Tom Stoppard's Plays by Jim Hunter (review)

Abstract

144 Book Reviews parody ofPinter" or "Pinter made easy"? Shejustifies none ofthese claims. IfMick (The Caretaker) is "a character who is as smart as Pinter and makes similar witty use of narrative" (p. 162), what is the proof - or the relevance to the play? Despite her early statement that Beckett's and Pinter's drama "represents some of the best and most important examples" of a distinctively new use of narrative in the theatre (p. 2), and briefintroductory remarks on the subject, Morrison's conclusion, less than a paragraph, indicates only that their characters use "story to avoid confrontation with subjects that nonetheless fascinate [them], little canters into the dangerous territory of love and death, emerging, finally, silent, 'safe'" (p. 219). After reading analyses of many individual plays, the reader is entitled to more than this bland summary. One wants a conclusion about specifically similar or different idiosyncratic uses to which Beckett and Pinter put narrative, perhaps also comparison with traditional modern dramatic narrative, e.g., Big Daddy's story ofthe child in Marrakech (Cat on a Hot Tin Roof). Many of Morrison's perceptions are useful, but the book also disappoints. BERNARD F. DUKORE, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII JIM HUNTER. Tom Stoppard's Plays. New York: Grove Press 1982; London: Faber and Faber 1982. Pp. ix, 258. $9.95 (PB); £3.95 (PB). In his Preface to Tom Stoppard's Plays, Jim Hunter warns readers that the book is "meant for performers, directors, and audiences, who I hope won't find it 'academic. '" He need not have worried. What he has written steers clear of the trappings associated with academic writing. The result is a set of ruminating discussions that are highly personal in their perceptions and eclectic in their organization. This is to say, not that Hunter's book fails to edify, but that it must be taken on its own idiosyncratic terms. Hunter, who is also a published novelist, begins with a short chapter termed "Biography." Rather than discussing much biographical data, Hunter lists important years in Stoppard's life as subheadings; then he cites snippets ofwhat Stoppard has been quoted as saying elsewhere about crucial events that took place in his life during the listed years. Occasionally, Hunter interjects sentences on his own to explain a significant occurrence. But his format offers little to readers concerning Stoppard'slife and upbringing, at least in any systematic way that is easy to follow. Seven additional chapters make up the central body ofthe book. Hunter has chosen to approach Stoppard's works by way of different emphases. His chapter titles suggest the entry directions of his considerations: "Playing," "Staging," "Laughing," "Talking," "Travestying," "Thinking," and "Caring." Each section includes shrewd individual insights, but no coherent structure operates to bind the separate ideas into a comprehensive view. In Chapter 3, "Staging," for example, Hunter expends several pages on the character ofRuth from Stoppard'splayNight andDay. Here he gives one of the most thorough examinations of her available in any commentary on Stoppard. In Chapter 6, "Travestying," Hunter comments in some detail on the two-part workDogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth, a piece not well known to casual playgoers and hence requiring the kind of clarification he provides. And in Chapter 7, called "Thinking," Book Reviews 145 Hunter clears the air on several key uncertainties regarding Stoppard's writing methods: "Yet Stoppard's underlying calm is something other than holding back. It is a view of life: the comic/satirical/conservative rather than the angry/visionary/revolutionary" (p. 194)· Hunter's emphasis-directed organization of chapters, however, leads to some problems. Because he is treating essentially the same plays over and over in each chapter, simply using different angles ofentry, he begins to repeat himself. The chapter "Thinking" is both the most important in potential substance and the most flawed in the entire book. In it, Hunter atte'mpts to retrace Stoppard's philosophical reading and ethical background - a difficult task for which Hunter is not equipped. And whereas most of the book comprises impressionistic criticism - and often is astute, given the inherent limitations of that method - in "Thinking" Hunter tries a more analytical approach. As a result, however, he ends up...