Chapter 5 A Study of Structure Contents 5.1. Elements of Structure 5.2. Elements of Drama 5.2 .1. Theme 5.2.2. Action/ Plot 5.2.3. Characters 5.2.4. Language 5.2.5. Music 5.2.6. Spectacle 5.3. Dramatic Structure 5.3.1. Point of Attack 5.3.2. Exposition 5.3.3. Rising of Action 5.3.4. The Climax 5.3.5. Resolution 5.4. Types of Plot Structure 5.4.1. Aristotlean structure 5.4.2. Climactic structure 5.4.3. Episodic structure 5.5. Come Back Little Sheba A study of its structure 5.6. Picnic – A Study of its Structure

5.7. The Dark at the Top of the Stairs – A study of its structure 5.8. Bus Stop: A Study of its Structure 5.9. Splendor in the Grass: A study of its structure

Structure Analysis 5.1. Elements of dramatic structure Dramatic structure involves the overall framework or method the playwright uses to organize the dramatic material and action. It is important for the playwright to establish themes but the challenge comes in applying structure to the ideas and inspirations. Understanding the basic principles of dramatic structure is quite necessary to understand and analyse the structure of plays. There are many ways to write a play. Sometimes a playwright starts with an idea. Another playwright may begin with a single character in mind. Some playwrights base their work on spectacle. Plays can be tightly structured or episodic. Regardless of the original inspiration, the work of the playwright is not just to set forth the idea, to create characters or to tell a story. A playwright recreates and restates the human experiences and the universal mirror of mankind.

5.2. Elements of drama Most successful playwrights follow the theories of play writing and drama that were established over two thousand years ago by Aristotle. In his works The Poetics Aristotle outlined the six elements of drama in his critical analysis of the classical Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex written by the Greek playwright, Sophocles, in the fifth century B.C. The six elements as they are outlined involve: Thought, Theme, Ideas; Action or plot; Characters; Language; Music and spectacle.

5.2.1. Theme Theme is what the play means as opposed to what happens (the plot).The playwright chooses some event or incident that he wants to present to the audience. It is the raw material which may not have any basic form, beauty or structure.

5.2.2. Plot Plot includes the seven structural components used in the selection and arrangement of events in the story. These selected events are then typically arranged in some pattern that is both coherent and interesting. The plot presents the theme chosen by the playwright in a meaningful and coherent manner. So plot means what happens rather than what it means. The plot must have some sort of unity and clarity by setting up a pattern by which each action initiating the next rather than standing alone without connection to what came before it or what follows. In the plot of a play, characters are involved in conflict that has a pattern of movement. The action and movement in the play begins from the initial entanglement, through rising action, climax, and falling action to resolution. For Aristotle, “beauty consists in magnitude and arrangement” of the plot, which he called “the soul of drama.”1 (David vx) But he also recognized that there was much more to a drama than just “a beginning, middle and end” or “proper magnitude” of its plot. In poetics, he addressed such matters as the definition of character, their qualities and ways of being portrayed; causes for the rise of dramatic storytelling and its relationship to view of life; the effect tragedy (and, by interference, any kind of story) has on an audience; and the mode of manner of diction. He was concerned with all these

matters-all related to the architecture of dramatic storytelling. The success of the story depends on the plot.

5.2.3. Characters To present the theme through the plot the playwright creates characters. The number of the characters depends on the story. He can create any type of characters the story demands. The two main types of characters are round and flat. 5.2.4. Language Language is chosen in keeping in mind the audience to whom it is presented. 5.2.5. Music Music is created according to the situation and trend. 5.2.6. Spectacle Spectacle depends upon the demand that the story makes and the affordability of the producers. Besides the elements outlined above the playwright has other major considerations to take into account. The genre and form of the play is an important aspect since it has to chosen by the playwright according to the subject he has in his mind. Tragedy, Comedy, Tragicomedy, Domestic comedy are the traditional genre forms adapted by the playwrights. While some playwrights are pure in their choice of genre for a play others mix and match.

5.3. Dramatic Structure Dramatic structure involves the overall framework or the method by which the playwright uses to organize the dramatic material and or action. It is important for playwrights to establish themes but the challenge comes in applying structure to the ideas and inspirations. Understanding basic principles of dramatic structure can be invaluable to the playwright. Most modern plays are structured into acts that can be further divided into scenes .The pattern most often used is a method by where the playwright sets up early on in the beginning scenes all of the necessary conditions and situations out of which the later conditions will develop. Generally the wants and desires of one character will conflict with another character. With this method the playwright establishes a pattern of complication, rising action, climax and resolution. This is commonly known as cause to effect arrangement of incidents. The basic Characteristics of the cause to effect arrangement are: Clear exposition of situation Careful preparation for future events or the building of actions Unexpected but logical reversals or the climax An obligatory scene or denouement Logical resolution or catharsis

5.3.1. Point of Attack The moment of the play at which main action of the plot begins. This may occur ion the first scene, or it may occur after several scenes of exposition. The point of attack

triggers the main action which pays the way for the rest of the action. Point of attack is instigated either due by some character or incident. 5.3.2. Exposition Exposition reveals information that the audience needs to know in order to follow the main story line of the play. It introduces all the characters to the readers or the audience. It also gives the relevant back ground information and prepares the audience for the events that will follow.

5.3.3. Rising Action Rising action is the section of plot beginning with the point of attack and/or inciting incident and proceeding forward to the crisis into the climax. The action of the play will rise as it set up a situation of increasing intensity and anticipation. These scenes make up the body of the play and usually create a sense of continuous mounting suspense in the audience.

5.3.4. The Climax Climax is the converging point where all of the earlier scenes and action in the play will build technically to the highest level of dramatic intensity. This part of the play is generally referred to as the moment of the play's crisis. This is the moment where major dramatic questions arise to the highest level, the mystery hits the unraveling point, and the culprits are revealed. This should be point of highest stage of dramatic intensity in the action of the play. The whole combined action of the play generally lead up to this moment.

5.3.5. Resolution The resolution is the moment of the play in which the conflicts are resolved. It is the solution to the conflict in the play, the answer to the mystery, and the clearing up of the final details. This is the scene that answers the questions raised earlier in the play. In this scene the methods and motives are revealed to the audience.

5.4. Types of plot structure There are different kinds of structures that playwrights at different point of time applied to their works. Round, Aristotlean, linear, climactic and episodic are a few that can be named. The structure in which many subplots run through the play can be described as 'River Action' in this type of plot actions not closely linked are moving in parallel to be integrated at the end of the play. This contrasts to the single or episodic action in Macbeth, or the mirror action in King Lear where there is both a main and a sub-plot present. Shakespeare has used this structural technique to create both humour and tension. The subplots also pick up on the themes of love and mistaken identities, preparing us for the part those themes will play in the main plot. Round plot in a play is where the action of the plot gets back to where it has started at the end of action, with no drastic change occurs to modify either the situation or the position of the characters.

5.4.1. Aristotlean structure Aristotle, the architect of dramatic structure advocated that the plots should be well knit and he formulated the three unities -–the unity of time, the unity of action and

the unity of place. According to Aristotle the plot or the structure is the way the incidents are presented to the audience. According to him the plot must be continuous, have magnitude and complete with a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning, must start the cause-and-effect chain but not be dependent on anything outside the compass of the play. The middle, or climax, must be caused by earlier incidents and itself cause the incidents that follow it. The resolution must be caused by the preceding events but not lead to other incidents outside the compass of the play ; the end should therefore solve or resolve the problem created during the incentive moment. Aristotle calls the cause-andeffect chain leading from the incentive moment to the climax the 'tying up' , that is termed as the complication by the playwrights and critics later times. Aristotle terms the more rapid cause-and-effect chain from the climax to the resolution the 'unravelling', termed as dénouement in later times. When Aristotle says that the plot must be complete he means that it should be structurally self-contained, with the incidents bound together by internal necessity, each action leading inevitably to the next with no outside intervention. According to Aristotle, the worst kinds of plots are 'episodic', in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence; the only thing that ties together the events in such a plot is the fact that they happen to the same person.

5.4.2. Climactic structure The characteristics of climactic structure are as follows: i. Plot begins late in story, closer to the very end or climax ii. Covers a short space of time, perhaps a few hours or at most a few days

iii. Contains a few solid, extended scenes, such as three acts with each act comprising one long scene. iv. Occurs in a restricted locale, one room or one house v. Number of characters is severely limited, usually not more than six or eight vi. Plot in linear and moves in a single line with few subplots or counter plots vii. Line of action proceeds in a cause and effect chain. The characters and events are closely linked in a sequence of logical, almost inevitable development.

5.4.3. Episodic Structure i. The characteristics of episodic structure are as follows ii. Plot begins relatively early in the story and moves through a series of episodes iii. Covers a longer period of time: weeks, months and some times years iv. Many short fragmented scenes; sometimes an alternation of short and long scenes v. May range over an entire city or even several countries vi. Frequently marked by several threads of action, such as two parallel plots, or scenes of comic relief in a serious play.

The modern playwrights in keeping with the taste and demand of the audience have the plays structured into acts that can be further divided into scenes. An act is a major division in a drama. Scenes are juxtaposed to one another. An event may result from several causes or no apparent cause, but arises in a network or web of circumstances In Greek plays the sections of the drama signified by the appearance of the Chorus were usually divided into five acts. This is the formula for most serious drama from the Greeks to the Romans to the Elizabethan playwrights like William Shakespeare. The five acts denote the structure of dramatic action. They are exposition, complication, climax, falling action and catastrophe. William Inge the champion of domestic play genre modified the conventional five act structure without violating the traditional rules laid down by the great architects.

5.5. Structure of Come Back Little Sheba .

The five act structure was followed until the nineteenth century and later the

modern realistic drama replaced the conventional five act play structure with three act structure. A study of Come Back Little Sheba which has been appreciated as certainly “the most sturdily crafted”2 (Simon 67) shows that Inge has comprised the three act structure further and has composed a two act play. He has combined the exposition and the conflict building or the complication and presented it in the first act of the play and he has combined the climax, denouement and resolution in the second act. Though he has deviated from the conventional five act structure of play writing yet he has striven to keep up the three unities, strictly adhered by the great Greek dramatist. The whole action of the play Come Back Little Sheba takes place at the residence of the protagonist and the

plot is well made and there is no event or dialogue included in the play which does not contribute to the development of the action of the play. He has also made use of the other dramatic devices like conflict, contrast, suspense and irony quite effectively. He has even drawn a character, Mrs. Coffman who plays the role of the Greek Chorus in the play to certain extent. Each of Inge’s plays is a slice of real life and Come Back Little Sheba is no exception. As a result the exposition part of the play unfolds casually and transports us into the world of Doc and Lola. In the first act, first scene Doc tells Marie that he discontinued his study of Medicine and became a Chiropractor instead. Similarly in the course of dialogue between Doc and Lola the information that Doc was an alcoholic and it is only eleven months since he has stopped drinking is revealed to the readers. From the conversation between Lola and the postman it is gathered that Doc is no more an alcoholic and there is a quart of whiskey lying in the kitchen shelf and Doc has not touched it for months. In the second scene the reason why Doc gave up his study of medicine is also given to readers through his conversation with Lola. As the plot keeps moving the exposition is quite sleekly built without making the readers conscious of it. Complication also is introduced in scene -2. Doc is dismayed to find out the truth about Mary. Both, his doubt regarding the character of Mary and Lola’s invitation to him to peep at Turk and Mary shock and disappoint Doc. Lola further upsets him by reading Marie’s telegram without her permission. Doc who appears to be stoic and saintly actually is raging a war inside him. Parallel to the external conflict that is moving the action of the plot there is a conflict raging inside Doc as well. His desires to be good and decent but his Apollonian self is in conflict with his Dionysian self. It is not that he is

upset with Marie just because she is entertaining Turk at the back of Bruce; but it is because that at the core of his heart he is in love with Marie, who he tends to believe to be the personification of purity and innocence. Lola is at a loss to understand the conflict that is driving Doc mad. She continues with her amorous behaviour and instigates Doc’s sense of resentment further. The conflicts move the action forward and at the end of act-1 Scene -2 the complication is well built into the course of dramatic action. In scene-1 act-II, when Doc understands that Marie is quite immoral the conflict in his mind gets further complicated and the plot gains momentum. Doc is unable to take the fact that she has been cheating him under his own roof that too, assisted by his wife. He walks away with the whiskey bottle he has left untouched for months. In scene – 2, Lola finds it out and tension mounts on her. Scene 3 is the climactic or cathartic scene is a masterfully crafted scene, in which Doc lets lose his pent up feelings. The final Resolution scene depicts Lola and Doc draw a compromise. The analysis shows that all elements of structure including contrast conflict, plot device, irony and humour well imbued into the play. The exposition extends up to scene –1 of act –II and the complications start in scene-2 of act –I and continue almost till the third scene of act-II. The climax strikes like a sudden storm and is breathtakingly violent and lengthy. The resolution scene in comparison to the previous scene is short and breezy. Contrast is used as a plot device to move the course of action quite effectively by the playwright in the play. The main characters Doc and Lola are poles apart in their behaviour. Doc is stoic and silent whereas Lola is flirtatious and garrulous. The play starts highlighting the contrast in their behaviour. The opening scene shows Doc get up

early in the morning and prepare breakfast in the kitchen. He is neatly dressed. He prays and in general appears cheerful. Lola gets up late comes down clumsily dressed. She is sad and apologetic. Besides Doc, garrulous Lola is presented also as a sharp contrast to the young and worldly-wise Marie. The old couple placed along the virulent fun loving young couple Turk and Marie present unmistakably a sad contrast. Docile Doc is a contrast to vibrant Turk. Thus there are so many contrasts well drawn in play and the intention of the playwright to intensify and move the plot ahead with the help of the contrasts drawn becomes clear. The elements of suspense and irony are also introduced into the play. There is mystery surrounding the disappearance the couple’s dog Sheba. Lola suspects Mrs. Coffman to have stolen her dog Sheba. Sheba symbolically stands for her lost youth. It is an irony that she does not understand that in the course of time a young person loses his youth and beauty and will never get it back. It is also an irony that Lola wishes Doc to comeback home sober but at the same time it is she who instigates him to resume drinking. Mrs. Coffman’s role in the play could be compared to that of the chorus in Greek drama. Every now and then she passes on a judgment or a comment on Lola. She advices Lola to get busy and comforts Lola whenever needed. She is a mute spectator to Doc’s violent outburst and after that silently cleans up the mess created by him. . Though Inge is accused of being more interested in psychoanalyzing his characters than in building his plots, the study shows that his employment of the Freudian paradigm brings out the conflicts inside a person which in turn helps to intensify the course of the action in the play. It unearths the fact that it is Lola’s sense of depreciation,

her regret that in her life she has had no chance to get intimate with any muscular man and to put it more precisely not with any man except Doc that makes her behave in that mean, vulgar, indecent way. The revelation of what is going on in Lola’s mind enables the reader to follow the plot better. No amount of physical or verbal action could be used as effectively as this psychoanalytic technique to enable the course of action to gather the required momentum. Similarly it is only when Doc feels that his emotions have been perceived by Lola he feels helplessly naked and he loses his emotional balance for the first time. When Lola points out to him that he is too much bothered about Turk’s involvement with Marie he vehemently denies: “why should I be ? why should I?” (Gassner III. 432; 1.1) and leaves the scene. The conflict of the plot is triggered here and gains momentum in the following scenes. Another element of plot device conflict has been made use of by Inge quite effectively to intensify the course of action and move it ahead. Hegel’s structural paradigm is the dramatic technique well adopted by Inge in the play. Hegel’s structural paradigm contained in what he calls ‘dialectic’ helps explain how the conflict between Doc and Lola is used by Inge to drive the narrative forward diachronically. Hegel’s dialectic consists of two opposing forces- a thesis and an antithesis- held in opposition, each struggling for dominance, but both eventually destroy the negative aspects of each other and recombine the left over positive qualities in to a resolution he calls a synthesis… in which all struggle ceases at the point of perfection (Johnson)3. The two main characters Doc and Lola are poised opposite to each other in the play. Both have positive as well as negative qualities in them. Lola is sluggish, vulgar and

dirty but she is not secretive. She tells Doc openly that she used to be quite worried about his drunkenness: When I think of the way you used to drink, always getting into fights, we had so much trouble. I was so scared! I never knew what was going to happen (Gassner III. 416;1.1). She even asks him whether he regrets the fact that he had to marry her. Thus she with not any restrain bares all her emotions to Doc as well as to the others. Doc on the other hand is secretive about his emotions. Whenever Lola tries to elicit some information out of him he just avoids giving any straight answer. He appears to be passive and patient all the time. But actually he is a waging a war with the conflict that is torturing him with in. The resolution scene brings out all that is dark inside him. Lola is dazed by the shocking revelation. She encounters the ‘real’ Doc for the first time. The resolution scene is an excellent example of the Hegelian episodic structure employed by Inge in the play. A week later, when both Doc and Lola meet a lot of changes have taken over them. The negativity in each of them seems to have negated the others’ and the positive elements in their natures seem to have fused and thus with a new strength and vision they start their life on a new note. Doc suggests Lola that he would get her a sad looking bird dog. Thus he indicates her that though they have lost their Sheba, their youth, still he an old man would try to give Lola what she has missed out in her life. Although Doc and Lola have had bouts of fights and had compromised on earlier occasions as well, only this time there is an indication that the process of synthesis is complete. Lola accepts Sheba to be dead. Hence although the action seems to get back to

the point where it has started it could be assumed that the structure of the play is not circular but Hegelian. Lola’s flirtation with the milkman and her attempts to linger her conversation with the post man and her coquettish behaviour with Turk all on the surface appear to have been employed in the plot to provide some comic relief. But actually they add to the depth of the plot as it is a technique employed by Inge to highlight the boredom in Lola’s life. Inge uses Mary- Turk relationship as the plot device to advance the action of the plot. Mary stirs up the repressed emotions of the Doc which erupts with the force of the volcano towards the end of the play. She is used as a ploy to build conflicts and complicate the plot. She contributes, quite innocently, to weaken the already weak tie between Doc and Lola and she plays havoc with the emotions of Doc. After the climactic scene, the playwright feels that there is no further need for Marie as there is no need to build any further conflict to complicate or create tension in the plot. Thus paving the way to draw a perfect denouement he disposes Marie off. Without realizing the depth of the role she played in the lives of her hosts Marie leaves with Bruce to Cincinnati. The way Inge has used Marie as a plot device makes one understand that a contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse, causing a lot of confusion and disbelief. However a well crafted plot device or one that emerges naturally from the setting or the characters of the story may be entirely accepted or may not even be noticed by the audience. Thus the study reveals Come Back Little Sheba to be three act master piece created by a superb artist.

5.6. Picnic: A study of its structure An analysis of the play Picnic shows it as an example of classic play structure. Its action is comprised into three acts which takes place in a single day. The action of the play is set on the side by side porches of Mrs. Flo Owens and Mrs. Helen Potts house holds. The plot has conflicts, contrast, plot devises, irony and suspense all elements required for an artistic masterpiece. The play as it opens, subtly throws light on the prosaic lives of the characters who are cramped almost to extinction by their repressions. They all are looking for a means to escape. The technique that Inge has adopted to draw the exposition is superb. To put it in the words of Judith Allen: His artistry is in slowly revealing the minimal; commonplaceness of characters involved in and overwhelmed by the repetitiveness of their daily lives. He makes his “unfolding” a directly emotional experience for the audience, illustrating the unexpected in human nature4 (Allen 2). The exposition of the plot in the first act introduces all the characters and the information related to Hal is given to others by Alan. In the course of Act 1 light is thrown on the fear of insecurity that each of the protagonist harbours in mind. Due to the sense of insecurity a conflict is constantly going on in the minds of not only Hal and Madge but also other characters. As the plot moves ahead, in the course of second its momentum is intensified by the characters who are drawn in sharp contrast to one another. Contrast is an another dramatic device employed by the playwright to intensify the action of the play. The climax culminates at the end of scene 1 of Act II when Rosemary bursts out like a volcano at Hal. The denouement is drawn in the first scene of Act III. The scene

reveals Inge as a master craftsman. Old maid Rosemary and Howard are juxtaposed with young and beautiful Madge and Hal. Rosemary and Howard get physical and after that Rosemary demands Howard to marry her. Rosemary who has been affecting indifference to men falls on her knees and begs Howard to marry her. She subjects herself to a kind of psychoanalysis and bares her heart to Howard. The scene reveals the secret that she is the opposite of what she has been posing herself to be. Her split personality shocks Howard. Thus Inge achieves what he wanted to do: I want my plays,” Inge said ,”to provide the audience with an experience which they can enjoy… and which shocks them with the unexpected in human nature, with the deep inner life that exists privately behind the life that is publicly presented (Shuman 60)5. The denouement is followed by resolution or catharsis in the last scene where Rosemary succeeds in trapping Howard in to marrying her. Similarly Hal and Madge recognize their passion for each other and Madge follows Hal to Tulsa. But for Flo who has to suffer one more disappointment, the rest of the characters continue their life in the same monotonous way. Conflict is one of the dramatic devices quite effectively used by the playwright to advance the action of the plot. The conflicts that ravage the minds of each of the characters in general are never exposed to others. Madge the beauty queen doubts the depth of Alan’s love. She thinks that he is only in love with her beauty and not with her real self. The attention that she receives only increases her fear of insecurity since she is afraid that her beauty is not going to serve her for ever. Her beauty could not even take her name across the Kansas City since the magazine which printed her photograph after

she won the beauty pageant did not do a good job. She wants to escape to another world where she can get some recognition for her real self. Similarly insecurity is chasing Hal like a real villain since childhood. He tells Alan ”I gotta get some place in this world Seymour. I got to” (Gassner IV. 221;1).

Rosemary too is haunted by the fear of

insecurity. She is frantically looking for some one who will marry her. Flo wants security for her daughters. Thus security one of the dramatic devices employed by the playwright is really well portrayed and it brings out pathos in the lives of all the characters. Another catalyst employed by the playwright to kindle action is ‘boredom’ which almost all the characters in the play want to escape. Madge is bored with her mundane life and she is not at all thrilled by the attention she gets from the boys all over the town. She does not enjoy her job at the dime store. She wants to do something which may take her name all over the country. Thus she is waiting to escape the dull routine of her life. Rosemary and the other teachers are also equally bored with their lives. They do not even enjoy their outings. Mrs. Potts is also suffering her boring life silently. That is why she is quite enthusiastic about the picnic. She bakes a Baltimore cake and tells Flo that it is the only way she can draw the others' attention towards her. She tells: I feel sort of excited, Flo. I think we plan picnics just to give ourselves an excuse-to let something thrilling happen in our lives (Gassner IV., 226; 2) Millie is talking of moving to New York city when she grows up. Thus each character is working out to escape the boredom of life in their way. To put it in the words of Judith Allen:

Everyone dreams of escape. Everyone dreams of finding their place in the world. Everyone dreams of being loved. Inge believed the journey was not so much in the action of the journey but ultimately, in the emotional human experience we all go through in our guest for that love. This journey is the essential root of his realism. The action of the plot is moved along through effective dialogues. The dialogues are strikingly realistic as if they have come directly from the lives of the lower middle class people portrayed in the play. Contrast is used as a good dramatic device in the play. Hal and Alan are polar opposite. Alan is rich, sophisticated, confident, well-mannered and well accepted by the society. Hal is poor, unsophisticated less confident and is looked down by the society. Alan’s strength is his money and Hal’s strength is his looks. In contrasting Hal with Alan and allowing Madge to feel ambivalent about which of the two can offer her most happiness, Inge masterfully portrays the shifting paradigm of his age6 (www.frymoline.com). Intelligent Millie is a contrast to beautiful Madge. They add to the action of the plot by their constant fighting and disagreement. Mrs. Flo is shrewd and ambitious. Mrs. Potts is content and generous. Dubious Rosemary is a contrast not only to Mrs. Potts but to her own self. As a contrast to Rosemary –Howard who indulge in sensuous love, the young couple Madge and Hall are portrayed as a pair to be passionately in love. The three teachers are an interesting study in contrast. Rosemary is too sensitive and too aware of the amazing life that might just be beyond her grasp. Christine, the new teacher is quite shy. Irma is very fashion conscious and talkative.

As the theme deals more with the feelings and emotions than with physical action the playwright concentrates more on character building. Each character is developed as a contrast to another and this technique adds to the variety as well as the movement of the plot. The element of irony is also employed by the playwright to heighten the effect of the action. Hal comes to the town looking for his friend Alan who promises to help him to settle down. Ironically it is Alan who drives him away from the town. It is an irony that although Mrs. Flo’s intuitively feels that Hal could be a potential threat to her daughters’ well being yet she could do nothing to stop him. Alan in spite of Mrs. Flo’s doubts vouchers for Hall. He says that he can control Hal. Unfortunately neither Alan could control Hal nor do his riches control Madge. Suspense, an interesting dramatic element is also well used by Inge in the plot to heighten the dramatic effect. The question whether Madge would follow Hal to Tulsa or is kept a secret till the end. Thus the analysis shows that the play is technically well conceived and could be cited as an example of structural masterpiece.

5.7. Dark at the Top of the Stairs : An analysis of structure An analysis of the play Dark at the Top of the Stairs shows that the structure of the play is climactic. The plot begins late in story and the action covers a short space of time. It contains three acts without any further division of the acts into scenes and occurs in the same location and only eight main characters are portrayed and the plot moves in a single line with no sub plot. Thus all the factors mentioned above substantiate the fact that the structure of the play is climactic.

The plot is divided into three acts and it reveals an interesting pattern. In each act action starts comparatively on a normal pace and the dramatic intensity accelerates as the plot moves ahead. Thus they seem to be a fall and rise in the movement of the action. But some critics like Aaron Riccio 7 (Riccio 3) misconceive this effective dramatic structure technique of William Inge and fail to see the unity of action well contrived between the acts. The dramatic technique that Inge adopted for this play seems to demonstrate that in the texture of a drama the knots must be noticeable; each scene must exist by itself in order to present an object lesson, a teasing ground for the characters in order to eliminate the sense of inevitability that may come in the course of a well made act with its exposition, climax and denouement. The exposition exposes the state of affairs in the Floods’ family. In act I, the marital discard between Rubin and Cora their social, emotional and psychological conflicts, their not so good economic condition and the fears and feelings of their children are brought to the surface. The act quickly unveils the fact that Rubin and Cora are not very happily married and each member of the family is suffering due to their inability to communicate with others. It also well portrays Cora’s anxiety to settle her children well and their relatively low status in the society. It can be said that the plot is moving on a serious but not on a tragic note. But towards the end of the scene when Cora and Rubin quarrel over Reenie’s dress and Rubin storms out of the house the plot gets thicker. In the second act the action begins on a normal note. Cora is hosting Lottie and Morris and Lottie warns her husband not to accept Cora’s request to permit Cora and the children to go with them. Reenie is unwilling to attend the Ralstons' birth day party. Sammy Goldenbaum arrives along with Flirt to take Reenie to the party. Sammy is no

happy boy either. His sad story adds depth to the already serious plot. Lottie’s refusal to take Cora’s family to Oklahoma and her revelation about her personal life and Cora’s inability to trace Rubin put together all jolt, Cora out of her mind and the action reaches the height of climax at the end of second act. The third act begins comparatively on a peaceful note but Cora’s attempt to get Reenie out of her psychological conflict and her attempt to get Sonny out of his Oedipus complex intensifies the action. And the news of Sammy Goldenbaum’s death jerks the plot to a new height. Then with the arrival of Rubin and his confession the denouement starts and it is followed by a quick resolution where all the four Floods seemingly overcome their emotional and psychological conflicts. Miscommunication is used as the catalyst to move the action of the plot quite effectively by the playwright. The main reason for the conflict between Rubin and Cora is lack of communication. Cora has not understood Rubin and Rubin does not confide his fears in Cora. As a result both feel insecure and when Cora buys the dress Rubin who is on the verge of loosing his job, feeling highly insecure about his future and financial state acts violently. It is the miscommunication that triggers the action of the plot. When finally Rubin confesses to Cora everything falls in place. It is due to miscommunication Reenie and Sony keep fighting. If only Reenie had communicated her liking for Sammy he would not have committed suicide. Lottie and Morris do not communicate with each other at all. Cora never has understood her sister due to lack of communication. Hence it could be summarized that due to lack of communication all the conflicts arise in the play. To intensify the action of the plot and to make it more interesting Inge has made use of the conventional element contrast quite effectively in the play. Cora is a contrast to her

sister Lottie. Cora is an ambitious mother. Though she fights with her husband yet she loves him. She is conscientious and never explicitly talks about sex and in general she is a contended person. Lottie pretends to love her husband and she is a deprived woman who always talks about sex and is dissatisfied with life in general. Sammy Goldenbaum is a contrast to his friend Punky Givens. Sammy is a well mannered, good looking, loving and lovable boy but it is quite sad that he could not find a place for himself in the society. Punky Givens on the other hand is a funny rich boy well accepted by the society. Dull and Dumb Morris is drawn as a sharp contrast to the virulent and handsome Rubin. Unlike Rubin Morris lets his wife dominates him. Introvert Sonny is a contrast to his handsome and extrovert father Rubin. Even Cora calls him a speckled egg (Gassner V.133;1). The characters who stand in contrast against each other contribute to the movement of the action of the play quite effectively. The action of the plot is triggered in the exposition when Rubin finds out that Cora has purchased a new dress for Reenie. He is upset not because Cora bought a new dress for Reenie but because Cora did not inform him about the dress and he happened to hear it from an outsider. In act II Reenie fails to communicate her feelings to Sammy and she lets him down. If only she had communicated her feelings to him then she could have saved Golden Baum. In Scene 3 when Cora communicates with Reenie she perceives her emotional conflicts and tries to solve them. Similarly when she communicates to Sonny what she feels about him then Sonny tries to get over his Oedipus complex. Similarly when Lottie and Cora communicate with each other, without any inhibition they understand each other better. Finally Rubin and Cora communicate their fears and feelings of insecurity and they understand each other and that helps them to settle their

marital discard and enables them to start life with a renewed vigour. Thus Inge uses miscommunication as a wonderful plot devise which triggers the action of the plot and takes it to the end. Since Inge is a realistic writer and his work is a slice of life presented, the plot is not devoid of everyday humor. There are statements like Rubin: Then that’s what you’re gonna do. There’ll be ice-cream parlors in hell before I come back to this place and listen to your jaw (Gassner V. 147; 1). It is a great irony that Cora even after eighteen years of marriage could not read Rubin’s mind and as a result she complicates her relationship with her husband. She wants peace and harmony but ironically it is she who is responsible for the emotional conflict that each member of her household is suffering. Similarly she could not see through Lottie her elder sister. It is a great irony that what she perceives Lottie to be is not what she actually is. A careful reading of the complications that thicken the action of the plot at the end of each of the act reveals that it is Cora who is directly responsible for it. The analysis of the plot shows that Inge has employed all the necessary elements and effective techniques required for triggering action and building tension and has created a structure necessary for supporting his theme with the expertise of a master craftsman. Hence Aaron Riccio's statement: There are major issues addressed in Inge’s plays, including suicide and spousal abuse, but because his three acts are disconnected in thematic structure, the final resolution of these scenes seems rushed and ill-conceived 8 (Aaron Riccio 2) cannot be agreed with.

5.8. Bus stop: A study of its structure Inge’s veritable Noah’s ark (Shuman 58)9 Bus Stop is a three act play. The characters include Bo, the clumsy cowboy, the sexy Cherie a singer, Dr. Lyman, a drunkard, Virgil a middle aged cowboy, Elma an adolescent sweet girl, middle aged Grace, the owner of the restaurant, Carl the bus driver and Will Masters the local sheriff .The whole action of the play occurs at Grace’s restaurant within a span of five hours. Taking into account that the action of the play is linear just with one main plot, the fewer characters, time and the place of action, it can be stated that the structure of the play is climactic. The exposition of the play is quite lengthy. As the play opens the playwright prepares the readers to anticipate the bus to arrive at Grace’s with the passengers and to get them stranded there for a few hours. He also prepares the readers not to expect many passengers on board the bus. It is quite obvious that having a fewer characters would facilitate the playwright a better dramatic focus and enable him to build his theme in a more effective way. The dramatic device contrived by Inge to reveal the necessary background information is quite interesting. He makes use of Elma for the purpose of eliciting information from others. She interacts with all the characters and in the course of her conversation she gathers all the necessary information. Since the play is based on dialogue more than on action Inge uses her as the plot device to trigger the action of the plot. The dramatic device adopted of Inge invoked a mixed response.

He [Gerald Weals] complains that Elma …wanders from character to character, gathering information as though she were a researcher for

Current Biography this statement is demonstrably true; but the question remains of whether or not this weakness is very significant. The device of using on central character in this way is not unusual…in a play which is more dependent upon thought than action, the method does not have a weakening effect (Shuman 65)10. The first act brings to the surface the basic theme, the search for true love. Bo and Cherie entangled in the conflict of love, make the best of the first act. Bo is in pursuit of love. He wonders how Cherie could not love him inspite of his being young, handsome and rich. The thrice married, selfish, nympholeptic Dr. Lyman, a Shakespearean scholar is also in quest of love. The act also enforces another significant point that people who cannot find true love would be designed to be lonely. If the first act could be assumed as a question then the second act could be interpreted as the answer. It answers the query why people are unable to find true love. Inge obviously is suggesting a solution to the conflict of love. Cherie wonders that there maybe no such thing called love that exists. But Dr. Lyman rightly points out that man in his evolution has lost the ability to give his true love to anyone. In the middle of the act it becomes quite evident that Cherie is all for Bo, though she may take her own time to admit it. When Lyman attempts to play Romeo the fact that he is nowhere near him in real life unnerves him. Meanwhile the conflict between Bo and Cherie takes an ugly turn and Bo ends up fighting with the sheriff. The sheriff takes him under custody. Virgil informs Cherie the fact that she is the only girl that Bo ever loved. Touched by the genuineness of his love Cherie accepts Bo. Technically the play should end here on a happy note. But the fact that Inge does not end the play here shows that the playwright’s

concern is not merely Bo and Cherie love conflict. He wants to portray love on a broader spectrum. Hence the action continues. The third act combines the denouement and resolution. The action gets more emotion based and it serves mainly to convey the messages that love has no room for selfishness, love requires humbleness and life without love will be lonely. The fight scene quite obviously is a dramatic technique introduced into the plot with a purpose. It gives an opportunity to Will Master to give the message that love requires humbleness. Similarly the enactment of Shakespearean scene is a well contrived dramatic technique of a master craftsman. Dr. Lyman a nympholeptic tries to play Romeo against Elma as Juliet. Her innocent angelic nature counters his sly, calculative, pretentious evil move. Remorse stricken, he gives up. The plot brings to the surface the real theme that selfishness and love cannot exist together. Irony plays a significant role in the play. The scholarly Lyman could not find real love because he is too selfish to give his real love to anyone. It is a great irony that Lyman a university professor, though aware of the flaw in his character, does not mend his way. Similarly Virgil portrayed in sharp contrast to Dr. Lyman gives up love and accepts loneliness as a company. The irony of Grace’s state cannot be ignored. She is unable to adjust with her husband and prefers to be alone, although she hates it. It could be noticed that the element of humor pervades the play throughout. It helps to face the bitter facts of life in a better way. Bo’s innocence, Cherie’s attitude and Will Masters shrewd observations all add to the lighter vein of the play. Will Masters finds out that Carl has not gone for a walk but to Grace’s apartment. He tells Carl

Well, I ya better go upstairs ’cause someone took your overshoes and left ‘em outside the door to Grace’s apartment (Gassner IV. 273; 3). Similarly the conversation between Bo and Cherie may not help one but smile. Bo: Cherie, did I tell ya ‘bout my color television set with a 24 inch screen? Cherie: One million times! Now go ‘way ( Gassner IV. 266;2). Inge has also quite thoughtfully employed the technique of contrast to intensify and increase the dramatic effect of the plot. Some of the characters in the play are real contrast to each other. Young innocent Elma is a sharp contrast to the worldly wise Cherie. Dr. Lyman, the pervert professor who pursues love relentlessly is poised as a contrast to Virgil, who with all earnestness has given up the company of girls. To avoid being lonely Dr. Lyman is in quest of love whereas Virgil accepts loneliness at the cost of love. The analysis of the play reveals that Inge has used all necessary dramatic elements like conflict, contrast, plot device, irony and humour quite effectively to make Bus Stop ,to put it in the words of Baird Shuman “ a dramatically tight play”11 (68)

5.9. Splendor in the Grass : A study of its structure The structure of Splendor in the Grass the scenario differs from the structure of Inge’s other plays. The action of the scenario spreads over five years as opposite to the well knit five hour plot of Bus Stop. The scene of action also shifts to different locations. Since it is a scenario the three unities of time place and action meant for a play cannot be expected to be adhered strictly here. The action in general takes place in eastern Kansas

barring the period when Bud goes to Yale. The course of action starts in 1929 and extends up to 1934. So the two unities- the unities of place and the unity of time are flouted in the Splendor in the grass. The structure of Splendor in the Grass as different form the climactic structure of the four major plays of Inge the structure could be described as episodic since there are many characters in the play and besides the main plot that deals with Bud and Deanie there is also a sub plot that deals with Ginny and her affairs. Inge has followed a different exposition technique in Splendor in the Grass. In his scenario he supplies the background information by having the characters talk almost to themselves, to muse about the past. Inge might have chosen to turn his scenario into a Montague-Capulet type of conflict, in which case the plot would have been contrived and completely predictable. However, Ace Stamper is no Montague; he is too realistic to fight directly the love situation between Bud and Deanie (Shuman 101).12 The conflict between Bud and Ace, an idealist and realist triggers the action and keeps the plot moving. It is the ill conceived advice given by Ace to Bud that poisons his mind and breaks his relationship with Deanie. It is because of her not so worldly wise mother’s advice Deanie suffers. Thus in the play it is the advice of the parents that acts as the catalyst. It is a great irony that the parents who should bring in happiness in the lives of children take it away from them as in the case of Bud and Deanie; instead of peace they create conflict in their minds. Bud is caught in a conflict whether to follow his father’s wish or his own. Similarly Deanie’s wish to give into Bud’s desire conflicts with her desire to please her mother. Inge beautifully delineates the conflict in the minds of

Bud and Deanie, an idealistic pair of lovers and the emotional trauma that torture them. The conflicts serve to intensify the action of the plot. Similarly the sharp contrasts drawn by the playwright also contribute significantly to the dramatic development of the plot. Ginny and Juanita help to perceive the depth of Deanie’s agony. By poising Ginny the personification impurity against Deanie the personification of purity Inge tries to show that both at opposite extremes are suffering. Angelina who follows a middle course is at peace. Bud an idealist is a contrast to his father Ace, a materialist. Both are unable to live the way they want. Bud is forced by circumstances to compromise to survive. The river plays a significant role in the play. It serves both artistic and dramatic purpose. To Bud and Deanie the river is a mute companion. It is in its presence that they meet and it is in its presence finally they separate. In the presence of the river Bud could not make love to Juanita and that reveals his recognition of the river as a watchful elder brother. When upset Deanie tries to jump into the river and attempts to end her miseries in its lap. It is a great irony that Ace who criticizes Deanie for her suicide attempt later he himself commits suicide. The two basic conflicting values - - love and money lock horns in the play and direct the course of action. Deanie, an idealist tries to end her life because of love. Ace, a materialist ends his life because he cannot face his inevitable financial failure. The play reaches the climax with Deanie’s attempt to commit suicide and when she is in the hospital Bud visits her with an intention to marry her. The play could have ended here on a happy note but the play continues and playwright builds a second climax. The anti climax is quite lengthy where the protagonist Bud meets Angelina and marries her and Deanie meets Johnny. The play ends on a realistic but a mildly pessimistic note.

The reason for the anti climax probably is that Inge wanted to give the young people a message that if they accept life as it comes, then their life would flow uninterrupted like a river. The analysis reveals that the playwright has woven into the structure of the plot all necessary dramatic elements quite effectively and as a result despite its lengthy anti climax it is appreciated for its structural perfection. Thus the analysis of all the four major plays and the scenario reveals Inge to be a great artist who could take common place incidents and sculpture them into structural wonders and captivate and mesmerize the readers.

Chapter 5 A Study of Structure Works cited 1. David, Letwin. The Architecture of Drama Plot, Character, Theme, Genre, and Style. Lanham:Scarecrow press2008. 2. Simon, John “ The ‘Sheba’ of Queens,”. New York magazine .9 sep.1974 3. Johnson, Jeff. William Inge and Subversion of Gender: Rewriting Stereotypes in the Plays, Novels and Screenplays .North Carolina: Ma Farland Company. 2005 4. Allen, Judith. Play guide. Picnic, dir. Judith Allen 7 April, 2007. 13Apr.2010 5. Shuman Baird, William Inge. New York.. Twayne publishers,1965. 6. www.frymoline.com 7. Riccio, Aaron. Play. The dark at the top of the stairs.2April 2007. 23 jan 2010 8. op. cit. 9. Shuman Baird, op. cit. 10. op. cit. 11. op. cit. 12. op. cit.

Come Back Little Sheba

1. Point of attack - - When Lola discourages Doc from congratulating Marie. (Act 1. sc 1). 2. Point of attack - - When Doc objects to Marie her painting Turk's semi nude picture. (Act 1. sc 1). 3. Point of attack - - When Doc hears Marie and Turk laughing inside Marie's room. (Act 1. sc 1). 4. Point of attack - - When Turk's laughter floats out of Marie's room from the middle of the night. (Act 1. sc 1). 5. Climax - - When Doc encounters Turk coming out of Marie's room. (Act 1. sc 1). 6. & 7. - - Denouement (Act 2. sc 2&3). 8. Resolution (Act 2. sc 4).

Picnic

1. Point of attack 1 - - In the beginning of Act 1. when Millie innocently asks Hal whether Mrs.Potts gave him breakfast. 2. Climax - - Towards the end of Act 2. when Rosemary verbally attack Hal. 3. Denouement - - Rosemary traps Howard (Act 3. sc 1). 4. Resolution - - Madge follows Hal to Tulsa (Act 3. sc 2).

The Dark at the Top of the Stairs 1. Point of attack - - Towards the end of Act 1, when Cora buys Reenie a dress without informing Rubin. 2. Climax - - Towards the end of Act 2 when Lottie declines Cora's request and as well when Cora fails to trace Rubin. 3. Denouement - - Sammy's death and Rubin's coming back home (Act 3).

Bus Stop 1. Point of attack - - In the middle of Act 1 when Bo spots Cherie's suitcase at Grace's restaurant. 2. Point of attack - - Towards the end of Act 2 when Dr.Lyman playing Romeo gets remorse stricken. 3. Climax - - At the end of the Act 2 when Bo picks up a flight with the sheriff.