I hold the highest esteem for O'Neill. He was the pioneer who founded the small theater movement and a tenacious experimental playwright. I have perused a significant number of his plays, yet not all. Frequently, I find his works to be long-winded and repetitive. This particular play was unknown to me. It revolves around a former Irishman who served bravely in the British army until he was ousted for engaging in a duel. He has journeyed to America with his wife and daughter and established a tavern which is now on the verge of failure. The tavern is failing as he indulges in nightly drinking, takes no part in the bar's operation, and lavishes his love and money on an expensive thoroughbred horse. He dwells in a fantasy world where his shame is avenged and he is on the brink of restoring his fortune and noble lineage.
Of course, it all comes crumbling down and perhaps in a psychological breakdown, he reverts to the more humble truth of his past. The play might be outdated in its structure, but for O'Neill, I believed it was concise and believable. It offers a profound exploration of human nature, the consequences of one's actions, and the power of illusion. O'Neill's ability to create complex and flawed characters is once again on display, making this play a worthy addition to his body of work.
A Touch of the Poet by Eugene O'Neill seems to be an American take on Luigi Pirandello's Henry IV. Both works feature quixotic characters, with mules playing a central role, much like Rocinante in Don Quixote. The main characters, Con Melody and Henry IV, are consumed by illusions of grandeur, which also affect those around them. Other characters, such as Sara Melody and Frida, resemble their mothers in appearance and behavior. Mirrors are used symbolically, and the dialogue alludes to dreams, reading, play-acting, and madness. However, these two plays have received relatively little recognition in the context of their authors' oeuvres.
I haven't seen O'Neill's plays performed on stage, so I can't comment on their effectiveness in that medium. However, his writing skills are evident on the page. His characters are fascinating, especially Con Melody, who doesn't appear until the end of act one, creating an Ahab-like aura. From the bar-talk between Cregan and Maloy, we learn about Melody's past and his current problems with rent and his need to rewrite his history. We also see how his pride has affected his relationships, particularly with Nora and Sara.
The play comments on the nature of illusions and class, with hints of the Greek "hamartia," or tragic flaw, in Melody's pride. Nora's love for Melody is so strong that she accepts his illusions, while Sara despises them. Simon Harford, Sara's love interest, is a dreamer who wants to live a simple life in nature and write a book about changing the world. His mother, Deborah, is self-aware and grounded in reality, but she recognizes the allure of dreams. The differences between the Melody and Harford families are highlighted by their class status and their attitudes towards dreams.
The play builds to a climax when Melody's pride causes him to reject Simon's offer of marriage for Sara and then defend her honor when a lawyer offers money to end their relationship. Sara takes matters into her own hands and sleeps with Simon, hoping to force a marriage. Melody returns from a fight with his uniform in tatters, having lost his illusions and his pride. The play ends with Sara sobbing, unsure of her future with Simon and mourning the loss of her father's illusions. The play's ending is ambiguous, leaving the audience to wonder what will happen to the Melody family.
Critical reception of A Touch of the Poet has been mixed. Some critics, like Henry Hewes, have praised the play for its exploration of the relationship between pride and love, while others have criticized its use of violence and its ambiguous ending. The play's effectiveness may also depend on the interpretation of the director and the actors. When I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company's productions of Shakespeare's plays, I was struck by how different the stage interpretations could be from the text. This makes me wonder if the true nature of a play, such as whether it is a tragedy or a comedy, can only be determined by seeing it performed on stage.
Despite the challenges of staging a play, live theatre continues to be popular. However, the trend towards musicals, concerts, and acrobatics shows may limit the opportunities for other forms of theatre, such as plays. Mario Vargas Llosa argues that we are becoming more focused on spectacle and less on the substance of art. While the stage can be more effective in eliciting emotions than reading alone, I'm not sure if sacrificing the message of a play is worth it. Perhaps Eliot is right in suggesting that the true nature of a tragicomedy can only be appreciated by seeing it performed on stage and watching its message sail over the heads of the audience.