What do you think?
Rate this book
Tiny Alice
Edward Albee's controversial and perplexing rumination on faith and religion.
184 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
2 people are currently reading
376 people want to read
About the author
Edward Albee
183 books575 followersNoted American playwright Edward Franklin Albee explored the darker aspects of human relationships in plays like
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
(1962) and
Three Tall Women
(1991), which won his third Pulitzer Prize.
People know Edward Franklin Albee III for works, including The Zoo Story , The Sandbox and The American Dream .
He well crafted his works, considered often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition. His early works reflected a mastery and Americanization of the theater of the absurd, which found its peak in European playwrights, such as Jean Genet, Samuel Barclay Beckett, and Eugène Ionesco. Younger Pulitzer Prize-winner Paula Vogel credits daring mix of theatricalism and biting dialogue of Albee with helping to reinvent the postwar theater in the early 1960s. Dedication of Albee to continuing to evolve his voice — as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) — also routinely marks him as distinct of his era.
Albee described his work as "an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, and emasculation and vacuity, a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen."
People know Edward Franklin Albee III for works, including The Zoo Story , The Sandbox and The American Dream .
He well crafted his works, considered often unsympathetic examinations of the modern condition. His early works reflected a mastery and Americanization of the theater of the absurd, which found its peak in European playwrights, such as Jean Genet, Samuel Barclay Beckett, and Eugène Ionesco. Younger Pulitzer Prize-winner Paula Vogel credits daring mix of theatricalism and biting dialogue of Albee with helping to reinvent the postwar theater in the early 1960s. Dedication of Albee to continuing to evolve his voice — as evidenced in later productions such as The Goat or Who Is Sylvia? (2000) — also routinely marks him as distinct of his era.
Albee described his work as "an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, and emasculation and vacuity, a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
October 30, 2014
Pretending to say Something, here's a play about religious symbolism (Jesus Christ and martyrdom) that says Nothing while swilling red wine. A very rich woman, known as Miss Alice, summons a lay brother to her mansion to barter a trade. Others hovering around are a Cardinal, Lawyer and Butler. There's also a doll-house onstage --a model of the house we're in -- with a series of replicas inside, but -- never mind. Yes, it's all Very Never-Never Mind.
An Albee bio asserts that, as a tot, he had to be carried out of church crying when he first heard the story of The Cruxifixion. Still, some things from childhood should be cast aside. If not, this is what can happen. Referring to the original production (1964), John Gielgud recalls that Irene Worth as Miss Alice had to open her Mainbocher negligee and -- seemingly naked -- embrace him. Gielgud concluded: "I said to myself, thank God, it's just dear old Irene."
An Albee bio asserts that, as a tot, he had to be carried out of church crying when he first heard the story of The Cruxifixion. Still, some things from childhood should be cast aside. If not, this is what can happen. Referring to the original production (1964), John Gielgud recalls that Irene Worth as Miss Alice had to open her Mainbocher negligee and -- seemingly naked -- embrace him. Gielgud concluded: "I said to myself, thank God, it's just dear old Irene."
July 31, 2008
hoo boy...I am in a scene from this in class...I've read it a couple of times and I can't decide whether I like it or not. It's impossible to figure out, and even Albee says that some things in the play symbolize different things at different times...it's kinda about the church selling a pure soul for money, but it's also about making leaps of faith, and about loss of innocence, or maybe it's not. Weird friggin' play.
August 1, 2013
While not quite as extraordinary as "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf", "Tiny Alice" certainly solidified my great respect and fondness for Albee's writing. The scenes capture perfectly biting tensions between characters, and each of the 5 characters are compelling and complete in their own ways.
I can't say that I completely understand the meaning of the story, particularly the final act, and I would be interested to read other interpretations or theory. That being said, the play is so well-executed technically, mysterious and intriguing, that it leaves me more curious and inquisitive than simply put-off by the lack of definite meaning.
A play that, if I pin down for myself a more certain interpretation of the ending, I would certainly be interested in putting onstage at some point.
I can't say that I completely understand the meaning of the story, particularly the final act, and I would be interested to read other interpretations or theory. That being said, the play is so well-executed technically, mysterious and intriguing, that it leaves me more curious and inquisitive than simply put-off by the lack of definite meaning.
A play that, if I pin down for myself a more certain interpretation of the ending, I would certainly be interested in putting onstage at some point.
February 16, 2013
Panned as mere "Hermetic nose-thumbing" when it was first performed, Tiny Alice is a masterful play that looks at the life (and death) of one man in a world where as above, so below.
Butler: Hell to clean.
Julian: Yes, I should think so! Does it open from...
Butler: It's sealed. Tight. There is no dust.
Butler: Hell to clean.
Julian: Yes, I should think so! Does it open from...
Butler: It's sealed. Tight. There is no dust.
January 19, 2009
I have always been a raving, fanatical fan of Albee's. Tiny Alice may be his most powerful play. A crisis of faith, and a heated personal battle between a Cardinal and a lawyer. The ramifications are immense and doom all involved! Top Notch!
May 8, 2016
A hard slog. I lost heart.
April 19, 2018
I think Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and A Delicate Balance are probably the two finest American plays of the 1960s. In between came Tiny Alice, a play that is equally extraordinary, although not necessarily extraordinary in a good sense. It was largely met with bafflement when first produced in 1964 and, as far as I can see, has only been revived once in New York and never in London. I think of it as a remarkable mess by a major playwright. In a way its problem is not that it is obtuse, but that it constantly keeps striving for meaning but never quite managing to find any. Tiny Alice seems to want to ‘say’ something important about religion and faith and I don’t know what else, but never achieves it. I don’t mind being baffled, but I resent being confused – at least when I think the confusion is due to the incoherence of the literary work. Of course Tiny Alice can be placed with Albee’s early Absurdist works, such as The Zoo Story and The American Dream, but it just seems portentous in its Big Themes. But, for all that, it remains remarkable in its parts. The opening scene, for instance, a confrontation between a Cardinal and a lawyer who brings the offer of an enormous grant to the Church: old school acquaintances, they quickly fall into the vicious intimacy we might expect in an Albee play – we can respond to the unfolding of personalities, but there is also symbolic confrontation, between the Church and the secular...but nothing comes of it, the scene feels like one of Albee’s early one act plays, complete in itself, having little connection with the concerns raised later by the play. Perhaps the Cardinal’s emissary, the lay Brother Julian, continues as a representative of the Church, but there is obviously some sort of conspiracy around him...and Miss Alice is out to seduce him...this is interesting, but as always in this play it seems to point to something big that never quite happens. And so it goes, interesting scenes that become increasingly portentous. And then the play finishes with a five page soliloquy: it begins as a slice of sub Beckett bleakness with a religious sauce and then turns into The Omen. An absurd play rather than an Absurd one, but often fun in a slightly deranged way.
February 18, 2019
I do not know what happened.
May 8, 2012
Albee is really quite an interesting playwright! Much like "Virginia Woolfe," "Tiny Alice" is chock full of bitter and cruel characters exchanging seething dialogue. However it dramatically differs by embarking on a supernatural variation of the classic good vs. evil theme. A self-absorbed Cardinal, perhaps symbolizing the corruption of the church, is willing to accept an exorbitant sum of money in exchange for the questionable innocence and virtue of a lay-brother whose only desire was to serve a higher power. Alice, the Lawyer, and the Butler are instruments within a grander machine, and in exchange for the money for the church, they grant the lay-brother Julian's desire to serve, however perhaps for a different force altogether.
March 3, 2017
This is the script of a play first performed in NYC in
1964. I'm sure it has many meanings and I really
didn't get most of them. The story involves a lawyer,
a very wealthy woman willing to donate a huge sum
of money to the Catholic Church, and a lay brother
(played originally by John Gielgud) who is secretary
to the Cardinal - recipient of the money.
The brother is expected to spend some time in the
home of the woman before the money is available.
This is where it gets quite weird. It's not really clear
to the brother what this is all about, and there are
some more than strange experiences awaiting him.
The play is rather fun, but I really don't know what
it's about.
1964. I'm sure it has many meanings and I really
didn't get most of them. The story involves a lawyer,
a very wealthy woman willing to donate a huge sum
of money to the Catholic Church, and a lay brother
(played originally by John Gielgud) who is secretary
to the Cardinal - recipient of the money.
The brother is expected to spend some time in the
home of the woman before the money is available.
This is where it gets quite weird. It's not really clear
to the brother what this is all about, and there are
some more than strange experiences awaiting him.
The play is rather fun, but I really don't know what
it's about.
May 12, 2010
Albee, author of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", "Zoo Story",continues to amaze with this play. That is not to say I understand it or like it, but read it to give myself some 'food for thought'. Received plenty.
March 25, 2013
Not your typical Albee play, yet at the same time it is so strongly his motifs, just without reins. A lay brother, a butler named butler, a temptress who goes by Alice, and a lawyer all together in a grand castle with an enigmatic miniature model. Absurd, stylistically.
February 15, 2016
Vintage theater piece, dealing with the role of the Church as conduit in the communion of an individual with God, duals as an allegory on repressed homosexuality and its consequences. Intriguing from start to electrifying conclusion.
July 25, 2007
This is some weird ass shit. Can't explain how weird without ruining the ending, but wow. Also further evidence that Albee is not a huge fan of women.
August 6, 2010
Too dumb to get it, I guess
April 9, 2013
I expected nothing but weird after having read Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. This did not disappoint.
May 29, 2013
This is a mystery play with no answer and I really like it.
December 8, 2016
Weird, but one of the better books I've had to read for class this year.
October 25, 2022
Tiny Alice became, and remains, famous as Edward Albee's Enigma: it's a tantalizingly oblique mystery; a stylish labyrinth of a play, brimming with obscure allusions and dexterous wordplay, and also red herrings and blind alleys. I can formulate a hypothesis about what it means--indeed, I suspect it's possible to formulate many different ones--but I don't think that I can satisfactorily account for all of the play's disparate "clues": my solution to Albee's puzzle wouldn't be any more the right one than yours.
So I'm not going to tell you my theory: the fun of Tiny Alice--the point of Tiny Alice--is to try to piece it together. If it's about anything, Tiny Alice is about subverting the theatergoer's most fundamental expectation about theater: that a play means something particular; that a narrative can be followed; that a playwright won't mess with his audience, won't send them off into the dark and never come back to rescue them. In Tiny Alice, Albee's main intention is to do exactly that, I think; this play is meticulously and calculatedly crafted to confound us.
I think, further, that Tiny Alice's opaqueness is politically motivated: the idea behind the piece is to jolt us out of our complacency. Albee fills his play with lots of deliberately shocking and sensational stuff: a lay cleric whose perverse sexual fantasies involve the Virgin Mary; a corrupt Cardinal who barely flinches when a man is shot dead right in front of him; a whore-goddess called Alice who uses sex (including, apparently, some light forms of S&M) to exert power over the men around her. Tiny Alice's complicated plot--a tightly woven collection of trivia and incident, really--is heady and provocative even today: Albee wants to challenge whatever we think we know about anything and everything. Nothing in Tiny Alice is to be trusted, not even (or especially) what we think we see with our own eyes: the play's central image/device of a spectacularly detailed replica of Miss Alice's house exists to remind us that we're here and not here at the same time.
It's a neat exercise, though finally not a particularly satisfying one: Tiny Alice is probably better as a concept than as an actual theater experience. (This conclusion based on coming to the play first as a reader and second in the audience of an exemplary production in NYC in 2000.)
So I'm not going to tell you my theory: the fun of Tiny Alice--the point of Tiny Alice--is to try to piece it together. If it's about anything, Tiny Alice is about subverting the theatergoer's most fundamental expectation about theater: that a play means something particular; that a narrative can be followed; that a playwright won't mess with his audience, won't send them off into the dark and never come back to rescue them. In Tiny Alice, Albee's main intention is to do exactly that, I think; this play is meticulously and calculatedly crafted to confound us.
I think, further, that Tiny Alice's opaqueness is politically motivated: the idea behind the piece is to jolt us out of our complacency. Albee fills his play with lots of deliberately shocking and sensational stuff: a lay cleric whose perverse sexual fantasies involve the Virgin Mary; a corrupt Cardinal who barely flinches when a man is shot dead right in front of him; a whore-goddess called Alice who uses sex (including, apparently, some light forms of S&M) to exert power over the men around her. Tiny Alice's complicated plot--a tightly woven collection of trivia and incident, really--is heady and provocative even today: Albee wants to challenge whatever we think we know about anything and everything. Nothing in Tiny Alice is to be trusted, not even (or especially) what we think we see with our own eyes: the play's central image/device of a spectacularly detailed replica of Miss Alice's house exists to remind us that we're here and not here at the same time.
It's a neat exercise, though finally not a particularly satisfying one: Tiny Alice is probably better as a concept than as an actual theater experience. (This conclusion based on coming to the play first as a reader and second in the audience of an exemplary production in NYC in 2000.)
September 2, 2020
This is a play, not a book, and unfortunately I had to read it as a book and not a play. Not sure if I will ever get the chance.
As a read, it was at times frustrating because I, like many people not raised and weaned on the slightly sour milk of Post-Modernism, kept looking for the point, the reason this was ever committed to paper. So I slogged through it. It's seeming litany of non sequiturs finally coalesced, like those scifi movie images of a gathering smoke devolving into a corporeal villain, into the realm of discussion about Godness, which fueled yet another discontent.
You see, I am more than just an atheist (a term I dislike, as it presupposes a theistic reality to be opposed.) I am completely godless and quite outside the liturgical box (or, as in the case of Tiny Alice, a House of God,) so its wrestling with the theme of one's relation to God meant about as much to me as whether spinach really does it for Popeye.
Still, no getting past some of the glittering dialogue, though I confess I couldn't get into, let alone get through and past, the mausoleum-like edifice of monolog that concludes the play. All I could feel, encountering it, was how sorry I felt for the actor who had to memorize it. Sir John Gielgud, who first brought the part to life back in the early sixties, had to be, or at least become, a great actor to have succeeded at it.
As a read, it was at times frustrating because I, like many people not raised and weaned on the slightly sour milk of Post-Modernism, kept looking for the point, the reason this was ever committed to paper. So I slogged through it. It's seeming litany of non sequiturs finally coalesced, like those scifi movie images of a gathering smoke devolving into a corporeal villain, into the realm of discussion about Godness, which fueled yet another discontent.
You see, I am more than just an atheist (a term I dislike, as it presupposes a theistic reality to be opposed.) I am completely godless and quite outside the liturgical box (or, as in the case of Tiny Alice, a House of God,) so its wrestling with the theme of one's relation to God meant about as much to me as whether spinach really does it for Popeye.
Still, no getting past some of the glittering dialogue, though I confess I couldn't get into, let alone get through and past, the mausoleum-like edifice of monolog that concludes the play. All I could feel, encountering it, was how sorry I felt for the actor who had to memorize it. Sir John Gielgud, who first brought the part to life back in the early sixties, had to be, or at least become, a great actor to have succeeded at it.
July 6, 2022
A very strange and disconcerting play mixing symbolism, religion, greed, sex, and a weird fantasy tiny house with a tiny Alice living inside.
From the synopsis of the Overdue podcast which reviewed this: "When first performed on Broadway in 1964, Edward Albee's Tiny Alice frustrated and discomfited audiences with its metaphysical critiques on faith and religion. It is no less opaque today (at least for Craig), and reading rather than seeing it performed certainly makes things more difficult. The play's density aside, we do manage to discuss cantankerous authors, symbols within symbols, and staging the supernatural."
From the synopsis of the Overdue podcast which reviewed this: "When first performed on Broadway in 1964, Edward Albee's Tiny Alice frustrated and discomfited audiences with its metaphysical critiques on faith and religion. It is no less opaque today (at least for Craig), and reading rather than seeing it performed certainly makes things more difficult. The play's density aside, we do manage to discuss cantankerous authors, symbols within symbols, and staging the supernatural."
September 23, 2024
I wanted to like this more, but it may require actually watching it for that to happen for me. The dialogue is funny and witty frequently enough to make this less of a slog. I'm a fan of works that are up to your interpretation and don't spoonfeed the point to you, but I can't figure out an idea for this. The religious symbols were incredibly obvious, but then nothing is done with them... So what is the point? The mystery is intriguing, but not enough is provided for the audience to piece together an idea. However, seeing as this isn't one of Albee's most popular works, I'm willing to give another one of his works a try.
June 28, 2020
(Play discussion group script #42)
I forgot how long plays can be. I've gotten so used to reading contemporary works that a play over 90 pages is a shock to the system! This play, however, moves along very nicely (once you get past the first two pages of lawyer/cardinal game-playing), asks questions, and establishes mystery to pull the reader along. I'm always down for a work that discusses religion which this does but not overtly. A mood/atmosphere was created right away and I found myself being called back to it after I set the play down.
I forgot how long plays can be. I've gotten so used to reading contemporary works that a play over 90 pages is a shock to the system! This play, however, moves along very nicely (once you get past the first two pages of lawyer/cardinal game-playing), asks questions, and establishes mystery to pull the reader along. I'm always down for a work that discusses religion which this does but not overtly. A mood/atmosphere was created right away and I found myself being called back to it after I set the play down.
July 5, 2022
The world of this play is inexplicable and arcane because Albee has not been able to make it articulate. The foremost character in the play is Julian who is seduced by Miss Alice. In this play, Albee has tried to pluck the facades from life and death, sex, love and marriage, God, faith and organized religion, money, gluttony, prosperity, charity, and even celibacy. A so-so play.
December 28, 2019
It almost feels unfair rating this play. It's weird, and I didn't understand what the heck was going on. I imagine it confuses the audience whenever it's staged. But at least it didn't have any characters in love with goats.
July 30, 2024
Read this is book form... 2 stars earned because of the high level of bonkers-ness. This was so off the wall though that I found myself lost and confused despite the simple play layout, and short length.
June 16, 2020
I read this somewhere between 1968 and 1971 during my theater phase and don't remember a thing about it, but I probably enjoyed it. Historical note: my Pocket paperback does not have an ISBN.
August 29, 2020
A rather bizarre play with some fun dialogue. I’m pretty sure I missed out on a lot of the symbolism and meaning as I read it in a few sitting over a few weeks, but it was fun.
July 5, 2022
Confusing
September 7, 2023
Embarrassing admission: I have no idea what the hell happened here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews