"L'enfer c'est les autres"--JP Sartre
This year, students will explore the theme of otherness. What defines the mainstream and how does this mainstream dictate to others? What does it mean to be marginalized? How has the mainstream impacted the world of ideas across the centuries?
Today, Rania and Matthieu made some excellent points regarding Stanley's behavior. Reprehensible, no doubt. But Blanche's motives? And her part in his behavior?
Share your thoughts below...
OK, so. In Thursday's class discussion, when I brought the renowned ape researcher Jane Goodall, because that's the attitude I thought that Blanche was taking with regard to Stanley and Stella (that of a much more intelligent, 'sophisticated', less primitive being coming to learn about the ways in which animals live), Layla asked if that's who Tarzan was based on (the answer is no: Tarzan was written in 1912, Jane Goodall was around in the 60's) and that got me thinking. And now I think that this book was perhaps ever so slightly inspired by the story of Tarzan. This version would have Stella play the role of Jane and Blanche the role of her father calling her back to England. In reading Streetcar even just a little through this lens, one can pick up little flares of romantic writing: mainly through the description of the atmosphere of New Orleans that sort of throws away the ideas of most cities at that time. On another note, Blanche... Ugh. Blanche is like the thorn in my side that whenever I go to pull it out, it just gets worse. She is looking for an escape from all the deaths she witnessed and suffering she went through: fine. She goes about doing this by trying to take what Stella and Blanche have, or at least destroying it: not so fine. She is, because of this, in my opinion of course, 100% to blame for Stanley's behavior. Let us suppose that again Stanley is as primitive as Blanche thinks he is, he will then have purely or very near purely animal reactions: if something is threatening his life, his woman, or his way of life, he is going to defend it, perhaps even to the death. Now let's say that he isn't as primitive and more the way Patrick put it "brains and brawn" he is, rather than attacking her and solely her, he is going to try and paint her as ridiculous and treacherous, take a way all logical basis to allow her to stay in his home. This what he does: he tries to show that she is swindling Stella and thus himself (Napoleonic code, dollface). In either situation Blanche is to blame for his behavior.
Andrew, I agree with some things that you have said and disagree with others, BUT I was just wondering if you could possibly switch sides once in a while and maybe, just maybe, take on the defense of a female character? Now, I agree with what you said about Stanley, however, my argumentative instincts tell me to defend the individual who is being attacked here. Therefore, I must ask you this: in Euripides' Medea, you mostly blamed the eponymous character rather than Jason, am I right? You claimed she made the CHOICE to commit such atrocious actions and because of that we can in no way excuse her for being shot by aphrodite's arrow. Yet, back to Streetcar, Stanley makes the CHOICE to behave the way he does (even if influenced by Blanche) and is clearly in control of his actions and pulsations because he is no animal, he is human, therefore one cannot state that Blanche is 100% to blame for his behavior!! That's as if I told you that an individual who murdered another because he or she was threatening him, annoying him, etc. was not to blame for the death? This might be a too strong example but I am sure you can understand what I am saying. We must recognize that as humans we cannot blame anybody but ourselves as we can only control our actions, our choices..
I came into this post wanting to defend Stanley but I realized that not one person is to blame here in particular. Certainly Blanche did in fact have an influence over Stanley's behavior but she is in no way to blame for it as she has no control over him and can't make him behave, act, or chose anyway she wants him to. Thus, if one were to judge Blanche, he or she should do so in context of her character, her choices, her actions, and not by what she has done to others or her bad influences, etc.
In definitely agree with Alessia. Blanche should not be held responsible for the way Stanley acts. Of course the way she acts in front of him fuels his desire to destroy her, but as Alessia says it is his choice to act the way he does. He could have chosen to take the high road, but he stoops down to a level where he becomes a disgusting primitive brute. He acts this way because he does understand Blanche’s motives and her lifestyle. He doesn’t understand the trauma she endured at the hands of her homosexual husband Allan Grey. She needs to put on a masque to protect herself, to not lose her image thus forcing her to admit to herself that she has lost everything in life. Stanley stands for honesty and Blanche doesn’t. I always say a person can have his opinion, but he shouldn’t impose his opinion on others and this is the big problem between Stanley and Blanche. Stanley is trying to impose his views upon Blanche by constantly thrusting forward the idea of putting ones cards on the table, i.e. being honest and Blanche is invading his space by trying to win over Stella and by altering the apartment. She has an influence on his behavior because of her views and her actions which he goes against. It is even possible to say that she facilitates his transformation into an antagonist. We shouldn’t be asking ourselves if she is the perpetrator like Andrew believes, but we should be asking ourselves if she is more of the victim. Blanche is a victim of Stanley’s ruthless behavior. All Blanche ever wanted was a fresh start and what right does Stanley have to stop her—what just because she refuses to subdue to him and remain passive like Stella and treat him like the king he thinks he is.
OK, so. In Thursday's class discussion, when I brought the renowned ape researcher Jane Goodall, because that's the attitude I thought that Blanche was taking with regard to Stanley and Stella (that of a much more intelligent, 'sophisticated', less primitive being coming to learn about the ways in which animals live), Layla asked if that's who Tarzan was based on (the answer is no: Tarzan was written in 1912, Jane Goodall was around in the 60's) and that got me thinking. And now I think that this book was perhaps ever so slightly inspired by the story of Tarzan. This version would have Stella play the role of Jane and Blanche the role of her father calling her back to England. In reading Streetcar even just a little through this lens, one can pick up little flares of romantic writing: mainly through the description of the atmosphere of New Orleans that sort of throws away the ideas of most cities at that time.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, Blanche... Ugh. Blanche is like the thorn in my side that whenever I go to pull it out, it just gets worse. She is looking for an escape from all the deaths she witnessed and suffering she went through: fine. She goes about doing this by trying to take what Stella and Blanche have, or at least destroying it: not so fine. She is, because of this, in my opinion of course, 100% to blame for Stanley's behavior. Let us suppose that again Stanley is as primitive as Blanche thinks he is, he will then have purely or very near purely animal reactions: if something is threatening his life, his woman, or his way of life, he is going to defend it, perhaps even to the death. Now let's say that he isn't as primitive and more the way Patrick put it "brains and brawn" he is, rather than attacking her and solely her, he is going to try and paint her as ridiculous and treacherous, take a way all logical basis to allow her to stay in his home. This what he does: he tries to show that she is swindling Stella and thus himself (Napoleonic code, dollface). In either situation Blanche is to blame for his behavior.
Andrew, I agree with some things that you have said and disagree with others, BUT I was just wondering if you could possibly switch sides once in a while and maybe, just maybe, take on the defense of a female character? Now, I agree with what you said about Stanley, however, my argumentative instincts tell me to defend the individual who is being attacked here. Therefore, I must ask you this: in Euripides' Medea, you mostly blamed the eponymous character rather than Jason, am I right? You claimed she made the CHOICE to commit such atrocious actions and because of that we can in no way excuse her for being shot by aphrodite's arrow. Yet, back to Streetcar, Stanley makes the CHOICE to behave the way he does (even if influenced by Blanche) and is clearly in control of his actions and pulsations because he is no animal, he is human, therefore one cannot state that Blanche is 100% to blame for his behavior!! That's as if I told you that an individual who murdered another because he or she was threatening him, annoying him, etc. was not to blame for the death? This might be a too strong example but I am sure you can understand what I am saying. We must recognize that as humans we cannot blame anybody but ourselves as we can only control our actions, our choices..
ReplyDeleteI came into this post wanting to defend Stanley but I realized that not one person is to blame here in particular. Certainly Blanche did in fact have an influence over Stanley's behavior but she is in no way to blame for it as she has no control over him and can't make him behave, act, or chose anyway she wants him to. Thus, if one were to judge Blanche, he or she should do so in context of her character, her choices, her actions, and not by what she has done to others or her bad influences, etc.
In definitely agree with Alessia. Blanche should not be held responsible for the way Stanley acts. Of course the way she acts in front of him fuels his desire to destroy her, but as Alessia says it is his choice to act the way he does. He could have chosen to take the high road, but he stoops down to a level where he becomes a disgusting primitive brute. He acts this way because he does understand Blanche’s motives and her lifestyle. He doesn’t understand the trauma she endured at the hands of her homosexual husband Allan Grey. She needs to put on a masque to protect herself, to not lose her image thus forcing her to admit to herself that she has lost everything in life. Stanley stands for honesty and Blanche doesn’t. I always say a person can have his opinion, but he shouldn’t impose his opinion on others and this is the big problem between Stanley and Blanche. Stanley is trying to impose his views upon Blanche by constantly thrusting forward the idea of putting ones cards on the table, i.e. being honest and Blanche is invading his space by trying to win over Stella and by altering the apartment. She has an influence on his behavior because of her views and her actions which he goes against. It is even possible to say that she facilitates his transformation into an antagonist. We shouldn’t be asking ourselves if she is the perpetrator like Andrew believes, but we should be asking ourselves if she is more of the victim. Blanche is a victim of Stanley’s ruthless behavior. All Blanche ever wanted was a fresh start and what right does Stanley have to stop her—what just because she refuses to subdue to him and remain passive like Stella and treat him like the king he thinks he is.
ReplyDelete