Analysis of "Dangerous corner" Priestley Анализ "Опасный поворот" Пристли

Dangerous corner

J.B. Priestley is one of the outstanding English authors of his time. His Time Plays brought him world fame. He was the first one who used time tricks and flashback in his works, which made the break in the means of development of the plot and characters. Characters of his plays appear in a new light in our eyes, and the time trick allows us to see them in a new, deeper level.

Dangerous Corner opens with the timeworn theatrical device of a shot in the dark and a woman’s scream. When the lights come up it is revealed that there is no murder. A group of women have been listening to a radio drama and discussing the program’s title, “The Sleeping Dog.” Priestley believed that analogies should be clear, that there should be no question about the meaning of an author’s symbols. Truth is the sleeping dog that they should let lie. The truth regarding the mysterious suicide of Freda’s brother-in-law, Martin. When the men join the group, Stanton agrees that the truth is often as healthy as speeding too fast around a corner. But Martin doesn`t agree with it so his efforts are turned out a tragedy to prove that theory.

The extract under analysis is taken from the play “Dangerous corner”. According to its title we can guess that the play describes some dangerous situation,“dangerous corner” is a dead end, a difficult situation, which has no way out. However, to my mind there can be one more interpretation of the title: “corner” – like a turning point in one’s life – some people have courage to turn their life, to face all the difficulties and dangers and to overcome, but others haven’t, they are afraid to lose their illusions, to lose the aim of the life and so on.

So we can see that the play deals with mental topic. The situation described in the play deals with the state of affairs in the family of Caplans. From the beginning of the extract we can see the development of two sub-plots: wireless play, and the situation on the foreground, which are mixed.

The wireless play is called “The Sleeping Dog”. As the characters explain, the sleeping dog is the truth, which you shouldn’t disturb. But not all characters agree with this statement. Robert Caplan starts investigating the trifling facts about his brother’s suicide. A big quarrel arisen leads to Robert’s suicide.

From the stylistic point of view, a play is a stylized dialogue, stylized because of the effect of natural speech: a lot of elliptical structures, interruptions, so it is the peculiarity of the drama works. One more feature is the language which is used here: a mixture of bookish and colloquial style, and the author’s remarks in the brackets.

The first part produces the effect of the vain conversation. We can get it by author’s remarks with piece of irony: “who doesn’t care”, “in her best childish manner”, or “still fiddling with the wireless” – characters pretend to be not so deeply interested in the topic.

For example:

Miss M.: …But we meant something much more serious.

Robert: Serious or not. I’m all for it coming out. It’s healthy

Stanton: I think telling the truth is about as healthy as skidding round the corner at sixty. - and so on, each one repeats the phrase or word, which was used in order to keep the discussion going on.

However the idleness of sharp answers confronts with the seriousness of the topic, so it leads to creat irony. Irony here is created with the means of syntax and intonation. “To lie or not to lie– what do you think, Olwen? You’re looking terribly wise.” This phrase is an allusion to Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” – “to be or not to be” – a question of life and death for Hamlet, it is the first sign of seriousness of the discussion. Olwen’s meditation about the truth is a philosophical moral of the story. Truth is the first concept of the play; it is created through the theme: “to lie or not to lie”. The vocabulary which is consisted here proves it: secret, lie, truth, treacherous stuff, God’s truth, self-deception, rotten stuff, to cheat, trifling facts.

If the fist part is rather calm, everyone makes the air that this topic doesn’t touch them, the atmosphere of the second part changes greatly. It is already the beginning of the quarrel, and the devices used there are to reveal the growth of the tension. For example epifora “I agree. – You agree!” or anadiplosis “You’ll get no sympathy from me, Caplan. – Sympathy from you!”, gradation as an insult with an equal answer with more tense: “You are a thief, a cheat, a liar, and a dirty cheap seducer. - And you are a fool, Caplan.”, so we can get such a device as anti-climax.

Then, with the help of antithesis: “a fool’s paradise” – “a fool’s hell” – the author draws our attention to the second concept – the world of illusions. “A fool’s paradise” stands for the world of illusions, a world, which Robert has built for himself, because he didn’t want to face up the reality, and searching for the truth he ruined his world.

To describe Robert`s perception of his new situation of losing his illusions the author applies intonational structure by harsh words like “bloody glands”, “fool”, and anti-climax “damned silly little squable”. In addition author`s remarks in the brackets as following epithets give full comprehention of emotional mood “terribly excited now”, “in a frenzy”, “crazy now”. It let us feel Robert’s pain because of his loss. And what is even more painfull for him is the fact that he broke his own world with his own hands what is desclosed by simile: “I had to meddle, like a child with a fire.” And even with parallel construction: “I began this evening with something that kept me going. I’d good memories of Martin. I’d a wife who didn’t love me, but at least seemed too good for me. I’d two partners I liked and respected. The indefinite article is used here to show the loss of every little faith in life. “There can’t be a tomorrow!”.

 The main character of the play is Robert. Priestly had a dual attitude towards his main character. On the one hand he distinguishes Robert, as an honest man among the liars. But on the other hand, Robert was the only one who lived in “a fool’s paradise”, in the illusions where he tried to hide from the truth of life. Probably Robert had a dissociated personality. And in some moment the weak part overcome the strong one, and Robert started regretting the loss of his illusions: “…I’ve lived among illusions – well, what if I have? They’ve given me hope and courage. They’ve helped me to live. After these words he`s suicides.

In my harmble opinion a suicide is not an exit, it`s a selfish and weakness. What about the main point of the play - the truth - it`s inevitable proccess of a parting with your illusions in the certain moment. It`s better to quit of all of them but it`s not easy and not possible for everyone. So everyone decide for themselves, it`s very relative question. As for me the truth is better but depends.