Essay Questions

To which dramatic genre established in the 20th century does this play belong?

The Goat or Who is Sylvia? could logically be placed into a number of different genres or subgenres including both comedy and drama, black humor, domestic drama, etc. Some even argue that it most properly belong to “modern tragedy.” Because the central premise from which the narrative proceeds is an absurd extreme which can be effectively placed upon a spectrum which stretches into the mainstream, it is generally considered an example of the Theater of the Absurd. Absurdist theater conventions can include—though not necessarily comprehensively—bizarre situations, a strong sense of alienation from the mainstream, despondency or hopelessness of retrieving normalcy from the situation, frustrated masculinity, an intensification of unrecognized emotional distance between characters and, usually at some level a connection to ancient myth. Many other elements can co-exist in absurdist drama alongside these conventions, but those listed here are particularly relevant and on display in The Goat or Who is Sylvia?

Is it fair to suggest that one of the themes the playwright is pursuing is the concept that love is never wrong?

The playwright himself does not stand in judgement of Martin’s feelings for Sylvia. Or the moment of sexual desire which manifests between Martin and his own son. As a playwright who is in control of the emotional tenor of the drama which in turn guides the emotional reaction expected from the audience, there is no evidence to suggest didacticism. Albee’s lack of judgment wreaked upon his characters should not be taken as evidence that he supports the perversion of legitimized “normal” behavior. That he does not strike Martin down in the end or supply a means of moral redemption is no way quantifies a reading of the play as supporting either bestiality or incest. It is, however—at least implicitly—an adjudication in favor of the idea that love in itself is never wrong or bad. One cannot help who—or what—they love. The recognition of his fact of life is no coincident with approval. One can recognize that a man might really and truly fall in love with an animal and even accept that it is “natural” without conflating the natural with the “normal.” Normality is imposed from without by society and what is considered normal is always in flux to one degree or another. It is possible that one day there will perhaps come a time when expressing love through sexual desire for another species—whether known today or not—has come to be deemed “normal” by society. But what exactly qualifies as “normal” and “natural” has been and will always be a topic of debate among those in charge of codifying social mores.

How can the play’s theme of the loosening of mainstream taboos be compared to societal changes two decades on from its premiere in 2002?

The idea of what appears to be an iconic figure of societal normality in the character of married, heterosexual, respected architect Martin Gray being revealed to engage in one of human civilization’s most aggressively observed sexual taboos even today allows the play to be appropriately categorized as an example of absurdist theater. Not many people in either 2002 or 2022 (or 22 A.D. or 1066 or 1492 or 1776, for that matter) are going to argue against the absurdist element of the play’s premise. On the other hand, even as recently as 2002—much less 1982 or 1952 or any year previous to those dates—the idea that a happily married heterosexual and internationally recognized architect might be living a secret life not merely dressing and behaving like a woman, but genuinely feeling that biology had screwed up somewhere along the line of his actually being a woman would have itself been enough to get the play categorized as absurdist drama. This is by no means whatever to morally or ethically align transgenderism with bestiality except within the construct of how society at large views them both. Go back a just a little further than 2002 and make Martin’s big revelation be his homosexuality and one gets the same result: absurd! At least from a much larger segment of the population than would so react in 2022. Go all the way back to 1942 and make Martin's secret love a black woman and guess what happens. Same result: absurd! While some may read this its simplest level—homosexuality, transgenderism, and racial difference are in moral alignment with bestiality or incest—that is really and truly not the point being pursued by the play. The play is not making the argument that has long been adopted by the lunatic fringe of the extreme right that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope inexorably leading to legalizing bestiality. In fact, the argument it asserts is the exact opposite.