1
Develop an argument that analyses, through contrast and comparison, the use of the unconventional
couple as a dramatic device in the plays The Homecoming and Suddenly Last Summer. What does
your comparison lead you to conclude about the different thematic interests of the plays?
Many modern dramas feature an unconventional couple. From Kane’s coupling of Hippolytus and
Phaedra, to Parks’s pairing of Booth and Lincoln, playwrights use the unconventional couple as a
device to explore the different thematic interests of their plays. In The Homecoming (1965), for
example, Pinter dramatises the unconventional relationships formed between Max, his sons, and
Teddy’s wife. Suddenly Last Summer (1958), however, centres on the potentially incestuous couplings
of Mrs Venable and Catharine with Sebastian. The device of the unconventional couple allows Pinter
and Williams to explore their different thematic interests. Indeed, in The Homecoming unconventional
couples are used to dramatise the authority of women over men, whereas in Suddenly Last Summer,
Williams uses the device to explore the consequences of unnatural sexual repression.
In The Homecoming, Pinter uses an unconventional married couple to dramatise the power of
women over men. Ruth and Teddy are presented as an estranged couple, with severe marital
problems. This is apparent in their discomfiting dialogue, punctuated by pauses, unanswered
questions, and monosyllabic responses. When Teddy wonders if his bedroom is ‘still there’ 1, for
example, Ruth cuttingly responds that it ‘can’t have moved’ (H, p.27). Although it is Teddy’s
‘homecoming’, Ruth is composed and self-assured, while Teddy is restless and uneasy. When Teddy
continually suggests that they retire to bed, Ruth firmly asserts: ‘No, I don’t want to’ (H, p.31).
Furthermore, Ruth symbolically takes Teddy’s keys and leaves for ‘a breath of air’ (H, p.33). Ruth,
therefore, is presented as the dominant partner in this scene. However, Ruth’s dominance can be
interpreted as a sign of her discontent. This is exemplified during Ruth’s first-time encounter with her
brother-in-law Lenny. Whereas Ruth was brusque around her husband, she is sexually suggestive
around Lenny. For instance, during their clash over a glass of water, Ruth makes Lenny ‘some kind of
proposal’ (H, p.53): ‘If you take the glass…I’ll take you’ (H, p.52), she threatens. This behaviour
demonstrates Ruth’s dissatisfaction with Teddy, and is indicative of her repressed sexuality. The
unconventional coupling of Ruth and Teddy, therefore, is used to establish Ruth as a dominant female
presence in the play.
Indeed, further evidence shows Ruth simultaneously becoming ‘mother, wife, and whore’ 2 to
the male characters in The Homecoming. Initially, Pinter forms an unconventional relationship
between Ruth and her father-in-law, Max. In Ruth, Max sees the potential to reassert the patriarchal
, 2
authority he lost after his wife’s death. Jessie was ‘the backbone’ (H, p.72) of the family, and after her
death Max had to undertake her matriarchal duties. By personifying Ruth as his replacement wife, for
example by calling her a ‘first-rate cook’ (H, p.71), Max can reassert his masculinity. Additionally, the
role of the mother is connected to the role of the ‘whore’ (H, p.66). In Ruth, Max sees an opportunity to
revive his sexual potency. When Max first encounters Ruth, for example, he calls her a ‘stinking pox-
ridden slut’ (H, p.66). Max’s characterisation of Ruth as sexually promiscuous is reinforced throughout
the play, for instance, when Ruth discloses to Lenny that she was once a ‘photographic model for the
body’ (H, p.92). Ruth continues to confirm that she is ‘wide open’ (H, p.95) by embracing Lenny and
Joey in Teddy’s presence. Since Ruth’s appropriation of the role of matriarch, this encounter can be
interpreted as Lenny and Joey’s ‘fulfilment of all Oedipal wishes.’ 3 Ruth therefore, forms
unconventional relationships with her father-in-law and her brother-in-laws. These couplings illustrate
how men objectify women, but also how women conform to the misogynistic fantasies of men.
Although women are objectified by men in The Homecoming, women are portrayed as
ultimately having power over them. Ruth is treated as a sexual object by Teddy’s family. They decide
to ‘keep her’ (H, p.114) and put her ‘on the game’ (H, p.111), and Ruth is ‘very touched’ (H, p.126) by
their proposal. However, Ruth will only consent to the proposition on her ‘conditions of employment’
(H, p.130). For example, she wants a flat ‘with three rooms and a bathroom’ (H, p.128), a ‘personal
maid’ (H, p.129), and a supplied ‘wardrobe’ (H, p.130). Furthermore, although she agrees to stay, Ruth
does not respond to any of Max’s suggestions. For example, she does not respond to their desire for
her to act the subservient housewife by doing ‘a bit of cooking’ (H, p.131) and providing ‘company’ (H,
p.131) for the men. Ruth therefore refuses to play the roles that the men have designated her and
conversely turns into a masculine aggressor. The concluding tableau of Ruth surrounded by Teddy’s
family, sitting on Max’s chair, exemplifies her success at providing access to her husband’s family
strictly on her own terms. The Homecoming, therefore, can be interpreted as an ‘Ibsenite
dramatisation of a woman asserting her independence’ 4 over men. The device of the unconventional
couple in the play is therefore used to dramatise the power of women to expose the insecurities of
men.
Similarly to Pinter, Williams uses the device of the unconventional couple to explore his
different thematic interests. In Suddenly Last Summer, however, the theme of perverted sexuality is
demonstrated in the potentially incestuous relationship between a mother and son. Significantly,
Develop an argument that analyses, through contrast and comparison, the use of the unconventional
couple as a dramatic device in the plays The Homecoming and Suddenly Last Summer. What does
your comparison lead you to conclude about the different thematic interests of the plays?
Many modern dramas feature an unconventional couple. From Kane’s coupling of Hippolytus and
Phaedra, to Parks’s pairing of Booth and Lincoln, playwrights use the unconventional couple as a
device to explore the different thematic interests of their plays. In The Homecoming (1965), for
example, Pinter dramatises the unconventional relationships formed between Max, his sons, and
Teddy’s wife. Suddenly Last Summer (1958), however, centres on the potentially incestuous couplings
of Mrs Venable and Catharine with Sebastian. The device of the unconventional couple allows Pinter
and Williams to explore their different thematic interests. Indeed, in The Homecoming unconventional
couples are used to dramatise the authority of women over men, whereas in Suddenly Last Summer,
Williams uses the device to explore the consequences of unnatural sexual repression.
In The Homecoming, Pinter uses an unconventional married couple to dramatise the power of
women over men. Ruth and Teddy are presented as an estranged couple, with severe marital
problems. This is apparent in their discomfiting dialogue, punctuated by pauses, unanswered
questions, and monosyllabic responses. When Teddy wonders if his bedroom is ‘still there’ 1, for
example, Ruth cuttingly responds that it ‘can’t have moved’ (H, p.27). Although it is Teddy’s
‘homecoming’, Ruth is composed and self-assured, while Teddy is restless and uneasy. When Teddy
continually suggests that they retire to bed, Ruth firmly asserts: ‘No, I don’t want to’ (H, p.31).
Furthermore, Ruth symbolically takes Teddy’s keys and leaves for ‘a breath of air’ (H, p.33). Ruth,
therefore, is presented as the dominant partner in this scene. However, Ruth’s dominance can be
interpreted as a sign of her discontent. This is exemplified during Ruth’s first-time encounter with her
brother-in-law Lenny. Whereas Ruth was brusque around her husband, she is sexually suggestive
around Lenny. For instance, during their clash over a glass of water, Ruth makes Lenny ‘some kind of
proposal’ (H, p.53): ‘If you take the glass…I’ll take you’ (H, p.52), she threatens. This behaviour
demonstrates Ruth’s dissatisfaction with Teddy, and is indicative of her repressed sexuality. The
unconventional coupling of Ruth and Teddy, therefore, is used to establish Ruth as a dominant female
presence in the play.
Indeed, further evidence shows Ruth simultaneously becoming ‘mother, wife, and whore’ 2 to
the male characters in The Homecoming. Initially, Pinter forms an unconventional relationship
between Ruth and her father-in-law, Max. In Ruth, Max sees the potential to reassert the patriarchal
, 2
authority he lost after his wife’s death. Jessie was ‘the backbone’ (H, p.72) of the family, and after her
death Max had to undertake her matriarchal duties. By personifying Ruth as his replacement wife, for
example by calling her a ‘first-rate cook’ (H, p.71), Max can reassert his masculinity. Additionally, the
role of the mother is connected to the role of the ‘whore’ (H, p.66). In Ruth, Max sees an opportunity to
revive his sexual potency. When Max first encounters Ruth, for example, he calls her a ‘stinking pox-
ridden slut’ (H, p.66). Max’s characterisation of Ruth as sexually promiscuous is reinforced throughout
the play, for instance, when Ruth discloses to Lenny that she was once a ‘photographic model for the
body’ (H, p.92). Ruth continues to confirm that she is ‘wide open’ (H, p.95) by embracing Lenny and
Joey in Teddy’s presence. Since Ruth’s appropriation of the role of matriarch, this encounter can be
interpreted as Lenny and Joey’s ‘fulfilment of all Oedipal wishes.’ 3 Ruth therefore, forms
unconventional relationships with her father-in-law and her brother-in-laws. These couplings illustrate
how men objectify women, but also how women conform to the misogynistic fantasies of men.
Although women are objectified by men in The Homecoming, women are portrayed as
ultimately having power over them. Ruth is treated as a sexual object by Teddy’s family. They decide
to ‘keep her’ (H, p.114) and put her ‘on the game’ (H, p.111), and Ruth is ‘very touched’ (H, p.126) by
their proposal. However, Ruth will only consent to the proposition on her ‘conditions of employment’
(H, p.130). For example, she wants a flat ‘with three rooms and a bathroom’ (H, p.128), a ‘personal
maid’ (H, p.129), and a supplied ‘wardrobe’ (H, p.130). Furthermore, although she agrees to stay, Ruth
does not respond to any of Max’s suggestions. For example, she does not respond to their desire for
her to act the subservient housewife by doing ‘a bit of cooking’ (H, p.131) and providing ‘company’ (H,
p.131) for the men. Ruth therefore refuses to play the roles that the men have designated her and
conversely turns into a masculine aggressor. The concluding tableau of Ruth surrounded by Teddy’s
family, sitting on Max’s chair, exemplifies her success at providing access to her husband’s family
strictly on her own terms. The Homecoming, therefore, can be interpreted as an ‘Ibsenite
dramatisation of a woman asserting her independence’ 4 over men. The device of the unconventional
couple in the play is therefore used to dramatise the power of women to expose the insecurities of
men.
Similarly to Pinter, Williams uses the device of the unconventional couple to explore his
different thematic interests. In Suddenly Last Summer, however, the theme of perverted sexuality is
demonstrated in the potentially incestuous relationship between a mother and son. Significantly,
