"THE ZOO STORY" (EDWARD ALBEE).   Term Paper ID:26256 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Analyzes tragedy & comedy of communication & lack thereof between play's two characters.... More...

5 Pages / 1125 Words 1 sources, 7 Citations, MLA Format $20.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Analyzes tragedy & comedy of communication & lack thereof between play's two characters. Paper Introduction: Edward Albee's play The Zoo Story is a play about communication, or rather, the lack of communication between people who believe they are communicating. The play is both comic and tragic, for the same lack of communication which brings laughter can the next moment bring pathos as the consequences of isolated human beings (human beings who cannot or will not communicate openly and honestly) brings death, even murder, or murder by suicide. The play features two men, Jerry and Peter. Jerry is either mad or so eccentric and troubled that he might as well be mad, and Peter is conservative and completely ignorant of the world beyond his little married life. On one level, the men appear to be trying to communicate, although there are obvious roadblocks to that end. Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Jerry says, "But every once in a while Ilike to talk to somebody, really talk, like to get to know somebody, knowall about him" (8). . Peter simply does not seem capable of communicating, for he hassurrendered his openness and perceptiveness to his traditional lifestyleand philosophy of life. On the other hand, are they trulytrying to communicate? Except for his communication with the dog,which, in recounting, he is honest and sincere for perhaps the only time inthe play, he shows only anger and bitterness. WITH ANIMALS! . The play is both comic and tragic, for the same lack ofcommunication which brings laughter can the next moment bring pathos as theconsequences of isolated human beings (human beings who cannot or will notcommunicate openly and honestly) brings death, even murder, or murder bysuicide. He never really knowswhat is going on in his bewildering communication with Jerry, and certainlynever understands that he is being manipulated from the moment Jerry firstdeclares "I"ve been to the zoo" (5). " (8) and"I didn't mean to seem . The reader or member of the audience will likely appreciate Jerry'sdog story more than Peter did, for Peter's first response after the tellingof that story shows that he bewildered by what he has heard: "I . Jerry'scommunication with the dog is hardly ideal or fulfilling, but it consistsof an understanding which Jerry apparently believes is as real as he isgoing to find: "We regard each other with a mixture of sadness andsuspicion, and them we feign indifference. At the same time, however, one can say that Jerry is as deluded asPeter in terms of communication and what Jerry believes can be accomplishedthrough communication. However, Jerry never shows any real desire tounderstand or sympathize with Peter's life or problems, choosing to mockhim instead and only softening when it appears that Peter may leave. . . i don't think I . The play features two men, Jerry and Peter. If Jerry were to put as much time,care, creativity, and effort into establishing communication with a humanbeing that he put into coming to some sort of mutually acceptable andrespectful understanding with that dog, he would probably have found humancompanionship and would not be seeking to be murdered by Peter in order toescape his pain. I don't really know why I expected the dog to understand anything, much less my motivations . (19). We have an understanding.We had made many attempts at contact, and we had failed" (2 ). . Idon't understand what . . In one sense, there is nocommunication between the two men, for Jerry only wants to use Peter forhis own nefarious purposes, and Peter proves himself to be incapable ofunderstanding much of anything Jerry is saying. The suggestion is clear, atleast from Jerry's point of view--the zoo is the park in which the animalsstruggle for space and life. Jerry has achieved what he wanted from the encounter--death. To Jerry, people are littlebetter than animals, or even worse than animals, for the landlady's doggives him an honesty and a straightforwardness he certainly does not findin any relationship with a human being. On the other hand, lookingat the encounter from the perspective of Jerry, who has two goals in mind,the encounter could be seen to be successful in terms of communication.Jerry wants to tell another human being the story of his life, especiallythe part about his communication with the dog. . In addition, because Jerry is so profoundly conflicted with respectto his parents and his sexuality, he is far from being as self-knowing ashe believes himself to be. Work CitedAlbee, Edward. Despite the title of the play, the reader--not to mention Peter--never discovers what did happen at the zoo. I hoped that the dog would understand. The entire "conversation," from beginning to end, is manipulated byJerry. Therefore, he decides to use hisskills of conversation (or at least what appears to be conversation) tobreak down Peter's conservative outlook and emotional self-containment tosuch a point that he has killed Jerry before he even knows what hashappened. . From the beginning, Jerry is a rather pushy, if not obnoxious fellow,who seems intent on slyly mocking the traditional values and thoughts ofPeter. Again and again, Peter responds to statements fromJerry with phrases of confusion such as "I must say I don't . On one level, the men appear to be trying to communicate, althoughthere are obvious roadblocks to that end. The Zoo Story. Sorry" (1 ). The communication between Jerry andthe dog is pure, in a sense, because it is carried out non-verbally,without the confusion and deception of the symbols of words. Peter is withdrawn and alternately suspicious and compliant. Jerry is either mad or soeccentric and troubled that he might as well be mad, and Peter isconservative and completely ignorant of the world beyond his little marriedlife. It's just that if you can't deal with people, you have to make a start somewhere. . . . (Now, almost tearfully)Why did you tell me all of this?" (21). And, if so, is it truly possible for them tosuccessfully communicate? In one sense, then, from Jerry's point of view, the communication isperfect--he accomplishes precisely what he wants to accomplish. Jerry is probably capable of communicating with Peter,if he could set aside his deviousness and his judgmentalism and his lowself-esteem, but perhaps he is incapable of setting aside those obstaclesto open and honest communication. Nevertheless, hetells his life story at length, as if he were confessing before dying. . . Therefore, we have an encounter which seems perfectly constructed fornon-communication. Jerry hates life, or fearslife, or has had enough of life in any case, and he wants to die, but he isnot able or willing to kill himself. . However, a larger obstacle to communication exists between the twomen. . . Earlier, hegoes even further in describing the depth of his non-verbal communicationwith the dog: I love the dog now, and I wanted him to love me. Theyare opposites trying to communicate. Peter is probably too locked inside himself and his conservativeoutlook on life to open up enough to show himself willingly, and at thesame time he is not aware enough to listen intelligently, especially tosuch a contradictory and devious character as Jerry. Such anger and bitternessseem the proper form of communication to him, especially compared to thecomplacency of Peter. From Jerry's point of view, communication is manipulation, in thisconversation with Peter and in all of life. Peter has no idea what hit him. Jerry believes life is a tragedy and he wants out,but, again, he does not see his own culpability in creating a life which isso miserable that he would rather die than live. . . Although he obviously wants to communicate to another human beingwhat he has learned about love, friendship and understanding, Jerry wantseven more to create reactions and feelings in Peter which will result inPeter's killing Jerry. Hissecond requirement for a successful encounter is to manipulate Peter intokilling him, which he does. The "story" is the ending of the play in whichJerry forces Peter to fight for the bench, just as animals in a cage mightfight for territory in a corner of that cage. FromPeter's point of view, of course, what has happened to him, how Jerry hasmanipulated him into murder, will probably not come clear to him for a longwhile, if ever. New York: Dramatist's Play Service,1988.----------------------- 5 . Having had little success inhis life in having people understand or sympathize with him, Jerry probablydoes not have much hope that Peter will be the first. Edward Albee's play The Zoo Story is a play about communication, orrather, the lack of communication between people who believe they arecommunicating. . Perhaps the heart of the play (aside from Jerry'sdeath at Peter's hand) is the long story Jerry tells about his complex"relationship" with the landlady's dog. . ." (9) and "I . . If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.