The message that I am receiving from the dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony in an unknown setting while the characters of the play create their own purpose in life shows me that Wilder believes that Existentialism is absurd. Wilder is stating that one will not know how humans were created or why humans exist. The coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living peacefully together shows Wilder's view that Existentialists will never be able to figure out why different animals are not able to coexist in the same environment. The unknown setting in the play states that those involved in the study of human existence should give up and stop trying to figure why humans are where they are or where they are not. The created purpose for the characters in the play states that existentialists need to quit looking for the purpose of human existence. I feel that Wilder states that Existentialism is pointless and the non-serious attitude being taken towards the play states that Existentialism should not be taken sriously. Wilder displays, through the play, that people can never figure out why we, as humans, exist, why we are where we are today, and our purpose in life. What do you feel Wilder is trying to portray Existentialism as in The Skin of Our Teeth?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wilder's view on Existentialism
After reading Act I of The Skin of My Teeth by Thornton Wilder, I found myself questioning the intended message to the audience. In the play, Sabina reminds the audience that the play is idiotic and should not be taken seriously (Wilder 51). What I am getting out of the constant reminders is that the theme of the play, Existentialism, is a controversial topic and I feel that the author is mocking this study. In the play, there is a coexistence of dinosaurs, humans and other animals living in harmony. There is also a confusion of the time and placement for the setting of the play. Sabina openly tells the audience that she does not know if the play is set in the Stone Ages or in New Jersey (Wilder 32). Sabina also states that the world is not going to end and the characters in the play are exaggerating (Wilder 48). This shows that the characters of the play are creating their own purpose in life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Brandon’s idea that "The Skin of Our Teeth" does not make existentialism seem significant. The unrealistic situations are clearly not meant to be taken seriously, but they also may not be meant to be taken literally. I think that the presence of the dinosaur and mammoth are symbolic, rather than proof of the play’s triviality.
ReplyDeleteBrandon mentioned the contrast between the simple lives of the animals and the difficult lives of the people. I think that if the animals were written into the play to serve as more than humorous characters, they were probably meant to show the complexity of people. In Act I, the animals live peacefully, as their most significant problem is the weather (Wilder 15). Unlike the animals, the people in "The Skin of Our Teeth" must constantly pay attention to detail because the decisions that they make are crucial. The characters believe that their daily choices can change their lives entirely, like Henry’s decision to throw a stone at his brother and Sabina’s reluctance to give away a needle (Wilder 15). Unless Thornton Wilder implemented the animals into his play for the sole purpose of creating a comedy, I think his work was meant to show existentialism in a serious way.
I think you raise some good points Shannon. I think this idea of questioning our existence may be showing us that he takes existentialism seriously. I also think talking it is important to think of the story symbolically and allegorically. We can love these characters, and though what they are saying may be crazy; I think at the end of the day they are saying important and ultimately more human than other plays such as Pygmalion or Streetcar.
ReplyDelete