Peter Shaffer: Roles, Rites, and Rituals in the Theater by Gene A. Plunka (review)

188 Comparative Drama Gene A. Plunka. Peter Shaffer: Roles, Rites, and Rituals in the Theater. Rutherford, N. J.: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 1988. Pp. 249. $34.50. It has been almost ten years since the publication of Peter Shaffer (now out of print) in the Twayne English Authors Series, and an updated study was long overdue. Plunka has produced a carefully researched and annotated volume, enhanced by references to his interview with Mr. Shaffer. The text is divided into eleven chapters and treats Shaffer's oeuvre chronologically, beginning with Shaffer's detective novels and ending with Amadeus. There are introductory chapters, which provide biographical information and an overview of the plays, as well as a chapter of conclusions. The first deficiency that the reader notes is in the table of contents: the book ends too soon. Shaffer has produced two plays since Amadeus, neither of which is studied in the text. Articles on both Yonadab and Lettice and Lovage have appeared in this journal. (Subsequent articles on Yonadab are scheduled for publication in forthcoming issues of the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology and Modern Jewish Studies.) Plunka is only partly responsible for the omissions; there is a considerable lapse·between the time of writing and the time of publication of any book. However, he did have access to the texts of the plays and could have seen them in London. At any rate, this review must focus on what is included in the book and not dwell on what has been omitted. Professor Plunkais gracious in his words of thanks to the author of Peter Shaffer. Unfortunately, he has failed to use that book properly. At times he relied too heavily on its critical judgments and at other times wrote pages of summary of early works when a footnote to the previous book would suffice. Such is also the case in reiterating many of the reviews of the plays that are already listed in Peter and Anthony Shaffer: A Research Guide, published by G. K. Hall in 1982. Plunka is also generous in his praise of his editor, who failed to detect typographical errors as well as mistakes in grammar, syntax, and usage. The best approach for a critique of this book is to proceed chapter by chapter. The Introduction states that one of the purposes of the book is to present "Peter Shaffer as a consummate playwright who has the unique capability of effectively combining form, content, and mise-enscene " (p. 14). There is little doubt that any student of Shaffer's theater needs to be convinced of the obvious. Following the statement of purpose there is the biographical chapter; while much of the information is available elsewhere, there are some new details that Plunka learned during his interview with the playwright. This is probably the best biographical sketch available of Peter Shaffer. There is also a chronology of the dramatic works with information that is to be repeated in the successive chapters. The chapter ends with a reference to Y onadab but makes no mention of why it has otherwise been omitted from the study. Chapter 1 bears the title "Peter Shaffer: Sociologist of the Theater" and makes the reader wonder if the author distinguishes the term "sociological " from others that seem more appropriate,. namely philosophical and psychological. That unfortunate choice of terms is to appear throughReviews 189 out the book and leaves the reader to wonder just what the author means by it. The purpose of the chapter is to "present a general discussion concerning the content of Shaffer's plays and to prove that he is indeed a playwright with a significant, carefully formulated sociological viewpoint " (p. 27). The protagonists of the plays, according to Plunka, are engulfed in role-playing from which they need to free themselves; Plunka is to use (perhaps force) this issue in his treatment of the individual characters. He claims that the nature of Shaffer's criticism is "always concerned with the sociological, not the political or the methods of administration of government policy" (p. 28). If that claim is accurate, what are we to make of The Royal Hunt of the Sun? There are other isolated statements with which this reviewer...