Incident at the Zoo play. Edward Albee: “unusual. incredible unexpected. Frequency of use of stylistic devices

Edward Albee

What happened at the zoo

Play in one act

CHARACTERS

Peter

about forty years old, neither fat nor thin, neither handsome nor ugly. He wears a tweed suit and horn-rimmed glasses. Smoking a pipe. And although he is, so to speak, already entering middle age, his style of clothing and demeanor are almost youthful.

Jerry

about forty years old, dressed not so much poorly as sloppily. The once toned, muscular figure begins to grow fat. Now he cannot be called beautiful, but traces of his former attractiveness are still visible quite clearly. The heavy gait and sluggish movements are not explained by promiscuity; If you look closely, you can see that this man is immensely tired.

Central Park in New York; summer sunday. Two garden benches on both sides of the stage, behind them are bushes, trees, the sky. Peter is sitting on the right bench. He is reading a book. He puts the book on his lap, wipes his glasses and goes back to reading. Jerry enters.

Jerry. I was now at the zoo.

Peter doesn't pay attention to him.

I say, I was just at the zoo. MISTER, I WAS AT THE ZOO!

Peter. Eh?.. What?.. Excuse me, are you telling me?..

Jerry. I was at the zoo, then I walked until I ended up here. Tell me, did I go north?

Peter (puzzled). To the north?.. Yes... Probably. Let me figure it out.

Jerry (points a finger into the audience). Is this Fifth Avenue?

Peter. This? Yes of course.

Jerry. What kind of street is this that crosses it? That one on the right?

Peter. The one over there? Oh, this is the Seventy-four.

Jerry. And the zoo is near Sixty-fifth, which means I was going north.

Peter (he can't wait to get back to reading). Yes, apparently so.

Jerry. Good old north.

Peter (almost mechanically). Haha.

Jerry (after a pause). But not directly north.

Peter. I... Well, yes, not directly north. So to speak, in a northern direction.

Jerry (watches as Peter, trying to get rid of him, fills his pipe). Do you want to give yourself lung cancer?

Peter (not without irritation he glances at him, but then smiles). No sir. You won't make any money from this.

Jerry. That's right, sir. Most likely, you will get cancer in your mouth and you will have to insert something like Freud had after he had half his jaw removed. What are they called, these things?

Peter (reluctantly). Prosthesis?

Jerry. Exactly! Prosthesis. You are an educated person, aren't you? Are you by any chance a doctor?

Peter. No, I just read about it somewhere. I think it was in Time magazine. (Takes up the book.)

Jerry. In my opinion, Time magazine is not for idiots.

Peter. I think so too.

Jerry (after a pause). It's very good that Fifth Avenue is there.

Peter (absently). Yes.

Jerry. I can't stand the western part of the park.

Peter. Yes? (Carefully, but with a glimmer of interest.) Why?

Jerry (casually). I don't know myself.

Peter. A! (He buried himself in the book again.)

Jerry (looks at Peter silently until Peter, embarrassed, looks up at him). Maybe we should talk? Or don't you want to?

Peter (with obvious reluctance). No... why not?

Jerry. I see you don't want to.

Peter (puts down the book, takes the pipe out of his mouth. Smiling). No, really, it’s my pleasure.

Jerry. It's not worth it if you don't want to.

Peter (finally decisively). Not at all, I'm very happy.

Jerry. What's his name... Today is a nice day.

Peter (looking at the sky unnecessarily). Yes. Very nice. Wonderful.

Jerry. And I was at the zoo.

Peter. Yes, I think you already said... didn't you?

Jerry. Tomorrow you will read about it in the newspapers, if you don’t see it on TV in the evening. You probably have a TV?

Central Park in New York, summer Sunday afternoon. Two garden benches standing opposite each other, behind them are bushes and trees. Peter is sitting on the right bench, reading a book. Peter is about forty years old, completely ordinary, wears a tweed suit and horn-rimmed glasses, smokes a pipe; and although he is already entering middle age, his style of dress and demeanor are almost youthful.

Jerry enters. He is also about forty, and he is dressed not so much poorly as sloppily; his once toned figure begins to grow fat. Jerry cannot be called handsome, but traces of his former attractiveness are still visible quite clearly. His heavy gait and sluggish movements are explained not by promiscuity, but by immense fatigue.

Jerry sees Peter and begins an insignificant conversation with him. Peter at first doesn’t pay any attention to Jerry, then he does answer, but his answers are short, absent-minded and almost mechanical - he can’t wait to return to the interrupted reading. Jerry sees that Peter is in a hurry to get rid of him, but continues to ask Peter about some little things. Peter reacts weakly to Jerry's remarks, and then Jerry falls silent and stares at Peter until he, embarrassed, looks up at him. Jerry offers to talk and Peter agrees.

Jerry comments on what a nice day it is, then states that he was at the zoo and that everyone will read about it in the newspapers and see it on TV tomorrow. Doesn't Peter have a TV? Oh yes, Peter even has two televisions, a wife and two daughters. Jerry venomously remarks that, obviously, Peter would like to have a son, but it didn’t work out, and now his wife doesn’t want to have any more children... In response to this remark, Peter boils up, but quickly calms down. He is curious about what happened at the zoo, what will be written about in the newspapers and shown on television. Jerry promises to talk about this incident, but first he really wants to “really” talk to a person, because he rarely has to talk to people: “Unless you say: give me a glass of beer, or: where is the restroom, or: don’t give free rein to your hands?” , buddy, - and so on.” And on this day, Jerry wants to talk to a decent married man, to find out everything about him. For example, does he have... uh... a dog? No, Peter has cats (Peter would have preferred a dog, but his wife and daughters insisted on cats) and parrots (each daughter has one). And in order to feed “this horde”, Peter works in a small publishing house that publishes textbooks. Peter earns one and a half thousand a month, but never carries more than forty dollars with him (“So... if you are... a bandit... ha ha ha!.."). Jerry begins to find out where Peter lives. Peter at first awkwardly wriggles out, but then nervously admits that he lives on Seventy-fourth Street, and notices Jerry that he is not so much talking as interrogating. Jerry doesn't pay much attention to this remark; he talks absentmindedly to himself. And then Peter again reminds him of the zoo...

Jerry absentmindedly replies that he was there today, "and then came here," and asks Peter, "What's the difference between upper-middle class and lower-upper-middle class"? Peter doesn't understand what this has to do with it. Then Jerry asks about Peter’s favorite writers (“Baudelaire and Marquand?”), then suddenly declares: “Do you know what I did before I went to the zoo? I walked all the way down Fifth Avenue—on foot all the way.” Peter decides that Jerry lives in Greenwich Village, and this consideration apparently helps him understand something. But Jerry doesn’t live in Greenwich Village at all, he just took the subway there to go from there to the zoo (“Sometimes a person has to make a big detour to the side in order to get back the right and shortest way”). In fact, Jerry lives in an old four-story apartment building. He lives on the top floor, and his window faces the courtyard. His room is a ridiculously cramped closet, where instead of one wall there is a board partition separating it from another ridiculously cramped closet in which a black fagot lives, he always keeps the door wide open when he plucks his eyebrows: “He plucks his eyebrows, wears a kimono and goes to the closet, that’s all.” There are two more rooms on the floor: in one lives a noisy Puerto Rican family with a bunch of children, in the other - someone whom Jerry has never seen. This house is an unpleasant place, and Jerry doesn't know why he lives there. Perhaps because he does not have a wife, two daughters, cats or parrots. He has a razor and a soap dish, some clothes, an electric stove, dishes, two empty photo frames, several books, a deck of pornographic cards, an ancient typewriter and a small safe box without a lock containing sea pebbles that Jerry collected back in the day. as a child. And under the stones are letters: “please” letters (“please don’t do such and such” or “please do such and such”) and later “when” letters (“when will you write?” , "when will you come?").

Jerry's mommy ran away from daddy when Jerry was ten and a half years old. She embarked on a year-long adulterous tour of the southern states. And among Mommy’s many other affections, the most important and unchanging one was pure whiskey. A year later, dear mother gave her soul to God in some landfill in Alabama. Jerry and daddy found out about this just before the New Year. When daddy returned from the south, he celebrated the New Year for two weeks in a row, and then got drunk and hit the bus...

But Jerry was not left alone - his mother's sister was found. He remembers little about her, except that she did everything harshly - she slept, and ate, and worked, and prayed. And on the day when Jerry graduated from school, she “suddenly ended up right on the stairs of her apartment”...

Suddenly Jerry realizes that he forgot to ask the name of his interlocutor. Peter introduces himself. Jerry continues his story, he explains why there are not a single photograph in the frames: “I never met a single lady again, and it never occurred to them to give me photographs.” Jerry admits that he cannot make love to a woman more than once. But when he was fifteen years old, he dated a Greek boy, the son of a park watchman, for a whole week and a half. Perhaps Jerry was in love with him, or maybe just in love with sex. But now Jerry really likes pretty ladies. But for an hour. Not more...

In response to this confession, Peter makes some insignificant remark, to which Jerry responds with unexpected aggression. Peter also begins to boil, but then they ask each other for forgiveness and calm down. Jerry then remarks that he expected Peter to be more interested in pornographic cards than photo frames. After all, Peter must have already seen such cards, or he had his own deck, which he threw away before getting married: “For a boy, these cards serve as a substitute for practical experience, and for an adult, practical experience replaces fantasy. But you seem more interested in what happened at the zoo.” Peter perks up at the mention of the zoo, and Jerry tells...

Jerry talks again about the house in which he lives. In this house, the rooms get better with each floor down. And on the third floor there lives a woman who cries quietly all the time. But the story, in fact, is about a dog and the mistress of the house. The lady of the house is a fat, stupid, dirty, angry, always drunk pile of meat (“you may have noticed: I avoid strong words, so I can’t describe her properly”). And this woman and her dog are guarding Jerry. She always hangs out at the bottom of the stairs and makes sure that Jerry doesn’t drag anyone into the house, and in the evenings, after another pint of gin, she stops Jerry and tries to squeeze him into a corner. Somewhere at the edge of her bird's brain stirs a vile parody of passion. And Jerry is the object of her lust. To discourage his aunt, Jerry says: “Isn’t yesterday and the day before yesterday enough for you?” She puffs herself up, trying to remember... and then her face breaks into a blissful smile - she remembers something that never happened. Then she calls the dog and goes home. And Jerry is saved until next time...

So about the dog... Jerry talks and accompanies his long monologue with an almost continuous movement that has a hypnotic effect on Peter:

- (As if reading a huge poster) THE STORY ABOUT JERRY AND THE DOG! (In a normal tone) This dog is a black monster: a huge muzzle, tiny ears, red eyes, and all the ribs sticking out. He growled at me as soon as he saw me, and from the very first minute this dog gave me no peace. I am not Saint Francis: animals are indifferent to me... just like people. But this dog was not indifferent... It wasn’t that he rushed at me, no - he briskly and persistently hobbled after me, although I always managed to escape. This went on for a whole week, and, oddly enough, only when I entered - when I left, he did not pay any attention to me... One day I became thoughtful. And I decided. First I’ll try to kill the dog with kindness, and if that doesn’t work... I’ll just kill him. (Peter winces.)

The next day I bought a whole bag of cutlets. (Next, Jerry depicts his story in person.) I opened the door slightly - he was already waiting for me. Trying it on. I carefully entered and placed the cutlets about ten steps from the dog. He stopped growling, sniffed the air and moved towards them. He came, stopped, and looked at me. I smiled at him ingratiatingly. He sniffed and suddenly - commotion! - attacked the cutlets. It was as if I had never eaten anything in my life except rotten peelings. He devoured everything in an instant, then sat down and smiled. I give my word! And suddenly - once! - how it will rush at me. But even here he did not catch up with me. I ran into my room and began to think again. To tell the truth, I was very offended and angry. Six excellent cutlets!.. I was simply insulted. But I decided to try again. You see, the dog clearly had antipathy towards me. And I wanted to know whether I could overcome it or not. For five days in a row I brought him cutlets, and the same thing was always repeated: he growls, sniffs the air, comes up, devours them, smiles, growls and - once - at me! I was simply offended. And I decided to kill him. (Peter makes a feeble attempt at protest.)

Don't be afraid. I failed... That day I bought only one cutlet and, as I thought, a lethal dose of rat poison. On the way home, I mashed the cutlet in my hands and mixed it with rat poison. I was both sad and disgusted. I open the door, I see him sitting... He, poor fellow, never realized that as long as he smiled, I would always have time to escape. I put in a poisoned cutlet, the poor dog swallowed it, smiled and then! - to me. But, as always, I rushed upstairs, and, as always, he did not catch up with me.

AND THEN THE DOG GOT STRONGLY SICK!

I guessed because he no longer lay in wait for me, and the hostess suddenly sobered up. That same evening she stopped me, she even forgot about her vile lust and opened her eyes wide for the first time. They turned out to be just like a dog's. She whimpered and begged me to pray for the poor dog. I wanted to say: madam, if we’re going to pray, then for all the people in houses like this... but I, madam, don’t know how to pray. But... I said I would pray. She glanced at me. And suddenly she said that I was lying and probably wanted the dog to die. And I replied that I didn’t want that at all, and that was the truth. I wanted the dog to survive, not because I poisoned him. Frankly, I wanted to see how he would treat me. (Peter makes an indignant gesture and shows signs of growing hostility.)

It is very important! We need to know the results of our actions... Well, in general, the dog recovered, and the owner was drawn to gin again - everything became as before.

After the dog felt better, I was walking home from the cinema in the evening. I walked and hoped that the dog was waiting for me... I was... obsessed?.. bewitched?.. I couldn’t wait to meet my friend again until my heart ached. (Peter looks at Jerry mockingly.) Yes, Peter, with his friend.

So, the dog and I looked at each other. And from then on it went like this. Every time we met, he and I froze, looked at each other, and then feigned indifference. We already understood each other. The dog returned to the pile of rotten garbage, and I walked unhindered to my place. I realized that kindness and cruelty only in combination teach you to feel. But what's the point? The dog and I came to a compromise: we don’t love each other, but we don’t offend each other either, because we’re not trying to understand. So tell me, can the fact that I fed the dog be considered a manifestation of love? Or maybe the dog’s efforts to bite me were also a manifestation of love? But if we are not given the ability to understand each other, then why did we even come up with the word “love”? (There is silence. Jerry comes to Peter's bench and sits down next to him.) This is the end of the Story of Jerry and the Dog.

Peter is silent. Jerry suddenly changes his tone: “Well, Peter? Do you think you can print this in a magazine and get a couple hundred? A?" Jerry is cheerful and animated, Peter, on the contrary, is worried. He is confused, he declares almost with tears in his voice: “Why are you telling me all this? I DID NOT GET ANYTHING! I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN ANYMORE!" And Jerry eagerly peers at Peter, his cheerful excitement gives way to sluggish apathy: “I don’t know why I came up with this... of course, you don’t understand. I don't live on your block. I'm not married to two parrots. I am a perpetual temporary tenant, and my home is the most disgusting little room on the West Side of New York, the greatest city in the world. Amen". Peter backs off, tries to joke, and in response to his ridiculous jokes, Jerry laughs forcedly. Peter looks at his watch and starts to leave. Jerry doesn't want Peter to leave. He first persuades him to stay, then begins to tickle him. Peter is terribly afraid of tickling, he resists, giggles and screams in falsetto, almost losing his mind... And then Jerry stops tickling. However, from the tickling and internal tension with Peter, he is almost hysterical - he laughs and is unable to stop. Jerry looks at him with a fixed, mocking smile, and then says in a mysterious voice: “Peter, do you want to know what happened at the zoo?” Peter stops laughing and Jerry continues: “But first I’ll tell you why I got there. I went to take a closer look at how people behave with animals and how animals behave with each other and with people. Of course, this is very approximate, since everything is fenced off with bars. But what do you want, this is a zoo” - with these words, Jerry pushes Peter on the shoulder: “Move over!” - and continues, pushing Peter harder and harder: “There were animals and people there, Today is Sunday, there were a lot of children there [pokes in the side]. It’s hot today, and there was quite a stench and screaming there, crowds of people, ice cream sellers... [Poke again]” Peter starts to get angry, but obediently moves - and now he’s sitting on the very edge of the bench. Jerry pinches Peter’s hand, pushing him out of the bench: “They were just feeding the lions, and a keeper [pinch] came into one lion’s cage. Want to know what happened next? [pinch]” Peter is stunned and outraged, he calls on Jerry to stop the outrage. In response, Jerry gently demands that Peter leave the bench and move to another, and then Jerry, so be it, will tell what happened next... Peter pitifully resists, Jerry, laughing, insults Peter (“Idiot! Stupid! You plant! Go lie down on the ground! "). Peter boils in response, he sits tighter on the bench, demonstrating that he won’t leave it anywhere: “No, to hell! Enough! I won't give up the bench! And get out of here! I'm warning you, I'll call a policeman! POLICE!" Jerry laughs and doesn't move from the bench. Peter exclaims with helpless indignation: “Good God, I came here to read in peace, and you suddenly take away my bench. You are crazy". Then he becomes furious again: “Get off my bench! I want to sit alone!” Jerry mockingly teases Peter, inflaming him more and more: “You have everything you need - a home, a family, and even your own little zoo. You have everything in the world, and now you also need this bench. Is this what people are fighting for? You don't know what you're talking about. You are a stupid man! You have no idea what others need. I need this bench! Peter trembles with indignation: “I’ve been coming here for many years. I am a thorough person, I am not a boy! This is my bench, and you have no right to take it away from me!” Jerry challenges Peter to a fight, goading him: “Then fight for her. Protect yourself and your bench.” Jerry takes out and opens a scary-looking knife with a click. Peter is scared, but before Peter can figure out what to do, Jerry throws the knife at his feet. Peter freezes in horror, and Jerry rushes to Peter and grabs him by the collar. Their faces are almost close to each other. Jerry challenges Peter to a fight, slapping him with every word “Fight!”, and Peter screams, trying to escape from Jerry’s hands, but he holds on tightly. Finally Jerry exclaims, “You didn’t even manage to give your wife a son!” and spits in Peter's face. Peter is furious, he finally breaks free, rushes to the knife, grabs it and, breathing heavily, steps back. He clutches the knife, his hand extended in front of him not to attack, but to defend. Jerry, sighing heavily, (“Well, so be it...”) with a running start bumps his chest into the knife in Peter’s hand. A second of complete silence. Peter then screams and pulls his hand away, leaving the knife in Jerry's chest. Jerry lets out a scream - the cry of an enraged and mortally wounded animal. Stumbling, he goes to the bench and sits down on it. The expression on his face has now changed, it has become softer, calmer. He speaks, and his voice sometimes breaks, but he seems to be overcoming death. Jerry smiles: “Thank you, Peter. I seriously say thank you." Peter stands motionless. He became numb. Jerry continues: “Oh, Peter, I was so afraid that I would scare you away. .. You don’t know how afraid I was that you would leave and I would be left alone again. And now I will tell you what happened at the zoo. When I was at the zoo, I decided that I would go north... until I met you... or someone else... and I decided that I would talk to you... tell you stuff... like that , what don’t you... And that’s what happened. But... I don’t know... is this what I had in mind? No, it’s unlikely... Although... that’s probably exactly it. Well, now you know what happened at the zoo, right? And now you know what you will read in the newspaper and see on TV... Peter!.. Thank you. I met you... And you helped me. Glorious Peter." Peter almost faints, he does not move from his place and begins to cry. Jerry continues in a weakening voice (death is about to come): “You better go. Someone might come, you don't want to be caught here, do you? And don't come here anymore, this is no longer your place. You lost your bench, but defended your honor. And I'll tell you what, Peter, you are not a plant, you are an animal. You are also an animal. Now run, Peter. (Jerry takes out a handkerchief and with effort erases fingerprints from the handle of the knife.) Just take the book... Hurry up...” Peter hesitantly approaches the bench, grabs the book, steps back. He hesitates for a moment, then runs away. Jerry closes his eyes, raves: “Run, the parrots have cooked dinner... the cats... are setting the table...” Peter’s plaintive cry is heard from afar: “OH MY GOD!” Jerry, with his eyes closed, shakes his head, contemptuously imitates Peter, and at the same time in his voice there is a plea: “Oh ... God ... my.” Dies.

• His first play became his first heartbreaking cry, appealing to the silent and unheard, preoccupied only with themselves and their own affairs. One of the characters, Jerry, at the beginning has to repeat the same phrase three times: “I was just at the zoo,” before another one heard him and responded, and the drama began. It is minimal, this drama, in all respects: both in length - up to an hour of playing time, and stage accessories - two garden benches in New York's Central Park, and the number of characters - there are two of them, i.e. exactly as much as is necessary for dialogue, for the most elementary communication, for the movement of the drama.
• It arises from Jerry’s seemingly naive, absurd, uncontrollable, obsessive desire to “talk for real,” and the scattering stream of his phrases, humorous, ironic, serious, defiant, ultimately overcomes Peter’s inattention, bewilderment, and wariness.
• The dialogue quickly reveals two models of relations with society, two characters, two social types.
• Peter is a 100% standard family American, and as such, according to current ideas of well-being, he has only two: two daughters, two televisions, two cats, two parrots. He works in a publishing house that produces textbooks, earns one and a half thousand a month, reads Time, wears glasses, smokes a pipe, “neither fat nor thin, neither handsome nor ugly,” he is like others in his circle.
• Peter represents that part of society that in America is called the “middle class”, more precisely, the upper - wealthy and enlightened - layer. He is happy with himself and the world; he is, as they say, integrated into the System.
• Jerry is a tired, dejected, sloppily dressed man, with all personal, family, and family ties cut off. He lives in some old house on the West Side, in a nasty hole, next to people like him, destitute and renegades. He, in his own words, is an “eternal temporary resident” in this house, society, world. The obsessiveness of the dirty and stupid landlady, this “vile parody of lust,” and the fierce hostility of her dog are the only signs of attention to him from those around him.
• Jerry, this lumpen intellectual, is by no means an extravagant figure: his alienated brethren densely populate the plays and novels of modern American authors. His fate is trivial and typical. At the same time, we discern in him the untapped potential of an extraordinary emotional nature, sensitive to everything ordinary and vulgar.
• Peter's indifferent philistine consciousness cannot perceive Jerry otherwise than by relating him to some generally accepted idea of ​​people - a robber? bohemian Greenwich Village denizen? Peter just can’t, doesn’t want to believe what this strange stranger is feverishly talking about. In the world of illusions, myths, and self-delusion in which Peter and others like him exist, there is no place for an unpleasant truth. Are facts better left to fiction, to literature? - Jerry says sadly. But he makes contact, revealing his guts to the random person he meets. Peter is taken aback, annoyed, intrigued, shocked. And the more unsightly the facts, the more strongly he resists them, the thicker the wall of misunderstanding against which Jerry hits. “A person must communicate somehow, at least with someone,” he fiercely convinces. “If not with people... then with something else... But if we are not given the opportunity to understand each other, then why did we even come up with the word “love”?”
• With this frankly polemical rhetorical question addressed to the preachers of abstract saving love, Albee completes his hero’s eight-page monologue, highlighted in the play as “The Story of Jerry and the Dog” and playing a key role in its ideological and artistic system. "History" reveals Albee's predilection for the monologue form as the most obvious way of expressing a character who is in a hurry to speak out, wanting to be listened to.
• In a preliminary remark, Albee indicates that the monologue should be “accompanied by almost continuous acting,” i.e. takes it beyond the limits of purely verbal communication. The very structure of Olbian paramonologues, which use various types of phonation and kinesics, their irregular rhythms, changes in intonation, pauses and repetitions, are intended to reveal the insufficiency of language as a means of communication.
• From the point of view of content, “The Story” is both an experiment in communication that Jerry puts on himself and the dog, and an analysis by the playwright of forms of behavior and feelings - from love to hatred and violence, and, as a result, an approximate model of human relations that will vary, clarify, turn with new and new facets, but will never achieve the integrity of the worldview and artistic concept. Albee's mind moves like Jerry did from the zoo, taking a big detour every now and then. At the same time, the problem of alienation undergoes changes; it is interpreted as concrete social, abstract moral, existential-metaphysical.
• Of course, Jerry's monologue is not a thesis or a sermon, it is a sad and bitter story of the hero about himself, whose insight is not conveyed in printed text, a parabolic story where the dog, like the mythological Cerberus, embodies the evil that exists in the world. You can adapt to it or try to overcome it.
• In the dramatic structure of the play, Jerry's monologue is his last attempt to convince Peter - and the audience - of the need for understanding between people, of the need to overcome isolation. The attempt fails. It’s not that Peter doesn’t want to, he can’t understand Jerry, or the story with the dog, or his obsession, or what others need: repeating “I don’t understand” three times only betrays his passive confusion. He cannot abandon the usual value system. Albee uses the technique of absurdity and farce. Jerry begins to openly insult Peter, tickling him and pinching him, pushing him off the bench, slapping him, spitting in his face, forcing him to pick up the knife he threw. And finally, the final argument in this fight for contact, the last desperate gesture of an alienated person - Jerry himself impales himself on a knife, which Peter grabbed in fear and in self-defense. The result, where the normal “I - you” relationship is replaced by the “killer - victim” connection, is terrible and absurd. The call for human communication is permeated with disbelief in the possibility, if not the affirmation of the impossibility of such communication, except through suffering and death. This bad dialectic of the impossible and the inevitable, in which the provisions of existentialism are distinguishable, which is the philosophical justification of anti-art, offers neither a meaningful nor a formal resolution of the dramatic situation and greatly weakens the humanistic pathos of the play.

• The strength of the play, of course, is not in the artistic analysis of alienation as a socio-psychological phenomenon, but in the very picture of this monstrous alienation, which is acutely realized by the subject, which gives the play a distinctly tragic sound. The well-known conventionality and approximate nature of this picture is complemented by a merciless satirical denunciation of the deaf pseudo-intelligent philistinism, brilliantly personified in the image of Peter. The tragic and satirical nature of the picture shown by Albee allows us to draw a certain moral lesson.

• However, what actually happened at the zoo? Throughout the play, Jerry tries to talk about the zoo, but every time his feverish thought flies away. Gradually, from scattered references, an analogy emerges between a zoo and a world where everyone is “fenced off by bars” from each other. The world as a prison or as a menagerie are the most characteristic images of modernist literature, revealing the mindset of the modern bourgeois intellectual (“We are all locked in the solitary confinement of our own skin,” notes one of Tennessee Williams’ characters). Albee, through the entire structure of the play, asks the question: why are people in America so divided that they cease to understand each other, although they seem to speak the same language. Jerry is lost in the jungle of a big city, in the jungle of a society where there is a constant struggle to survive. This society is divided by partitions. On one side are comfortable and complacent conformists, such as Peter, with his “own little zoo” - parrots and cats, which from a “plant” turns into an “animal” as soon as an outsider encroaches on his bench (= property). On the other hand, there is a crowd of unfortunates, locked in their closets and forced to lead an animal existence unworthy of a human being. That’s why Jerry went to the zoo to once again “take a closer look at how people behave with animals and how animals behave with each other and with people too.” He exactly repeated the path of his direct ancestor O'Nil's fireman Yank (The Shaggy Monkey, 1922), “an instinctive worker-anarchist doomed to collapse,” as A.V. Lunacharsky noted, who threw down a fruitless challenge to the mechanical bourgeois crowd and also tried understand the measure of human relationships through the inhabitants of the menagerie. By the way, the expressionistic texture of this and other O'Neill dramas of those years provides the key to many moments in Albee's plays.

• The obvious, but requiring several levels of analysis, ambiguity of the metaphorical image of the zoo, deployed throughout the text and collected in the broad and capacious title “The Zoo Story,” excludes an unambiguous answer to the question of what happened at the zoo.

• And the final conclusion from this whole “zoological story” is, perhaps, that the face of the dead Jerry - and the playwright clearly hints at this - will inevitably appear before the eyes of Peter who fled the scene whenever he sees it on a television screen or newspaper page violence and cruelty, causing at least pangs of conscience, if not a sense of personal responsibility for the evil that is happening in the world. Without this humanistic perspective, which assumes the civic responsiveness of the reader or viewer, everything that happened in Albee's play will remain incomprehensible and far-fetched.

For stylistic analysis, we took an excerpt from the play, which, when staged, will be interpreted in one way or another by the actors involved in it, each of whom will add something of their own to the images created by Albee. However, such variability in the perception of the work is limited, since the main characteristics of the characters, their manner of speech, the atmosphere of the work can be traced directly in the text of the play: these can be the author’s remarks regarding the utterance of individual phrases or movements accompanying the speech (for example, , or , as well as the speech itself , its graphic, phonetic, lexical and syntactic design. It is the analysis of such design, aimed at identifying similar characteristics expressed by various stylistic means, that is the main goal of our research.

The analyzed episode is a spontaneous, expressive, dialogic monologue characteristic of Albee, with strong emotional intensity. The dialogue nature of Jerry's monologue implies that it is addressed to Peter; the whole story is told as if a dialogue is being conducted between these two people with Peter's silent participation in it. The conversational style, in particular, is proof of this.

Based on the results of a preliminary analysis of the selected passage, we compiled a comparative table of the stylistic devices used in it, ranking them by frequency of use in the text.

Frequency of use of stylistic devices

As can be seen from the table above, the most widely used stylistic devices are conversational style markers, aposiopesis, lexical repetitions, alliteration, epithets, as well as parallel constructions.

As a separate item in the table, we have highlighted conversational style markers, which are very diverse in nature, but united by the common function of creating an atmosphere of informal communication. Quantitatively, there were more such markers than other means, but we can hardly consider Jerry’s colloquial style of speech as the leading trend in the stylistic design of the text; rather, it is the background against which other trends appear with greater intensity. However, in our opinion, the choice of this particular style is stylistically relevant, so we will consider it in detail.

The colloquial literary style to which this passage belongs was chosen by the author, in our opinion, in order to bring Jerry’s speech closer to reality, to show his excitement when delivering the speech, and also to emphasize its dialogical nature, and therefore Jerry’s attempt to “talk.” present”, to establish a relationship with a person. The text uses numerous markers of conversational style, which can be attributed to two interdependent and at the same time contradictory trends - the tendency towards redundancy and the tendency towards compression. The first is expressed by the presence of such “weedy” words as “I think I told you”, “yes”, “what I mean is”, “you know”, “sort of”, “well”. These words create the feeling that speech is characterized by uneven speed of pronunciation: Jerry seems to slow down his speech a little at these words, perhaps to emphasize the following words (as, for example, in the case of “what I mean is”) or trying to gather your thoughts. In addition, they, along with such colloquial expressions as “half-assed”, “kicked free”, “that was that” or “bolted upstairs”, add spontaneity, spontaneity and, of course, emotionality to Jerry’s monologue.

The tendency toward compression characteristic of the colloquial style manifests itself in various ways at the phonetic, lexical and syntactic levels of the language. The use of a truncated form, that is, reduction of auxiliary verbs, for example “it”s”, “there”s”, “don”t”, “wasn”t” and others, is a characteristic feature of colloquial speech and once again emphasizes Jerry’s informal tone. From a lexical point of view, the phenomenon of compression can be examined using the example of the use of such phrasal verbs as “go for”, “got away”, “went on”, “pack up”, “tore into”, “got back”, “threw away”, "thought about it up". They create an informal communication environment, revealing the closeness expressed in language between the participants in communication, contrasting with the lack of internal closeness between them. It seems to us that in this way Jerry seeks to create conditions for a frank conversation, for confession, for which formality and neutral coldness are unacceptable, since we are talking about the most important, the most intimate for the hero.

At the syntactic level, compression finds expression in elliptical constructions. For example, in the text we encounter sentences such as “Like this: Grrrrrrr!” "Like so!" “Cosy.”, which have great emotional potential, which, realized together with other stylistic means, conveys Jerry’s excitement, abruptness and sensual fullness of his speech.

Before moving on to a step-by-step analysis of the text, we note, based on the data of quantitative analysis, the presence of some leading trends inherent in the monologue of the main character. These include: repetition of elements at the phonetic (alliteration), lexical (lexical repetition) and syntactic (parallelism) levels, increased emotionality, expressed primarily by aposiopesis, as well as rhythmicity, not reflected in the table, but largely inherent in the text under consideration . We will refer to these three nuclear trends throughout the analysis.

So, let's turn to a detailed analysis of the text. From the very beginning of Jerry's story, the reader is prepared for something significant, since Jerry himself considers it necessary to title his story, thereby separating it from the entire conversation into a separate story. According to the author's remark, he pronounces this title as if reading the inscription on a billboard - "THE STORY OF JERRY AND THE DOG!" The graphic organization of this phrase, namely its design in capital letters only and an exclamation mark at the end, somewhat clarifies the remark - each word is pronounced loudly, clearly, solemnly, prominently. It seems to us that this solemnity acquires a shade of ironic pathos, since the sublime form does not coincide with the mundane content. On the other hand, the title itself looks more like the title of a fairy tale, which correlates with Jerry's address to Peter at a certain moment as a child who can't wait to find out what happened at the zoo: "JERRY: because after I tell you about the dog, do you know what then? Then. then I"ll tell you about what happened at the zoo."

Despite the fact that, as we noted, this text belongs to a conversational style, which is characterized by simplicity of syntactic structures, already the first sentence is a very confusing set of words: “What I am going to tell you has something to do with how sometimes it "s necessary to go a long distance out of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly; or, maybe I only think that it has something to do with that." The presence of words such as “something”, “sometimes”, “maybe” gives the phrase a shade of uncertainty, vagueness, and abstractness. The hero seems to be responding with this sentence to his thoughts that were not expressed, which can explain the beginning of the next sentence with the emphatic conjunction “but”, which interrupts his reasoning, returning directly to the story. It should be noted that this sentence contains two parallel constructions, the first of which is “has something to do.” with" frames the second "to go a long distance out of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly". The first construction is a repetition at both the syntactic and lexical, and therefore at the phonetic levels. Its identity reverses the reader’s attention to the preceding elements of the phrase, namely “what I am going to tell you” and “maybe I only think that it”, and encourages us to compare them. When comparing these elements, we observe Jerry’s loss of confidence that he understood correctly. meaning of what happened to him, doubt is heard in his voice, which he tries to suppress by starting a new thought. The conscious interruption of reflection is clearly felt in the initial “but” of the next sentence.

Other parallel constructions of the second sentence can be summarized by the following model "go / come back (verbs, both expressing movement, but in a different direction) + a + long / short (antonymous definitions) + distance + out of way / correctly (adverbs of manner, which are contextual antonyms)". As we see, these two identically constructed phrases are contrasted in their lexical meaning, which creates a stylistic effect: the reader thinks about the statement made, looking for the implied meaning in it. We don’t yet know what will be discussed next, but we can guess that this expression may be two-dimensional, because the word “distance” can mean both the real distance between objects of reality (for example, to the zoo) and a segment of life’s path. Thus, although we do not understand what exactly Jerry meant, we, based on the syntactic and lexical emphasis, feel the parting tone of the phrase and can assert the undoubted importance of this thought for Jerry himself. The second sentence, mainly due to its similarity in tone and construction with folk wisdom or a saying, can be perceived as a subtitle of a story about a dog, revealing its main idea.

Already in the example of this sentence, we can observe the creation of rhythm using a complex system of lexical and syntactic repetitions. The rhythm of Jerry's entire monologue, based on various types of repetition and alternation of tension and relaxation of his speech, gives the text emotional appeal, literally hypnotizing the reader. In this case, rhythm is also a means of creating integrity and coherence of the text.

Using the following sentence as an example, it is interesting to consider the stylistic function of using ellipses, since they will appear more than once in the text. Jerry says that he walked north, then there is a pause (ellipsis), and he corrects himself - in a northern direction, again a pause (ellipsis): "I walked north. northerly, rather. until I came here." In our opinion, in this context, ellipsis is a graphic way of expressing aposiopesis. We can imagine that Jerry sometimes stops and collects his thoughts, trying to remember exactly how he walked, as if much depends on it; In addition, he is, in all likelihood, in a state of strong emotional upsurge, excitement, like a person telling something extremely important to him, and therefore often gets confused, unable to speak from excitement.

In this sentence, in addition to aposiopesis, one can also distinguish partial lexical repetition (“north ... northerly”), parallel constructions (“it”s why I went to the zoo today, and why I walked north”) and two cases of alliteration (repetition of the consonant sound [t] and the long vowel [o:]). connected by the conjunction “and”. It seems to us that such instrumentation of the statement creates a certain contrast between the speed and inflexibility of Jerry’s decision to go to the zoo (sound [t]) and the length of his road in the north direction (sounds [o:] and [n]), emphasized by partial lexical repetition. Thanks to the convergence of the listed stylistic devices and figures, their mutual clarification, the following picture is created: as a result of thinking about the situation that Jerry is going to talk about, he decides to go to the zoo, and this decision is characterized by spontaneity and some abruptness, and then wanders slowly in a northerly direction, perhaps hoping to meet someone.

With the words “All right”, which have a functional and stylistic connotation that relates them to colloquial speech, the author begins the creation of one of the key images of the play - the image of a dog. Let's look at it in detail. The first characteristic that Jerry gives to the dog is expressed by the inverted epithet “a black monster of a beast”, where the denoted is “beast”, that is, the dog denoting “black monster”, the basis of comparison, in our opinion, is the formidable, possibly sinister looking animal with black fur. It should be noted that the word beast has a bookish connotation and, according to the Longman Exams Coach dictionary, contains the semes “big” and “dangerous” (“an animal, especially a large or dangerous one”), which, undoubtedly, together with the expressiveness of the word “monster” , adds expressiveness to the designated epithet.

Then, after a general definition, the author reveals the image of a black monster, clarifies it with expressive details: “an oversized head, tiny, tiny ears, and eyes. bloodshot, infected, maybe; and a body you can see the ribs through the skin.” Placed after a colon, these nouns can be interpreted as a series of homogeneous direct objects, but due to the lack of a verb to which they could refer (suppose the beginning might be "he had an oversized head..."), they are perceived as a series name sentences. This creates a visual effect, increases the expressiveness and emotionality of the phrase, and also plays a significant role in creating a rhythmic pattern. The double use of the conjunction “and” allows us to speak of polysyndeton, which smoothes out the completeness of the enumeration, making a series of homogeneous members seem open, and at the same time fixes attention on each of the elements of this series. Thus, it seems that the dog is not fully described; there is still a lot that would be worth talking about in order to complete the picture of the terrible black monster. Thanks to polysyndeton and the absence of a generalizing verb, a strong position is created for the elements of enumeration, psychologically especially noticeable for the reader, which is also strengthened by the presence of alliteration, represented by a repeating sound in the words oversized, tiny, eyes.

Let us consider the four elements identified in this way, each of which is specified by a definition. The head is described using the epithet "oversized", in which the prefix "over-" means "over-", that is, it gives the impression of a disproportionately large head, contrasting with the tiny ears described by the repeated epithet "tiny". The word “tiny” itself means something very small and is translated into Russian as “miniature, tiny”, but reinforced by repetition, it makes the dog’s ears unusually, fabulously small, which strengthens the already sharp contrast with a huge head, framed by antithesis.

The eyes are described as “bloodshot, infected”, and it should be noted that both of these epithets are in postposition to the word being defined after the aposiopesis marked with an ellipsis, which enhances their expressiveness. "Bloodshot", that is, filled with blood, implies red, one of the dominant colors, as we will see later, in the description of the animal, thus, it seems to us, the effect of its similarity with the hellish dog Cerberus, guarding the gates of hell, is achieved. In addition, although Jerry clarifies that perhaps the cause is an infection, bloodshot eyes are still associated with anger, rage, and to some extent, madness.

The convergence of stylistic devices in this short segment of text allows us to create the image of a crazy, aggressive dog, the absurdity and absurdity of which, expressed by the antithesis, immediately catches the eye.

I would like to once again draw attention to how masterfully Albee creates a tangible rhythm in his prose. At the end of the sentence in question, the dog’s body is described using the attributive clause “you can see the ribs through the skin,” which is not connected to the attributive word “body” by a conjunction or allied word, thus the rhythm specified at the beginning of the sentence is not violated.

The black-red palette when describing the dog is emphasized by the author with the help of lexical repetitions and alliteration in the following sentence: “The dog is black, all black; all black except for the bloodshot eyes, and. yes. and an open sore on its. right forepaw; that is red, too." The sentence is divided into two parts not only by ellipses expressing aposiopesis, but also by various alliterations: in the first case, these are repeated consonant sounds, in the second, a vowel sound. The first part repeats what the reader already knew, but with greater expressiveness created by the lexical repetition of the word “black”. In the second, after some pause and a double “and”, creating tension in the statement, a new detail is introduced, which, thanks to the reader’s preparation by the previous phrase, is perceived very brightly - a red wound on the right paw.

It should be noted that here we are again faced with an analogue of a nominal sentence, that is, the existence of this wound is stated, but there is no indication of its connection with the dog, it exists as if separately. Creating the same effect is achieved in the phrase "there"s a grey-yellow-white color, too, when he bares his fangs". The very syntactic construction like "there is / there are" implies the existence of an object / phenomenon in some area of ​​​​space or time, here color “exists”, which makes this color something separate, independent of its wearer. Such “separateness” of details does not interfere with the perception of the dog as a holistic image, but gives it greater prominence and expressiveness.

The epithet “grey-yellow-white” defines the color as blurry, unclear in comparison with the bright saturation of the previous ones (black, red). It is interesting to note that this epithet, despite its complexity, sounds like one word and is pronounced in one breath, thus describing the color not as a combination of several shades, but as one specific, understandable to every reader, color of the animal’s fangs, covered with a yellowish coating. This is achieved, in our opinion, by smooth phonetic transitions from stem to stem: the stem gray ends with the sound [j], from which the next one begins, yellow, the final diphthong of which practically merges with the subsequent [w] in the word white.

Jerry is very excited when telling this story, which is expressed in the confusion and increasing emotionality of his speech. The author shows this through the extensive use of aposiopesis, the use of colloquial inclusions with interjection, such as “oh, yes,” emphatic conjunctions “and” at the beginning of sentences, as well as onomatopoeia, formed into the exclamatory sentence “Grrrrrrrr!”

Albee practically does not use metaphors in the monologue of his main character; in the analyzed passage we encountered only two cases, one of which is an example of an erased linguistic metaphor (“trouser leg”), and the second (“monster”) refers to the creation of the image of a dog and in to some extent repeats the already mentioned inverted epithet (“monster of the beast”). The use of the same word “monster” is a means of maintaining the internal integrity of the text, as, in general, is any repetition accessible to the reader’s perception. However, its contextual meaning is somewhat different: in an epithet, due to combination with the word beast, it takes on the meaning of something negative, frightening, while in a metaphor, when combined with the epithet “poor”, the absurdity, incongruity and sick state of the animal comes to the fore , this image is also supported by the explanatory epithets “old” and “misused”. Jerry is confident that the dog's current condition is the result of people's bad attitude towards him, and not manifestations of his character, that, in essence, the dog is not to blame for the fact that he is so scary and pathetic (the word "misused" can be translated literally as " incorrectly used", this is the second participle, which means it has a passive meaning). This confidence is expressed by the adverb “certainly”, as well as the emphatic auxiliary verb “do” before the word “believe”, which violates the usual pattern of constructing an affirmative sentence, thereby making it unusual for the reader, and therefore more expressive.

It is curious that a significant part of the pauses occur precisely in that part of the story where Jerry describes the dog - 8 out of 17 cases of the use of aposiopesis came across us in this relatively small segment of the text. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, starting his confession, the main character is very excited, first of all, by his decision to express everything, so his speech is confusing and a little illogical, and only then, gradually, this excitement smoothes out. One can also assume that the very memory of this dog, which once meant so much for Jerry’s worldview, excites him, which is reflected directly in his speech.

Thus, the key image of the dog is created by the author using “colored” language frames, each of which reflects one of its features. The mixture of black, red and gray-yellow-white is associated with a mixture of menacing, incomprehensible (black), aggressive, furious, hellish, sick (red) and old, spoiled, “misused” (gray-yellow-white). A very emotional, confusing description of the dog is created with the help of pauses, emphatic conjunctions, nominative constructions, as well as all kinds of repetitions.

If at the beginning of the story the dog seemed to us like a black monster with red, inflamed eyes, then gradually he begins to acquire almost human features: it is not for nothing that Jerry uses the pronoun “he” in relation to him, not “it”, and at the end of the analyzed text to mean “muzzle” " uses the word "face" ("He turned his face back to the hamburgers"). Thus, the line between animals and humans is erased, they are placed on the same level, which is supported by the character’s phrase “animals are indifferent to me... like people.” The case of aposiopesis presented here is caused, in our opinion, not by excitement, but by the desire to emphasize this sad fact of the similarity of people and animals, their internal distance from all living beings, which leads us to the problem of alienation in general.

The phrase “like Saint Francis had birds hanging off him all the time” is highlighted by us as a historical allusion, but it can be considered both as a comparison and as irony, since here Jerry contrasts himself with Francis of Assisi, one of the most revered Catholic saints, but uses for him descriptions of the colloquial verb “hang off” and the exaggerated “all the time”, that is, they detract from the serious content with a frivolous form of expression, which creates a somewhat ironic effect. The allusion enhances the expressiveness of the conveyed idea of ​​Jerry’s alienation, and also performs a characterological function, describing the main character as a fairly educated person.

From the generalization, Jerry returns to his story again, and again, as in the third sentence, as if interrupting his thoughts out loud, he uses the emphatic conjunction “but”, after which he begins to talk about the dog. The following is a description of how the interaction between the dog and the main character took place. It is necessary to note the dynamism and rhythm of this description, created with the help of lexical repetitions (such as “stumbly dog ​​... stumbly run”, as well as the verb “got” repeated four times), alliteration (the sound [g] in the phrase “go for me, to get one of my legs") and a parallel construction ("He got a piece of my trouser leg... he got that..."). The predominance of voiced consonants (101 out of 156 consonants in the segment “From the very beginning ... so that was that”) also creates a feeling of dynamics and liveliness of the narrative.

There is a curious play on words with the lexeme “leg”: the dog intended “to get one of my legs”, but the result was that he “got a piece of my trouser leg”. As you can see, the constructions are almost identical, which creates the feeling that the dog has finally achieved his goal, but the word “leg” is used in the second case in the metaphorical sense of “trouser leg,” which is clarified by the subsequent verb “mended.” Thus, on the one hand, the coherence of the text is achieved, and on the other hand, the smoothness and consistency of perception is disrupted, to some extent irritating the reader or viewer.

Trying to describe the way the dog moved when it pounced on him, Jerry goes through several epithets, trying to find the right one: “Not like he was rabid, you know; he was sort of a stumbly dog, but he wasn’t half-assed, either. It was a good, stumbly run...” As we see, the hero is trying to find something in between “rabid” and “half-assed”, so he introduces the neologism “stumbly”, implying, in all likelihood, a slightly stumbling, uncertain gait or run (conclusion that the word “stumbly” is an author’s neologism was made by us on the basis of its absence in the dictionary Longman Exams Coach, UK, 2006). gaits to the entire object. The repetition of this epithet with different nouns within two closely spaced sentences is, in our opinion, the purpose of clarifying its meaning, making the use of the newly introduced word transparent, and also focusing the reader’s attention on it, since it is important for characterizing the dog, him. disproportionate, absurd.

The phrase "Cosy. So." we defined it as ellipsis, since in this case the omission of the main members of the sentence seems undoubted. However, it should be noted that it cannot be supplemented from the surrounding context or based on linguistic experience. Such fragmentary impressions of the main character, not related to the context, once again emphasize the confusion of his speech, and, in addition, confirm our idea that he sometimes seems to be responding to his thoughts, hidden from the reader.

olby monologue stylistic device

The following sentence is an example of double alliteration, created by the repetition of two consonant sounds [w] and [v] in one segment of speech. Since these sounds are different in both quality and place of articulation, but sound similar, the sentence is a bit like a tongue twister or saying, in which the deep meaning is framed in an easy-to-remember, attention-grabbing form. Particularly noticeable is the pair “whenever” - “never when”, both elements of which consist of almost identical sounds, arranged in different sequences. It seems to us that this phonetically confusing phrase, which has a slightly ironic overtone, serves to express the confusion and confusion, chaoticity and absurdity of the situation that developed between Jerry and the dog. She sets up the next statement, “That’s funny,” but Jerry immediately corrects himself: “Or, it was funny.” Thanks to this lexical repetition, framed in equivalent syntactic constructions with different tenses of the verb “to be,” the tragedy of that very thing becomes obvious to the reader. a situation that once before could be laughed at. The expressiveness of this expression is based on a sharp transition from a light, frivolous to a serious perception of what happened. It seems that a lot of time has passed since then, a lot has changed, including Jerry’s attitude to life. .

The sentence “I decided: First, I”ll kill the dog with kindness, and if that doesn’t work. I”ll just kill him.”, expressing the main character’s train of thought, requires special consideration. As we can see, thanks to the convergence of stylistic devices, such as lexical repetition, oxymoron (“kill with kindness”), parallel constructions, aposiopesis, as well as phonetic similarity of expressions, this sentence becomes stylistically striking, thereby drawing the reader’s attention to its semantic content. It should be noted that the word “kill” is repeated. twice in approximately similar syntactic positions, but with semantic variation: in the first case we are dealing with the figurative meaning of this verb, which can be expressed in Russian “to amaze, to delight”, and in the second - with its direct meaning “to deprive of life”. Having reached the second “kill”, the reader automatically in the first split second perceives it in the same softened figurative meaning as the previous one, therefore, when he realizes the true meaning of this word, the effect of the direct meaning is intensified many times over, it shocks both Peter and the audience or readers. In addition, the aposiopesis that precedes the second “kill” emphasizes the words that follow it, further exacerbating their impact.

Rhythm, as a means of organizing the text, allows us to achieve its integrity and better perception by the reader. A clear rhythmic pattern can be seen, for example, in the following sentence: “So, the next day I went out and bought a bag of hamburgers, medium rare, no catsup, no onion.” It is obvious that here the rhythm is created through the use of alliteration (sounds [b] and [g]), syntactic repetition, as well as the general brevity of the construction of subordinate clauses (meaning the absence of conjunctions, it could be like this: “which are of medium rare” or "in which there"s no catsup."). Rhythm allows you to more vividly convey the dynamics of the described actions.

We have already looked at repetition as a means of creating rhythm and maintaining the integrity of the text, but the functions of repetition are not limited to this. For example, in the phrase "When I got back to the rooming-house the dog was waiting for me. I half opened the door that led into the entrance hall, and there he was; waiting for me." the repetition of the element “waiting for me” gives the reader a feeling of building anticipation, as if the dog had been waiting for the main character for a long time. In addition, one feels the inevitability of the meeting, the tension of the situation.

The last point I would like to highlight is the description of the actions of the dog to whom Jerry offers hamburger meat. To create dynamics, the author uses lexical repetitions (“snarled”, “then faster”), alliteration of the sound [s], combining all actions into one uninterrupted chain, as well as syntactic organization - rows of homogeneous predicates connected by a non-union connection. It’s interesting to see what verbs Jerry uses to describe the dog’s reaction: “snarled”, “stopped snarling”, “sniffed”, “moved slowly”, “looked at me”, “turned his face”, “smelled”, “sniffed”, "tore into". As we can see, the most expressive of the presented phrasal verbs “tore into”, standing after the onomatopoeia and highlighted by a pause preceding it, completes the description, most likely characterizing the wild nature of the dog. Due to the fact that the previous verbs, with the exception of “looked at me,” contain a fricative [s], they are combined in our minds as verbs of preparation and thus express the dog’s caution, perhaps his distrust of the stranger, but at the same time we feel a burning desire in him to eat the meat offered to him as quickly as possible, which is expressed by the repeated impatient “then faster.” Thus, judging by the design of the last sentences of our analysis, we can come to the conclusion that, despite his hunger and his “wildness,” the dog is still very wary of the treat offered by a stranger. That is, no matter how strange it may seem, he is afraid. This fact is significant from the point of view that alienation between living beings can be maintained by fear. According to the text, we can say that Jerry and the dog are afraid of each other, so understanding between them is impossible.

So, since repeating meanings and stylistic means turn out to be the most important stylistically, based on the analysis we can conclude that the main trends used by Edward Albee to organize the monologue speech of the main character are all kinds of repetitions at different linguistic levels, the rhythm of speech with its alternation of tense moments and relaxations, emotionally charged pauses and a system of interconnected epithets.

Galina Kovalenko

As a representative of American national culture, Albee absorbed its spiritual essence, its themes, problems, ideas, and at the same time, Russian literature with its heightened, heightened interest in the human personality turned out to be internally close to him. He is especially close to Chekhov, whom he considers one of the founders of modern drama, who is “fully responsible for the emergence of the drama of the 20th century.”

If you seriously think about the fact that Albee is dear to Chekhov, then you can understand a lot in the work of Albee himself, who is most often ranked among the avant-garde, in particular, the theater of the absurd. There is no doubt that the theater of the absurd greatly influenced him. In the poetics of the theater of the absurd, Albee was initially attracted by the possibility of concretizing and almost reifying metaphor: the severity of the problem posed was emphasized by the form and figurative structure. This manifested itself in a series of his so-called short plays: “It Happened at the Zoo” (1958), “The American Dream” (1960), “The Sandlot” (1960).

The collection presents the first of them - “It Happened at the Zoo” (translation by N. Treneva). This is a metaphor play: the world is a menagerie, where people are each imprisoned in their own cage and do not want to leave it. The play conveys the tragic atmosphere of the era of McCarthyism, when people voluntarily and consciously avoided each other, representing a “crowd of lonely”, described by the American sociologist D. Reesman in the book of the same name.

There are only two characters in the play, the scene of action is limited: a garden bench in Central Park in New York, but in the shortest possible time, pieces of the life of an entire city, huge, cold, indifferent, pass by; It would seem that the torn pieces turn into a picture of a life devoid of humanity and filled with bitter and terrible loneliness.

Jerry's entire short life consists of a heroic, unequal struggle with loneliness - he strives for human communication, choosing the simplest way: “talk,” but the price for this will be his life. In front of his random interlocutor Peter, with whom he is trying to start a dialogue, he commits suicide.

Jerry's suicide becomes a fact of life for his interlocutor Peter; Jerry's death “kills” him, because a different person leaves the scene of the incident, with a different awareness of life. It turns out that contact between people is possible if it weren’t for alienation, not the desire to protect oneself, not to allow oneself to reach oneself, not isolation, which has turned into a form of human existence, leaving its mark on the political and social life of the entire state.

The spiritual climate of the country during the McCarthy era was reflected in the second “short play” - “The Death of Bessie Smith” (1959), where Albee tried to comprehend one of the most pressing problems - racial, responding to the events called the “Negro revolution”, which began with the fact , which occurred on December 1, 1955 in Alabama, when a black woman, Rosa Parks, refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white person.

The play is based on the tragic death of the remarkable blues singer Bessie Smith in 1937. After being involved in a car accident in southern Tennessee, Bessie Smith died because none of the hospitals decided to help her - the hospitals were intended for whites.

In Albee's play, Bessie Smith herself is absent; he even refused her notes. The music was written by his friend, composer William Flanagan. Albee sought to recreate a cold, hostile world, above which the image of a brilliant American artist appears and hovers, bleeding, but “free as a bird, like a damned bird.”

Taking on a very serious - racial - problem, he solves it emotionally, depriving it of socio-political implications. It was important for him to show how spiritually crippled people are, how they bear the burden of the past - the times of slavery. The death of Bessie Smith becomes an embodied symbol of the losses of the country and of each individual, burdened by prejudice.

American criticism almost unanimously recognized the play as unsuccessful, accusing Albee of being didactic, vague, and fragmentary, but keeping silent about its idea.

The collection also presents E. Albee’s most famous play “I’m Not Afraid of Virginia Woolf” (season 1962-1963), which brought him world fame. In the play, the unpretentious tune of the song “We are not afraid of the gray wolf...” appears repeatedly, rearranged in a university manner. Albee explains the title of the play as follows: “In the 50s, in a bar, I saw an inscription made with soap on a mirror: “Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?” When I began to write the play, I remembered this inscription. And, of course, it means: whoever is afraid of the gray wolf is afraid of real life without illusions.”

The main theme of the play is truth and illusion, their place and relationship in life; More than once the question directly arises: “Truth and illusion? Is there a difference between them?

The play is a fierce battlefield of different worldviews on life, science, history, and human relationships. A particularly acute conflict situation arises in the dialogue between two university teachers. George - a historian, a humanist, brought up on the best that world culture has given to humanity - is merciless in his analysis of modernity, sensing in his interlocutor, biologist Nick, an antagonist, a barbarian of a new type: “... I’m afraid that we will not have much in the way of music , not rich in painting, but we will create a race of people who are neat, blond and strictly within the boundaries of average weight... a race of scientists, a race of mathematicians who have dedicated their lives to work for the glory of supercivilization... the world will be taken over by ants.”

George paints a Nietzschean superman, a blond beast, towards whom fascism was oriented. The allusion is quite transparent not only in historical terms, but also in modern times: after the difficult period of McCarthyism, America continued to face great challenges.

Albee shows a painful liberation from illusions, which gives rise not to emptiness, but to the possibility of new relationships.

The translation of this play by N. Volzhina is deep, accurate in its penetration into the author's intention, conveys the intense, hidden lyricism characteristic of Albee in general and especially in this play - in its finale, when emptiness and fear, artificially filled by ugly quarrels, give way to genuine humanity; when the song about Virginia Woolf comes up and the bohemian, rude, vicious Martha almost babbles, admitting that she is afraid of Virginia Woolf. A hint of mutual understanding appears as a faint shadow, the subtext highlights the truth, which lies not in everyday cascades of insults, but in love, and the construction of this scene involuntarily makes one recall the explanation of Masha and Vershinin in Chekhov’s “Three Sisters”.

Albee's subsequent plays: "A Precarious Balance" (1966), "It's All Over" (1971) - indicate that Albee uses many of Chekhov's discoveries in a very original way, in his own way. Albee is especially close to Chekhov by one facet of his talent: musicality, which was highly characteristic of Chekhov. K.S. was the first to point out Chekhov’s musicality. Stanislavsky, comparing him with Tchaikovsky.

Almost fifty years later, the American theater researcher J. Gassner called Chekhov's plays “social fugues.”

In the play “It's All Over” Albee introduces seven characters - Wife, Daughter, Son, Friend, Lover, Doctor, Nurse. They gathered, perhaps, at the most critical moment of their lives: the person who alone gave meaning to their existence dies. The focus is not on the physical death of a person hidden behind screens, but on a deep exploration of the decades-long spiritual dying of those now gathered here. The play is distinguished by brilliantly written dialogues. In form, it resembles a piece for a chamber orchestra, where each character instrument is given a solo part. But when all the topics merge, the main theme arises - an angry protest against falsehood, lies, the inadequacy of feelings generated by illusions invented by themselves. Albee judges his heroes: they have gathered to mourn the dying, but they are mourning themselves, the survivors, small, insignificant, useless, whose lives will henceforth be turned into the past, illuminated by the light of memories of the man who could give meaning to life to all of them . And yet, no matter how busy they are with themselves and their feelings, Albee does not isolate them from the flow of life. They realize that they live “in a terrible and vile time.” And then, in contrast to their conclusion, remarkable personalities of modern America arise: John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, whom the Nurse recalls, resurrecting the tragic night of the assassination attempt on Robert Kennedy, when she, like thousands of other Americans, did not leave the TV. For a moment, true life invades the dead atmosphere of the cult of one’s own suffering.