T S Eliots Cocktail Party - Essay Example

The Cocktail Party T.S. Eliot’s play the ‘Cocktail Party’ is broadly ified as a comedy. Still, however, the play is based partly on the Greek tragedy "Alcestis," by Euripedes, which has been labelled as a "problem play" because of the difficulty of its classification. In some sense then, one can indicate that "The Cocktail Party" is also a problem play. While in many regards, problem and comedy have similar connotations, it’s clear there are elements that differentiate these two approaches to drama and literature. In defining comedy Aristotle distinguished, “between tragedy and comedy essentially on the basis of the fact that the former represents "noble" or "morally good" agents, while the latter portrays "ignoble" or "morally defective" characters” (Golden, ‘Aristotle’). Through an investigation of T.S. Eliot’s work this essay considers in what sense "The Cocktail Party" is a comedy, and the various means by which it stretches the definition of comedy. In Act I of the play T.S. Eliot establishes a great amount of the elements that will go into the narrative structure of the play. In the first scene of this act the party guests begin to arrive and general comedic banter occurs. Alex states, “You’ve missed the point completely, Julia: There were no tigers. That was the point” (Eliot, pg. 9). While this isn’t a joke in the traditional sense, it does represent an off-kilter comedic element that establishes the tone for the play. The reader soon discovers that something is amiss. While Lavinia is the individual that invited the guests to the party, Edward is the only one that is currently at the home. It is revealed that Lavinia left Edward the day before. While a problem is the categorical sense, this dilemma places Edward and the general narrative of the story in a comedic situation, as Edward is forced to make excuses and juggle the situation in as competent a way as possible. In another sense, the notion that Lavinia would leave Edward the night before the party adds a dark comedic element to the work. This narrative element is also somewhat in-line with Aristotle’s definition of comedy that considers it as an articulation of debased or lower class situations. The second scene of the play further considers the comedic potential that can be created through situations. Expanding the elements of comedy, in Act I, Scene ii Eliot indicates that Edward and Celia are having an affair. This complicates that situation as Celia believes that since Lavinia has left she and Edward will be able to get together, when in reality Edward believes he will get back with Lavinia. Celia states, “Lavinia coming back! Do you mean to say that she’s laid a trap for us?” (Eliot, pg. 53). While Celia is wrong in her assumption, Eliot is playing on the comedic nature of situation in her response to discovering the news. It’s clear that Eliot is planting narrative elements that will result in further complications and comedy as the play advances. In the second Act, Eliot further advances the narrative and develops the play’s comedic categorization. This act begins in a psychiatrist office. The setting for this scene allows for a degree of comedic potential in that its somewhat off-beat nature allows for the viewing of the foibles daily life. This is also in-keeping with Eliot’s theme of placing the narrative in situations that create comedic potential; this was seen in the previous act with the narrative beginning in a cocktail party wherein the individual who invited them wasn’t even present. Here Eliot explores this comedic approach in a number of ways. One such example of this is that the therapist himself, Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly, was the unidentified guest at the party, believed to be sent there by Lavinia. Of course, the realization of this comedic potential comes when Eliot has the narrative place Lavinia and Edward in the same room. In these regards, one can almost envision a modern day Talk Show along the lines of Jerry Spring or Maury Povich. While the characters in Eliot’s work have the general assumption of class, Eliot plays on this with these fantastic setting arrangements. The play advances this comedic narrative as Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly reveals that both Edward and Lavinia have had separate affairs. Other comedic elements are created this irony. While Lavinia believes she has been sent to a sanatorium, she has actually been sent to a hotel. This act also expands the nature of comedic categorization. As the Act begins, Eliot explores a number of dark relating to Edward and Lavinia’s relationship. While these narrative elements are not humorous in the sense that one might generally assume, they do nonetheless fit Aristotle’s general definition of comedy. This is a sense of comedy that contains comedic elements, namely marriage foibles, however lacks the humorous flair that individuals generally associate with ‘comedies’. The play’s third act takes place a number of years after the events of the previous two acts. Here Eliot utilizes the same comedic elements that are witnessed in the previous two acts. One of these elements that was also seen in the earlier acts is the demonstration of ironic to create comedic situations. Act III utilizes comedic irony by placing the setting in another cocktail party years later. Here one begins to find the humor in the cyclical recurrence of cocktail parties as central elements of these characters lives, and indeed the play’s focus. As the play advances through Act three many of the same guests as were established earlier, most notably Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly. The one guest that is conspicuously absent is Celia. As the reader begins to wonder what occurred to her, movie producer Alex indicates that she is dead. This is a dark comedic element and the humor is found in the extreme fate Celia experienced. Eliot further expands the comedic potential of Celia’s fate by indicating that she was crucified and cannibalized. Here Eliot has utilized all the established comedic elements of the play in establishing it firmly within the spectrum of comedies; namely Eliot has implemented situational irony to establish the play’s comedic potential, and also expanded the nature of comedy through including dark comedic elements. In these regards, the concluding scene is indicative of the play’s comedic structure as a whole, with the entire party expressing little shock or despair at Celia’s cannibalization, and simply listening to a poem about life and death. In conclusion, it’s clear that through an investigation of T.S. Eliot’s work this essay has demonstrated in what sense "The Cocktail Party" is a comedy, and the various means by which it stretches the definition of comedy. In these regards, Eliot establishes this work as a comedy through three main comedic devices. The first such device is through the placement of the narrative in various comedic situations. This is witnessed in the placement of the setting in terms of a cocktail party wherein the main host is absent. It is later demonstrated in the narrative elements of the cocktail party. The second comedic element is the demonstration of humorous foibles of the main protagonists in the story. This is demonstrated in the love triangle and marriage challenge of Edward, Lavinia, and Celia. Finally, comedy is established through situational and comedic irony. Ultimately, it’s clear while the play is in part based on a Greek problem play Eliot imbues it with enough comedic elements to establish the play firmly within the comedic spectrum. References Golden, Leon. ‘Aristotle’. http://comptalk.fiu.edu/aristotle.htm Eliot, T.S. (2001) The Cocktail Party. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Read More