Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Critical Reception/Albee's Tiny Alice. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page research paper that examines the critical reception that Edward Albee's play Tiny Alice received in 1964. The writer argues that the negative reception that this play received was influenced by the fact that it was not like Albee's previous hit, Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and also because of its controversial content. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khalbee.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
terribly "cheated," if the offending author does not live up to their expectations. This is why best-selling authors such as Stephen King write under pseudonyms when they wish to
write outside of their regular genre. Similarly, even though Edward Albees early plays were associated with the Theater of the Absurd, his play Whos Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,
which debuted in 1962, was realistic and naturalistic in its approach. It told a straightforward story laced with Freudian undertones and was a tremendous success. In 1964, Albees Tiny Alice
debuted and Albees critics were, for the most part, scathing in their reviews. Not only did few critics profess to understand it, the structure of the play seemed to
infuriate them. The following analysis of the criticism that Tiny Alice generated was due to the fact that he had deviated so far from the style he employed with Virginia
Woolf. This was not what the critics expected from Albee. Furthermore, the highly controversial content of the play elicited in many critics a knee-jerk reaction, an almost visceral reaction, of
disgust. Many of the original reviewers had difficulty describing the plays action. One critic, John McClain, wrote that Albee had requested that critics not divulge the surprises in the
plot, he said that he could not possibly relate what went on during the three-hour production (Kolin and Davis 19). Author Philip Roth attacked Albee, accusing him of wanting to
"seem deep" by emphasizing metaphysics (Kolin and Davis 19). Martin Gottfried wrote that the play was "ridiculous, a hodgepodge of philosophical and metaphysical pretensions," which was "endlessly talky and lined
with homosexuality" (Kolin and Davis 20). Howard Taubman of the New York Times differed from the main stream. He saw Albees deviation from the expected as a positive quality,
...