Magic Meanings in Mamet's Cryptogram

Abstract

In one of his earlier essays, Mamet recalls what he thinks was a "magic moment" in theatre: "I thought: isn't it the truth: people are born, love, hate, are frightened and happy, grow old and die. We as audience and we as artists must work to bring about a theater, an American Theater, which will be a celebration of these things." Mamet's dramatic oeuvre, I maintain, is an attempt to live up to these principles. Through the ludic interaction of fictional characters, Mamet celebrates a "truth" lingering in theatrical spaces distorted by violence, suspicion, dishonesty, and deceit. Should I rather heed D.H. Lawrence's slightly shopworn warning and "never trust the artist" here? Has postmodern theory not obliterated "truth" as an intellectual curiosity long ago? And have we not agreed on the "absence of the transcendental signified," called for an indefinite "play of signification," and affirmed "a world of signs ... without truth"? These canonical tenets of postmodem theory, I again maintain, fall short of describing the scope and import of Mamet's plays. In Mamet's dramatic universe, "things do mean things" — even though, and maybe also because, his characters are constantly denying it.