1.

Setting

- Several settings which makes it more realistic. Contemporary locations, references to

London and Venice. Very ordinary place we can all recognise.

Throughout the play several settings can be found contributing to the realistic tone of
the work. The majority of the play takes place in London, focusing on the urban
environment of the city and contemporary lifestyle of that time. Some events also occur
in the city of Venice and contribute to the temporal development of the play since they
belong to the past. Furthermore, actions also happen within indoor locations revealing
the contrast between private and public spheres. These close spaces are presented as
places of refuge, protection for the lovers symbolizing their secret relationship and
sometimes make room for more deep and intimate dialogues.

2. Characters

- Robert: publishers; Jerry: literary agent (discover new writers, evaluate them) 
middle-class intellectuals.

- Emma: gallery owner (field of the art)

Love triangle between Emma, Jerry and Robert.

The play revolves around three main characters: Emma, Jerry and Robert. They form
the central love triangle within the play, whose interactions and individual struggles
contribute to the development of the story. All of them belong to the upper-middle class
and work in the intellectual-artistic field.

Emma is a complex character who is Robert’s wife, mother and works in a gallery of
art. Despite being married to Robert, she has a romantic affair with Jerry which leads to
several discussions throughout the play. Emma is aware of the unfavorable
circumstances and dynamics of her marriage and recognizes it at the very beginning of
the play. These conditions make her feel insecure and constantly in the need of
searching for validation. Thus, she starts to search love and affection outside her
marriage as a result of the frustration she feels towards her current situation, becoming
one of the main plots of the play. This situation awakens on her the sense of betrayal
and results in Emma’s feeling of desperation for any man and the need of validation.ç

Robert is Emma’s husband and Jerry’s best friend and the person who suffers their
betrayal. His life is based on oppositions since he works as a publisher, but hates
literature and he is the victim of the betrayal but at the same time he betrays. After
being aware of the situation of their marriage, characterized by its toxicity, and his
wife’s infidelity, he decides to do the same. However, his frustration leads to violence
and problems of communication.

Jerry works as a literary agent. He is very arrogant and egocentric since he believes
that he is a genius and possess no feelings of empathy. Moreover, he believes that he
is a good manipulator and is somehow proud of it. But actually, he is the character that
less know about the whole situation. Jerry’s ego makes him to be unable of knowing
the actual reality.
3. Does the plat follow the general dramatic conventions of realism?

All the elements are realistic except chronology because it starts in ultima res. The
story is told backwards. In that sense, it is very experimental.

In general terms, the play can be considered as a realistic play since all its elements,
except time are realistic and mimic reality. Furthermore, the main topics, i.e., love,
betrayal and the complexities of human behavior further contributes to the realistic
tone. The characters, settings, and rest of the elements are believable leading this
work to follow the typical realistic conventions, except chronology. Time does not fit
these conventions as the story starts with its ending (in ultima res novel).

Time is presented reversed breaking the temporal conventions of realism. This

conception and presentation of time represents the individuals’ personal time
conception. By doing this, the author presents and analyzes the intricacy of the
characters’ interactions and how time can change our perceptions of reality and
actions. Moreover, it also emphasizes the way in which characters may manipulate,
control and device each other portraying relationships’ main problems including
deception and infidelity.

4. Dramatic structure

Scene 5  turning point because Emma confess and Robert affirms his suspicious
ideas. There is no way back.

One act play  It creates temporal disorientation  when the affair started? Characters
motivations?

The play is divided into nine scenes, without explicitly stating a number of acts.
Changes in scene mark either a change in time or a change in location, and usually
also a change in the characters that intervene (but not necessarily).

As such, the play does not follow the classical models of three-act or five-act structure,
but only one act. In the same way, it is highly innovative in that it does not adjust to
Freytag’s pyramid (exposition, initial incident, rising action, climax, falling action,
resolution and dénouement). Even though the elements are present, they are
introduced in reverse. The characters are not introduced at the beginning of the play by
providing background information on their characteristics, features and setting. On the
contrary, the first scene shows Emma and Jerry years after their affair has ended, and
readers build up the missing knowledge by hints to previous situations that are talked
about by the characters. The exposition, which should provide the audience with
background information about the characters’ motivations, is not introduced until the
very last scene where Jerry declares his love for Emma.

Dramatic structure cannot be considered conventional, but rather experimental,

because the timeline is presented in reverse. Even though most aspects of the play
could be defined as realistic, the audience might feel very shocked with a play that
starts at the end. For this reason, the consequences of certain actions are introduced
before the causes are presented, so that readers get the impression that the logics of
causality are not being followed. This kind of structure creates gaps in comprehension
that force the audience to keep reading in order to fill them up and get a sense of
completion.

5. Chronology

Time gaps between scenes are relevant because the story goes back in time instead of
forward (reverse chronological order), and also because they cover different time
periods. The play has an in ultima res beginning, meaning that it starts with the ending
and prompts readers to question “how did it happen?”.

The first two scenes occur on the same day in 1977, so that the time gap between
them is minimal. Scene three occurs two years before (1975) and scene four one year
before (1974). Scenes five, six and seven occur in summer 1973. Scene eight occurs
two years before (1971) and scene nine occurs three years before (1968). As it is
obvious, there is no correspondence between story time and discourse time, since the
overall fictive time covers eleven years. For that purpose, ellipsis and speeding-up
mechanisms are necessary.

All these features render the chronological sequence of the play unsmooth. The
differences in time gaps between scenes causes the rhythm to be unstable, and
produces in the reader a sense of crisis in the reconstruction of the past. Slowly, we
become aware that not only Emma and Jerry but almost every character has betrayed
one another, whether in love or friendship.

6. Dramatic irony (the audience knows more than the characters or vice versa)

This phenomenon is going to appear in moments when the audience has more
foreknowledge about what has happened to the characters.

This is achieved by telling the story from the end to the beginning. So, we see the
importance of the secrets that are revealed through language.

Audience has more knowledge that Jerry has (about Robert knowing about the affair),
then we enjoy the situation.

Secrets are also important to keep the interest of the audience. Although we know that
it is about a betrayal and which one, we want to know when and how the affair started.
Why Robert has kept his secret for four years. It is about betrayal in general, not only
about Emma betrayal to Robert.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, dramatic irony is “a literary device by which the

audience’s or reader’s understanding of events or individuals in a work surpasses that
of its characters”. It is thus expressed through the structure of a work (and not through
its verbal elements), because “an audience’s awareness of the situation in which a
work’s characters exist differs substantially from that of the characters” (Encyclopaedia
Britannica). This causes the interpretation of the action to be different or contradictory
for the audience than it is for the characters in the play.

It could be stated that the readers’ interest in Betrayal relies on the fact that, as reading
advances, our knowledge is greater, equal or inferior to that of the characters, which
causes both tension and irony in the reading process. When the play begins, even
though readers still do not know anything about Emma and Jerry’s past, or how their
relationship developed, we soon discover that they had an affair that lasted seven
years. Right after that scene, Jerry confesses the affair to Robert, not being aware that
he actually learnt about it years ago while their friendship continued. Therefore, readers
are already prepared for scene five (summer 1973), in which Emma tells Robert about
the affair. This is a great example of the dramatic irony that characterises the play,
since readers already know how and when Robert found out about this betrayal and
are waiting for certain gaps in the storyline to be covered.

Another great example of dramatic irony is scene nine. This scene marks the beginning
of the plot, despite it being presented to the readers in the last scene of the play. As
Robert and Emma are hosting a party at their house, Jerry goes to the couple’s room
and waits for Emma in order to confess his love. It is in that moment when Robert
enters the room and fails to see the dynamics going on between his best friend and his
wife. Readers, having reached the final scene, are at a clear vantage point, not only
because they know that the affair is taking place, but because they have already
witnessed how the relationship would develop. As a result, the interest does not
depend so much on the moral content of the actions and words of the characters, but
rather on their power to hide, lie, conceal or intimidate each other.

7. To what extent does your foreknowledge of events (there is a love affair and a
character is betrayed) going to determine your interest in reading or watching
the play if you already know what happens with the three main characters almost
from the beginning? Why do we keep on reading/watching?

As mentioned above, the play starts in ultima res, so the audience or the readers
already know that Jerry and Emma had had an illicit affair for years and Robert knew
about it. Still, we are drawn to keep reading in order to understand the characters’
motivations and answer the questions “how did it happen?, when? and why?”, but also
because we do not fully believe the characters’ statements. As such, the reader’s or the
audience’s role changes from the expected traditional involvement in the story. We are
not interested in the story, but our attention is guided to focus on how meaning and
knowledge is constructed, and how we can hide as much as we reveal through
language. This is especially the case when we learn that Robert had been aware of the
infidelity for four years, which means that Emma had lied to Jerry. The unreliability of
the characters is also what keeps us reading/watching.

8: TENSION AND CLIMAX/CRISIS

Tension  concealment and revelation of secrets. The discovery of betrayal at several

levels.

Climax (Scene 5) when Robert discovers the affair, and his suspicion is confirmed by
Emma. He discovers it through a letter Jerry sent Emma to Venice.

SCENE 5: Robert sees Jerry’s writing on the envelop of the letter and also his address.
A letter only addressed to Emma in Venice. This confirms Roberts suspicion.
Robert starts criticising the Italian owners of the hotel. He emphasizes that they could
have been strangers, implying that he doesn’t know much about his wife which hurts
him. He feels they are not very close. Instead of accusing her and becoming mad at
her and directly asking her about the letter’s meaning, he says unpleasant things about
the post office. Deviating his anger form his wife to other people. Although he us a
victim, we realize he is very manipulative and that he is cooking his revenge.

Scene 2: another moment of tension (see below). Jerry was in a position of inferiority,
as Emma was in Scene 5.

Scene 7: Jerry and Robert meeting. Robert is angry at Jerry because he has being
rejecting him, claiming that Jerry is not good at his job as agent, not good at choosing
writers. At this point, Robert doesn’t know about the affair, but he feels that he has
been put aside.

 Playing squash  close relationship.

 Robert claims why Jerry has been avoiding him and Jerry feels guilty.

“What are you talking about”  implies that when people are talking angrily, they might
being talking about other thing. Jerry realises that Robert is very angry, and he is
talking about other thing.

Robert connects Emma and Jerry though their taste on literature, implying that both of
them are putting him aside, although he doesn’t know about the affair. He feels
abandoned by both of them. He knows they are avoiding him, but he doesn’t know the
reason.

At the end of this scene, Robert is not yet aware of the affair. Out of the blue, Jerry
asks about Emma which is an absurd question because he knows more about Emma
than Robert does. This is also a case of DRMAMTIC IRONY, because the audience
knows much more than Robert. Then, Robert answer “she’d love to see you”, which is
the true, but he is implying that they have been a long time without seeing each other,
when actually they see each other every afternoon.

It is the characters’ unreliability that mainly creates tension in the play. That is, the so-
called subtext, according to Stanislavsky. The subtext is a way of describing the
discrepancy between the spoken text and those motivations that result in particular
actions or behaviours on the part of a character. In Betrayal, we are unable to tell
whether the characters’ statements actually convey the truth of their feelings. For
example, Robert is perfectly calm when Emma avows her infidelity. The tension is
almost tangible through the pauses and silences during the conversation. Another case
in point is the end of Scene 7, when Jerry asks Robert “How is Emma?”. We know
Robert just found out that Jerry was having an affair with his wife, although Jerry does
not know it. Still, the question sends a jolt through the reader/audience, for we do not
know how Robert may react.

We could argue that there are many climatic moments during the play. The clearest
example could be the moment when Robert finds out that he has been betrayed and
Emma avows her affair with Jerry. Yet, Robert is not the only person who is betrayed in
the play. In fact, all characters could be said to be betrayed, so we could suggest these
revelations are moments of crisis and climax.

There is overt hostility among the characters, especially in scene 2, when both Robert
and Jerry are aware of the situation. Here, Robert’s social mask is left behind and he
no longer plays pretend to be in the dark about his wife’s infidelity. First, he downplays
the situation: “Well, it’s not very important, is it? Been over for years, hasn’t it?” (26),
although we can tell from the tag question that he is looking for actual confirmation that
the affair ended a long time ago. Later, we see how Robert starts getting on his nerves,
as Jerry thanks him for coming to see him: “Oh, for God’s sake! Look, what exactly do
you want to say?” (27). This is a clear example of how characters are tentative in the
use of language, not being straightforward in order to test other’s emotional
boundaries.

Then, when Jerry finds out that Robert had known it for years, he also gets upset to the
point of insulting Robert (“bastard”). Their friendship had been based on a lie: “J: I was
your best friend; R: Well, yes, sure” (30). Finally, they are no longer trying to be friendly
or, at least, cordial, to each other, but we see Jerry boasting about his spending time
with Emma: “I lived with her. […] Sometimes, very long [afternoons]. For seven years”
(34).

9. Language. Is the dialogue complex? Is it realistic? Focus your attention on act

1. What is the role of question tags in scene 1? As for the pauses between Jerry
and Emma, how do you interpret them? What is the role of silence and pauses?

LANGUAGE  use of small talks to avoid talking about important issues.

- Suggests lack of intimacy

- Evade delicate issues
- Banal superficial, a sort of mask  not showing their true self.
- Common with stranger and acquaitances  tentativem tactful, distant. It
reveals meaningless of communication, lack of confidence.

How it is used

- Used to conceal real motivations and emotions.

- What is going on their mind is impossible to retrieve. It is up to interpretations.

THE SILENCE OF SPEECH

- Silences and pauses:

o Intense emotions being suppressed: shame, guilty, regret, reproach.
o Silence gives the characters time to think: a stratagem to take revenge,
to offend, to create uncertainty uneasiness. They can connect things.
- Use of language to protect their nakedness: to protect themselves, to hide their
weakness.
- Human alienation  language is not only an instrument to communicate but to
disconnect people.

MICRO-LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
  Present: confrontation I vs. You  reproachful and detached mood
 Past: use of “we”  willingness to be together.

Dialogues are deceptively simple, for language is not convoluted nor elaborated on the
surface. Indeed, responses are usually short (one or two lines), characterised by the
use of simple sentences. Yet, characters’ statements are not reliable, which forces the
reader/audience to read between the lines, thereby complicating the understanding of
dialogues. As McEvoy contends, “the characters’ dialogue is full of digressions,
evasions and contradictions, to the extent that the drama of this play occurs at the
micro-level of syntax, through subtext, ellipses and pauses, rather than at the macro-
level of plot revelations, climaxes and resolutions.” (McEvoy, Betrayal)

Betrayal can be conceived as a realistic play and, as such, language is orchestrated

accordingly. Indeed, one of the aspects that is conveyed through language is the
difficulty of opening and having truthful conversations between people. Likewise, it is
realistic because it clearly reflects people’s actual behaviours in real-life situations: the
insecurities, the awkwardness, the lies, the anger, the escalating hostility. For example,
in scene 1, Emma and Jerry resort to contained statements, the repetition of questions
and answers as part of a linguistic game of tentative self-exposure. They are testing
each other’s feelings, even though they do not know whether they want to be told the
truth, for they feel vulnerable to rejection or indifference.

This linguistic game is clearly seen in the use of question tags. Indeed, they play two
main roles. First, they may display the characters’ surprise upon a previous statement
that they were not expecting, as we see for example in scene 1, page 7:

EMMA: How’s Sam?

JERRY: You mean Judith.

EMMA: Do I?

In these cases, the person throwing the question tag may see it as an opportunity for
the other person to retract from their word or change their opinion. See, for instance,
the end of scene 1, when Emma contends that “It’s all gone”, to which Jerry replies: “Is
it? What has?” (22-23). Second, question tags also serve as a confirmation of the
characters’ own statement. That is, when characters are looking for a confirmation of
what they have just said. This is a strategy that helps guide and orchestrate the
conversation in a particular way. A case in point is seen in scene 1, page 12:

JERRY: She doesn’t know about us, does she?

EMMA: Of course not.

Or even in scene 1, page 21, when Jerry tells Emma: “You didn’t tell Robert about me
last night, did you?”

As for the silences and pauses, they clearly display the characters’ feeling of
awkwardness in such a situation. They have not seen each other for a while, they used
to be lovers who cheated on their respective partners. It is even implied that Charlotte
may be Jerry’s daughter instead of Robert’s. Yet, they no longer know what to say, how
to behave, or how they feel about each other, whether they still love each other or not,
so they are trying to figure it out. The pauses are also important, for they allow the
reader/audience to understand that not everything is being said, but most of their actual
thoughts are kept hidden, so that the silence stands for what is not being said.

As such, Betrayal has been analysed as a meta-theatrical and meta-linguistic play, for
it makes readers/audience think about how meaning is constructed and about how the
same statements and the same words can have different meanings and interpretations
depending on the context, the characters, and the knowledge we have about them.
This play underlines the power of language to say or hide the truth, to conceal secrets,
to seduce or harm, to threaten and even to intimidate.

10. Are there statements and questions that could be interpreted in different
ways depending on the knowledge of the situation each character has? Do
characters use language to reveal or to conceal information and emotions? Do
they manipulate or punish others by what they say or keep hidden or unsaid?
Find examples of both in scenes 2 (Robert and Jerry) and 3 (Jerry and Emma).

As explained above, the characters in Betrayal do not use language as a means of

communication, but rather as a way to conceal and protect themselves. Language is
thus used as a weapon in a game of information in which the character that reveals
less and coaxes more from their contenders “wins” the conversation. The play’s
particular structure, beginning in ultima res, lets the readers/watchers enter this game
of meaning construction, since by witnessing the events that lead to the second scene
of the play and the last meeting between Jerry and Robert, we are given a taste of the
subtext that permeates the texts. This subtext adds levels of meaning to some of the
characters’ interventions, which at first sight seem deceptively simple and
straightforward. Essentially, these lines of dialogue have different interpretations
depending on the information that the reader/watcher knows. Even though we can
encounter them throughout the play, they are especially abundant in scenes depicting
hostile and tense conversations.

In scene 2, Jerry and Robert meet after the former learns that his friend is aware of his
affair with Emma. What he does not know, however, is that Robert actually realised
years ago, and has “maintained” ever since an emotionally distant form of friendship
with Jerry.

Jerry opens the conversation with an ambiguous line that reflects how out-of-sync they
are, thanking him for coming: “I know it was difficult […] the kids…” (24). But what was
difficult exactly? The ambiguity of the personal pronoun precludes us (and Robert) from
knowing what Jerry exactly refers to. At that point in the play, we are led to believe that
what Robert might have found difficult is facing his best friend again after learning of
his betrayal. However, we soon discover that Robert did not interpret his statement in
this way, since he has known for years. Similarly, Jerry’s question whether “[Robert]
had found someone” has different readings: while he is referring to a caretaker for his
children, Robert might be thinking about the people he has been seeing, and answers
with a startled “what?” (24).

This push and pull game is not the only particularity we can find in this conversation:
Robert refuses Jerry’s awkward attempts to come clean appearing nonchalant, keeping
his friend at arm’s length at an emotional level by stating that “[Jerry and Emma’s]
relationship is not very important [and] it had been over for years” (26). Even though he
is not sure of the later (he adds a tag question to prod him for information), his first
comment could be considered a slight towards Jerry since it downplays his past
relationship. Robert does not let Jerry speak, interrupting him and setting the rhythm of
the conversation, changing topics when Jerry makes him feel vulnerable, e.g. by
blurting he has known the truth for years (28), mentioning a writer they both know when
Jerry utters another ambiguous sentence, “we used to like each other” (34) (does “we”
stand for Emma and him or Robert and him?), or asking Jerry about his holiday plans
after he unknowingly reminds him of the day he discovered the affair.

The conversation in scene 3 is no less tense, even if the reader/watcher is now

prepared for it: Emma ends things with Jerry in their apartment. She makes apparent
their lack of connection since the start of the scene, when she interrupts him, refusing
to listen to him. Afterwards, she disagrees with his guess that they had not been in the
apartment since summer: “It was actually extremely cold. It was early autumn” (39).
Her adjective of choice, “cold”, could also be interpreted as a remark about the state of
their relationship at that time. Both try to emphasize their sacrifices. Jerry focuses on
his situation at first, saying that “[he] has a family”, which Emma reads as implying that
hers is less important for her, that she has not as much at stake. But she “has a family
too” (41). This response triggers Jerry in turn, who chooses then to focus on Robert. “I
might remind you that your husband is my oldest friend” (42). Again, Emma
understands this seemingly overly polite comment as a provocation. None of them
want the other to know about their real feelings and thoughts, and so they cross
questions and accusations until she changes topics. She directs her attention to the
matter at hand, “can you afford… to keep it going, month after month?” (43). We are
encouraged to resolve the pronoun’s ambiguity by her following intervention, since she
refers to the flat, but the question remains whether she was actually testing him about
ending things in an indirect way. It soon becomes clear she has decided to do so,
whereas he is still on the fence – he still loves her (44).

As stated above, language is a weapon for them and Jerry uses it to protect himself.
After Emma’s comment that their flat is “an empty home”, he attacks her by replying
that “it’s not a home” (43). “J: [He] saw it as a flat […]” E: For fucking” (44) Emma’s
response puts emotional distance between them, focusing on the fact that “there’s not
much of that [love] left” (44). He disagrees, revealing himself partly, but she refuses to
respond and changes topics.

She focuses then on the details of selling the flat, stating that “[she] has a home” (46,
added emphasis). Ironically, she states that “[they’ve] made absolutely the right
decision” (47) in interrupting their affair, refusing to acknowledge Jerry’s unstated
wishes.

11. Micro-linguistic analysis. Use of tense in 39-41. Compare scenes 1 and 8.

In order to understand the conflict between the characters and the key matters in the
play, it is necessary to look closely at the language employed by the characters. Basic
details about use of tense or pronouns are relevant, as they reveal information about
the subtext of the play, the characters, and their attitudes even when they use
language to conceal their thoughts and avoid being vulnerable. Scene 2 is particularly
interesting, as Emma and Jerry’s hostility and tension is reflected at the level of
morphology and syntax. This can be observed in page 39, when their use of the
present and past tense (aside from their adjective of choice, see question 10) is used
to reflect the state of their relationship and their unrealised intentions “E: It was actually
extremely cold; J: It’s pretty cold now” or “we were going to […]” (39, added emphasis).
“Things have changed” (40) between them, and so their bond and the focus on them as
a couple (“we”) is turned to each of them when they blame each other for the crumbling
of their liaison: “J: You have been so busy, your job, and everything”, “E: But look at the
times you’re out of the country” (40). After this tense exchange, both turn what they
have endangered with their affair, as it has been analysed above “J: […] I have a
family; E: I have a family too” (41). The schism between them is obvious at that point,
and their affair seems unsalvageable.

But the devolution of their relationship is best observed when comparing scenes 1 and
8, since they depict different moments in their relationship. In the former, they meet
again in a bar, two years after Emma breaks things. In the latter, which is set in 1971
during an early point in their affair, they converse in their flat. Their dialogue in the first
scene is stunted, they are uncomfortable and try to find words to fill up the many
silences between them. They struggle to communicate, unsure whether they actually
want to do so, since talking means being vulnerable. Both engage in small talk, as if
they were mere acquaintances. Breaking this carefully constructed script, minimizes
the distance separating them, and it is a sort of transgression for them. This is why
Jerry berates Emma when she does not comply with the expected courtesy of asking
about his wife (7-8). Both talk in circles, trying to pry into each other’s lives without
disclosing too much about themselves. When they do not want to breach any issue
(e.g. Robert) they make digressions and change topics. Despite this, Jerry seems more
“honest” than her at first: he asks her directly about her new lover, Casey, after beating
around the bush for some moments (15), dares to open himself admitting he thinks
about her (9) and even calls her darling (13). However, he refuses to admit he might be
jealous of Casey (17). Even though Emma first rejects his attempt at reconnection
(which hurts him), when she is sure he still thinks about her she admits she has done
the same (13). In turn, Jerry focuses on superficial details of her story rather than on
their former relationship, trying to downplay his feelings with statements like “love finds
a way” (21), by which he shifts the focus from himself: instead of acknowledging his
role by saying “I love(d) you”, he focuses on an external force. When we take into
account the eighth scene, at first glance it is obvious how at that point in their
relationship their tone is different, at least superficially. However, if we analyze their
dialogues we may conclude that they are not entirely in sync, acting guarded and
cautious around each other. They do not seem to really trust each other (109), and at
times their many silences are more communicative than their words. They also use the
same underhanded tactics to prompt the other to talk: Emma is incapable of breaching
topics directly, preferring to ask Jerry for his thoughts in a vague, indirect way before
daring to disclose her own (e.g. when asking him “[…] have you ever thought… of
changing your life?” in page 108). Jerry also avoids uncomfortable topics, like his own
feelings toward his wife, by employing the same technique of scene 1 and shifting the
focus from himself: his only explanation about not leaving his wife is that “she loves
[him]”, even though he concedes that he “adores” Emma, repeating it to convince her
of that fact (110). The extent to which they are alienated from each other is best seen,
when Emma reveals she is pregnant and Jerry congratulates her, stating “[he] is very
happy for [her]” (11). This obvious lie and his omission of his real thoughts is
reminiscent about the way they treat each other in the first scene. In the end, their
strategy to protect themselves from each other is what truly causes them to part ways,
since their inability to be honest and their fear of sharing his real thoughts is what eats
away at them in the end.

12. What is the role of memory in the play? Does it connect or separate
characters? Focus on scenes 1 and 2.

Role of memory

 Suggesting unreliability of memory  Several versions which suggests that

they remember in a selective way and what is important to them. Besides, they
remember other things but those are not important for them.
 Self-justification  How each person recollect their past in order to justify
themselves.

Memory plays a significant role in Harold Pinter’s Betrayal, creating a complex web of
connections and separations among characters. The play explores the nature of
memory and how it shapes relationship and ultimately leads to betrayal. In scenes 1
and 2, memories serve as a key element in the development of the plot, as characters
recount past events and their relationship with each other.

From the very beginning of the play, it becomes clear that strong ties of friendship exist
between Jerry and Robert, and Emma’s marriage to Robert does not impact their bond.
The characters recall past events such as the trip to Italy, revealing how memory
serves as a powerful catalyst for the play’s events. The recollection of the past creates
an intricate web of characters with different perspectives and opinions. Memory,
therefore, helps to connect characters, but at the same time, it also emphasizes their
disconnection due to the different meanings and interpretations attached to the same
events.

The opening scene of Betrayal uses memory to set the context of the play. The
dialogue between Emma and Jerry reveals how secretly, and for years, they carried on
an affair. The past, which is after all memory, slowly starts to unravel in the present,
and we get to see how different interpretations and emotions are attached to the same
event. Emma admits that she did not love Jerry when the affair started, but he was
more likeable than Robert, whom she describes as a bit pompous. Robert’s memory of
the events is different, indicating that he may have been aware of the affair for some
time. He suggests to Jerry that he has known about their relationship for nine years,
while Emma, who was involved in the affair, felt that it had gone unnoticed for years.

The different memories attached to the same events in scene one suggests that
memory is both a unifying and disjunctive element. While Emma and Jerry connect
over their shared memories, Robert’s exclusion from the affair serves as a significant
point of separation. Jerry’s memory of the events is different from Robert’s, and this
shift in perception gives the impression that betrayal has been going on for far longer
than Emma and Jerry’s physical relationship.

Scene two of the play exposes the fragility of relationships, with the characters’
memories serving as both a point of connection and separation. As Robert admits to
Emma that he knew about her affair with Jerry, and that he also had an affair during the
same time, the play shows how memory can be twisted and manipulated to produce
different perspectives of the same event. Robert’s response to Emma’s admission that
she betrayed him suggests that he is far more hurt by his best friend Jerry’s actions
than Emma’s. The revelation places Emma and Jerry on the same side, while Robert
stands alone.

In Betrayal, memory serves an essential role in creating the complex bonds between
characters. It serves to connect and separate characters throughout the play,
highlighting the differing perspectives and interpretations of each character of the same
event. Memory is a fundamental component of Pinter’s play, which deepens the
complexity of the relationships within the play and ultimately demonstrates the
consequences of betrayal.

13. Who is betrayed in the play? Is betrayal happening at several levels? Focus
on scene 8

 This play reveals that language is going to indicate that we are isolated, we fail to
communicate.

 Metadramatic theatre: a play about how people play roles in real life. For example,
Robert plays the role of the ignorant husband (although he is not), the prize of the
winning contestant, the dependent child. This kind of theatre teaches how the
conventions of acting can be taken to real life.

This play is a powerful exploration of the complexities of human relationships, and the
theme of betrayal permeates every aspect of the text. The play centres around the
triangle of Emma, her husband Robert, and his best friend Jerry. The play takes a non-
linear structure, with the story unfolding backwards in time, beginning with the end of
the affair between Emma and Jerry, and ending with the beginning of their illicit
relationship.

One of the central forms of betrayal in the play is the betrayal of trust between friends.
Jerry and Robert have known each other since college and have been close friends for
many years. However, Jerry’s affair with Emma slowly destroys their friendship. Jerry’s
betrayal of his friend is a profound one because it is a complete erosion of trust that
cannot be easily repaired.

Moreover, the play suggests that betrayal happens at multiple levels, often in subtle
ways that are difficult to identify. The relationship between Robert and Emma is not a
happy one, and the years of resentment and bitterness they have built up towards each
other are palpable. Emma’s affair with Jerry may be an overt form of betrayal, but
Robert’s neglect and indifference towards his wife may be just as damaging to their
relationship. Furthermore, Robert also confesses to Emma that he had also been
carrying on an affair with other woman for years.

Scene 7 is a crucial point in the play, as it marks the moment when the truth about the
affair finally comes out. In this scene, we see Jerry talking to Robert about his
relationship with Emma, unaware that Robert already knows the truth. Their
conversation is filled with dramatic irony, as the audience knows more than the
characters on stage. We see Robert’s pain as he struggles to contain his emotions and
hold back his anger, but we also see Jerry’s own sense of betrayal as he realizes the
depth of the damage he has caused. It is a powerful scene that captures the raw
emotion and complexity of the characters’ relationships, and it stands as a powerful
reminder of how easily trust can be broken in even the most intimate of relationships.

In scene 8, we get to know how the affair between Jerry and Emma is carried on at the
apartment where they spend the afternoons as a normal couple. Besides, the
conversation between the lovers gives us hints of a possible love affair between Judith
(Jerry’s wife) and one of her colleagues form the hospital where she works.
Furthermore, the betrayal also happens at the lover’s level, since, although Robert is
Emma’s husband, she got pregnant by Robert when Jerry was in America. Besides,
Emma also betrays Jerry’s trust on her when she did not tell him that Robert already
knew about their affair.

In conclusion, betrayal is a pervasive and complex theme in Harold Pinter’s play

Betrayal. The play explores the ways in which betrayal can happen at multiple levels,
from the open betrayal of trust between friends, to the subtle betrayals of one’s own
desires and values. Scene 8 is a powerful moment that captures the raw emotion and
complexity of the characters’ relationships and underscores the central role that
betrayal plays in the play. Pinter’s text is a powerful reflection on the complexities of
human interactions and the ways in which our desires and fears can lead us astray.

Casey is Emma’s new lover

SCENE 1: EMMA AND JERRY (1977)

Apparently, this is an ordinary situation where two friends meet on two cups of wine.

In general, Emma and Jerry are having a small talk. It is a tense and uncomfortable
situation because of the number of pauses.

It seems nothing relevant is going on, it is just a small talk. As it goes on, we learn
some details about their relationship, e.g., they are lovers.

They use pauses to think about what they are going to say next, so the conversation
doesn’t get uncomfortable. It also gives a sense of nostalgia, but we don’t really know.
They just keep filling those uncomfortable silence with small talks, with irrelevant
questions. They are trying to be evasive. They are evading unpleasant reason why they
broke up, why they haven’t seen each other for a long time. Thinking about ways of
using this conversation to help each other.
They are also resentful because Emma has found another person, another lover. She
has recovered from that break-up. Perhaps, Jerry is still in love with her; he rejects
having broken up and he wishes the relationship still going on.

Questions are replied with another question to avoid answering it. Avoiding giving
straight direct clear answers.

They are trying to approach each other, trying to know how the other reacts.

“How do you think is going?”  she is using the conversation in an strategic way to get
to disclose the feeling they feel for each other. Emma sounds ironic (as if Jerry didn’t
trust that she is doing well with the Gallery). Her attitude is not welcoming, but
rejecting, hostile way. She is defensive, she is not open to show what she really feels.
She is really satisfied with her present situation, although she doesn’t seem happy.

Talking about their professional life and their relative implies that they are trying to
avoid talking about the real issue: the end of their relationship and how they feel about
it. Besides, they cannot recover the same relationship they had.

Questions used to confirm if the information is right.

Jerry actually wants to ask her how is she doing, how is she feeling; but he instead
uses irrelevant questions because he is afraid of her answer.

Jerry expected agreement on an irrelevant detail but Emma 

Although it seems a very straightforward conversation, it actually hides a lot of

repressed emotions of contained feelings. In Emma’s case, we get that she is still
resentful and angry because she does not even agree with Jerry in small details.

Reminds to Waiting for Godot  use of stichomythia.

QUESTIONS TAGS  Answers mirroring each other, repeating the same  “why?” /
“why what”.

They are cancelling information about their true feelings.

Sudden changes of topics  with a purpose  change a topic with which someone is
feeling uncomfortable.

 Emma has divorced Robert and she feels uncomfortable talking about her
former husband. Then, she asks for Jerry’s son.

They are fighting verbally and they are trying to win the buttle by hurting each other.

They don’t follow the conventions for normal, coherent conversations.

“You remember the form. I ask about your husband and you ask about my wife”  It is
common that Jerry asks about Robert and Emma about Judith.

Basic conversation in a polite way.

CHILDREN  they were unfaithful to each other; it is another sort of betrayal. Then,
asking about their children is another way to hurt each other too.
  Ned’s five, isn’t he?  Asking Emma to remember when she betrayed him with
Robert. Emma is acknowledging that they are trying to avoid things that hurts
both of them.

PAUSES  after an uncomfortable statement, there is a pause. It also allows them to

think about something to hurt each other.

“I don’t need to think of you”  I’m always thinking about you.

SCENE 2: JERRY AND ROBERT

Who wins the match?

Main topic  how language can be manipulated to hurt other people. It can be use as
a tool to communicate, but also as a weapon to hurt other people.

Robert discloses that Emma has already told him about her affair with Jerry who gets
really nervous and guilty about having betrayed Robert.

Body language: avoiding looking at Robert when he asks him about what is the
problem.

For all these years, Jerry felt the strong one, the powerful one because he thought
Robert didn’t know about it. But he gets to know that Robert knew that since four years
ago.

Emma and Robert kind of betrayed Jerry because they didn’t tell him that Robert
already know about their affair. Jerry has been keeping the secret for four years during
their meetings.

Jerry’s attitude changed suddenly form a very apologetic mood to a very angry one.

Jerry liberates his tension and anger outside the room by telling his son to turn down
the music.

Robert is expressing his power through language, showing he is controlling the

conversation. Whereas Jerry is out of control. Robert has planned it to have his
revenge at that moment. ´

Robert continues with his revenge trying to make Jerry uncertain about Judith knowing
about their affair. Robert implies that Judith might know in order to hurt more Jerry. It
also implies that Judith might have also betrayed Jerry with another men.

Power of language to keep secrets and disclose those secrets just with the purpose of
hurting others.

Notice how Jerry insults Robert calling him bastard, since he feels that he is the one
who has been betrayed, when it was Robert the first one to be betrayed by them.

Robert never loses control of the conversation which implies he is having fun. This is
what he has been waiting for a long time: revenge.

Robert again using question to create the sense of uncertainty.

Jerry seems to think that Robert was being unfaithful, so he becomes the victim. He is
not the victim.

Not having played squash for years  betrayal

Casey doing well in writing because they are the agent and the editor, but at the same
time they are jealous of him being with Emma.

They are competing to show which one was closer to Emma giving examples of
moments they spent with her (Jerry spending the afternoons with her).

When they speak about Torcello, Robert already knows about the affair in that moment.

Yeats  he also wrote a lot about betrayal. They uses it again to hurt each other.