 |
|
Zoo story
Task G – Concluding remarks
We can see that Jerry’s conversational behaviour in this extract
is peculiar and difficult to interpret. And so it is very unsettling,
both for Peter and for us. Most of the things we have seen relate in some
way to clashes between Jerry and us concerning the way that he makes use
of schematic assumptions. He appears to need to spell out assumptions
that we would not expect to spell out, and can apparently change assumptions
dramatically from turn to turn. His use of style is also sometimes inappropriate.
It is thus not surprising that Peter seems unsettled in the conversation
and we find it difficult to interpret Jerry’s behaviour satisfactorily.
This unsettling effect related to character assumptions and how they are
used is one of the hallmarks of absurdist drama.
Note also how there is a bit of an issue in this extract concerning
which schematic assumptions we ‘take along’ to the text (see
our discussion of Tasks B and C, for example). Should we operate with
the assumptions that were in place at the time the play was written, or
the ones we currently hold? Traditional literary criticism took the former
line, suggesting that to use knowledge not available at the time a text
was written was anachronistic and could lead to mistaken understandings
(i.e. it would be rather like assuming that the word ‘gay’
in a text by Shakespeare could mean ‘homosexual’, even though
that meaning for the word did not arise until the 20th century). Some
modern critics believe that it is reasonable for the reader to take along
more modern assumptions as they merely lead to different understandings,
not a false ones. We are with the traditionalists on this one, even though
it is harder work (you have to research assumptions and the meanings of
words in former times – or other cultures if the text concerned
does not come from your culture – cf. texts written in English by
Africans or Indians, for example). But you need to work out for yourself
where you stand on this debate.
|
