What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cocktail Party
'Eliot has attempted here something very daring and well worth doing. He has taken the ordinary West End drawing room comedy convention - understatement, upper-class accents and all - and used it as a vehicle for utterly serious ideas.' Observer
167 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
91 people are currently reading
3793 people want to read
About the author
T.S. Eliot
1,085 books5,667 followersThomas Stearns Eliot was a poet, dramatist and literary critic. He received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948 "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry." He wrote the poems The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, The Hollow Men, Ash Wednesday, and Four Quartets; the plays Murder in the Cathedral and The Cocktail Party; and the essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. Eliot was born an American, moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at the age of 25), and became a British subject in 1927 at the age of 39.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.S._Eliot
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.S._Eliot
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 292 reviews
November 13, 2009
"We die to each other daily.
What we know of other people
Is only our memory of the moments
During which we knew them. And they have changed since then.
To pretend that they and we are the same
Is a useful and convenient social convention
Which must sometimes broken. We must also remember
That at every meeting we are meeting a stranger."
TS Eliot said of The Cocktail Party, "Whatever you find in it depends on what you bring to it." Which, of course, applies to much of his work. How much The Cocktail Party resonates with you, as the reader, as the witness to its events, will depend on your experiences in the world.
The story surrounds a failing marriage at a crossroad. The details of the drama become apparent through conversations during and after the cocktail party and conclude with another party two years later. The catalyst that helps unfold the mystery is the "Unidentified Guest" - who turns out to be a highly-regarded psychiatrist, Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly. The husband, Edward, abandoned by his wife, Lavinia, before the cocktail party that she planned, first opens up to this mysterious guest because he's a stranger. To which the guest, foreshadowing future engagements, replies:
"And I know that all you wanted was the luxury
of an intimate disclosure to a stranger.
Let me therefore, remain a stranger.
But let me tell you , that to approach the strange
Is to invite the unexpected, release a new force,
or let the genie out of the bottle.
It is to start a train of events
Beyond your control."
The story takes on an absurd quality as various characters play their part to maintain the crumbling facade of the happy marriage. No one believes the lies, the half-truths, the back-handed compliments - yet they're repeated throughout the play.
Everyone's alone — or so it seems to me.
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other;
They make faces, and think they understand each other.
And I'm sure they don't. Is that a delusion?
Can we only love
Something created in our own imaginations?
What I like most about this, and other similarly constructed stories, is that the conversations drive the plot. What's said and what's not said reveal the story and the characters - instead of paragraph after paragraph of descriptive prose. This manner of telling the story most closely reflects how we engage with and learn about each other. How we decide what to say, and what to hide - the things we do to maintain our own personal status quo. Yet we are revealed by our conversations.
This is labeled a comedy - and the dialogue in places is very funny - but it is also a very melancholy story in places. The story speaks to isolation, disillusionment, apathy. Like The Wasteland, how much the story is a tragedy and how much it is a comedy, will in part depend on the life history you bring to it.
What we know of other people
Is only our memory of the moments
During which we knew them. And they have changed since then.
To pretend that they and we are the same
Is a useful and convenient social convention
Which must sometimes broken. We must also remember
That at every meeting we are meeting a stranger."
TS Eliot said of The Cocktail Party, "Whatever you find in it depends on what you bring to it." Which, of course, applies to much of his work. How much The Cocktail Party resonates with you, as the reader, as the witness to its events, will depend on your experiences in the world.
The story surrounds a failing marriage at a crossroad. The details of the drama become apparent through conversations during and after the cocktail party and conclude with another party two years later. The catalyst that helps unfold the mystery is the "Unidentified Guest" - who turns out to be a highly-regarded psychiatrist, Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly. The husband, Edward, abandoned by his wife, Lavinia, before the cocktail party that she planned, first opens up to this mysterious guest because he's a stranger. To which the guest, foreshadowing future engagements, replies:
"And I know that all you wanted was the luxury
of an intimate disclosure to a stranger.
Let me therefore, remain a stranger.
But let me tell you , that to approach the strange
Is to invite the unexpected, release a new force,
or let the genie out of the bottle.
It is to start a train of events
Beyond your control."
The story takes on an absurd quality as various characters play their part to maintain the crumbling facade of the happy marriage. No one believes the lies, the half-truths, the back-handed compliments - yet they're repeated throughout the play.
Everyone's alone — or so it seems to me.
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other;
They make faces, and think they understand each other.
And I'm sure they don't. Is that a delusion?
Can we only love
Something created in our own imaginations?
What I like most about this, and other similarly constructed stories, is that the conversations drive the plot. What's said and what's not said reveal the story and the characters - instead of paragraph after paragraph of descriptive prose. This manner of telling the story most closely reflects how we engage with and learn about each other. How we decide what to say, and what to hide - the things we do to maintain our own personal status quo. Yet we are revealed by our conversations.
This is labeled a comedy - and the dialogue in places is very funny - but it is also a very melancholy story in places. The story speaks to isolation, disillusionment, apathy. Like The Wasteland, how much the story is a tragedy and how much it is a comedy, will in part depend on the life history you bring to it.
May 16, 2021
Eliot called this play a comedy. It does begin as such, with a cocktail party whose host is missing—Lavinia has left Edward, and he tries willy nilly to cover it up in front of the guests (a sick aunt is invented).
It is later, in profound conversation with an as-yet unidentified guest Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly, that Edward begins to explore the bedrock of his relationship with his wife, and indeed, his own self. Comedy no more: it is soon revealed that the couple were both in liaisons with other people who had both been guests at the party, and their indecision as how to live now carries the play forward.
Celia's sacrifice, Eliot implies, is the only alternative to the bleakness of post-war materialism, and it seems that Harcourt-Reilly was not acting alone but in a strange conspiracy with Julia and Alex, two other guests from the party. If the former emerges as a godlike figure, the latter each seem to represent the Church (what with her commanding social relations) and the State (with his widespread political connections) respectively. At any rate, it is clear from the chant the three of them perform at the end of Act II ((“Watch over her in the labyrinth / … Protect her from the Voices / Protect her from the Visions”) that these characters have more than just a human function.
In my opinion, The Cocktail Party has two 'endings'. As a play, I wish it had ended with the second act—to me, that presents a much more powerful close, and one not marred by the racism and colonial attitudes of the third. As a philosophical tract, however—especially one built upon references to Euripedes' Alcestis and echoing Christian ideas of morality—the final act is essential. I didn't think much of it (like most lofty ideas from the western canon, this too is built on a patronising attitude towards and normalised oppression of those in the east), but I see its appeal.
Mostly, I liked the play for its poetry, the one thing Eliot can always be counted upon for.
It is later, in profound conversation with an as-yet unidentified guest Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly, that Edward begins to explore the bedrock of his relationship with his wife, and indeed, his own self. Comedy no more: it is soon revealed that the couple were both in liaisons with other people who had both been guests at the party, and their indecision as how to live now carries the play forward.
"Ah, but we die to each other daily.Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly emerges in this play a psychopomp: first, as a stranger providing counsel to Edward, then as a psychiatrist counselling the married couple to work out their "salvation" and learn to live with their choices. Edward's former mistress Celia seeks him out, too, and it is in her context that "salvation" and Harcourt-Reilly's role take on meaning: Act III reveals to us that the 'sanatorium' he had sent Celia to was in fact a mission in Kinkaja, where she was crucified on an anthill.
What we know of other people
Is only our memory of the moments
During which we knew them. And they have changed
since then.
To pretend that they and we are the same
Is a useful and convenient social convention
Which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember
That at every meeting we are meeting a stranger."
Celia's sacrifice, Eliot implies, is the only alternative to the bleakness of post-war materialism, and it seems that Harcourt-Reilly was not acting alone but in a strange conspiracy with Julia and Alex, two other guests from the party. If the former emerges as a godlike figure, the latter each seem to represent the Church (what with her commanding social relations) and the State (with his widespread political connections) respectively. At any rate, it is clear from the chant the three of them perform at the end of Act II ((“Watch over her in the labyrinth / … Protect her from the Voices / Protect her from the Visions”) that these characters have more than just a human function.
In my opinion, The Cocktail Party has two 'endings'. As a play, I wish it had ended with the second act—to me, that presents a much more powerful close, and one not marred by the racism and colonial attitudes of the third. As a philosophical tract, however—especially one built upon references to Euripedes' Alcestis and echoing Christian ideas of morality—the final act is essential. I didn't think much of it (like most lofty ideas from the western canon, this too is built on a patronising attitude towards and normalised oppression of those in the east), but I see its appeal.
Mostly, I liked the play for its poetry, the one thing Eliot can always be counted upon for.
March 27, 2019
"Bosh sprinkled with mystic cologne," tooted critic George Jean Nathan when this play opened NYC, 1950, and won Best Play (Tony) and ran almost a year. Broadway then. Broadway now : honking vulgarity aimed at tourists. Thoughtful New Yorkers today prefer creative cuisine and restorative sex.
Remember the TS Eliot craze? It went on and on. Receiving the blessing of Lucempire, TS made the TIME cover, March 5, 1950, shortly after his platitude opened. (Others equally blessed : Stephen King, Erma Brombeck, Neil Simon, Michael Crichton).
I read this in school, curled up to the recorded version and inhaled the opium. God & Poetry linked in a drawing-room comedy? Sweet Jesso ! "Would you like some sherry?" asked Maman. "Fuck the sherry. Dado is mixing me a vodka martini." Now I see that TS (Missouri-born, an Anglo-Cat who became a naturalized Brit) was like some ingenue Methodist boning up, as it was suggested, for his examinations in Catholicism.
God appears as an Unidentified Guest at a cocktailer where Knightsbridgies blither about amorous problems. Mrs Shuttlethwaite, Peter Quilpe, Edward Chamberlayne--. Warning : avoid Americans, like TS, who settle in the UK.
The mistress of a married man cannot accept his spurn. God advises her to do for Others. Off she pops to a 3d world country where, we learn ACT 3, the natives crucified her on an ant hill. Contrary to rumor, the denouement was not a conceit by Mel Brooks.
Writer Llewellyn Powys says TS displays his spiritual struggles as if he were an animal in a lethal chamber. For TS, art is not a revelation but an escape from personality.
His play has poetic ping-pong, but the game is played in an Ivory Tower. Beyond some hand-holding after choir practice what does TS know about sex? Nothing. The discarded mistress feels something has gone out of her life, so God suggests the answer is self-sacrifice. All she needed was a passage of time to get over her disappointment, as thousands have done since the world began.
To another point: the play ran a year in the 1949-50 season that also saw Come Back, Little Sheba, The Innocents, The Member of the Wedding, Caesar & Cleopatra, The Devil's Disciple and Lost in the Stars. Today Broadway offers Aladdin, King Kong, Kinky Boots and Mean Girls. The US has retrogressed fatally in 70 years. Why?
Remember the TS Eliot craze? It went on and on. Receiving the blessing of Lucempire, TS made the TIME cover, March 5, 1950, shortly after his platitude opened. (Others equally blessed : Stephen King, Erma Brombeck, Neil Simon, Michael Crichton).
I read this in school, curled up to the recorded version and inhaled the opium. God & Poetry linked in a drawing-room comedy? Sweet Jesso ! "Would you like some sherry?" asked Maman. "Fuck the sherry. Dado is mixing me a vodka martini." Now I see that TS (Missouri-born, an Anglo-Cat who became a naturalized Brit) was like some ingenue Methodist boning up, as it was suggested, for his examinations in Catholicism.
God appears as an Unidentified Guest at a cocktailer where Knightsbridgies blither about amorous problems. Mrs Shuttlethwaite, Peter Quilpe, Edward Chamberlayne--. Warning : avoid Americans, like TS, who settle in the UK.
The mistress of a married man cannot accept his spurn. God advises her to do for Others. Off she pops to a 3d world country where, we learn ACT 3, the natives crucified her on an ant hill. Contrary to rumor, the denouement was not a conceit by Mel Brooks.
Writer Llewellyn Powys says TS displays his spiritual struggles as if he were an animal in a lethal chamber. For TS, art is not a revelation but an escape from personality.
His play has poetic ping-pong, but the game is played in an Ivory Tower. Beyond some hand-holding after choir practice what does TS know about sex? Nothing. The discarded mistress feels something has gone out of her life, so God suggests the answer is self-sacrifice. All she needed was a passage of time to get over her disappointment, as thousands have done since the world began.
To another point: the play ran a year in the 1949-50 season that also saw Come Back, Little Sheba, The Innocents, The Member of the Wedding, Caesar & Cleopatra, The Devil's Disciple and Lost in the Stars. Today Broadway offers Aladdin, King Kong, Kinky Boots and Mean Girls. The US has retrogressed fatally in 70 years. Why?
September 8, 2017
مهمانی عصرانه که یکی از بهترین نمایشنامه های تی اس الیوت محسوب می شود، پیچیدگی روابط انسانی و رنجی که انسان ها در ارتباطات خود با دیگران می برند را به خوبی به تصویر کشیده است. از دیدگاه الیوت ما در روابط خود دچار سوء تفاهم هستیم و اغلب خود را فریب می دهیم. ما نه با طرف مقابل آن گونه که هست، بلکه با تصویری که از او ساخته ايم _ چه مثبت و چه منفی _ در ارتباط هستیم. تی اس الیوت که تحت تاثیر انگاره های مسیحی است، موضوع مرگ و زنده شدن دوباره در هر لحظه را مطرح می کند؛ از همین رو معتقد است انسان ها تغییر می کنند و همان آدم قبلی نیستند. هر تغییر کوچکی را می توان به عنوان مرگ و زنده شدن در مقیاس کوچک در نظر گرفت. اما سایرین که توجه کافی به دیگری نمی کنند، این تغییرات را مشاهده نمی کنند و کمتر حاضر به اصلاح تصویر خود از دیگری هستند.
یکی از قسمت های جالب توجه نمایشنامه جایی ست که خانمي که حال و روز خوشی ندارد برای مشاوره نزد یک روانشناس آمده و می گوید دلم می خواهد من در اشتباه باشم زیرا در غیر این صورت دنیا یک اشباه بزرگ است. در حقیقت منظور او این است که حال و روز ناخوش او یا به خاطر این است که خودش در اشتباه است و مدل نادرستی از جهان دارد و درنتیجه باید به اصلاح خود بپردازد، یا اینکه خود جهان به واقع جای وحشتناکی ست و موجب آزردگی او شده است. او امیدوار است تصویر و مدل او از جهان نادرست باشد زیرا در این صورت می تواند به بهبود اوضاع امیدوار باشد. اما اگر جهان جای فاسد و دهشتناکی باشد، کاری از دستش بر نمی آید.
یکی از قسمت های جالب توجه نمایشنامه جایی ست که خانمي که حال و روز خوشی ندارد برای مشاوره نزد یک روانشناس آمده و می گوید دلم می خواهد من در اشتباه باشم زیرا در غیر این صورت دنیا یک اشباه بزرگ است. در حقیقت منظور او این است که حال و روز ناخوش او یا به خاطر این است که خودش در اشتباه است و مدل نادرستی از جهان دارد و درنتیجه باید به اصلاح خود بپردازد، یا اینکه خود جهان به واقع جای وحشتناکی ست و موجب آزردگی او شده است. او امیدوار است تصویر و مدل او از جهان نادرست باشد زیرا در این صورت می تواند به بهبود اوضاع امیدوار باشد. اما اگر جهان جای فاسد و دهشتناکی باشد، کاری از دستش بر نمی آید.
February 5, 2024
داستان به نظرم یه داستان معمولی بود،
در شب تولد بزرگترین عضو خانواده یعنی «آمی»؛، همگی افراد چشمانتظار بازگشت فرزندان وی به منزل اجدادی هستند. آمی بیصبرانه انتظار میکشد و اولین کسی است که متوجه حضور «هری»، فرزند ارشدش، پس از سالها دوری، در میان جمع میشود. اما هری به سختی پریشان است و در همان بدو ورود اعلام میکند که در حین سفر و گذشتن از روی دریا، همسرش را در آب انداخته و کشته است. فامیل که قادربه باور این ماجرا نیست، تصمیم میگیرند موضوع را با پزشک خانوادگی درمیان گذاشته و از وی بخواهند تا با معاینهٔ هری متوجه شود که آیا وی بیمار است یا اینکه حقیقت را میگوید. هری که در واقع از نوعی روانپریشی رنج میبرد همان شب و چند ساعت پس از رسیدن، تصمیم به سفری بدون بازگشت گرفته و به صورتی غیرمنتظره راهی میشود. آمی که به سختی از این موضوع آشفته شده، خواهر خویش را متهم میکند که وی هری را تحریک به سفر کرده و پس از مشاجرهای لفظی، در شب تولد خویش زندگی را بدرود گفته و میمیرد. این نمایشنامه در دو پرده و شش صحنه قابل اجرا است
در شب تولد بزرگترین عضو خانواده یعنی «آمی»؛، همگی افراد چشمانتظار بازگشت فرزندان وی به منزل اجدادی هستند. آمی بیصبرانه انتظار میکشد و اولین کسی است که متوجه حضور «هری»، فرزند ارشدش، پس از سالها دوری، در میان جمع میشود. اما هری به سختی پریشان است و در همان بدو ورود اعلام میکند که در حین سفر و گذشتن از روی دریا، همسرش را در آب انداخته و کشته است. فامیل که قادربه باور این ماجرا نیست، تصمیم میگیرند موضوع را با پزشک خانوادگی درمیان گذاشته و از وی بخواهند تا با معاینهٔ هری متوجه شود که آیا وی بیمار است یا اینکه حقیقت را میگوید. هری که در واقع از نوعی روانپریشی رنج میبرد همان شب و چند ساعت پس از رسیدن، تصمیم به سفری بدون بازگشت گرفته و به صورتی غیرمنتظره راهی میشود. آمی که به سختی از این موضوع آشفته شده، خواهر خویش را متهم میکند که وی هری را تحریک به سفر کرده و پس از مشاجرهای لفظی، در شب تولد خویش زندگی را بدرود گفته و میمیرد. این نمایشنامه در دو پرده و شش صحنه قابل اجرا است
September 3, 2020
If I can only hold to the memory
I can bear any future. But I must find out
The truth about the past, for the sake of the memory.
I can bear any future. But I must find out
The truth about the past, for the sake of the memory.
July 13, 2023
4.5 stars
میخواستم یه ریویو خوب بنویسم، ولی متاسفانه نوشتن بلد نیستم.
این نمایشنامهی فوقالعاده رو به همه پیشنهاد میکنم بخونن، مخصوصا به افرادی که به ژانر روانشناختی علاقه دارن.
با اینکه ۱۴۰ ص بیشتر نبود، ولی مفاهیم بسیار عمیقی رو بیان میکرد.
موضوعاتی که داخل نمایشنامه مورد بحث قرار میگیرن: تکرار روزمرگی، تاثیراتی که تصمیمات روی زندگی شخصی و سرنوشت میزارن، افسردگی، سردرگمی، impluse ها و یه عالمه دیگه...
لاوینا و ادوارد دو شخصیت اصلی داستان هستن. لاوینا یک روز ادوارد رو ترک میکنه و... بقیهش رو خودتون بخونید چون نمیخوام اسپویل بشه.
*تنها دلیلی که ۵ نمیدم اینه که این نمایشنامه حالت realistic داشت و خیلییییی جاها میشد باهاش relate کرد، ولی به ندرت جاهایی بود که unrealistic شده بود.
*من با اینکه خودم رو کتابخون نمیدونم، تنها شانسی که توی زندگیم آوردم اینه که کتابها منو پیدا میکنن و از این بابت خوشحالم.
میخواستم یه ریویو خوب بنویسم، ولی متاسفانه نوشتن بلد نیستم.
این نمایشنامهی فوقالعاده رو به همه پیشنهاد میکنم بخونن، مخصوصا به افرادی که به ژانر روانشناختی علاقه دارن.
با اینکه ۱۴۰ ص بیشتر نبود، ولی مفاهیم بسیار عمیقی رو بیان میکرد.
موضوعاتی که داخل نمایشنامه مورد بحث قرار میگیرن: تکرار روزمرگی، تاثیراتی که تصمیمات روی زندگی شخصی و سرنوشت میزارن، افسردگی، سردرگمی، impluse ها و یه عالمه دیگه...
لاوینا و ادوارد دو شخصیت اصلی داستان هستن. لاوینا یک روز ادوارد رو ترک میکنه و... بقیهش رو خودتون بخونید چون نمیخوام اسپویل بشه.
*تنها دلیلی که ۵ نمیدم اینه که این نمایشنامه حالت realistic داشت و خیلییییی جاها میشد باهاش relate کرد، ولی به ندرت جاهایی بود که unrealistic شده بود.
*من با اینکه خودم رو کتابخون نمیدونم، تنها شانسی که توی زندگیم آوردم اینه که کتابها منو پیدا میکنن و از این بابت خوشحالم.
November 26, 2015
من هنا اقتبس إليوت فكرة المسرحية
( الخفافيش ترسل أصواتًا عالية أثناء طيرانها حتى تهتدي بها الخفافيش الأخرى )
جئت مسرح ت س إليوت باحثة عن صيته كأديب ناقد في المقام الأول، فطاب لي المقام
;D
وجدت مسرحه يمتاز بتماسّه للواقع و يعجّ ب شخوص تعتبر كنماذج درامية قابلة للتكرار من حولنا بطرق تفكيرهم و ردود افعالهم وتضليلهم الآخرين بمشاعر مستعارة و طافية تخنق حقيقة مشاعرهم الحقيقية التي تخجل عن الإعلان التام عن جنونها و غوغائها، تناوله الدرامي شابهُ الإفصاح المحدود و الإيجاز المغيظ في الفصول الأولى من المسرحية و التي قال عنها مراجع المسرحية د جمال الدين الرمادي في نسختها العربية من ترجمة أمين سلامه: الحوار الذي افتتحت به المسرحية يُعد أغث حوار مسرحي !
شخصيًا أحسست بالفزع من تفريغ المدخل لسخافة حوارية كهذه و لازمتني الغرابة منها لحين انتهاء المسرحية، ولم أجد مبرر لفرضها عليّ كقارئة لأنها تعقد الفهم.. ومنفرة ستسمح للملل بالفتك بي.. لكنّه الصيت يا أصحاب :))
وعلى العكس كانت الفصول النهائية لاذعة و واعية وتوصل فكرتها وبعدها الفلسفي و أنفاسها الديالكتيكية دون عناء.
عندما تتحول العلاقة الزوجية بين إدوارد و لاڤيينيا لسجن فاتر، فيصبح كل منهما مجبر على التقهقر خلف حدوده حتى تلقي بهم مزاجياتهم من فوق الهاوية، يعتمد نجاح علاقتهما الزوجية على مدى تأكيد كل منهما لصدق دوره فيها، و بطبيعة الحال صدق الدور لا يكون بتقييد يديك و التفرج على مجرياتها من بعد أو التكهن بجذورها و توقع حلول سماوية لأنها تحتاج حلول وضعيّة واقعية، كذلك وضع إدوارد و لاڤيينيا الإجتماعي كعائلات مرموقة تحتل الإحتفالات في بهو بيتهما سمعة و طنطنة لا بأس بها يُعقّد مشكلتهما، تواجدهما وتوافقهما مشروط من الداخل بالحب والإخلاص و من الخارج باتحادهما لتشكيل قبة إجتماعية حاضنة لأصدقائهم ، لكن الاستشارة النفسية ستعيد الأمور إلى نصابها بينهما لإسترداد شيئًا من الطمأنينة في جوهما العاطفي، كما ان دائرة معارفهم تعتبر جزء مساهم في حلها .. و هنا تبرز أمامنا أهمية أن نحاط بدائرة معارف تلهمنا الصواب دون تدخل لا مرغوب و لا محسوب العقبى واقتحام لخصوصيتنا، من هم هؤلاء الثقاة من المعارف؟ و كيف يحول العناد مسار مشاكلنا على نحو يخالف جوهر المشكلة؟ كيف نختار الحل الأسلم كالبعد المؤقت ليختبر الشريك مشاعره لتجنب خسران العلاقة بالكامل ؟
نعمة الفرصة الثانية هل تخلق لمعادلة الزواج أنفاس رحبة ؟
أخضع إليوت هذه المسرحية لعدة تنقيحات بناءًا على تعليقات نقاده!فما أجمل أن يكون النقد الموجه لنا محفزًا للأفضل مهما كان مصدره .
( يجب أن نحصل على خير ما يمكننا من عمل سيء )
علاقة زوجية تنهض بعد تعثر مؤلم و سيء
تترجم خير سقوطها لنجاح -آخر- فالنجاح التام ليس في متناول أحد .. فلا تكن تحت خديعة نجاحك الواحد.
مسرحية تتعلم منها ..
July 22, 2023
2023 - why does this always slap so hard. mm mm mmmm delicious.
2015 - One of the most brilliant writings I've lately encountered. My American Literature professor said "we could spend a semester on just this play," and I now know why. Definitely one I'll keep around.
2015 - One of the most brilliant writings I've lately encountered. My American Literature professor said "we could spend a semester on just this play," and I now know why. Definitely one I'll keep around.
March 30, 2016
نمایشنامه در سه پرده
طرح داستان درباره خودشناسی و شناخت اطرافیان و همچنین نحوه برخورد در روابط
با تم روانشناسی درباره طبیعت انسان
خوب بود، پرده سوم یه مقدار افت میکنه
ترجمه خوبی داشت
طرح داستان درباره خودشناسی و شناخت اطرافیان و همچنین نحوه برخورد در روابط
با تم روانشناسی درباره طبیعت انسان
خوب بود، پرده سوم یه مقدار افت میکنه
ترجمه خوبی داشت
این که شما خودتونو مسخره ببینین، هیچ صدمهای به شما نمیزنه، خودتونو بسپرین به همون دیوونهای که هستین.
..اخیرا به نقطهای رسیدم که دیگه حقارت هم توان تحقیرکردن منو نداره. آدم به جایی میرسه که احساسش متوقف میشه، اونوقته که اندیشهشو بیان میکنه
June 9, 2013
I re-read this play every other year or so, it just never stops having meaning for me. I first went to a performance of it in college, and I went back the night after, and the night after that. I couldn't get enough!
I think the theme that resonates with me the most, and the reasons change, is that of relationships with others. Can you ever be known? Are you always alone?
"I have ceased to believe in my own personality"
"What is the reality of experience between two unreal people?"
I think the theme that resonates with me the most, and the reasons change, is that of relationships with others. Can you ever be known? Are you always alone?
"I have ceased to believe in my own personality"
"What is the reality of experience between two unreal people?"
July 27, 2017
Everyone's alone - or so it seems to me.
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other..
They make faces, and think they understand each other.
And I'm sure they don't. Is that a delusion?
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other..
They make faces, and think they understand each other.
And I'm sure they don't. Is that a delusion?
November 29, 2025
T. S. Elliot's "Cocktail Party" still made me laugh out loud and that's not easy. Elliot takes on the English upper middle class in this tale of mostly clueless but well-heeled wanna-bes. Lots of fun to read but not Elliot's best.
November 4, 2018
“ Occorre ricordare che ad ogni incontro incontriamo un estraneo” .
Con Eliot sono andata al buio. Il testo che ho riportava “ commedia” e non ero assolutamente preparata a leggere quello che ho trovato. E’ un dramma della miglior specie. Ho faticato all’inizio proprio perché cercavo quel brio che mi aspettavo di trovare fra un gin e un cocktail. Niente di più lontano. Eliot scava nell’animo umano con uno scalpello affilatissimo e ci mette davanti ad uno specchio. Edward scopre all’improvviso che Lavinia, sua moglie, lo ha abbandonato. Da qui partono le riflessioni sul rapporto di coppia, vuoto, sterile, inutile se non nell’unire due solitudini, ma neanche per questo a volte, perché i due mondi rimangono perfettamente distinti e distanti. Edward non sa amare. Lavinia non sa come farsi amare. Ed entrambi si ritrovano rapporti extraconiugali che non riescono a gestire. Lavinia con Peter, che la abbandona, ed Edward con Celia. E’ lei il capro espiatorio di queste incomprensioni d’animo, lei con parole durissime a rendersi conto della condizione di ogni singolo essere umano: “Voglio dir, quel che mi è accaduto mi ha fatto avvertire che son sempre stata sola. Che noi sempre siamo soli” , lei che credeva di costruire qualcosa con il suo Edward, si accorge invece che Edward senza Lavinia non può esistere, perché non sa chi è, e che tutto ciò che hanno vissuto è solo un sogno, uno scherzo: “ Credevo proprio di dare tanto a lui, ed egli a me; e il dare come il prendere era giusto: non in termini di calcolo, sol per giovare a quei due che s’era stati, ma al nuovo individuo, NOI” … E poi si scopre che si era solo estranei, che non c’era stato niente da dare né da prendere, ma che s’era solo fatto uno l’un dell’altro ognuno pel suo fine. E’ orribile. Dunque amiamo solo quel che è creato dalla nostra fantasia?”.
Probabilmente. Amiamo il riflesso di come noi ci vediamo attraverso gli occhi dell’altro, che non si sforza di conoscerci ma che a sua volta ama il suo riflesso in noi. Esiste speranza di trovare un amore vero così?
Un dramma scritto nel 1949 ma che dà voce alla incomunicabilità delle coppie di oggi, alla aridità dei sentimenti, al gioco che di essi se ne fa e di cui spesso non se ne capiscono le conseguenze, e al continuo ripetersi di queste incomunicabilità per generazioni.
“ I due sanno che non si comprendono l’un l’altro, crescono figli che essi non sanno comprendere e non sapranno comprender loro”.
Con Eliot sono andata al buio. Il testo che ho riportava “ commedia” e non ero assolutamente preparata a leggere quello che ho trovato. E’ un dramma della miglior specie. Ho faticato all’inizio proprio perché cercavo quel brio che mi aspettavo di trovare fra un gin e un cocktail. Niente di più lontano. Eliot scava nell’animo umano con uno scalpello affilatissimo e ci mette davanti ad uno specchio. Edward scopre all’improvviso che Lavinia, sua moglie, lo ha abbandonato. Da qui partono le riflessioni sul rapporto di coppia, vuoto, sterile, inutile se non nell’unire due solitudini, ma neanche per questo a volte, perché i due mondi rimangono perfettamente distinti e distanti. Edward non sa amare. Lavinia non sa come farsi amare. Ed entrambi si ritrovano rapporti extraconiugali che non riescono a gestire. Lavinia con Peter, che la abbandona, ed Edward con Celia. E’ lei il capro espiatorio di queste incomprensioni d’animo, lei con parole durissime a rendersi conto della condizione di ogni singolo essere umano: “Voglio dir, quel che mi è accaduto mi ha fatto avvertire che son sempre stata sola. Che noi sempre siamo soli” , lei che credeva di costruire qualcosa con il suo Edward, si accorge invece che Edward senza Lavinia non può esistere, perché non sa chi è, e che tutto ciò che hanno vissuto è solo un sogno, uno scherzo: “ Credevo proprio di dare tanto a lui, ed egli a me; e il dare come il prendere era giusto: non in termini di calcolo, sol per giovare a quei due che s’era stati, ma al nuovo individuo, NOI” … E poi si scopre che si era solo estranei, che non c’era stato niente da dare né da prendere, ma che s’era solo fatto uno l’un dell’altro ognuno pel suo fine. E’ orribile. Dunque amiamo solo quel che è creato dalla nostra fantasia?”.
Probabilmente. Amiamo il riflesso di come noi ci vediamo attraverso gli occhi dell’altro, che non si sforza di conoscerci ma che a sua volta ama il suo riflesso in noi. Esiste speranza di trovare un amore vero così?
Un dramma scritto nel 1949 ma che dà voce alla incomunicabilità delle coppie di oggi, alla aridità dei sentimenti, al gioco che di essi se ne fa e di cui spesso non se ne capiscono le conseguenze, e al continuo ripetersi di queste incomunicabilità per generazioni.
“ I due sanno che non si comprendono l’un l’altro, crescono figli che essi non sanno comprendere e non sapranno comprender loro”.
April 17, 2023
If I were rating this purely on the beauty of the poetry, I would rate it higher, but the horrible colonialism & racism in the 3rd Act mar it for me. It is a very strange play, and seems very Eliot to me, although I do not know that I have the ground to make such a claim. It occurs on two levels; there is the plot which is summarised everywhere, a troubled marriage and a cocktail party and But all of that is allegory for
So all of this is very interesting, and I loved the language of it and although it discomfited me at times, I enjoyed following the line of Eliot's cosmology -- I am not certain I agree with it (most likely I do not), but I thought he laid out the possibilities in an interesting fashion and I liked that he gave equal weight to both sides, the ordinary world of marriage and the extraordinary world of dedication to a spiritual path. However, his decision to
It is a pity that the play is ruined so, but ah well.
So all of this is very interesting, and I loved the language of it and although it discomfited me at times, I enjoyed following the line of Eliot's cosmology -- I am not certain I agree with it (most likely I do not), but I thought he laid out the possibilities in an interesting fashion and I liked that he gave equal weight to both sides, the ordinary world of marriage and the extraordinary world of dedication to a spiritual path. However, his decision to
It is a pity that the play is ruined so, but ah well.
September 7, 2018
پردهی اول فوقالعاده است؛ اما همینکه رایلیِ روانکاو وارد ماجرا میشه، داستان به «پندهایی برای ار��باط زناشویی بهتر» تقلیل میکنه و فیلمِ آتشبس به ذهن متبادر میشه.
May 15, 2017
'The Cocktail Party' feels like a strange mix between the theatre of the absurd and a comedy of manners. It's a nostalgic work, a confused work, and a work that doesn't necessarily answer its own questions so much as it articulates what it feels like to feel loss, craving, aversion, helplessness, regret, acceptance.
Humour is used as a means to destruct; the instability of the self is reinforced as we are - from moment to moment - always changing. "We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger."
The work sets out to be lighthearted, but as we go on, we find ourselves slipping further down into the darkness of the human psyche. Humour is offset against emotional trauma or pain, but this pain is not always clearly articulated at the surface level. Everything remains below the surface as it rises up -- characters will be honest at moments; they will try to hide in the light, but everything is transparent in its confusion.
"Everyone's alone - or so it seems to me.
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other;
They makes faces, and think they understand each other,
And I'm sure they don't. Is that delusion?
Can we only love
Something created in our own imaginations?"
If you want to read something that makes you laugh, read this! And if you want to laugh and then feel sad and question everything as T.S. Eliot always forces us to, yep, read this. It may leave you feeling a little heavy, though, despite the laughter.
Humour is used as a means to destruct; the instability of the self is reinforced as we are - from moment to moment - always changing. "We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger."
The work sets out to be lighthearted, but as we go on, we find ourselves slipping further down into the darkness of the human psyche. Humour is offset against emotional trauma or pain, but this pain is not always clearly articulated at the surface level. Everything remains below the surface as it rises up -- characters will be honest at moments; they will try to hide in the light, but everything is transparent in its confusion.
"Everyone's alone - or so it seems to me.
They make noises, and think they are talking to each other;
They makes faces, and think they understand each other,
And I'm sure they don't. Is that delusion?
Can we only love
Something created in our own imaginations?"
If you want to read something that makes you laugh, read this! And if you want to laugh and then feel sad and question everything as T.S. Eliot always forces us to, yep, read this. It may leave you feeling a little heavy, though, despite the laughter.
August 15, 2021
Ein humorvoll anmutendes Stück mit tragischen Hintergrund. Die Charaktere bleiben etwas ungreifbar, der mythologische Bezug macht das Stück interessant.
July 25, 2016
Initially I was interested but as it continued both that and my understanding faded. I tried to read between the lines and felt like there was some great, deep message that was floating along above my head and I simply couldn't decipher it.
March 30, 2013
The psychiatrist needs to get off his soap box. So do the other characters.
January 12, 2020
For Eliot, we are alone, unable to know others or even ourselves. We can try to make the best of it (Edward & Lavinia) or seek salvation through sacrifice (Celia).
June 7, 2020
Todo comienza con una fiesta donde están reunidos un célebre abogado londinense (Edward), un par de inseguros e incipientes artistas (Celia y Peter), la parlanchina e hilarante Julia, un tipo llamado Alex, y un invitado misterioso que más tarde sabremos que se llama Henry. Todos están sorprendidos porque la esposa de Edward, Lavinia, tuvo que marchar de último minuto al lado de una tía convaleciente en Éssex, dejándolo con la responsabilidad de sacar adelante la fiesta; pero la verdad es que lo ha abandonado.
Conforme se desarrollan las consecuencias de esto, y la trama empieza a anudar a los personajes, veremos que Edward se revela como una persona incapaz de amar, Lavinia como una mujer que se cree incapaz de ser amada, Peter como un novelista inseguro que creyó ver en Celia algo que no existía en realidad, y, por último, Celia buscará alivio para un profundo sentimiento de soledad y desamparo, surgido de una vida en sociedad que prefiere —tal vez de manera inevitable— las apariencias y los prejuicios antes que conocer a las personas en sí mismas.
Una obra de teatro de Eliot que refrenda su fama de «poeta-filósofo» y que resulta terriblemente actual para los tiempos que corren. Un libro absolutamente imperdible, y bellamente editado en esta colección conmemorativa del centenario de su autor.
Conforme se desarrollan las consecuencias de esto, y la trama empieza a anudar a los personajes, veremos que Edward se revela como una persona incapaz de amar, Lavinia como una mujer que se cree incapaz de ser amada, Peter como un novelista inseguro que creyó ver en Celia algo que no existía en realidad, y, por último, Celia buscará alivio para un profundo sentimiento de soledad y desamparo, surgido de una vida en sociedad que prefiere —tal vez de manera inevitable— las apariencias y los prejuicios antes que conocer a las personas en sí mismas.
Una obra de teatro de Eliot que refrenda su fama de «poeta-filósofo» y que resulta terriblemente actual para los tiempos que corren. Un libro absolutamente imperdible, y bellamente editado en esta colección conmemorativa del centenario de su autor.
January 21, 2024
Five stars because I think I will be thinking about this one again and again.
How do we understand that the dynamic between the choices we make and the circumstances we find ourselves in that our beyond our control?
How do we use others to reinforce our own self identity?
How do we understand that the dynamic between the choices we make and the circumstances we find ourselves in that our beyond our control?
How do we use others to reinforce our own self identity?
May 29, 2024
i haven’t read soooooo many plays before to feel like i can make a fair judgement of this, but i did enjoy my time reading and thought every character was well fleshed out. there were many turns in the play that i didn’t see coming and never knew what would be revealed next. what i didn’t like though was all the racism and othering in act three!! wtf.
June 18, 2025
4.5, na spotify jest super sztuka wstawiona!!
October 4, 2022
This short play is a goldmine of wonderful conversations. The responses are sometimes deep and psychologically insightful, words you just know are right, words you kind of hoped to find but couldn’t put your finger on beforehand. They hit home, in short. I have to say that this was great read. I loved it. I could’ve finished in one sitting.
The play is about a couple who are going through a rough patch in their marriage. We open the stage with a very untimely cocktail party. Edward, the host, finds himself forced, in front of his friends, to lie to cover the fact that his wife, Lavinia, has left him the day before. We soon find that the two were cheating on each another. Edward with Celia, who falls in love with him. Lavinia with Peter, who is in love with Celia. We come to see and understand the dynamics of this love rectangle through the initially unknown Dr. Reilly, who, at least to our eyes, shows up unannounced.
His diagnosis is more than interesting. Reilly believes that Edward is incapable of loving, and that Lavinia is subconsciously certain that she is unlovable. These psychological complexes make for the glue that tie these two together. Celia and Peter, on the other hand, are romantic dreamers, who never fully grasp the all-too-human relationship between one another, and in their affairs with Edward and Lavinia. Celia is completely overtaken with Edward. Peter feels the same, possessed by the image of Celia.
I think this makes the symbolism of the cocktail evident enough. The characters are so deeply enmeshed in their own narratives, for which they also depend on those closest to them. This also applies to us. We cannot weave the fabric of our own self-narratives without the gazing eye of someone else. We need this eye in order to differentiate ourselves. In other words, we are ontologically and existentially dependent on those around us. And this is, in my opinion, the gist this play seems to communicate, in addition to the hint, in the end, that there is no escape from this human predicament save for becoming a transhuman, getting crucified, elevated to something beyond the human.
Now, do I recommend? Absolutely! This is one of the best plays I have ever read.
*******************************************
Unidentified Guest (Later revealed as Reilly)
Yes, it's unfinished;
And nobody likes to be left with a mystery.
But there's more to it than that. There's a loss of personality;
Or rather, you've lost touch with the person
You thought you were. You no longer feel quite human.
You're suddenly reduced to the status of an object-
A living object, but no longer a person.
It's always happening, because one is an object
As well as a person. But we forget about it
As quickly as we can.
***
Peter
I was saying, what is the reality
Of experience between two unreal people?
If I can only hold to the memory
I can bear any future. But I must find out
The truth about the past, for the sake of the memory.
***
Celia
No, I won't tread on you.
That is not what you are. It is only what was left
Of what I had thought you were. I see another person,
I see you as a person whom I never saw before.
The man I saw before, he was only a projection—
I see that now—of something that I wanted—
No, not wanted—something I aspired to—
Something that I desperately wanted to exist.
It must happen somewhere—but what, and where is it?
***
Lavinia
Well, I shall have to tell Julia the truth.
I shall always tell the truth now.
We have wasted such a lot of time in lying.
***
Edward
There was a door
And I could not open it. I could not touch the handle.
Why could I not walk out of my prison?
What is hell? Hell is oneself,
Hell is alone, the other figures in it
Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from
And nothing to escape to. One is always alone.
***
Celia
Oh, I thought that I was giving him so much!
And he to me—and the giving and the taking
Seemed so right: not in terms of calculation
Of what was good for the persons we had been
But for the new person, Us. If I could feel
As I did then, even now it would seem right.
And then I found we were only strangers
And that there had been neither giving nor taking
But that we had merely made use of each other
Each for his purpose. That’s horrible. Can we only love
Something created by our own imagination?
Are we all in fact unloving and unlovable?
Then one is alone, and if one is alone
Then lover and beloved are equally unreal
And the dreamer is no more real than his dreams.
Reilly
And this man. What does he now seem like, to you?
Celia
Like a child who has wandered into a forest
Playing with an imaginary playmate
And suddenly discovers he is only a child
Lost in a forest, wanting to go home.
Reilly
Compassion may be already a clue
Towards finding your own way out of the forest.
Celia
But even if I find my way out of the forest
I shall be left with the inconsolable memory
Of the treasure I went into the forest to find
And never found, and which was not there
And perhaps is not anywhere? But if not anywhere,
Why do I feel guilty at not having found it?
Reilly
Disillusion can become itself an illusion
If we rest in it.
Celia
I cannot argue.
It's not that I'm afraid of being hurt again:
Nothing again can either hurt or heal.
I have thought at moments that the ecstasy is real
Although those who experience it may have no reality.
For what happened is remembered like a dream
In which one is exalted by intensity of loving
In the spirit, a vibration of delight
Without desire, for desire is fulfilled
In the delight of loving. A state one does not know
When awake. But what, or whom I loved,
Or what in me was loving, I do not know.
And if that is all meaningless, I want to be cured
Of a craving for something I cannot find
And of the shame of never finding it.
Can you cure me?
Reilly
The condition is curable.
But the form of treatment must be your own choice:
I cannot choose for you. If that is what you wish,
I can reconcile you to the human condition,
The condition to which some who have gone as far as
you
Have succeeded in returning. They may remember
The vision they have had, but they cease to regret it,
Maintain themselves by the common routine,
Learn to avoid excessive expectation,
Become tolerant of themselves and others,
Giving and taking, in the usual actions
What there is to give and take. They do not repine;
Are contented with the morning that separates
And with the evening that brings together
For casual talk before the fire
Two people who know they do not understand each
other,
Breeding children whom they do not understand
And who will never understand them.
Celia
Is that the best life?
Reilly
It is a good life. Though you will not know how good
Till you come to the end. But you will want nothing
else,
And the other life will be only like a book
You have read once, and lost. In a world of lunacy,
Violence, stupidity, greed . . . it is a good life.
Celia
I know I ought to be able to accept that
If I might still have it. Yet it leaves me cold.
Perhaps that's just a part of my illness,
But I feel it would be a kind of surrender—No,
not a surrender—more like a betrayal.
You see, I think I really had a vision of something
Though I don't know what it is. I don't want to forget it.
I want to live with it. I could do without everything,
Put up with anything, if I might cherish it.
In fact, I think it would really be dishonest
For me, now, to try to make a life with anybody!
I couldn't give anyone the kind of love—
wish I could—which belongs to that life.
Oh, I'm afraid this sounds like raving!
Or just cantankerousness . . . still,
If there's no other way . . . then I feel just hopeless.
***
The play is about a couple who are going through a rough patch in their marriage. We open the stage with a very untimely cocktail party. Edward, the host, finds himself forced, in front of his friends, to lie to cover the fact that his wife, Lavinia, has left him the day before. We soon find that the two were cheating on each another. Edward with Celia, who falls in love with him. Lavinia with Peter, who is in love with Celia. We come to see and understand the dynamics of this love rectangle through the initially unknown Dr. Reilly, who, at least to our eyes, shows up unannounced.
His diagnosis is more than interesting. Reilly believes that Edward is incapable of loving, and that Lavinia is subconsciously certain that she is unlovable. These psychological complexes make for the glue that tie these two together. Celia and Peter, on the other hand, are romantic dreamers, who never fully grasp the all-too-human relationship between one another, and in their affairs with Edward and Lavinia. Celia is completely overtaken with Edward. Peter feels the same, possessed by the image of Celia.
I think this makes the symbolism of the cocktail evident enough. The characters are so deeply enmeshed in their own narratives, for which they also depend on those closest to them. This also applies to us. We cannot weave the fabric of our own self-narratives without the gazing eye of someone else. We need this eye in order to differentiate ourselves. In other words, we are ontologically and existentially dependent on those around us. And this is, in my opinion, the gist this play seems to communicate, in addition to the hint, in the end, that there is no escape from this human predicament save for becoming a transhuman, getting crucified, elevated to something beyond the human.
Now, do I recommend? Absolutely! This is one of the best plays I have ever read.
*******************************************
Unidentified Guest (Later revealed as Reilly)
Yes, it's unfinished;
And nobody likes to be left with a mystery.
But there's more to it than that. There's a loss of personality;
Or rather, you've lost touch with the person
You thought you were. You no longer feel quite human.
You're suddenly reduced to the status of an object-
A living object, but no longer a person.
It's always happening, because one is an object
As well as a person. But we forget about it
As quickly as we can.
***
Peter
I was saying, what is the reality
Of experience between two unreal people?
If I can only hold to the memory
I can bear any future. But I must find out
The truth about the past, for the sake of the memory.
***
Celia
No, I won't tread on you.
That is not what you are. It is only what was left
Of what I had thought you were. I see another person,
I see you as a person whom I never saw before.
The man I saw before, he was only a projection—
I see that now—of something that I wanted—
No, not wanted—something I aspired to—
Something that I desperately wanted to exist.
It must happen somewhere—but what, and where is it?
***
Lavinia
Well, I shall have to tell Julia the truth.
I shall always tell the truth now.
We have wasted such a lot of time in lying.
***
Edward
There was a door
And I could not open it. I could not touch the handle.
Why could I not walk out of my prison?
What is hell? Hell is oneself,
Hell is alone, the other figures in it
Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from
And nothing to escape to. One is always alone.
***
Celia
Oh, I thought that I was giving him so much!
And he to me—and the giving and the taking
Seemed so right: not in terms of calculation
Of what was good for the persons we had been
But for the new person, Us. If I could feel
As I did then, even now it would seem right.
And then I found we were only strangers
And that there had been neither giving nor taking
But that we had merely made use of each other
Each for his purpose. That’s horrible. Can we only love
Something created by our own imagination?
Are we all in fact unloving and unlovable?
Then one is alone, and if one is alone
Then lover and beloved are equally unreal
And the dreamer is no more real than his dreams.
Reilly
And this man. What does he now seem like, to you?
Celia
Like a child who has wandered into a forest
Playing with an imaginary playmate
And suddenly discovers he is only a child
Lost in a forest, wanting to go home.
Reilly
Compassion may be already a clue
Towards finding your own way out of the forest.
Celia
But even if I find my way out of the forest
I shall be left with the inconsolable memory
Of the treasure I went into the forest to find
And never found, and which was not there
And perhaps is not anywhere? But if not anywhere,
Why do I feel guilty at not having found it?
Reilly
Disillusion can become itself an illusion
If we rest in it.
Celia
I cannot argue.
It's not that I'm afraid of being hurt again:
Nothing again can either hurt or heal.
I have thought at moments that the ecstasy is real
Although those who experience it may have no reality.
For what happened is remembered like a dream
In which one is exalted by intensity of loving
In the spirit, a vibration of delight
Without desire, for desire is fulfilled
In the delight of loving. A state one does not know
When awake. But what, or whom I loved,
Or what in me was loving, I do not know.
And if that is all meaningless, I want to be cured
Of a craving for something I cannot find
And of the shame of never finding it.
Can you cure me?
Reilly
The condition is curable.
But the form of treatment must be your own choice:
I cannot choose for you. If that is what you wish,
I can reconcile you to the human condition,
The condition to which some who have gone as far as
you
Have succeeded in returning. They may remember
The vision they have had, but they cease to regret it,
Maintain themselves by the common routine,
Learn to avoid excessive expectation,
Become tolerant of themselves and others,
Giving and taking, in the usual actions
What there is to give and take. They do not repine;
Are contented with the morning that separates
And with the evening that brings together
For casual talk before the fire
Two people who know they do not understand each
other,
Breeding children whom they do not understand
And who will never understand them.
Celia
Is that the best life?
Reilly
It is a good life. Though you will not know how good
Till you come to the end. But you will want nothing
else,
And the other life will be only like a book
You have read once, and lost. In a world of lunacy,
Violence, stupidity, greed . . . it is a good life.
Celia
I know I ought to be able to accept that
If I might still have it. Yet it leaves me cold.
Perhaps that's just a part of my illness,
But I feel it would be a kind of surrender—No,
not a surrender—more like a betrayal.
You see, I think I really had a vision of something
Though I don't know what it is. I don't want to forget it.
I want to live with it. I could do without everything,
Put up with anything, if I might cherish it.
In fact, I think it would really be dishonest
For me, now, to try to make a life with anybody!
I couldn't give anyone the kind of love—
wish I could—which belongs to that life.
Oh, I'm afraid this sounds like raving!
Or just cantankerousness . . . still,
If there's no other way . . . then I feel just hopeless.
***
December 29, 2011
This was one of my attempts at reading more "literary" works, and while I did read it, I have to say that I didn't enjoy it much. I waded my way thru Eliot's "The Wasteland" back in my college days, so I'm not sure why I thought a play by him would be any better. Luckily, it's short.
The whole thing is written in free verse, which I am not a fan of. And as to "what" the play is about, good luck with that, too. It starts off normally enough with a scene set in the drawing room of Edward and Lavinia Chamberlayne. Edward is attempting to entertain a group of friends as his wife, Lavinia, has left him. A strange man who prefers to remain anonymous is also there, and Edward confesses that his wife has left him. The stranger asks if Edward wants to see her again, to which Edward gives thought, then answers "yes", that despite everything, he believes he still loves her. The stranger indicates that Lavinia will appear on the morrow, but that Edward must not ask her any questions.
Some of the previous guests return and are in and out of the next few scenes, all set in the drawing room. When the second act begins, we are at the office of Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly, an advisor or psychiatrist of sorts. He meets with Edward, then Lavinia comes in, and there's lots of talk about what they want, but in a very existential way. After they agree to give their marriage another chance, the "advisor" meets with one of the party guests, Celia, and tells her that she has a choice about her life, too.
The third act is again in the Chamberlaynes' drawing room and again the same guests are there, all but Celia. Turns out she took one of the path's suggested by Sir Henry and was killed in a foreign country on a mission of mercy (or something like that, I'm still not sure). There's more existential talk about how life is strange, etc, then the play closes.
So what can I say about this? Well, if the reviews on Amazon are any indication, what I can say is that I just don't get this piece at all. It feels like it should be deep and thoughtful, but I mostly just found it boring and confusing, and I don't attribute all that to the free verse. Maybe in the time it was originally published it made more sense, but I just felt like I wasted my time.
The whole thing is written in free verse, which I am not a fan of. And as to "what" the play is about, good luck with that, too. It starts off normally enough with a scene set in the drawing room of Edward and Lavinia Chamberlayne. Edward is attempting to entertain a group of friends as his wife, Lavinia, has left him. A strange man who prefers to remain anonymous is also there, and Edward confesses that his wife has left him. The stranger asks if Edward wants to see her again, to which Edward gives thought, then answers "yes", that despite everything, he believes he still loves her. The stranger indicates that Lavinia will appear on the morrow, but that Edward must not ask her any questions.
Some of the previous guests return and are in and out of the next few scenes, all set in the drawing room. When the second act begins, we are at the office of Sir Henry Harcourt-Reilly, an advisor or psychiatrist of sorts. He meets with Edward, then Lavinia comes in, and there's lots of talk about what they want, but in a very existential way. After they agree to give their marriage another chance, the "advisor" meets with one of the party guests, Celia, and tells her that she has a choice about her life, too.
The third act is again in the Chamberlaynes' drawing room and again the same guests are there, all but Celia. Turns out she took one of the path's suggested by Sir Henry and was killed in a foreign country on a mission of mercy (or something like that, I'm still not sure). There's more existential talk about how life is strange, etc, then the play closes.
So what can I say about this? Well, if the reviews on Amazon are any indication, what I can say is that I just don't get this piece at all. It feels like it should be deep and thoughtful, but I mostly just found it boring and confusing, and I don't attribute all that to the free verse. Maybe in the time it was originally published it made more sense, but I just felt like I wasted my time.
February 13, 2014
مسرحية نفسية (إن جاز التعبير) .. مناقشة لفكرة العلاقات الإنسانية و بالأخص فكرة الحب..
هل هناك حب فعلا؟ أم هى مجرد رغبة شخصية؟ مجرد أنانية؟ هل تتواجد الحياة بين الأزواج بدون حب؟ هل يمكن الحياة أصلا بدون حب؟ هل يمكن اعتبار الأشخاص الذين لا يمتلكون عاطفة الحب أشخاصا سوية أم مريضة؟
المسرحية تدور احداثها من خلال زوجين يعانيان من أزمة نفسية تؤدي لانفصالهما.. و المحاولة التي يقوم بها طبيب نفسي لإصلاح الشقاق بين الزوجين.. و نكتشف مع تتابع الأحداث الأسباب الحقيقية للخلاف بين الزوجين وهى التي يتضح لنا كونها مختلفة تماما عن ظاهر حديث الزوجين عن انفسهما..
وهو ما جعلني أتساءل هل نحن بالفعل على علم بطبيعة مشاكلنا الحقيقية ؟ أم نحن فقط نكتفي بظاهر المشكلة ولا نحاول تفكيك المشكلات إلى أبسط مكوناتها للوصول لجوهرها؟
لكن بالرغم من أن المسرحية تتخذ من التحليل النفسي موضوعا إلا أنها لم توضح الدوافع التي تجعل شخصية مثل جوليا تحاول مساعدة بقية الشخصيات.. لماذا قامت بمساعدتهم في العيادة النفسية مثلا؟ نقطة غامضة لم افهمها.. و كذلك مساعدة بقية الشخصيات الأخرى.. فلم أشعر بوجود علاقة وطيدة بين الشخصيات للدرجة التي تجعلهم يحاولون مساعدة بعضهم البعض بهذا الشكل..
على أي حال في المجمل المسرحية جيدة و ستنال إعجاب القارئ العادي و بالأخص القارئ المهتم بالتحليل النفسي..
هل هناك حب فعلا؟ أم هى مجرد رغبة شخصية؟ مجرد أنانية؟ هل تتواجد الحياة بين الأزواج بدون حب؟ هل يمكن الحياة أصلا بدون حب؟ هل يمكن اعتبار الأشخاص الذين لا يمتلكون عاطفة الحب أشخاصا سوية أم مريضة؟
المسرحية تدور احداثها من خلال زوجين يعانيان من أزمة نفسية تؤدي لانفصالهما.. و المحاولة التي يقوم بها طبيب نفسي لإصلاح الشقاق بين الزوجين.. و نكتشف مع تتابع الأحداث الأسباب الحقيقية للخلاف بين الزوجين وهى التي يتضح لنا كونها مختلفة تماما عن ظاهر حديث الزوجين عن انفسهما..
وهو ما جعلني أتساءل هل نحن بالفعل على علم بطبيعة مشاكلنا الحقيقية ؟ أم نحن فقط نكتفي بظاهر المشكلة ولا نحاول تفكيك المشكلات إلى أبسط مكوناتها للوصول لجوهرها؟
لكن بالرغم من أن المسرحية تتخذ من التحليل النفسي موضوعا إلا أنها لم توضح الدوافع التي تجعل شخصية مثل جوليا تحاول مساعدة بقية الشخصيات.. لماذا قامت بمساعدتهم في العيادة النفسية مثلا؟ نقطة غامضة لم افهمها.. و كذلك مساعدة بقية الشخصيات الأخرى.. فلم أشعر بوجود علاقة وطيدة بين الشخصيات للدرجة التي تجعلهم يحاولون مساعدة بعضهم البعض بهذا الشكل..
على أي حال في المجمل المسرحية جيدة و ستنال إعجاب القارئ العادي و بالأخص القارئ المهتم بالتحليل النفسي..
June 10, 2025
ENGLISH: Interesting play, with a mysterious character in the first act, who becomes decisive in the second. An apparently ordinary matrimonial trouble, with both spouses tangled in extra-marital affairs, but which turns into an allegory of the salvation of the soul and the importance of taking a decision.
After reading the play three years ago, I have now watched it represented in the RTVE archive.
ESPAÑOL: Una obra de teatro muy interesante, con un personaje misterioso en el primer acto, que pasa a ser decisivo en el segundo. Un problema matrimonial aparentemente ordinario, con ambos cónyuges enredados en aventuras extramatrimoniales, pero que se transforma en una alegoría de la salvación del alma y la importancia de tomar una decisión.
Leí esta obra hace tres años, y ahora la he visto representar en el archivo de Estudio-1.
After reading the play three years ago, I have now watched it represented in the RTVE archive.
ESPAÑOL: Una obra de teatro muy interesante, con un personaje misterioso en el primer acto, que pasa a ser decisivo en el segundo. Un problema matrimonial aparentemente ordinario, con ambos cónyuges enredados en aventuras extramatrimoniales, pero que se transforma en una alegoría de la salvación del alma y la importancia de tomar una decisión.
Leí esta obra hace tres años, y ahora la he visto representar en el archivo de Estudio-1.
June 28, 2011
Acts I & II are easily the most important work on human relationships (or, if you like, on hell) that I have come across. One of a few books I would universally suggest everybody read, as soon as they are old enough to understand it.
Act III adds nothing of importance, and as such, detracts from the work overall - especially since it comes at the end. If you have the self-discipline to stop reading at the end of Act II, do it. You won't be missing anything, and you leave yourself with a much more powerful ending.
Act III adds nothing of importance, and as such, detracts from the work overall - especially since it comes at the end. If you have the self-discipline to stop reading at the end of Act II, do it. You won't be missing anything, and you leave yourself with a much more powerful ending.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 292 reviews