Literary analysis of the work of T. Williams "A Streetcar Named Desire"

The twenties and thirties of the 20th century were a truly classical era for American theater and drama, which became world-class phenomena. Their development was marked both by significant achievements in the ideological and thematic terms, and by fruitful searches in the artistic field. The new generation of playwrights that arrived in the late 1930s draws heavily on the best that was created by social drama and theater in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. Among this new generation are A. Miller, E. Albee, JI. Hensbury and, of course, T. Williams.

Tennessee Williams (Thomas Lanier Williams) (1911-1983) began his career in the early years of the third decade of the 20th century. Already in his early plays, T. Williams seeks to change the existing realistic traditions of the American theater. Refracting through the prism of his own talent the principles of the illusory nature and fragility of human happiness, embedded in the dramaturgy of Yu. O "Neill, T. Williams creates characters who are trying to return the past or build their future, which is different from the vulgar and vile present, but their illusions are crumbling. In the center Williams plays a lonely person, defenseless, defeated in the world of consumerism, violence and cruelty, he is doomed to despair.This central character has flawed traits in himself - he commits immoral or even criminal acts, is on the verge of mental pathology, becomes a victim not only external circumstances, but also their own weaknesses, illusions or guilt.

Domestic Williams studies, like American ones, began to develop in the late 1940s. The first articles about the playwright's plays, however, were of a clearly expressed negative character. At the same time, V. Gaevsky made the first attempt to determine the features of the artistic power of T. Williams. In the article "Tennessee Williams - a playwright without prejudice", the critic characterizes the writer as a "moralist-pornographer", and calls his style "cynical realism". The attempts to characterize the artistic ettil of T. Williams received their continuation in the 1960s. Among the works devoted to the work of the playwright, one can, first of all, mention the work of E. Glumova-Glukhareva “Western Theater Today”, in which the researcher characterizes the early work of T. Williams with the concept of “realism”, arguing further that in the finale of his creative activity, the writer’s dramaturgy adopted distinct modernist character. The same opinion is shared by M. Elizarova and N. Mikhalskaya in the work “A course of lectures on the history of foreign literature of the 20th century”. The authors of the work argue that in the 1960s the playwright was increasingly attracted by “almost pathological attention to the problems of the subconscious”4.

According to another critic - A. G. Obraztsova - in the plays of T. Williams, realism gradually recedes under the influence of formalism and naturalism5.

In the 1960s, domestic William science was represented by the works of such researchers as G. P. Zlobin, M. M. Koreneva, V. Nedelin, JL Tsekhanovskaya. For example, G. P. Zlobin in his article, published in Volume V of the Theater Encyclopedia in 1967, writes that “after the drama “A Streetcar Named Desire” (“A Streetcar Named Desire”, 1947), the playwright gained a reputation as an “avant-garde »6. The researcher, summing up his work,

1 See Morozov M. The cult of brute force. Owls. art, 1948, 25 Sept.; Gozenpud A. About disbelief in man, about nihilism and the philosophy of despair. Star, 1958, No. 7. - p. 195-214; Golant V. Poisoners. Star, 1949, No. 4. - p. 132-140.

2 Gaevsky W. Tennessee Williams - playwright "without prejudice." Theatre, 1958, No. 4.-e. 183.

3 Glumova-Glukhareva E. Western theater today. M.: Art, 1966. - p. 148.

4 Literary history of the USA. Moscow: Progress, 1979, vol. 3. - p. 748.

5 Modern foreign drama: a collection of articles. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. - p. 376.

6 Theatrical Encyclopedia. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1967, v. 5. - p. 326-327 says that "the complex contradictions of Williams' worldview determine the eclecticism of his artistic method"7.

This conclusion is typical for works devoted to the playwrights of T. Williams of this period. According to JI. Tsekhanovskaya, the work of the playwright combines naturalism, existentialism and elements of the modernist interpretation of personality. J.I. Tsekhanovskaya presents the playwright as both a critical realist and a modernist, preferring, nevertheless, a realistic interpretation of the author's works.

Similar trends can be traced in numerous works devoted to the work of T. Williams, G. P. Zlobin. His first critical article on the play Orpheus Descending (1957) appeared in the journal Foreign Literature back in 1959. In this article, the critic writes that "T. Williams often pays tribute to naturalism. G. P. Zlobin continues his idea about the naturalistic basis of T. Williams’s work in the article “On Stage and Behind the Stage”, however, for the first time calling the playwright also a romantic10. In addition, further the author of the article calls T. Williams also an avant-garde artist, expressionist and symbolist, and, making a conclusion about the eclecticism of the writer's artistic style, comes to the conclusion that "in the best plays and episodes, T. Williams still manages to break into realism."11.

Since the late 1960s, the work of T. Williams has been repeatedly analyzed by M. M. Koreneva. In her opinion, in the 1960s, in the

12 days of the playwright, there is an increase in modernist tendencies. Is

7 Theatrical encyclopedia, v. 5. - p. 327.

8 Tsekhanovskaya JL Tennessee Williams' theory of "plastic theater" and its refraction in the drama "A Streetcar Named Desire". // Literature of the USA. Moscow State University, 1973. - p. 113.

9 Zlobin G. Orpheus from the Mississippi. Foreign lit., 1959, No. 5. - p. 259.

10 Zlobin G. On stage and behind the scenes. Plays by Tennessee Williams. Foreign lit. 1960, No. 7. - p. 205.

11 Ibid. - With. 210.

12 Koreneva M. Passion for Tennessee Williams // Problems of US literature of the XX century. Moscow: Nauka, 1970s. 107. The investigator believes that T. Williams expands “the limits of the realistic method, enriching it with additional means of expression”13.

Notes about the artistic style of T. Williams V. Nedelin are interesting. In the afterword to the writer's book "The Glass Menagerie and Nine More Plays", the researcher notes that the playwright borrows from Y. O "Neill a romantically heightened attention to the immediate element of feeling14, objecting to the definition of T. Williams' work as "theatre of cruelty".

The theater critic V. Wolf looks at the problem of the style of the American playwright somewhat differently. He believes that T. Williams is a critical realist who seeks to "reveal social motives under the transparent cover of psychological conflicts"15.

A new stage in the development of domestic Williams studies begins in the mid-1970s. During this period, more and more new works appear, aiming to unravel the mystery of the American playwright's artistic style. One can note the article by K. Gladysheva “The Theater of the United States of America”, in which the researcher, speaking of T. Williams, notes his “loyalty to the traditions of realism and the struggle for social justice”16, thereby confirming the idea of ​​V. Wolfe. Some critics of this period, such as B. Smirnov, define the style of T. Williams termi

1 n nom "cruel" and even "bestial" realism. The same researcher in the book "US Theater of the 20th Century" makes an unexpected conclusion that T. Williams is moving away from the naturalistic and modernist vision of the world and moving to "positions of approaching the classical heritage", under which

13 Koreneva M. Passion for Tennessee Williams // Problems of US literature of the XX century. - from 124.

14 Nedelin V. The road of life in the dramaturgy of Tennessee Williams // Tennessee Williams. The Glass Menagerie and nine more plays. M.: Art, 1967. - p. 677.

15 Wulf V. The tragic symbolism of Tennessee Williams // Theater, 1971, No. 12. - p. 60.

16 History of foreign theater. M .: Education, 1977, vol. 3. - pp. 142-143.

17 Smirnov B. US Theater of the XX century. D.: LGITMNK, 1976. - p. 198.

B. Smirnov means realism of the 17th century. In another work of his, B. Smirnov states that T. Williams worked within the framework of neorealism19.

Important is the remark of B. Zingerman, a researcher of the history of drama of the 20th century, about the conflict in T. Williams’ plays “the social environment and

20 gh of a romantic hero rejected by her. This statement indicates the beginning of a reassessment of the playwright's artistic style by domestic criticism.

B. JI. Denisov in his dissertation, considering the problem of T. Williams' style, comes to the conclusion that throughout the playwright's work, romantic foundations are preserved in his works until the 1970s21.

In American literary criticism, sharp disputes flared up around the work of the playwright. T. Williams and A. Miller, who almost simultaneously entered the literature in the 1930s, were recognized as the leading playwrights in the United States. At the same time, the comparison of their names usually served as a starting point for opposing their creativity, their ideological and artistic principles. On such a contrast is based, for example, the assessment of the work of these playwrights by J. Gassner. The researcher believes that Miller represents social realism, which has been characteristic of a significant part of modern drama since the time of G. Ibsen's realism; T. Williams - an attempt to go beyond realism, which began in Europe with neo-romantic and symbolist resistance to naturalism. A. Miller uses dry colloquial prose; T. Williams' dialogues are written musically, poetically. Miller embodies the theater of the common man and more or less collective problems of T. Williams - the eternal avant-garde theater of subjectivity and individual subtlety of the soul 22.

18 Smrnov B. Theater of the USA of the XX century. - With. 199.

19 Smirnov B. Ideological struggle in the modern American theater. 1960-1970. JL: About Znanie RSFSR, 1980.-e. nineteen.

20 Zingerman B. Essays on the history of the drama of the XX century. M.: Nauka, 1979. - p. 36.

21 Denisov V. Romantic foundations of the method of T. Williams. (The peculiarity of the conflict in the writer's dramaturgy). Abstract diss. for the competition uch. Art. cand. philol. Sciences. M.: MGU, 1982. - p. 4

22 Gassner J. The Theater of Our Times. N.Y.: Crown Publishers, 1955. - P. 343-344.

The thought of another researcher, A. Lewis, is developing in the same direction: “T. Williams takes the instinctive and unbridled - the demand for emotional freedom. A. Miller - conceptual and reasonable - the demand for social liberation. Williams turns an individual into a self-contained world. Miller goes beyond the personality and blames the forces that hold back its development. The heroes of T. Williams are broken, sensitive and unhappy people who retain ideal ideas as a defense against the collapse they have experienced. The heroes of A. Miller's plays are often lonely, lost and self-serving people, but, having learned the truth, they gain the determination to sacrifice their lives for the good of others £>>% This is consistent with the characterization that R. E. Jones, a well-known critic, gives to T. Williams and theater artist. He calls T. Williams the poet of decadence. His world, according to Jones, is the world of the "New South", where a special place (especially in early plays) is occupied by an aristocrat. This is a world of fragile beauty and unnatural horror, lost hopes and poetic visions, animal sexuality and subtle perversity. The heroes of T. Williams, seeking salvation, always turn to the past24.

These assertions are not unfounded. All this, no doubt, is present in the works of T. Williams. But in these same works, he also shows us a different South - the South of racists, the South of wealthy landowners and politicians who profess fascist ideas and terrorize the people, the South of predators rushing to wealth and the South of destitute beggars. About the narrowness of the above approach to the works of T. Williams says G. Clerman, arguing that “... many plays that are basically social - for example, some of the plays of T. Williams are usually regarded as something little more than a personal drama of those who have lost peace of mind or perverted people.”25 It seems that the critic is right in his desire to reveal

23 Lewis A. The Contemporary Theatre. N.Y.: Crown Publishers, 1962. - P.287.

24 Two Modern American Tragedies / ed. J.D. Hurrel. N.Y. : Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961. - P.l 11-112.

25 Theater Arts, 1961, March. - P. 12. social motives hidden in the dramaturgy of T. Williams under the cover of psychological conflicts and to correlate the work of the playwright with the phenomena of reality. This approach gives depth to the analysis of T. Williams' work, gives reason to consider it in many ways.

G. Taylor also speaks about the peculiar reflection of social life in the plays of T. Williams, pointing out that he is not fully aware of the connection between the fates of the playwright's characters and social processes: “Moreover, the immutability of his views prevents him from taking into account the factors that turned this world into a cruel world. True, he knows about the existence of these factors, and therein lies hope. In connection with this judgment, I would like to once again turn to the works of J. Gassner, who believed that T. Williams “in every situation attaches paramount importance to psychological rather than social facts. There is no predilection for cocoa in his works.

27 to any social issue". As a characteristic feature of the playwriting of T. Williams, Gassner singles out a penchant for symbolism, theatrical effects and "the passion of a bohemia writer" for "art for art's sake". However, he believes that this is precisely what prevented Williams from achieving true success. “His aestheticism, which made him unusual and very attractive in the American theater, was for him as a playwright the main obstacle

2I see ". At the same time, Gassner notes that aestheticism, however unexpected it may seem at first, does not exclude, but rather presupposes the penetration of naturalism into Williams's dramaturgy. “The philosophy of Bohemia, although it prefers aestheticism, tends to submit to naturalism, because the Bohemian artist is fascinated by the “raw life”, which he idealizes precisely because he feels, to a greater or lesser extent, his alienation from life itself. Sensational pictures really

26 Two Modern American Tragedies. - P. 98.

27 Gassner J. The Theater of Our Times. - P. 349.

28 Ibid. P. 349

9Q conventions, teasing the bourgeois or Babbit".

Features of T. Williams's dramaturgy with his constant appeals to erotica, motives of perversity and violence make it fertile ground for adherents of the Freudian school, which seeks to take Williams' plays beyond the social. So, one of them, B. Nelson, recognizing the existence of a certain relationship between Williams' plays and the surrounding life, sees his task not in revealing these connections more fully, but in finding Freudian motives in each of the plays. What Nelson sees as the main advantage of Williams' dramas - their Freudian coloring - in the interpretation of another critic, R. Gardner, acts as a feature that does not allow them to reach the depth and grandeur of the tragedy. Gardner does not seek to find a reflection of Freudian complexes in the situations of Williams' plays, but traces the general influence of Freudian concepts on the character of his characters and dramatic conflicts. With the acceptance of Freudian ideas about man, Gardner connects the morbidity and impotence of the characters, which appear in Williams as evidence of their superiority over the outside world: “... although Blanche does not differ in the physical health of her sister, she radiates from her, which does not come from Stella. Behind her obvious pretense lies a true understanding of beauty, which Stella, a normal, healthy girl, is not given to experience.

There is a study in American criticism that aims to interpret the work of a playwright based on the form of his plays. This book is The Broken World of Tennessee Williams (1965) by E. M. Jackson. In Jackson's book, there are references to the connection between the playwrights of T. Williams and the life of the South, but the South itself appears in them not in its real historical essence.

29 Gassner J. The Theater of Our Times. - P. 351.

30 Gardner R.H. The Splintered Stage. The Decline of the American Theatre. N.Y.: Macmillan, 1965. -P. 113. sti, but as a system that can be embodied in symbols, from which the myths of art are subsequently intertwined. “Out of this southern aesthetic,” writes Jackson, “came into Williams’ drama a kind of basic linguistic structure, which can be compared with the structure that appeared in the initial stages of the development of Greek tragedy, since, like Greek myths, the social, political and religious basis of this southern perception is a primitive society, where the decisive phases of life's struggle are conveyed in complex symbolic language. Considering the work of T. Williams as the creation of a historical myth of a synthetic nature, the critic believes that it (this myth) is made up of "a ritual myth about the theater, a literary myth about an American of the 20th century, and a Freudian-Jungian myth about modern man" . Along with this, Jackson argues that Williams constantly refers to the image of the suffering Christ, fully reproducing in his plays "Christian representation

33 knowledge about the cycle of life” . The whole mythological complex, which Jackson presents as the structural basis of Williams' plays, prepares the interpretation of the images of heroes as variations of archetypes.

The relevance of our study is due to the demand for the work of T. Williams both in American and, above all, in domestic literary criticism. The development of this topic allows us to reveal the rich moral and ethical potential of the playwright's work, as well as to better understand the patterns of the formation and development of the relatively young US drama. The relevance of the dissertation is obvious in the context of the increased attention of scientists to the problem of interliterary relations. The work traces the influence on the artistic activity of T. Williams of European and Russian theatrical aesthetics, European and American

31 Jackson E. M. The Broken World of Tennessee Williams. Madison and Milwaukee University of Wisconsin Press, 1965. - P. 46.

33 Ibid. P. 57. poetry and epic. The relevance of the topic also lies in the fact that the results of the innovative aspirations of the artist discussed in the study are diverse in aesthetic terms and require further theoretical understanding, the successful result of which will enrich our understanding of the expressive possibilities of drama.

The object of research in the dissertation is American drama of the 1930s - 1980s, the subject of research is the work of T. Williams as one of the most prominent representatives of American literature of this period.

The purpose of the study: to identify the artistic innovation of T. Williams in the 1930s - 1980s. and to determine the specifics of the poetics of the playwright's plays.

Based on the goal, the following tasks can be distinguished:

1. Consider the work of the playwright in the 1930s - 1980s, summarizing the existing experience of domestic and foreign critics, and trace the evolution of the author's aesthetic and social views.

2. To analyze the originality of the poetics of the works of T. Williams and to identify the artistic innovation of the playwright in the plays “.not about nightingales” (“Not About Nightingales”, 1938), “The Glass Menagerie” (“The Glass Menagerie”, 1944), “A Streetcar Named Desire "("A Streetcar Named Desire", 1947), "The Way of Reality" ("Camino Real", 1953), "The Descent of Orpheus" ("Orpheus Descending", 1957), "Suddenly Last Summer" ("Suddenly Last Summer", 1957), Sweet Bird of Youth (1959), The Night of The Iguana (1961), Clothes for a Summer Hotel, 1980), which became the most famous works of the playwright.

3. To trace the peculiarities of the influence of American and European literature on the work of T. Williams and, above all, such writers as the English novelist D. G. Lawrence, the American poet H. Crane and the Russian playwright A. P. Chekhov, who had the most significant influence on creative style of T. Williams.

The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the fact that for the first time in the last decade in Russian literary criticism, within the framework of a monographic study, an analysis of the innovation of the poetics of the works of T. Williams is undertaken, based on the involvement of new artistic material (the play ". Not about Nightingales" (1939), which previously did not fall into the field critics' point of view), as well as the work of American researchers in the last decades of the 20th century. The analysis of the stage interpretation of the works of T. Williams present in the work also allows us to consider the cultural aspect of the playwright's work.

The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the concept and materials of the dissertation in teaching the general course of the history of literature and special courses on the history of American drama at the philological faculties of universities.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study are works on the theory and history of drama, the history of genres by domestic and foreign literary critics: A. A. Anikst, S. V. Vladimirov, V. M. Volkenshtein, G. P. Zlobin, B. I. Zingerman, A. A. Karyagin, V. G. Klyuev, M. M. Koreneva, A. F. Loseva, A. G. Obraztsova, M. Ya. Polyakova, I. M. Fradkin, V. E. Khalizeva, E. Bentley, D. Gassner, A. Lewis, G. Wiles, C. Bigsby, as well as works on the theory and history of literature, L. G. Andreeva, M. M. Bakhtin, A. S. Bushmin, A. N Veselovsky, I. F. Volkov, N. Hartman, B. A. Gilenson, Ya. N. Zasursky, R. Ingarden, A. S. Mulyarchik, A. A. Potebni, L. I. Timofeeva, B V. Tomashevsky, B. A. Uspensky and general works on the history of the development of the American theater by J. Adams, T. Adler, K. Bernstein, G. Bloom, G. Clerman, R. Gardner D. Gassner.

The work is based on the chronological principle, which makes it possible to identify the periodization of T. Williams' work. In using this principle, we follow such researchers as M. Elizarova, N. P. Mikhalskaya, E. Glumova-Glukhareva, G. P. Zlobin, who in their works on T. Williams for the first time gave a periodization of the playwright's work.

The main methods of research are historical-genetic, historical-functional and lexical-semantic, which allow us to consider a literary work in its multidimensional connections with the era, in terms of a specific historical situation, in comparison with other phenomena of the literary and linguistic process.

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. The dramatic works of T. Williams harmoniously complemented such a modification of the drama genre as a “memory play”, and the idea of ​​“plastic theater”, developed by the playwright throughout his work, connected the American theatrical tradition with the classical traditions of A.P. Chekhov’s dramaturgy, B. Shaw and B. Brecht.

2. The dramaturgy of T. Williams experienced a significant influence of American and European literature and art in the person of X. Crane, D. G. Lawrence and A. P. Chekhov.

3. The work of T. Williams enriched the poetics of American drama by introducing new elements into the structure of plays (including such as episodic nature, the presence of a screen, close-ups), which made it possible to significantly expand the artistic possibilities of drama as a genre in contemporary art.

Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in the abstracts of the reports at the XIII (2001) and XIV (2002) Purishev readings, at the final scientific and practical conferences of the OGTI (branch) of the OSU (2000, 2002), at the All-Russian scientific and practical conference " The unity of the axiological foundations of culture, philology and pedagogy" (Orsk, 2001), at the international scientific and practical conference "Man and Society"

Orenburg, 2001), and also during a discussion at the Department of Literature of the OGTI (branch) of the OSU.

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references, including 231 titles, including 148 titles. English language. 6 papers have been published on the topic of the dissertation.

CONCLUSION

If such playwrights as Y. O "Neill, S. Glaspel, T. Wilder and K. Odets dominated the American theater in the first half of the 20th century, A. Miller, E. Albee, L. Hansbury, S. Sheppard - in the second half a century, then T. Williams personifies the middle of the twentieth century.He occupies one of the central places in the American theater of the XX century.This position is connected not so much with chronology as with the nature of the talent of the playwright himself.

The work of Tennessee Williams did not noticeably deviate from the mainstream of the pre- and post-war US theater and, of course, depended on the situation in the country, on the mood of the artistic intelligentsia, and finally, on fashion. It was these aspects that prevented, for example, the staging of the play "...not about nightingales" in 1939, since the originality of its content was regarded by Broadway theater agents as unsuitable for the audience. This trend can be traced throughout the entire work of the playwright. So, in the middle of the century, in the era of McCarthyism in the United States, when American drama was most affected by decadence, A Streetcar Named Desire appeared. On the contrary, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "The Descent of Orpheus" date back to the mid-1950s, a period of relative strengthening of the position of realistic art in the United States. Unchanging yearning for purity and justice - and disbelief in their attainability; sentimental tenderness for the destitute and defenseless - and the chanting of sensuality, primitiveness; naturalistic vigilance - and in some cases - social blindness. These complex contradictory features of T. Williams' worldview determined the eclecticism of his method.

Williams constantly worked to create scene moments in which social factors, psychological collapse and erotic conflict formed a safe haven in which imagination itself became the last refuge for the playwright's lost characters. In Williams' world, fantasy becomes a source of both great strength and great weakness. Forces - because fantasy gives one of Williams' heroes the ability to staunchly resist the unpredictable and stunning reality. This is Amanda Wingfield, and Blanche Dubois, and Don Quixote. Weaknesses - because for the other heroes of the playwright, fantasy is enslaved by those whose feelings and actions destroy everything heroic, romantic, creative. This is Val Xavier and Chane Wayne. In this world of paradox, Williams succeeded in pushing the boundaries of theatricality, juxtaposing tradition and experimentation, which revolutionized American post-war drama.

hallmark method of T. Williams was the return of the role of the romantic hero-lover. I. I. Samoylenko1 points to this in his study. Next line of characters: Val Xavier, JT. Shannon, Chane Wayne, Kilroy was a clear proof of this. But the playwright rethought this role, making it convenient for the modern audience to perceive. According to Williams, all these heroes, being modern, become carriers of many vicious and flawed traits - a tribute to Williams' belief in the fragility and defenselessness of a person of the 20th century.

Williams was not the first to attempt to transform the American scene through experimentation in the realm of drama. Already before him, O "Neill amazed the public with such expressionist works as "Emperor Jones" ("Emperor Jones", 1920) and "The Shaggy Monkey" ("The Hairy Are", 1922). Summarizing the experience of these and many other innovatory playwrights, K Bigsby, in the pages of his three-volume work An Introduction to Twentieth-Century American Drama, argued that "American

1 Samoylenko I. I. The problem of myth in modern US drama (after 1945). Avforef. diss. for the competition uch. Art. cand. philologist, science. M.: MSU, 1983. - p. 218. theater is eclectic. There is no stylistic unity in it. Creating his works, Williams combined, in this eclectic way, the best traditions of European theater with the growing dramaturgy of the United States, thus creating works about his country and for his country. In his development as a playwright, Williams is indebted to many great writers who worked before him and with him. From H. Crane and D. G. Lawrence, Williams adopted images of pronounced sexuality as a protest against the hypocrisy and hypocrisy of the world around him. From O "Neill, he inherited the images of the tragic, emanating from characters who are more and more unable to come into contact with themselves and with others. From A. Strindberg and B. Brecht, Williams adopted the expressionist figurative system, which helped transform his contemporary Williams "peeped" the technique and modes of expression characteristic of the Symbolists in C. Huisman and V. del Isladama. Williams himself often noted that he was greatly influenced by B. Brecht, J.-P.

Sartre, A. Rimbaud and W. van Gogh. The work of A.P. Chekhov in particular taught Williams to understand the importance of the stage environment, scenery, costumes and symbols that embody the features of the places in which the action takes place, be it Belle Reve, New Orleans or St. Louis. At the same time, Williams transformed the environment and brought it to the level of a symbol, which can be seen, for example, in the play The Way of Reality.

A connoisseur of the visual and a priest of the temple of the human body, Williams, however, has always attached great importance to the word. Williams' language is poetic, it gives freshness to the words, enchants the viewer. The playwright tried to find more and more new verbal forms to describe the inner world of his characters. This search led him away from the classical

2 Bigsby C.W.E. A Critical Introduction to Twentieth-Centuiy American Drama: T. Williams, A. Miller, E. Albee. Cambridge, 1984. - Vol. 2. - P. 6.

3 Williams T. Memoirs. - P. 76. realism and led to new dramatic forms. Williams further strengthened the linguistic side of the works by introducing what he called “plastic theater” into the canvas of the play: the use of light, music, unconventional solutions to the problem of scenery and other forms of non-verbal expression, which contributed to a more complete understanding of the text of the play. This desire to open the theater to new forms, unlike the realistic ones that dominated the American theater of those years, allowed Williams to create a lyrical drama, a poetic theater.

The American literary critic S. Falk writes in his book “Tennessee Williams” that the playwright “returned to the theater the lost passion”4. But this passion in the works of Williams was present more in the inner world of the characters than in the external manifestation. This tradition of focus on the inner world of the characters has become a defining feature of the creative method of T. Williams. Considering the formal side of the playwright's works, one can see that he weakly draws the external lines of the plot. Showing everyday life becomes for Williams a pressing element of creativity. But this everyday life sets off and highlights the lofty ideal to which the playwright aspires. Williams told the inner truth individual person, described the world of private desires, drowned in the routine of public consciousness and the surrounding world. But his world originated from an American reality that fed itself with romantic mythology, like those characters whose struggle with reality leaves a residue of poetry on their own lives.

Transforming life into his works, showing the complexity of human existence on stage, Williams challenged the theater. The playwright himself admitted that each of the characters he created always carried at least a small part of the author's inner world, developed and reworked in the name of the main idea of ​​the play. Basing his works on the facts of his

4 Falk S.L. Tennessee Williams. Boston: Twayne, 1978. - P. 155. Of an ambiguous life, T. Williams often portrayed the conflicts or sympathies of a man/woman relationship. Over time, the playwright moved to a more hidden, symbolic depiction of the various facets of human nature. For Williams, the world has always been the scene of epic battles - between flesh and spirit, good and evil, god and Satan, loving Jesus and fearsome Jehovah. The panorama of the sky or the sea, the tropical forest, the sounds of thunder, flashes of lightning and the wind - all this became symbols of the existence of the almighty God, showing the futility and vanity of human existence. Williams' experiments in the field of "presentation drama" (JI. Furst's term) challenged the popular realistic play with its fourth wall convention. Going to the viewer with his aspirations and experiences, Williams pushed the boundaries of the theater, expanding them to the limits of the surrounding world.

Already in one of the first major works of Williams - in the play "The Glass Menagerie" - we are faced with such a characteristic feature of his work as a free ending. Its use will be observed in almost all the works of the playwright. And this is no coincidence. In his plays, Williams always sought to show the general through the particular, to convey the state of his contemporary society through the disclosure of the inner world of his characters. Having adopted the ideas of A.P. Chekhov, consisting in the so-called internal action of the characters, William, thereby, directed his work in the direction determined by major Western European writers and playwrights. Following F. Goebbel, Williams argued that the main thing in drama is not action, but experience in the form of internal action. It is this aspect that still attracts the attention of researchers to the work of T. Williams, which determines the relevance of the playwright's plays in the modern theater.

1. ART WORKS

2. Chekhov A. Plays, translated by Elisaveta Fen. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1959.

3. Crane H. The Complete Poems // Waldo Frank. New York: Doubleday, 1958.

4. Williams T. A Streetcar Named Desire. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

5. Williams T. Camino Real. Norfolk: New Directions, 1953.

6. Williams T. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

7. Williams T. Desire and Black Masseur. New York: New Directions, 1985.

8. Williams T. I Rise in Flame, Cried the Phoenix. Norfolk: J. Laughlin, 1951.

9. Williams T. In the Winter of Cities. Norfolk: New Directions, 1956.

10. Williams T. Memoirs. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1975.

11. Williams T. Not About Nightingales. New York: New Directions, 1998.

12. Williams T. Orpheus Descending. New York: New Directions, 1971.

13. Williams T. Suddenly Last Summer. New York: New Directions, 1971.

14. Williams T. Summer and Smoke. New York: New Directions, 1971.

15. Williams T. Sweet Bird of Youth. New York: New Directions, 1972.

16. Williams T. The Glass Menagerie. New York: New Directions, 1998.

17. Williams T. The Night of the Iguana. New York: Signet Classics, 1995.

18. Williams T. The Rose Tattoo. New York: Signet Classics, 1990.

19. Williams T., Windham D. You Touched Me! New York: Samuel French, 1947.

20. Williams T. Where I Live Selected Essays. New York: New Directions, 1978.

21. Williams T. Clothes for a Summer Hotel: A Ghost Play. New York: New Directions, 1983.

22. Williams T. Battle of Angels. Murray, Utah, 1945.

23. Williams T. In the Bar of Tokyo Hotel. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 1969.

24. Williams T. Kingdom of Earth. New York: New Directions, 1968.

25. Williams T. A Lovely Sunday for Creve Coeur. New York: New Directions, 1980.

26. Williams T. The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore. New York: New Directions, 1964.

27. Williams T. The Red Devil Battery Sign. New York: New Directions, 1988.

28. Williams T. Small Craft Warnings. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1973.

29. Williams T. Something Cloudy, Something Clear. New York: New Directions, 1995.

30. Williams T. Steps Must Be Gentle. New York: Targ, 1980.

31. Williams T. The Two Character Play. New York: New Directions, 1979.

32. Williams. T. Mrs. Stone's Roman Spring. M.: Artist. lit., 1978.

33. William T. The face of a sister in the radiance of glass. Selected prose. M.: B.S.G. Press, 2001.

34. Chekhov A.P. The Cherry Orchard. Sobr. op. in 8 vol. M.: Pravda, 1970, v. 7.

35. Chekhov A.P. Gull. Sobr. op. in 8 vol. M.: Pravda, 1970, v. 7.1.

36. Anastasiev N.A. Continuation of the dialogue. M.: Soviet writer, 1987.

37. Anastasiev N.A. Disappointments and Hopes: Notes on Western Literature Today. Moscow: Soviet writer, 1979.

38. Andreev L. G. Impressionism. M., 1980.

39. Anikst A.A. History of Drama Doctrines: Drama Theory from Hegel to Marx. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

40. Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979.

41. Bakhtin M. M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1986.

42. Boyadzhiev T.N. From Sophocles to Brecht in forty theatrical evenings. Moscow: Education, 1969.

43. Bushmin A.S. The Science of Literature: Problems, Judgments, Disputes. M.: Sovremennik, 1980.

44. Bushmin A.S. Continuity in the development of literature. L .: Fiction, 1978.

45. Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. Moscow: Higher school, 1989.

46. ​​Vladimirov SV Action in drama. L. 1972.

47. Volkov I.F. Theory of Literature. M.: Enlightenment-Vlados, 1995.

48. Volkenstein V.M. Dramaturgy. Moscow: Soviet writer, 1969.

49. Woolf W. Foreword // Tennessee Williams. The face of the sister in the radiance of the glass. Selected prose. M.: B. S. G. Press, 2001.

50. Hartman N. Aesthetics. M., 1958.

51. Gassner J. Form and idea in the modern theater. Moscow: Foreign Literature, 1959.

52. Gilenson B. A. In Search of Another America: From the History of Progressive Literature in the USA. M., 1987.

53. Glumova-Glukharev E. Western theater today. M.: Art, 1966.

54. Denisov V. JI. Romantic foundations of the method of T. Williams. (The peculiarity of the conflict in the writer's dramaturgy). Abstract diss. for the competition uch. Art. cand. philologist, science. M.: MGU, 1982.

55. Zasursky Ya. N. American literature of the XX century. M., 1984.

56. Zingerman B. Essays on the history of the drama of the XX century. Moscow: Nauka, 1979.

57. Zlobin G.P. Drama.// History of American Literature. M .: Education, 1971, v. 2.

58. Zlobin G.P. Modern Dramaturgy in the USA. Critical essays of the post-war decade. Moscow: Higher school, 1968.

59. Zlobin G. P. After the absurd. // Modern literature abroad. M.: Sov. writer, 1971.

60. Zlobin G.P. Prose by Tennessee Williams. // Tennessee Williams. Roman Spring Mrs. Stone. M.: Artist. lit., 1978.

61. Ingarden R. Studies in aesthetics. M., 1962.

62. Karyagin A. A. Drama as an aesthetic problem. M., 1971.

63. Klyuev VG Theatrical and aesthetic views of B. Brecht: Experience of Brecht's aesthetics. M., 1966.

64. Koreneva M. M. American criticism of the post-war dramaturgy of the USA. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.

65. Koreneva M. M. Modern American dramaturgy. 19451970: Author. diss. for the competition uch. Art. cand. philologist, science. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1975.

66. Koreneva M. M. Passion for Tennessee Williams // Problems of US literature of the XX century. Moscow: Nauka, 1970.

67. Koreneva M. M. Dramaturgy // The main trends in the development of modern literature in the United States. M., 1973.

68. Koreneva M. M. Creativity of Eugene O "Neill and the ways of American drama. M., 1990.

69. Literary history of the USA. Moscow: Progress, 1979, v. 3.

70. Losev A. F. The problem of the symbol and realistic art. M.:, 1976.

71. Losev A.F. Sign. Symbol. Myth. M., 1982.

72. Losev A. F. Form. Style. Expression. M., 1995.

73. Mulyarchik A. S. Modern realistic novel USA, 19451980. M, 1988.

74. Obraztsova A. G. Bernard Shaw's dramatic method. M., 1965.

75. Paverman V. M. American drama in the 60s of the XX century: the dynamics of artistic form. Abstract diss. for the competition uch. Art. Doctor of Philology, Sciences. Yekaterinburg: UGU, 1994.

76. US writers. Brief creative biographies / ed. Y. Zasursky, G. Zlobin. M.: Raduga, 1990.

77. Polyakov M.Ya. In the world of ideas and images. Moscow: Soviet writer, 1983.

78. Potebnya A. A. Aesthetics and poetics. M., 1976.

79. Romm A. American drama in the first half of the XX century. L .: Art, 1978.

80. Samoylenko I. I. The problem of myth in modern US drama (after 1945). Abstract diss. for the competition uch. Art. cand. philologist, science. M.: MGU, 1983.

81. Smirnov B. Ideological struggle in the modern American theater. 1960-1970. Leningrad: O-vo Znanie RSFSR, 1980.

82. Smirnov B. US Theater of the XX century. L.: LGITMK, 1976.

83. Modern foreign drama: a collection of articles. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962.

84. Theatrical encyclopedia. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1967, v. 5.

85. Teplitz E. The world of Tennessee Williams // Teplit E. Cinema and television in the USA. M.: Art, 1966.

86. Timofeev L.I. Fundamentals of the theory of literature. M.: Enlightenment, 1978.

87. Tomashevsky B. V. Theory of Literature. Poetics. M., 1996.

88. Tomashevsky B. V. Poetics. M., 1996.

89. Uspensky B. A. Poetics of composition. The structure of a literary text and the typology of compositional forms. M., 1970.

90. Fedorov A. Literature of the USA // History of foreign literature after the October Revolution. 1945-1970. M.: MGU, 1978.

91. Fradkin I.M. Bertolt Brecht: Way and Method. M., 1965.

92. Khalizev V.E. Theory of Literature. Moscow: Higher school, 2000.

93. Tsekhanovskaya L. Tennessee Williams' theory of "plastic theater" and its refraction in the drama "A Streetcar Named Desire" // US Literature. M.: MGU, 1973.

94. Shaitanov I.O. Thinking Muse. Moscow: Prometheus, 1989.

95. Shamina V. B. Myth and American Drama. (Yu. O "Neil "Mourning is the fate of Electra" and T. Williams "Orpheus descends into hell") Author's abstract diss.

96. Adams J. Versions of Heroism in Modern American Drama: Redefenitions by Miller, Williams, O "Neill and Anderson. London: Macmillan, 1991.

97. Adler T. American Drama 1940-1960: A Critical History. New York: Twayne, 1994.

98. Bernstein C. The Text and Beyond: Essays in Literary Linguistics. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1994.

99. Bigsby C.W.E. Critical Introduction of Twentieth-Century American Drama, volume 2: Williams, Miller, Albee. Cambridge University Press, 1984.

100. Bigsby C.W.E. Modern American Drama, 1945-1990. Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

101. Bigby C.W.E. Tennessee Williams: Streetcar to Glory // The Forties: Fiction, Poetry, Drama. Deland, Florida, 1969.

102. Bloom H. Modern Critical Views, Tennessee Williams. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

103. Bock H., Wertheim A. Essays on Contemporary American Drama. Munich: Hueber, 1981.

104. Bray R. A Streetcar Named Desire: The Political and Historical Subtext. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1993.

105. Broussard L. American Drama: Contemporary Allegory from Eugine O "Neill to Tennessee Williams. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.

106. Clerman H. Streetcar, The Collected Works of Harold Clerman. New York, 1994.

107. Clum J. Acting Gay: Male Homosexuality // Modern Drama. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

108. Cohn R. Dialogue in American Drama. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971.

109. Cushman K., Jackson D. D.H. Lowerence Literary Inheritors. New York: St Martin's Press, 1991.

110. Debuscher G., Schvey H. New Essays on American Drama. Amsterdam; Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1989.

111. Devlin A. Conversations with Tennessee Williams. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1996.

112. Dickinson H. Myth on the Modern Stage. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1969.

113. Dickson V. A Streetcar Named Desire: Its Development Through the Manuscripts. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1977.

114. Duran M. Lorca. Englewood Cliffs, 1962.

115. Dynes W., Donaldson S. Homosexual Themes in Literary Studies. New York: Garland, 1992.

116. Falk S. Tennessee Williams. Boston: Twayne, 1978.

117. Fedder N. The Influence of D. H. Lowrence on Tennessee Williams. The Hague: Mouton, 1966.

118. French W. The Fifties: Fiction, Poetry, Drama. DeLand, FL: Everett/Edwards, 1970.

119. Frost D. Conversations with Tennessee Williams. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1986.

120. Gassner J. The Theater of Our Times. New York: Crown Publishers, 1955.

121. Gassner J. Summer and Smoke: Williams's Shadow and Substance. Theater at the Crossroads: Plays and Playwrights of the Mid-Century American Stage. New York: Holt, Reinhart, 1960.

122. Gardner R. The Splintered Stage. The Decline of the American Theatre. New York: Macmillan, 1965.

123. Gillen F. Forms of the Fantastic: Selected Essays from the Third International Conference on the Fantastic Literature and Film. Westport CN: Greenwood, 1986.

124. Griffin Understanding Tennessee Williams. University of South Carolina Press, 1995.

125. Hartigan K. The Many Forms of Drama. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985.

126. Hauptman R. The Pathological Vision: Jean Genet, Louis-Ferdinand Celine and Tennessee Williams. New York: Peter Lang, 1984.

127. Heilman R. The Iceman, the Arsonist and the Troubled Agent: Tragedy and Melodrama on the Modern Stage. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1973.

128. Jackson E. The Broken World of Tennessee Williams. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965.

129. Kazan E. Notebook for A Steertcar Named Desire. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.

130. Leverich L. Tom: The Unknown Tennessee Williams. New York: Crown, 1995.

131. Lewis The Contemporary Theatre. New York: Crown Publishers, 1962.

132. Lilly M. Lesbian and Gay Writing: An Anthology of Critical Essays. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990.

133. Murphy B. Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan: Collaboration in Theatre. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

134. Nelson B. Tennessee Williams: The Man and His Work. New York: Ivan Obolensky, 1961.

135. Parker D. Essays on Modern American Drama: Williams, Miller, Albee and Shepard. University of Toronto Press, 1987.

136. Ponte da D. Tennessee Williams's Gallery of Feminine Characters // Tennessee Studies in Literature, 10. 1965.

137. Porter T. Myth and Modern American Drama. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1969.

138. Redmond J. Drama and Symbolism. Cambridge University Press, 1982.

139. Redmond J. Madness in Drama. Cambridge University Press, 1983.

140. Redmond J. Violence in Drama. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

141. Robinson M. The Other American Drama. Cambridge University Press.1994.

142. Rubin G. The Traffic in Women: Notes Toward a Political Economy of Sex. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1985.

143. Savran D. Communists, Cowboys and Queers: The Politics of Masculinity in the Works of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.

144. Scanlon T. Family, Drama and American Dreams. Westport, CN: Greenwood, 1978.

145. Schlueter J. Dramatic Closure: Reading the End. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1995.

146. Schlueter J. Feminist Rereadings of Modern American Drama. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press; London and Torono: Associated University Presses, 1989.

147. Schvey H. Madonna at the Poker Night: Pictorial Elements in Tennessee Williams's A Streetcar Named Desire. New York, 1998.

148. Sievers W. Freud on Broadway: A History of Psychoanalysis and the American Drama. New York: Cooper Square, 1955.

149. Sedgwick E. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

150. South: Modern Southern Literature in Its Cultural Settinng / ed. Louis D. Rubin Jr. and Robert D. Jacobs. New York: Doubleday, 1961.

151. Stuart R. The Southernmost DESIRE. New York, 1979.

152. Taylor W. Modern American Drama: Essays in Critisim. DeLand, FL: Everett/Edwards, 1968.

153. Tischler N. Tennessee Williams: Rebellious Puritan. New York: The Citadel Press, 1961.

154. Two Modern American Tragedies / ed. J. Hurrel. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961.

155. Yacowar M. Tennessee Williams and Film. New York, 1977.1.I. PERIODICALS

157. Wulf V. Ya. Afterword to the essay: T. Williams. The world of drama and its possibilities. Theatre, 1975, No. 12.

158. Wolf V. Ya. Tragic symbolism of the plays of Tennessee Williams. Theatre, 1971, No. 12.

159. Gaevsky W. Tennessee Williams playwright "without prejudice." Theatre, 1958 No. 4.

160. Zlobin G.P. On stage and behind the scenes. Plays by Tennessee Williams. Foreign lit., 1960, No. 7.

161. Zlobin G. P. Orpheus from the Mississippi. Foreign lit., 1959, No. 5.

162. Koreneva M. M. Tennessee Williams. Howl. Modern artistic lit. Abroad, 1975, No. 5.

163. Koreneva M. M. Tennessee Williams. Vieux Carre. Modern artistic lit. Abroad, 1981, No. 5.

166. Nedelin V.N. The Glass Menagerie and nine more plays. Moscow: Foreign Literature, 1967.

167. Novikov V. Man and consumer ideology. Notes on the Plays of Tennessee Williams. Questions of Philosophy, 1968, No. 4.

168. Friedstein Y. Tennessee Williams. Warning to small ships. Modern artistic Liter, abroad, 1974, No. 3.

169. Adler J. "The Night of the Iguana": A New Tennessee Williams? Ramparts, November 1962.

170. Atkinson B. Theatre: Rural Orpheus. New York Times, March 22, 1957.

171. Atkinson B. Theatre: "Suddenly Last Summer". New York Times, January 9, 1958.

172. Atkinson B. Theatre: Tennessee Williams's "Cat". New York Times, March 25, 1955.

173. Atkinson B. At the Play. Punch, August 11, 1948.

174. Barnes C. Stage: Williams's Eccentricities. New York Times, November 24, 1976.

175. Barnes C. Williams "s "Creve Coeur" is an Exceptional Excursion. New York Post, January 22, 1979.

176. Bentley E. Tennessee Williams and New York Kazan. What is theatre? New York: Atheneum, 1968.

177. Brooking J. Directing "Summer and Smoke": An Existentialisy Approach". Modern Drama 2:4. February 1960.

178. Brown C. Interview with Tennessee Williams. Partisan Review, 45.1978.

179. Brown J. Saturday Review. March 2, 1953

180. Brown J. Broadway Postscript. Saturday Review, March 23, 1953.

182. Cassidy C. Fragile Drama Holds Theater in Tight Spell. Chicago Tribune, December 27, 1944.

183. Cassidy C. On the Aisle. Chicago Sunday Tribune, January 7, 1945. Books Section:3.

184. Chapman J. Williams "s "Period of Adjustment" is an Affectionate Little Comedy. New York Daily News, November 11, 1960.

185. Clay C. Dead Battery: The Streetcar Breakes Down. Boston Phoenix, June 24, 1975.

187. Coleman R. Williams at 2 and Best in "Iguana". New York Mirror, December 29, 1961.

188. Corrigan M. Realism and Theatricalism in "A Streetcar Named Desire". Modern Drama 19, 1976.

189. Debusscher G. Minting Their Separate Wills": Tennessee Williams and Hart Crane. Modern Drama 26, 1983.

190. Donelly T. Tennessee Williams Loses Round Two of His Battle. New York World-Telegram, March 22, 1957.

191. Eder R. New Drama by Tennessee Williams. New York Times, January 22, 1979. Section C: 15.

192. Egan R. Orpheus Christus Mississippensis: Tennessee Williams's Xavier in Hell. A Quarterly 14, 1993.

194. Gottfried M. Theatre: "In The Bar of Tokyo Hotel". Women's Wear Daily, May 12, 1969.

195. Gottfried M. Theatre: Small Craft Warnings. Women's Wear Daily, Aptil 4, 1972.

196. Gottfried M. Williams "s "Carre" a Glimmer. New York Post, May 12,1977.

197. Gunn D. More Than Just a Little Chekhovian: "The Seagull" as a Sourse for the Characters in the Glass Menagerie. Modern Drama 33:3. September 1990.

198. Gunn D. The Troubled Flight of Tennessee Williams's "Sweet Bird": From Manuscripts through Published Texts. Modern Drama 24, 1981.

199. Kalem T. The Theatre. Time, April 17, 1972.

200. Kauffinan S. Theatre: Tennessee Williams Returns. New York Times, February 23, 1966.

201. Kerr W. Camino Real. New York Herald Tribune, March 20, 1953.

202. Kerr W. Orpheus Descending. New York Herald Tribune, March 22, 1957.

203. Kissel H. Clothes for a Summer Hote. Women's Wear Daily, March 27, 1980.

204. Kolin P. A Streetcar Named Desire: A Playwrights" Forum. Michigan Quarterly Review 29, 2. 1990.

205. Kolin P. Red-Hot in "A Streetcar Named Desire". Notes On Contemporary Literature 19.4. September 1989

206. Kronenberger L. A Sharp Southern Drama by Tennessee Williams. New York Critics" Reviews 8, 1947.

207. Leon F. Time, Fantasy and Reality in "The Night of the Iguana". Modern Drama 11:1. May 1968

208. McClain J. The Out and The Abstract. New York Journal-American, February 23, 1966.

209. McClain J. Tennessee at His Best. New York Journal-American, November 11, 1960.

210. McClain J. Miriam Hopkins at Wilbur: "Battle of Angels" is Full of Exciting Episodes. Boston Post, December 31, 1940.

211. Morehouse W. New Hit Named Desire. The Sun. December 4, 1947

212. Parker B. The Composition of "The Glass Menagerie": An Argument for Complexity. Modern Drama 25:3. September 1982

213. Rascoe B. "You Touched Me!" a First Rate Play Comedy. New York World-Telegram, September 26, 1945.

214. Reed R. Tennessee's "Out Cry": A Colossal Bore. Sunday News, March 11, 1973.

215. Ross M. The Making of Tennessee Williams: Imagining a Life of Imagination. Southern Humanities Review 21:2, 1987.

218. Variety. Camino Real. January 14, 1970

219. Watt D. "Lovely Sunday" is trivial and uneven. New York Daily News, January 22, 1979.

220. Watt D. Tennessee Williams: Is His Future Behind Him? Sunday News, October 19, 1975.

221. Watts R. "A Streetcar Named Desire" is a Striking Drama. New York Post. December 4, 1947

222. Watts R. The Drama of Three Misfits. New York Post, March 28, 1968.

223. Watts R. Notes on Tennessee Williams. New York Post, May 31, 1969.

224. Watts R. Tennessee Williams's Enigma. New York Post, March 2,1973.

225. Williams T. Reflections on a Revival of a Controversial Fantasy. New York Times, May 15, 1960.

226. Williams T. Tennessee Williams Presents His POV. New York Times Magazine, June 12, 1960.1.. DICTIONARIES

227. Literary encyclopedic dictionary / ed. V.M. Kozhevnikov and P.A. Nikolaev. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987.

228. Dictionary of literary terms / ed. L.I. Timofeeva and S.V. Turaeva. Moscow: Education, 1974.

229. Big encyclopedic dictionary. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. Moscow: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998.199

230. Big English-Russian Dictionary: 2nd edition, corrected and supplemented / author-compiler V.N. Adamchik. Minsk: Modern writer, 1999.

232. The Pocket Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

233. Romanov's Russian-English English-Russian Dictionary. Washington Square Press, 1991.