasing the pressure.

McCann also requests that Stanley pour him some "Irish" whisky, and there are other repeated references to Ireland.

The Flexibility and Fallibility of Memory

It’s uncertain if memories are a product of truth or imagination or a need to fill the emptiness and drudgery of their own lives with a romantic – romanticised vision.

Use of superlatives and words that laud over and romanticise the past presenting a picture perfect vision creates skepticism

The perfect Edenic vision of the past is also often interjected with nonsense words to throw the audience off, contributing to the skepticism.

The Flexibility and Fallibility of Memory Parallels between Stanley and Goldberg

narrating and remembering/constructing memories of the past as the “Golden Years”

Goldberg’s glorifying of the past continues in Act 2 – p.43, 45, 56, 57, 59

Stanley remembers Ireland as friendly and wonderful in Act 2 – p.40, 42,

The Flexibility and Fallibility of Memory Meg’s memory of a ‘pretty-in-pink’ past –

sees the past with rose tinted glasses? Act 2 p. 60 “My little room was pink. I had

a pink carpet and pink curtains…”

Paradise Lost Man’s search for an Edenic life Stanley’s lament “Nowhere. There’s nowhere to

go…Nowhere” suggests the deep seated angst emerging from his alienation from modern life and modern living

This sense is conveyed once again explicitly by Mc Cann,

“Oh, the Garden of Eden has vanished they say, But I know the lie of it still.” (p61)

“It’s there you’ll find it, I know sure enough.”

Domination

Pinter described his dramatic literature as an analysis of “the powerful and the powerless.”

In Act 2 a distraught and disheveled Stanley Webber; may or may not be a piano player. It may or may not be his birthday party. He may or may not know the two diabolically

bureaucratic visitors who… However, one thing is definite: Stanley is an

example of a powerless character struggling against powerful entities. (And you can probably guess who will win)

Intimidation and extreme provocation

It's clear that Goldberg and McCann are bullying Stanley, but from the dialogue alone it's not clear why or what they're ultimately after. (p.47, 48)

The references to "the organization“ p.48 hint at some kind of secret society, such as the Mafia or the Irish Republican Army or it may even be the Government that operates like one.

Purpose for the ‘terror’? - letting him know that they have the power in this

situation, that his past has caught up with him and that "the organization," through them, will have its vengeance.

Domination – Power Play

Hurls all sorts of accusations: p. 48, 49, 50 “You betrayed the organisation” Betrayal of organisation “You are a fake?” Misrepresenting self “He’s killed his wife?” Murder “Why did you never get married?” “You skedaddled from the wedding?” Betrayal of girl “Why did you change your name?” betrayal of self “Do you recognise an external force, responsible for you

suffering for you?” Betrayal of God - Religious guilt “Where is your lechery leading you?” Sexual offence

sexual guilt

Domination and Power Play

In spite of the arbitrary, random, illogical, nonsensical and absurd nature of the accusations which suggest strongly the lack of grounds

Goldberg concludes with an air of authority “We’re right and you’re wrong, Webber…”

The line between what is right and what is wrong is blurred and questioned.

Domination

This moment (p.52) is the climax of the play so far, the high point of emotion and the moment at which Stanley's crisis is at its deepest.

He's trapped. His delusion of safety is completely shattered, and

he can see no way to escape the confrontation with his past that he's so desperately struggled to avoid.

This sense of destruction is symbolized in Stanley's kicking of the drum, which represents Meg's delusions about her intimate, sexy relationship with Stanley.

Vulnerability of Agents of Power and Menace In spite of the impressive front, both Goldberg and

McCann may be similar to Stanley and Meg. They are pathetic figures whose lives are equally empty and meaningless. (note how this is developed in Act 3)

Goldberg’s only solace is to cling on to a “Golden” past that may have been completely constructed

McCann’s need to believe that the “Garden of Eden has (not) vanished” (p.61) though “everywhere you go these days it’s like a funeral.”( Act 1 p. 28) begs the question.

What do parallels between Stanley and Goldberg suggest about society and the individual?

In this context, the parallels between Stanley and Goldberg are interesting to note. First, if the hints as to what Stanley did in Ireland are to be believed, Goldberg has done to the young and vulnerable Lulu what Stanley apparently did to a young, vulnerable Irish girl.

Secondly, they've both had their psyche-saving delusions, if not destroyed, at least damaged. Again, their pasts have come back to haunt them in the present. In this context, is it possible that their respective delusions have been damaged, if not destroyed, by their mutual encounter as a kind of poetic justice? Do both Goldberg and Stanley get what they deserve?

Adapted from Bookrags

Rites of Passage

Some critics view Stanley as a symbol of the alienated artist who must be socially reintegrated.

In this schema, Goldberg and McCann represent, respectively, the Judaic and Christian strains that impose on modern society, their "organization," various obligations.

In this scheme, described by Martin Esslin in Pinter, "Stanley is the artist who society claims back from a comfortable, bohemian, 'opt-out' existence."

The ritual of reintegration involves both the second-act initiation, the birthday party, and the third-act investiture, the dressing of Stanley in the habit or "uniform of respectable, bourgeois gentility." Adapted from Bookrags

Rites of Passage

There is also the second initiation, that of Lulu into sexual depravity, but this rite of passage is wholly secret and occurs offstage.

It is one that also contributes an ironic comment on the other, for it is the fatherly Goldberg who is the ritual's high priest. The implication is that although society tries to redeem its outcasts, it also corrupts and violates its members.


Sex and the Death of Love

The death of love is a common theme or condition in much absurdist drama evident in aberrant behavior, violent aggression and sexual repression.

In the seedy rooming house, love seems either ineffectually sad or depraved.

With Goldberg, sex is an empowering experience, a violent way to control or destroy and a terrible mockery of its function in a loving relationship.

In Pinter's world, such a healthy relationship seems an impossibility.


Structure or the lack of it!

Working through some sort of causal necessity, such a structure traditionally imposes predictable patterns of behavior on character,

but Pinter breaks through such strictures, at times letting his characters go amok. For example, at the birthday party in the second act, for no discernible reason, Stanley becomes very violent.

Such odd behavior offers a very unsettling contrast to the more predictable events that usually evolve within such a traditional structure.


The Birthday Party as a Modern Allegory

The Birthday Party has been read as a kind of modern allegory.

That interpretation is partly based on the fact that there is little to anchor the play's setting in a world beyond its limits.

Pinter's deliberate vagueness and use of fragmented information tend to confirm that he has a symbolic purpose.

Some elements seem particularly conducive to interpretation - the toy drum, the birthday party itself, McCann's seemingly gratuitous act of breaking Stanley's glasses, and the outfitting of Stanley in respectable clothes before he is led off. Adapted from Bookrags

Some Questions

Is Stanley the embodiment of the modern artist who has reneged on his obligations to both his craft and society and turned to living in an inert, totally irresponsible state?

Critics have remarked that the play's setting is womb-like, offering Stanley a place of comfort and security and isolating him from the world beyond. Still, while it provides a refuge, the place is dingy and depressing, and Stanley is hardly happy living in it. He obviously shoulders some sort of guilt. Goldberg and McCann tap into that, and they intimate that there will be retribution for Stanley's alleged transgressions, possibly death.

However, part of what they say in the last act suggests that they are not so much his inquisitors and potential executioners as exorcists and healers who have come to make Stanley whole again.

Such uncertainties make a consistent allegorical interpretation of the play difficult.


The Birthday Party Memory – it’s human!. History and Lit Night Don’t forget! Poster design...

Documents

Transcript of The Birthday Party Memory – it’s human!. History and Lit Night Don’t forget! Poster design...