Individuum und Gesellschaft im Englischen Drama der Gegenwart: Arnold Wesker und Harold Pinter by Günther Klotz (review)

358 BOOK REVIEWS version of the winning alphabet, designed by Kingsley Read, the most beautiful and efficient set of phonetic symbols I had ever seen; and I use them now in writing these words, as I have used them in writing all my drafts since I first saw the Shaw alphabet edition of Androcles and the Lion ten years ago. WARREN SYLVESTER SMITH The Pennsylvania State University INDIVIDUUM UND GESELLSCHAFT 1M ENGLISCHEN DRAMA DER GEGENWART: ARNOLD WESKER UND HAROLD PINTER, by Gunther Klotz. Berlin (GDR): Akademie Verlag, 1972. 179 pp. M 6. As the title suggests, Klotz attempts to analyse the relationship between the individual and society as reflected in the plays of Arnold Wesker and Harold Pinter. Right from the beginning Klotz leaves no doubt as to what the outcome of his analysis will be. For as early as the introduction, he notes that Wesker is a socialist whose plays fall under the heading of "socialist realism" in that they seek to prompt the working class into revolt against their exploitation by the system; whereas Pinter must be called a "modernist" who sides with the corrupt bourgeoisie and has nothing to offer in regard to improving the position of the working class. After a brief outline of England's social and economic history from World War II to the present day, which is tailored to prove his contention that the relationship between the individual and society has fundamentally been a matter of them-and-us, Klotz finds words of acknowledgement for Wesker's involvement in Centre 42, and his plays up to Their Very Own and Golden City are viewed in terms of a positive contribution to "socialist realism." Yet, at the same time, the author voices his discontent with Wesker's meagre theoretical basis, confused ideological position, and "metaphorically emotionalised notion of art." He rebukes him for having constantly portrayed the working class as stupid, disillusioned, without any initiative. Especially his later plays to date are under heavy attack. According to Klotz, Wesker has changed from the pugnacious socialist of his earlier period to the author of the "dull, silly, and socially insignificant plays" of his later period. In spite of the alleged flaws, however, Klotz's final verdict repeats the premature praise of the introduction and hails Wesker, together with David Storey and Peter Terson, as the only contemporary British playwrights worthy of consideration. Pinter harvests nothing but reproof. He is accused of revelling in the inexplicability of events, in mysteries and irrationalism. His dramatis personae , and the conflicts of his plays, are set in the irrationality of bourgeois ideology. Hence Pinter is unable to provide answers to the pressing questions of his contemporaries or solve the historic problems of his age. His plays are little more than ahistorical shocks concerned with the helplessness of mankind . Klotz falls victim to a social doctrine which, applied in a narrow-minded manner, overlooks the fact that the social relevance of a literary work of art can be achieved in other ways than through its content, in other ways than as BOOK REVIEWS 359 a political programme. Pinter does not prescribe solutions to social problems; he objects to the stage being used as a substitute for the soap-box; he simply diagnoses mechanisms and defects in inter-human relationships, and, one could add, to a limited extent he depicts the alienation of modern man. But he does not see its only cause in the modes of production of a capitalist society, as Klotz would have it. Klotz holds that Pinter has a "wrong consciousness," i.e. he falls victim to bourgeois ideology. Ultimately it is of little use to argue about this issue, as the result would be similar to that of the Positivism us-Streit in Germany, where the disputing parties ended up in a deadlock, each accusing the other of "wrong consciousne.ss." Klotz grounds his analysis on a concept of art according to which all true art is "realistic," and this realism, per se, means a progressive social commitment . Because of this rigid position, his remarks on Pinter's plays consist of tedious improvisations on the same theme, presented disingenuously over 52 pages: Pinter is a "modernist...