Monday, April 9, 2012

From Beast to Brute

A Streetcar Named Desire introduces audiences to the character of Stanley. He is a working class man that lives in a modest flat with his wife Stella. Through the duration of the play Stanley’s true character comes to attention. Stanley reacts to various situations with violent outbursts and overreactions. When one takes in to account the character of The Beast in The Tiger’s Bride, Stanley becomes less human than originally thought. It is through the comparison to The Beast that one can truly see the vastness of Stanley’s brutishness. These primal behaviors that the two share prove to be a hindrance when trying to interact with others in their settings. Just like The Beast, Stanley cannot properly connect with the women in his life because he displays these bursts of inhumanity. The two use their anger to instill fear into those very women they are trying to connect with. The personalities of both men make the interactions they share with their surroundings detrimental for everyone involved.

The first comparison one can draw from the two characters is that the two enjoy a game of cards. The competition they show can be attributed to their primal behaviors slowly pushing itself into light. Stanley as well as The Beast loses their temper easily when things don’t go their way at the card table. Stanley throws a fit of rage as The Beast “made a sudden, dreadful noise, halfway between a growl and a roar…”(Carter 55) both men without self-control. One would expect such a reaction from a hybrid of beast and man, something so connected to a primal background. When Stanley demonstrates similar growls of anger it makes it hard for both the others in the play and the audience to connect to him. When compared to the tenderness of his wife Stella and the aristocratic behavior of her sister Blanche, Stanley’s anger is out of place and unwelcome. In his environment, Stanley just seems like an ill-tempered man, but when compared with an actual beast, he can be seen for what he truly is, an animal.

Each character toys with appearances to help shield their actual beings from the outside world. The Beast walks through the scenes with a mask to cover up what he truly is. The mask is described as “a mask with a man’s face painted most beautifully on it”(Carter 53). The Beast wishes to be viewed as normal to a foreign culture he does not belong. This type of masking can be seen within Stanley. He is a strapping, young man that is trying to mask a more sinister side from his bride and friends. This fact becomes clear once compared to The Beast, even the daughter notices that The Beast is too beautiful to be believed as human. His outward appearance is too unbelievable to ever pass as an actual human. The Beast’s mask is described as “one with too much formal symmetry of feature to be entirely human: one profile of his mask is the mirror image of the other, too perfect, uncanny” (Carter 53). Stanley puts on a façade of warmth and caring to help distract those around him. Though he seems to be personable he allows his anger to abuse both Stella and Blanche. Though once his abuse is over he quickly tries to adorn this fake mask once again and regain trust from the people he delivers fear to.

Stanley and The Beast use their power and fear throughout their stories to hunt women that they desire. The Beast uses his intimidating demeanor to pressure the daughter into displaying her nude body in front of him. The daughter denies at first but The Beast’s persistence forces her to disrobe in front of him. He used his fear and past stories of him “gobbling up” people to get what he wanted from the girl. Similarly, Stanley uses his fear to get what he wants from both Stella and Blanche. Though Stanley abuses Stella, he uses his kindness to win her back. This allows him to release his primal anger without losing a crucial piece of normalcy to the outside world. In turn, Stanley uses fear and anger to push Blanche into a corner and eventually rape her. The Beast and Stanley share primal wants and needs that lead them to eventually “gobble” up those in their path.

It is through the comparison to a character so animalistic that one can see that Stanley is truly out of place in A Streetcar Named Desire. His actions and attitude only add to the assumptions that he too is a wild animal only relying on his instincts to interact with others. The Beast tries so very hard to look and act like a human but cannot help his primal nature to shine through his fake façade. Stanley experiences a similar struggle as he tries to suppress those very same emotions throughout the play. Fear, anger, and intimidation are the key indicators one can use to compare The Beast and the brutish Stanley. Two animals trying to interact with the human realm.

26 comments:

  1. For all of your long-winded grandstanding and pontificating, you do not have a single citation from A Streetcar Named Desire, good sir. Wot wot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Noah,
    I like the parallel you draw between Stanley and the Beast. In your second to last paragraph you get into how the two men use their power to intimidate and hunt down the women they desire. I think this claim is an interesting one and should be mentioned sooner. Make the claim that they are comparable and move on to why this is important. If you stretch this idea that they intimidate to eventually assert their primal wants, I think it would strengthen your piece! Overall, great work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Noah,
    I think a lot of similarities you notice between Stanley and the Beast are strong and serve for an interesting argument. However, I think a few of your claims are easily argued against, and you should take into consideration some of these complications. I want to challenge your second body paragraph about the two character's public "mask," while this is certainly true for the Beast, I'm not sure if it holds up for Stanley. Stanley is characteristically honest, usually to the point of brutality. I'm not sure if I see him as putting on a face for society.

    I also think that you need to take into consideration the fundamental differences between the Beast and Stanley; while Stanley is a villain, the Beast is kind of a good guy. Perhaps you could further analyze this difference to reach your "so what," what are the implications of this observation? Is man more 'beastly' than beast?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You make an interesting claim here, but I feel as though your body paragraphs do not relate back to your thesis. You should make sure that it is clear to the reader that you are going to compare both characters, Stanley and the Beast. I feel as though you do not mention this up front. Also you should make note that Stanley is brutal, and the Beast is somewhat nice. This can make your argument problematic, so make sure that you use enough supporting evidence to ensure the argument stays strong. I think you have a great start, but it just needs a little improvement. Great job so far!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Noah,
    You have an interesting argument, but I'm afraid I wasn't able to quite buy into it. There seemed to be components that were overlooked throughout. For instance, you say that "When one takes in to account the character of The Beast in The Tiger’s Bride, Stanley becomes less human than originally thought." But how human was he originally? Similarly you suggest that "Just like The Beast, Stanley cannot properly connect with the women in his life because he displays these bursts of inhumanity." But what the best really all that humane? Was he not more human than the other men in the play? In the same fashion, you say that "The Beast’s persistence forces her to disrobe in front of him." But does he really force her? Is it not a choice? For these made you argument problematic to follow. Is there a way you can anticipate these counterarguments in your writing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with the others that your argument is somewhat problematic. The first problem I notice is that you do not use any textual evidence to display Stanley's supposed beastly characteristics, but solely rely on summary. This weakens your argument. The second problem, like others have mentioned, is that some of your claims are not completely believable. You will have to take into account the end of each story while making these claims. As we know, the beast does not seem completely terrible at the end of Tiger's Bride, while Stanley has no redeeming qualities at the end of Streetcar. You should consider these facets of each story while revising.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it you tweaked your argument a little you could be on your way to discovering something really interesting. As others have mentioned, the beast appears to actually be more humane than humans, like Stanley. By using the beast as a filter for viewing Stanley, you could work towards understanding Stanley's animalistic nature in relation to the societal constraints that the Carter suggests create a "true" beast.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Noah, I really like this comparison. I hadn't thought about it much before. You make excellent points, but I would also suggest addressing potential counter arguments to make things a little stronger. You might also want to consider the differences between the two characters, then maybe you'll find a greater "So What" factor. We discussed in class how we can sort of sympathize with and pity the Beast and how the ending of the story is positive in some ways; I wonder how those notions would interact with Streetcar in your analysis. Good stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't quite buy into what you're trying to say here. I think this would be more effective if, first, you included quotes to support your claims for Stanley; and second, consider using the Beast as a contrasting figure who illuminates Stanley's brutishness, rather than simply a point of comparison. As others have noted, there are many ways in which the Beast is much more human than Stanley - or, at least, the Beast's so-called animalistic behavior seems more gentle than Stanley's human behavior. Perhaps this relationship, in which "human" becomes brutish when contrasted with "animal," is where the real intrigue for this paper lies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like the connections you are making between Stanley and The Beast. You provide a lot of evidence to support your claim, but I think you should add specific scenes from Streetcar to help solidify your points.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think taking Dane's suggestion and using the Beast in contrast to Stanley would be a better fit. Stanley is described in stage directions and in dialogue as being an "animal" or animalistic, so using the card scenes really doesn't support your argument. A question your paper raises for me is this: why is it that when confronted with a human character giving in to primal/animalistic urges, a reader reacts with scorn, yet when confronted with an animal trying to masquerade as a human, the acceptance of the animal within causes the reader to say the story has a "happy ending"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yep; that Stanley is more animalistic and less humanistic than a tiger has some really interesting implications you could explore, so I think that'd be a better place to start. Here's a thought based on what Jessica points out: we tend to empathize more strongly with the Beast since it's an inhuman thing acting more human (aka like us), and less strongly with Stanley who becomes less like us in acting like an animal. What's the deal with that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like several who commented before me, I think that you should focus on the way that the beast's more human qualities (even though he is a tiger) highlights stanley's brutishness. Why is it that someone rejected by society is able to act more "human" than someone operating within it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with Rachel here. Stanley and the idea of a mask don't really line up in my mind, which isn't a major problem. It just means that you need to take this and prove it--maybe find a way to explain how while one would believe Stanley to be an openly frank person, he actually hides behind a mask.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think you have an interesting argument here, but it needs a lot more evidence to back up. Maybe take a bit more citations into consideration in your revision, and be sure to focus on the "so what" factor of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Noah,

    Your argument is very intriguing, but I think it could use a bit more focus. The first paragraph is difficult to interpret, which I think makes your argument less clear. If you revise the first paragraph, I think your thoughts will be more concise, and this will help to improve the "so what" factor of your paper.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great job so far. I think you have a very well written piece. I would suggest making your argument a bit more explicit in the introduction paragraph because I had an idea of what you were arguing but I wasn't sure until the last paragraph. I also would look at your second to last paragraph on power and fear. Does the Beast really use intimidation and fear to force the daughter into disrobing? Or does the daughter make that choice on her own?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really like your comparison, you lay it out nicely and it is very evident. I would like to see a quote from A Street Care Named Desire. Also I would note that these two end up differently though. The Beast seems much more human at the end with the daughter even though he embodies a animal and Stanley is much more like an animal even though he embodies a man. The so what factor is also missing, once you find that your argument will be strengthened.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You provide an interesting comparison between The Beast and Stanley. I think your argument could be stronger with actual quotes from Stanley within the play. I also think tweaking your thesis a little bit would make your paper easier to understand and help flow better with a clearer focus. Good job so far!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I really like your paper and the comparison that you make between the Beast and Stanley, but you don't support your claims about Stanley. If you included specific quotes from Streetcar your argument would be more valid. Right now your post makes sense to me, but half of your argument is unsupported.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Noah,

    I like your writing style, but I do have one issue with your response: You hardly include any textual evidence to support your claims. As a result, I find myself unconvinced. Adding more evidence will surely help your paper after revision.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Great start. You really point out the similarities between the two and make a good argument. However, I think it would be a good idea to use quotes from Streetcar Named Desire in order to better support your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Noah,

    I also agree with Dane that it would be a stronger argument to contrast the two rather than compare. The beast never harms the girl. The beast is portrayed as a protector, Stanly is not. The comparisons you did draw are good, but I think it would be stronger if you contrasted the two.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You’ve done an interesting job of comparing the characters of Stanley and the Beast and discussing how the two parallel in each other. However, as others have mentioned, some of your claims about how the two characters relate are a bit problematic. I think you should consider the discussion we had in class on Tuesday about the Beast and how although he may appear ferocious, a number of his actions and intentions are far less animalistic and primal than Stanley’s, who he himself is a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You are off to a good start. I think contrasting the two more than comparing them can help strengthen your piece. The beast is an actual animal while Stanley is a man yet he often times seems more humane than Stanley. That could be interesting to dive into.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You definitely need way more evidence. You also need to use more definition. Break out what you mean when you say animalism and primal

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.