Lit Essay

2 posts
User avatar
Gender Other
Points 2570
Reviews 245
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman and Edward Albee's The Sandbox both demonstrate, through the use of nonrealism and absurdity, the idea that steadfastly following the institutionalized conventions as set forth by society leads to a shallow existence where any instances of happiness are merely an illusion. This theme is supported in how the characters are named according to the roles they play, how time is handled as characters play out their expected roles, and how absurdity is used to demonstrate the pointlessness of playing out these expected roles. In other words, the nonrealistic names clearly define the roles the characters play as they act per the conventions of society, nonrealistic shifts in time present key information to support the idea that the characters are acting per these same conventions, and absurdity found in the stories show the fallacy of following such conventions. When comparing these two plays, The Sandbox's use of nonrealism and absurdity more effectively support the theme due to The Sandbox's minimalistic, yet obvious, presentation.


One form of nonrealism used in both plays is in the naming of the characters according to the roles that they would play. In Albee's The Sandbox, the names of the characters are representative of their roles. For example, 'Mommy' is not a real name, but is representative of her role as the female spouse of 'Daddy'. There is no indication that the couple has children, but the play shows how everybody in it is simply going through the motions, without any meaning or feeling attached. Therefore, though the couple gives no indication of having children, they are going through the motions as if they did because they judge it to be what they should do.


The names used in Death of a Salesman also do an accurate job of defining the characters' roles, but not as well. Willy 'Loman' is a low man, so his last name is the defining name. However, what does 'Willy' mean? 'Willy' is a name that means nothing and can be used on anybody. Because of this distraction, the meaning or significance of his last name is potentially lost upon most readers. The same goes for Dave Singleman, the single man Willy looks up to. Biff is a stereotypical name for a football player or character with more brawn than brain (another, more contemporary, example being the character Biff Tannen in Back to the Future), and the Biff of Death of a Salesman lives up to this role. However, since 'Biff' does not mean or sound like 'football player' and can be a stereotypical name for a bully as well, his role by his name is also lost. Meanwhile Happy, based on his current choices, may find himself being very unhappy in the future, making his name sarcastically ironic.


Of these plays, the names in The Sandbox more explicitly define their roles, and so are more effective. 'Mommy' is the wife to 'Daddy'. Just before the play begins, there is a disclaimer saying that the names should not indicate that they do, in fact, have children, but are of "empty affection and point up the pre-senility and vacuity of their characters" (p. 1285). In contrast, Biff is a real name, and is not just used on football players, and so is not completely obvious in defining what his character is or is not. In The Sandbox, the names 'Mommy' and 'Daddy' seem like exaggerations when they are really doing the same thing as the names used in Death of a Salesman. The names used in The Sandbox define the roles of the characters without the distraction of first or last names that mean nothing, making them more obvious. Because it is more obvious, it seems like an exaggeration, and because of this, it is more clearly and effectively nonrealistic.


Another way the concept of nonrealism is handled is through the concept of time. In real life, time continues moving forward, without exception. However, in fiction, time tends to slide backwards occasionally in order to give the reader or viewer more information on what really happened, or what the characters perceived to have happened. These instances are commonly referred to as 'flashbacks', and they are an example of nonrealism.


Death of a Salesman uses such flash back scenes. However, the 'scene' part of the flashback is a distraction in itself, especially when a flashback of the past overlaps with a scene from the present. With one particular flashback, Willy is talking to his wife, Linda, in the present tense with a flashback of Willy's mistress overlapping the scene; Willy is responding to the mistress of his flashback while Linda is responding to Willy in the present. As the mistress laughs, it blends with Linda's own laughter (pp. 1520-1521). Although interesting, this is a very complex way of handling time, and the audience might be more focused on keeping track, as well as on the novelty of this type of presentation, than on the information regarding the theme that is being presented.


In The Sandbox, flashbacks are not used to present the past. Instead, a character speaking directly to the audience and contrived dialogue are used to handle time. For example, Grandma bluntly tells the audience what happened in the past, having the same affect and doing it for the same reasons as a flashback would have had; the audience clearly sees that Grandma was taken off the farm because it was the right thing to do, out of obligation, which parallels Grandma's own actions of the past of having to raise her daughter by herself, also out of obligation. No details are added to distract the reader or viewer from what is really going on: they are gaining information about what happened in the past that lead to the present states of being of the characters.


The contrived dialogue of the characters controls the forward motion of time. When Daddy is asking, "What should we do now?" (line 18 ), Mommy replies, "We… wait. We… sit here… and we wait… that's what we do" (lines 23-24). They have gone through the motions of making Grandma comfortable, as they are supposed to, and now they are waiting, as they are supposed to. Grandma later asks, "Shouldn't it be getting dark now, dear?" (lines 51-52), at which point the stage lights dim because it is supposed to be night.


While the audience is constantly being reminded - by such extreme use of nonrealism - that they are watching a play, they are also given a clear impression that the characters are going through the motions of doing what they are supposed to do, and they are doing so in a very simplistic fashion. When given the bare bones of the stage props, dialogue, and actions, the audience might perceive each to be an exaggeration as each has little detail with which to compete. When compared to the complicated flashbacks of Death of a Salesman, the handling of time in The Sandbox more effectively supports the theme as a result of this minimalistic approach.


The absurdism used in the plays illustrates the pointlessness of following along with the conventions of society. For example, in The Sandbox, each of the characters do things they do not want to do or do not care for. Grandma raised a 'cow' of a daughter (Mommy) and acts as if she did not want to, but she had to. She went through the motions of raising her daughter on her own because that was what she thought she was supposed to do. Mommy exhibits this trait as well, as she went and took her mother off the farm, not because she wanted to, but because it was what she was supposed to do. She thought she was supposed to take her mother into her house and take care of her, but she did not do it out of love, and she did not do a very good job of it in her mother's eyes, so what was the point of doing it? Daddy is simply doing what Mommy says. He does not want to be there and he does not seem to care, as he says in paragraph 8: "She's your mother." The only reason he is there is because that is what he thinks he is supposed to do. If he does not want to be there, and he does not need to be there, what is the point of his being there?


With this, the readers can see that, in addition to controlling time, the contrived dialogue in The Sandbox strongly supports the theme by highlighting the absurdity of the characters’ existence. Grandma verbally complains about raising Mommy on her own when she speaks of the past, and her dialogue also alludes to being treated less than human. Mommy and Daddy's lines also make it obvious that they are also only going through the motions of what it is right. Daddy, for his part, is clear in making the point to Mommy that Grandma is her mother, not his.


In Death of a Salesman, Willy works hard to pay off his house, as well as to become rich. However, he works his whole life, and does not become rich. In lines 37 – 38, Willy says, "Work a lifetime to pay off a house. You finally own it, and there's nobody to live in it." If this is true, then why bother? What is the point? His thoughts are that if one is well-liked, one has a better chance at success than somebody who is not well-liked. Despite his being well-liked at one point, however, he is not successful. Because of this, in combination with how Biff and Happy act towards him, Willy kills himself at the end of the play.


Unlike in The Sandbox, we are not told that Willy and Linda married for money. On the contrary, in the flashbacks Willy and Linda seem to share affection towards one another. However, as Willy's world slowly crumbles around him during the great depression, his loyalty begins to falter. Linda, however, remains true to her husband and is fiercely loyal to him, even threatening to disown her sons for not treating their father with respect. Despite her loyalty, he cheats on her. What is the point of being loyal to someone if that person does not return your loyalty and cheats on you anyway?


Both of these plays illustrate of the theme that steadfastly following the institutionalized conventions as set forth by society leads to a shallow existence where any instances of happiness are merely an illusion. When comparing them, however, The Sandbox is more affective because the theme is presented without interfering details; even the stage is blank with minimum props. Extra details are not available and, as a result, do not exist to interfere with the interpretation of the reader. Character actions and words are an exaggeration, and yet not really. They simply seem to be exaggerations because they are taking the place in absence of other context and as such they come across as being exaggerations. The result is a very clear, effective presentation of the theme, illustrating the flaws in acting solely out of obligation as defined by the conventions set forth by society.
Necropolis SB / Necropolis DT

Once was Dreamer, is now LowKey_Lyesmith.

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.




User avatar
Gender Male
Points 32885
Reviews 2058
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman and Edward Albee's The Sandbox both demonstrate, through the use of nonrealism and absurdity, the idea that steadfastly following the institutionalized conventions as set forth by society leads to a shallow existence where any instances of happiness are merely an illusion.
Woah. That sentence, and really, the whole first paragraph, felt like an infodump. Haha, and I know it kind of is because you have to get your thesis out, but I suggest you try to make it more readable and clear. I feel like you're just listing your thesis; you should still introduce your paper. The way I was taught to do an introduction (though I still struggle with it a bit) is that you start as wide as possible (literature) and then get more specific (American literature, drama, Arthur Miller &c). [I say American because I remember Miller is American, isn't he? I do not know about the other one.] As you grow more specific, you slowly lead into your thesis, as well. Your thesis should be the last sentence in your paragraph, rather than the first.

Of course, I don't know what kind of standards you will be graded on so if this sounds all too crazy, forget me. ^_^

though the couple gives no indication of having children, they are going through the motions as if they did because they judge it to be what they should do.
I'm starting to think you're writing this paper in a very formalized way, given to you by a professor... if so, again, toss me out, but you basically rephrased what was only a sentence or two above; do you need to do that? Also, why not support this from the text as well as from their names? Back it up even further?

Just before the play begins, there is a disclaimer saying that the names should not indicate that they do, in fact, have children, but are of "empty affection and point up the pre-senility and vacuity of their characters" (p. 1285).
So you supported it in a later paragraph, hehe, I still think it should be up further into the paragraph about the specific play, and I'm slightly perplexed as to why you had a conclusion to your supporting paragraph when it is not the end of the paper.

Willy is responding to the mistress of his flashback while Linda is responding to Willy in the present. As the mistress laughs, it blends with Linda's own laughter (pp. 1520-1521).
From my work, I haven't had to cite summaries because they are not direct quotes, and it is for the readers benefit...You might have different conventions.

Mommy and Daddy's lines also make it obvious that they are also only going through the motions of what it is right.
Cut one, or both. :)

Daddy, for his part, is clear in making the point to Mommy that Grandma is her mother, not his.
Haha, I'm so tempted to say, "Obviously." You explained this with the dialogue above, so why are you doing it again, here, and what consequence does it have for the essay? Is this getting your point across, at all, when you have already said it? It is like before, I don't entirely understand why you have conclusions for your supporting paragraphs, or, what look like conclusions.

In lines 37 – 38, Willy says, "Work a lifetime to pay off a house. You finally own it, and there's nobody to live in it."
You might want to consider better quote introduction, and cutting your quotes up more, only using half of it and the rest your own paraphrasing. That was one of the things our professor got on us for after a while: better quote introductions.

What is the point of being loyal to someone if that person does not return your loyalty and cheats on you anyway?
Rhetorical questions are tempting, I know, but try to avoid them, as they don't support your ideas in any way. I did this a lot in my rough draft for The Scarlet Letter, and it was messy.

Both of these plays illustrate [s]of[/s] the theme that steadfastly following the institutionalized conventions as set forth by society leads to a shallow existence where any instances of happiness are merely an illusion.


Character actions and words are an exaggeration, and yet not really. They simply seem to be exaggerations because they are taking the place in absence of other context and as such they come across as being exaggerations.
This is something more fitting for a supporting paragraph, rather than your conclusion. At least, in my opinion it is. On the same not, the first sentence made me laugh. "And yet not really" seems funny in that context, hehe.


Best of luck! I have to write the final draft for a paper either today or tomorrow, and I am rather horrified, so hopefully you fair better than I do.
“It's necessary to have wished for death in order to know how good it is to live.”
― Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo



I would like to be the air that inhabits you for a moment only. I would like to be that unnoticed and that necessary.
— Margaret Atwood