Literature Review

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

4

friend of Dysart and also the magistrate who takes Alan to the hospital, remarks that most of her colleagues would send Alan to prison instead of providing help. She believes that other psychiatrists working with Dysart will feel the same way. For this reason, Dysart visits the Strang family. He learns that Dora and Frank Strang have been living with contradictory values and have instilled them within their son. Dora, for example, believes in the notion of a sacred marriage illustrated in the Bible and indicates that she has

“married beneath her” (Equus 33). Frank, on the other hand, tends to speak ill of his wife and to interfere his son’s privacy. Neither of them have ever seemed to understand their son or clarify to each other their marital problems.

Consequently, the therapy for Alan prompts Dysart to examine the values of his own life. Having mistreated his wife for his own sterility, Dysart has been ashamed of himself.

He connects his profession to his unproductive private life, regarding the therapeutic methods he conducts on the patients immoral. As a result, Dysart suffers from a chronical sense of guilt, which is triggered by the coming of Alan and has been manifested by his nightmare, in which he becomes a pagan priest carving up children bodies (Equus 24).

Disturbed by this nightmare, throughout the play Dysart examines the values he has acquired from society. The play ends with Alan recalling the blinding scene and the scene where he breaks down, and Dysart standing in the symbolical, moral darkness.

1.2 Literature Review

Although Equus was an immediate hit when it was first staged in 1973, it has always been a controversial play and it keeps receiving a variety of reviews. Some scholars believe that Peter Shaffer’s plotting in the play is problematic. For instance, Neil Timm asserts, “I believe that the Oedipus complex is a psychiatric cliché and is meant to be seen as such. Freudian analysis alone, no matter how extensively it is developed in the play, is meant to be seen as inadequate” (128). Also, Barry B. Witham points out in his review

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

5

“The Anger in Equus” that “the play’s “theatrical fireworks cannot mask its muddled logic and tired philosophy.” Albert E. Kalson, on the other hand, argues that the plot of the play seems to guide its two protagonists to implausible “[final] confrontation of doctor and patient” (514). Allen Ellenzweig criticizes the “Freudian grounding” of the play. He concludes that “one can’t help wonder if the playwright lacked the courage to [let Alan] travel that road [of sexual intimacy].” These critics accuse Shaffer of having borrowed the idea of Oedipus complex directly from Sigmund Freud, which makes the playwright and the play itself seem uncreative.

Despite many negative reviews, other critics praise Peter Shaffer’s treatment of modern psychology in Equus. They usually approach an analysis by focusing on the play’s theatricality. Christoper G. Busiel states, “by staging the past rather than revealing it through exposition (usually being a process of verbalization), Shaffer takes great advantage of the visual power of the theatre.” What Busiel admires in the play is the

“novelty” of Shaffer’s combining psychology with the play’s unique stage design. He remarks that “Shaffer utilizes theatrical techniques to enact powerfully the psychological and religious dimensions of the play.” In Peter Shaffer: Theatre and Drama, M.K

MacMurraugh-Kavanagh also gives credits to the stage design of Equus. He states that

“the suggestion of a boxing-ring [setting] proves an apt arena for the ‘vigorous contest for control of modern man’s soul, while the design also recalls [...] the brutalities of ancient ritual and the brutalities of modern psychiatric practice” (111). In this regard, Kavanagh’s opinion not only responds to the early critics’ comment of the play’s unrealistic

psychological grounding but also helps to justify Shaffer’s creative adaptation of modern psychology in the play.

The metaphysical dimension of the play has caught some reviewers’ attention.

Russel Vandenbrouke remarks that Equus is “a modern myth [which] delicately probe[s] a

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

6

psyche formed by a mingling of modern forces and influences, yet reaching beyond to the concerns and problems of men of all ages” (129). He further suggests that the play is a

“playground for the imagination” and a “ritual” for Shaffer to “fathom and capture basic truth of man and nature” (130). Vandenbrouke concludes, “[Equus] is a finely wrought statement, redolent with meaning, certain to be performed and remembered for

generations to come” (133). The theme of human nature illustrated in the play also draws Neil Timm’s attention. Timm juxtaposes Oedipus and Alan Strang, crediting Alan as a tragic hero who is “more than a victim of circumstance” (129). On the other hand, Richard H. Palmer states that the thematic concern between “disillusioned character[s]

[…are] at the mercy of greater forces in Shaffer’s world” (33). Fran Heller⁹ remarks that the characters in Equus are “dull[ed] in a material world.” Although the world depicted in the play seems hopeless, Heller’s remark that “the story of Equus reverberates more loudly than ever” explains the play’s unceasing charm to audience and readers.

Another group of scholars have focused on the play’s theme of symbolic opposition.

For instance, in his thesis “Peter Shaffer’s Dramatic Vision of the Failure of Society,” Lai Fu Shan analyzes the protagonists’ characterization in terms of the opposition between society and the individual. He analyses protagonists’ ideas about sex and religion, and concludes that both Alan and Dysart are “victims” (86) and are “defined by society” (87).

Chiang Han Yang also explores the same theme of the play in his thesis “Conflicts and Confrontations between Two Cultures.” Chiang maintains that “[the] two main heroes respectively represent the loss, no matter religious or marital, spiritual or corporal, of modern men” (2). In short, far from presenting merely the protagonists’ damaged well-being, the play also deals with the idea of opposition between society and the individuals.

9 Please see note 9.

‧

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

7

Psychoanalytic theories are also favored by scholars who wish to reconstruct the protagonists’ personality in Equus. Chang Shu Mei uses Carl Jung’s theory of

psychological types and comments, “owing to the influence of his culture, man cannot obtain all-sided harmonious development of personality in the histories of societies” (9).

In other words, Chang implies the protagonists are victims of society. Su Shao Wen insightfully, on the other hand, applies Lacanian Gaze to analyze the relationship between Alan and the horse, and the relationship between Alan and Dysart. In her detailed analysis, Su considers that “Equus” is only a narcissistic symbol of Alan, saying that “[Alan] loves his own reflection, Equus, an extension of himself. Equus is the mirror reflection of his own self” (144). Similarly, she also sees Dysart as unable to get rid of his own spiritual loss in treating Alan. Su sees Dysart as “caught up in the process of analysis that he is no longer capable of making choices in life” (156). Likewise, Alan is also presented in the play dealing with spiritual dilemma. Applying Lacanian Unconscious, Pai Chih Hsin in his study argues that Alan has been displaying to construct his own subjectivity. The conclusion of Pai’s study points out that the symbolic chain on Alan’s mouth is, in fact, a manipulating power of language which “controls [his] behaviors” and “speaks through [him] to express its opinions of [his] unconscious” (102). Scholars’ various interpretations have proved the timeless charm of the play.