Kjeld Abell by Frederick J. Marker (review)

488 LETTERS IN CANADA 1977 efficiency of technology. While each would still put in a portion of his time in work intrinsically distasteful, through working far fewer hours each would become far less dependent upon others. Under the other model, work would be made intrinsically satisfying to each, albeit less efficient. Such a model, Haworth urges, would enable each to recover in the social milieu of his vocation the lost values of the settled community of the past. As he proceeds, Haworth increasingly employs pejorative epithets in depicting the leisure-oriented model, while eulogizing the workoriented . In the leisure-oriented life the individual exploits both the public domain and the natural environment for his own satisfaction. The self-absorption of each with his private concerns makes this life-style one of decadence. Three eulogistic epithets Haworth particularly employs in depicting the work-oriented model - 'responsibility: 'professionalism : and 'objectivity' - endowing each with meanings of his own. Under the work-oriented model. each fulfils himself through transcending himself; his work gives significance to his life; his work is his way of life; it is to his work that he is 'responsible.' In the commitment of everyone to his work in a 'professional' spirit, it is the canons of his profession which provide 'objective' measures of fulfilment. He is not exploiting the resources of nature; instead they provide 'objectives' for him to help to bring to fruition; through them he 'objectivizes' himself. If Haworth were but reaffirming Mill's view that anyone's life is far more satisfying if largely engaged in activity he feels important, few would disagree. Paradoxically, he regards Mill as an apostle of the leisure-oriented model. It is easy to notice less attractive features of Haworth's work-oriented model. It leaves no scope for liberty, save for the 'positive liberty' dear to Hegelians. Haworth dodges the issue of being forced to be free by remaining silent on the political features of his model. But on two of its features he is explicit. In the work-oriented model there is no place for rights, no place for justice, no place for human dignity. Their absence Haworth sees as a merit. While differing from Marxists in not envisaging but one possible route for the march of history as a whole to take, Haworth favo~s a 'wholistic' approach which enables him to see only two alternative overall models for the world tomorrow. Those who regard overall models for the world as not only morally objectionable but theoretically untenable will find nothing in Haworth to convince them that men's options for the future are so readily circumscribed . (D.P. DRYER) Frederick J. Marker. Kjeld Abell Twayne's World Authors Series. Twayne Publishers 1976. 172. $8.95 With his critical study of Kjeld Abell's dramatic works Frederick J. HUMANITIES 489 Marker presents the first comprehensive treatment of one of the most important Scandinavian playwrights. Abell (1901-61), the creator of technical innovations on stage and a keen critic of the society he lived in, is viewed in context with developments in modern international theatre (Anouilh, Brecht, Chekhov, O'Neill, Pirandello, Sartre). Stressing Abell's anti-naturalistic attitude as background for his departure in theatre, Marker points out Abell's alternative which rested on the basic theory of involving the spectator, restoring him 'to his rightful function as an active participant in the theatrical event.' Although Marker does not elaborate on the affinity with Brecht's concept of audience participation, it is evident in an early play like The Melody that Got Lost that Abell's suggestion of an active and critical stance to be taken by the spectator turns out to be more drastic than Brecht's. Abell has the spectator intrude into the action at the moment of a deadlock and lets him argue for and thus initiate a new course of action. Here, as in his other plays, Abell's desire to experiment is brought out by various staging techniques; Marker successfully brings them to life by including the stage-directions in his analyses. He contrasts the play'S performance with its structure, critically assessing its merits in innovative staging as well as such weaknesses as hastily...