Thx Cambridge!

#WhenYouWriteAt6AMButCan’tFindGifsTill10PM

To be honest, I didn’t find any of these three criticisms great. Maybe I’m just becoming an angry writer. Maybe it’s just my “voice.” Who knows.

The first criticism definitely embodied my view of the play and, even then, I wasn’t even quite sure what the first line was trying to achieve! “Southern Gothic horror story.” What exactly is Gothic or horrific about this play? I definitely see the Southern aspect, with Boss Finley trying to protect the “pure blood” of their town by castrating a black man or the mere politics involved in general seem to be the stereotypical problems of the South. Nothing exciting happens down here unless it’s sex! Thanks Tennessee Williams!

But, back to the first criticism, there were parts I agreed with. When Hirsch writes that “As [Chance Wayne’s] name blatantly indicates, though, his chances are waning.” That may be one of the lines I agree most with out of the three criticisms and it was in the first paragraph! However, it then proceeds to go over my head with comparisons to “Val Xavier in Battle of Angels” and by bringing in the criticism of other critics, like Robert Brustein’s puzzled response to Chance’s character. Uh, Foster Hirsch, isn’t this supposed to be your opinion?

Hirsch goes on to then claim William’s said he was unsuccessful with Finley because he just hated him so much. But I feel like that’s what made him so terribly great. Everyone hated Boss Finley, or at least almost everyone in my class did. Boss “believes” that he was called by the Voice of God to serve his town, which is a complete contrast that Williams did a great job setting up. An awfully evil medium for which God can speak through and rectify change through? I don’t think so, Boss. All holy and loving of all but controlling his daughter, castrating a black man, completely opposing Chance’s embodiment of Christ himself, and, to quote Chance, “preaching hate.” Maybe that’s why Boss has such a twisted personality.

However, Firsch did the best job, of the three blogs, touching on the fact that the Sweet Bird of Youth just wasn’t good. It was alright, for sure. It held my attention… sometimes. When Princess wasn’t rambling on about something at least. But there was not enough character development in this play. As Jenna says, everyone seemed so shallow. And I wholeheartedly agree. I feel like the play had weak structure, little to no flow from one act to the other, and it was overall disconnected. None of the criticisms seemed to touch much on that, except for the first one. After an entire paper, he ends with claiming it was “carelessly constructed.” But, despite that negative criticism, he does attempt to end on a positive note which I see no need for. Trying to justify the shortness of the play, the unconnected acts and unsupported characters. But why? This play was no good, that’s ok to admit, no positive justification is needed.

However, I feel like the second criticism didn’t even read the play, they just watched the movie or something and made up all the rest of their critiques out of thin air to hit a word count. How do they know he “only got as far as the chorus of a Broadway production of Oklahoma?” How are they so sure that Chance contracted a disease from a wealthy woman through his work as a gigolo? I feel like there is a lot left unsaid, given that there is only three acts, but Tennessee Williams was so picky about how the entire play was set up, why would he leave the reasons behind why things happen up to interpretation? I feel like the second criticism will gladly make up parts of the story in order to have the puzzle pieces connect, but how can we be sure that Tennessee wanted that to happen? What if the entire play was just that, the play? There is no deeper meaning than that.

And where I feel like the second criticism discredits itself with the huge amounts of interpretation, the third criticism wasn’t much better. The third criticism is longer than the play! Where do they even gather enough information to write that much? In the third criticism, I don’t think they accurately portrays the play in a way I agree with. And Griffin states that Princess and Chance are the two best characters. Uh no? I definitely disagree because Boss was the best character Williams was able to display, despite his awful characteristics. He’s a complete stereotype, mistress and all, and he makes the most sense out of anyone in this short, drawn out play! Finley is a complete contradiction, loving on Miss Lucy in a hotel room but hating on Chance for the exact same actions! How does Griffin know Lucy wanted Chance to leave to protect Heavenly? She doesn’t seem to be too fond of the Finley family that day. And, honestly, I think the third criticism has too many quotes, too much summary, and not enough evaluation.

Overall, I don’t think any of the criticisms touched on my biggest question: WHY? Why was this play written? Why does this entire town CARE so much? Why were they all awaiting Chance’s return? I just don’t understand. And these three criticisms did not help me better understand the reason why this play was written.