A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams was first published in 1947.

Despite having been written 76 years ago (at the date of this writing), it remains an
essential work that interrogates many aspects of human nature, lust, and frailty. This
play-by-play analytical guide will endeavor to explore and analyze key themes, events
and characters in order to provide readers with greater understanding of this classic
work. Further, it will include, but will not be limited to, analyses of what Williams was
attempting to convey about lustful desire, the animalism engrained within humanity,
the disparity of status, opportunity, and consequences experienced by women in
contrast to their male counterparts, and so forth. Just as Williams unflinchingly explored
the vile depths of malice, so too will this essay venture to decode the intentions of the
author, in addition to the grand implications readers are left with upon finishing this
most essential piece of writing.
 Scene One

At the outset of the first scene, Williams describes the physical surroundings
where this play will take place. Readers are informed that the French Quarter in New
Orleans is a place in which every dwelling is steps away from bars or clubs where
African American entertainers play a “’blue piano’ [that] expresses the spirit of the life which
goes on” there (3). Blues music, for those who are unaware, was “developed in the
southern United States after the American Civil War (1861–65). It was influenced by
work songs and field hollers, minstrel show music, ragtime, church music,”
(https://www.britannica.com/art/blues-music). This genre of music is soulful and
cathartic, often evoking sentiments of melancholy, hardship, and struggle in both the
performer and the audience, respectively. According to Williams, Blues music captures
the spirit of life in the French Quarter, a seemingly innocuous detail, yet one that
nonetheless cues readers in on the type of story that is about to unfurl. In other words,
the themes of struggle, hardship, and tragedy that are so pervasive in the musical genre
are certain to emerge in the play itself, hence this music serving as an unofficial score
that hazily lingers in the subtext of the entire play.

Stanley Kowalski is the first character to emerge in this scene, and Williams wastes
no time exploring a motif that will repeatedly arise throughout this play, which is that
of Stanley’s animalism. Stanley suddenly arrives home to Stella with meat acquired at
the butcher. Rather than bringing it into their home or at least handing it to her, Stanley
exclaims “Catch!”, and upon Stella’s confused question, “What?”, he simply answers,
“Meat!” (4). Stanley is introduced as a man who does not express himself with eloquence
or sophistication, instead opting for monosyllabic bursts of utilitarian sound. It should
also be noted that Stanley does not arrive home with food for his family in a fashion that
anyone would expect from a person who has just returned from buying groceries.
Stanley’s arrival with the “red-stained package” invokes the image of a predatory beast,
freshly returned from the hunt (4). In this exchange it should be noted that Stanley is not
a man of sentimentality, nor is he encumbered by social convention, he simply seems to
do as he wishes at all times. This matter will be revisited at length in subsequent
explorations of the aforementioned motif.
 Blanche’s introduction in the play occurs soon after Stanley’s, and Williams again
wastes no time by having her first seemingly innocuous piece of dialogue serve as a
massive foreshadow of her ultimate fate. Upon her shocked arrival to Stella’s
neighborhood, Blanche declares, “They told me to take street-car named Desire, and
transfer to one called Cemeteries and ride six blocks and get off at—Elysian Fields!”(6).
On the surface we have yet another piece of throw away dialogue, in this instance, one
about public transit. However, what we ultimately come to learn about Blanche
throughout the play demands that we revisit the aforementioned in search of the greater
depth intended by Williams. I would thus argue that beyond the literal, this dialogue
also conveys that Blanche is a passenger to her lustful desires, rather than in control of
them, and this fact ultimately results in her demise, hence her transfer to Cemeteries,
and her arrival at Elysian Fields, a destination whose namesake can be found in Greek
mythology, serving as a place “for the blessed dead, […where] entrance was gained by
a righteous life,” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elysium-Greek-mythology).
Thus we see that desire takes Blanche to a place of the dead, and the Elysian part of that
quote would appear to be a rather dark bit of irony, given that Blanche has not lived
what any reasonable person would call a ‘righteous life’. One also suspects that the
aforementioned dialogue is punctuated by an exclamation point because Blanche, upon
hearing herself pronounce the trajectory of her journey, senses the foreboding sentiment
invoked.

Williams also describes Blanche’s contrast with her surroundings as being

‘incongruous’ with the French Quarter, immediately setting her up as a ‘fish out of
water’ (5). Upon her arrival she is attired in a formal, all white outfit typically associated
with a formal tea gathering in the south. Blanche thus stands out in the working class
setting of Stanley and Stella’s neighborhood, and readers should expect her to clash both
aesthetically and in every other regard with the people who inhabit that area. This is of
course why Eunice immediately asks Blanche, “What’s the matter honey? Are you lost?”
(6).
 Blanche’s shocked arrival to the French Quarter deserves some explanation. Later
in the play it is revealed that Stella and Blanche grew up on a plantation that the family
called Belle Reve, a French term that means beautiful dream. This so-called beautiful
dream was a vast stretch of land where one suspects that the Dubois family once owned
slaves. Later at various junctures in the play, Blanche will make a few cryptic references
to various African American women that were in the family’s employ. In other words,
Blanche’s shocked arrival arises out of the fact that she has never before seen a
multicultural setting in which blacks and whites coexist occupying a similar rung of the
socioeconomic latter, so to speak (note that I’ve selected my words rather cautiously
here. While blacks and whites in the French Quarter occupied a similar socioeconomic
echelon in American society, it should not be overlooked that black life at this time
consisted of grave inequality at essentially every level). Further, just as the multicultural
backdrop is shocking to Blanche, so too is the fact that Stella has chosen to live in a
working class, rather than an upscale neighborhood, and further, that she rents, rather
than owns. All of this would have been entirely unheard of in Dubois family and social
sphere.

Eunice, Stella and Stanley’s upstairs friend and landlord, lets Blanche into her
sister’s home, and Blanche is appalled by the humble, dingy conditions. Blanche’s
revulsion at the state of the apartment is so evident and unabashed that Eunice
“defensively noticing Blanche’s look” is prompted to explain that the apartment, when it is
clean, is “real sweet” (8). Eunice, entirely oblivious to Blanche’s recent hardships, begins
to raise topics of conversation that cut right to the heart of the dramas that Blanche has
fled to New Orleans to escape. She asks Blanche about the plantation and her teaching
career, the fate of which are unknown at this time by all but Blanche. Upon dismissing
Eunice, Blanche sits down alone in the apartment, taking it in. The moment she spots a
bottle of whiskey, she springs to it immediately, pouring and consuming a tumbler. The
French Quarter, the people, the living conditions—all of these are shocking and stressful
to Blanche (10). It is after her freshly downed the tumbler of whiskey that we are offered
a first glimpse of Blanche’s fragile mental state when she says, “I’ve got to keep hold of
myself!” (10). She says this aloud because she is very much on the verge of losing hold
of herself. This will be further explored as her condition becomes more evident and
pronounced, but Williams from the beginning endeavors to demonstrate, with relative
subtlety at first, that Blanche has arrived to New Orleans as a broken, unwell woman.

Stella enters the apartment and is genuinely happy to see Blanche. Blanche, while
seemingly happy to see Stella, also wastes no time in offering Stella her unyielding
appraisal, while shying away from it herself, quickly demanding that Stella turn the
lights off so that she will not be seen in their “merciless glare” (11). This will be a motif
that arises throughout the play. The light should therefore be understood as the truth or
reality, hence why Blanche would rather be seen half lit in the shadows. We will revisit
quotes that speak to this motif later, but briefly, this links directly to some of the most
iconic dialogue of the play, including Blanche’s declarations that “a woman’s charm is
fifty percent illusion” (40) and that she does not tell the truth, but rather what “ought to
be the truth” (145). Blanche avoids the light because it is the light that will expose the
secrets that she is desperately attempting to conceal. Further, she also seems to
understand that were she subjected to the very scrutiny she targets Stella with, she
would fare as poorly as Stella. What I mean by this is that Blanche has arrived attempting
to convey the notion that she remains a woman of elevated status, hence the formal
attire, hence the shock at Stella’s neighborhood and home, and so forth. However, one
suspects that gazing upon Blanche in the so-called ‘merciless glare’ would reveal not
only that she is unwell, but also that she is not at all what she pretends—otherwise she
would not need to be her sister’s guest to begin with.

Blanche’s aforementioned unyielding appraisal is offered on the heels of their

heartfelt greeting as she declares, “I thought you would never come back to this horrible
place!” (11). She goes on to liken Stella’s living conditions to those of an Edgar Allan
Poe’s writings (12), before noting that Stella has put on weight, still unaware that Stella
is pregnant (11). What we should therefore note is that while Blanche has no
apprehension to cast the merciless glare of truth upon everyone else, she dramatically and
concertedly evades it herself. She denies Stella the illusions and fantasy that she
evidently expects Stella to grant her.

Despite knowing exactly where the alcohol is, having already served herself a
drink, Blanche pretends to have no clue where Stella keeps it, “Open your pretty mouth
and talk while I look around for some liquor! I know you must have some liquor on the
place! Where could it be, I wonder?” (11). Blanche’s impulse is to lie, even when she has
no cause to. She pretends to find the whiskey, assuring Stella, “Now don’t get worried,
your sister hasn’t turned into a drunkard, she’s just all shaken up and hot and tired and
dirty!” (12). Blanche’s insistence on lying unnecessarily about her alcohol consumption
suggests that she is indeed a ‘drunkard’. Also note that Blanche claims to be dirty in the
latter piece of dialogue. This will mark the beginning of the motif of Blanche being dirty
and constantly in need of cleansing.

Sensing a shift in the fleeting mood of gaiety, Blanche says to Stella, as her glass
trembles in hand, “You’re all I’ve got in the world, and you’re not glad to see me!” (13).
Blanche has very directly told Stella that she has lost everything but their relationship,
yet Stella persists in her indifference. Blanche also tries to create an opening in the
conversation that would allow Stella to inquire about the fate of her teaching career, to
which Stella replies, “I thought you’d volunteer that information—if you wanted me to
know,” (13). Stella demonstrates no interest in Blanche, no concern for her wellness, no
notice of Blanche’s spastic, erratic manner of speech and conduct, so Blanche simply
launches into a series of fabrications to offer appeasement for a concern that was never
actually offered. Fishing for a compliment, Blanche mentions that Stella has yet to
comment on her appearance, and the most Stella can offer is the rather bland, “You look
just fine,” (14). Blanche’s retort to the half-hearted compliment is a complete rejection,
as she declares in reference to herself, that “[d]aylight never exposed so total a ruin!”
(14). If Stella had not been woefully (or perhaps willfully?) oblivious to Blanche; the
excessive drinking, Blanche’s manic shifts in mood and tone, the vividly disconcerting
putdowns of herself, and so forth, she might have aroused the concern due under the
circumstances. Instead, what we see is complete disinterest. The reasons for Stella’s
disinterest are never further explored, though she does later vaguely refer to dramas
that Blanche was responsible for throughout their youth. It seems likely that Blanche has
always been a melodramatic person, whose wellness was in question on a multitude of
occasions. In other words, perhaps what we might be inclined to interpret as callousness
in Stella is simply a blasé response to a continuum of behaviors and tendencies that she
has been exposed to throughout her life.

In quick succession Stella informs Blanche of the undignified conditions under

which she will be living during her visit; she will have no privacy when sleeping,
apparently sleeping in an anteroom through which Stanley and Stella must traverse at
night in order to use the bathroom. She will be sharing a living space with Stanley, a
Polish person, which in and of itself is an innocuous detail until you take Stella and
Blanche’s breeding into account (16). Both women were raised and indeed trained to
navigate only the most homogenous of settings and people. They spent their lives
around people whose ancestry and social standing were akin to their own. Stanley’s
being Polish is an issue not because there is an issue with Polish people, so much as there
is an explicit aversion to people and cultures that were perceived to be inferior to their
own genteel origins.

Here is a far more detailed explanation of the social setting and customs from
whence Blanche and Stella emerged:

“During the antebellum years, wealthy southern planters formed an elite master class
that wielded most of the economic and political power of the region. They created their
own standards of gentility and honor, defining ideals of southern white manhood and
womanhood and shaping the culture of the South. To defend the system of forced labor
on which their economic survival and genteel lifestyles depended, elite southerners
developed several proslavery arguments that they levied at those who would see the
institution dismantled,” (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-
ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/wealth-and-culture-in-the-south/).
 Despite the fact that the antebellum era in the south occurred between 1783-1862,
it is nonetheless relevant to the play, according to https://the-take.com/read/how-
does-aa-streetcar-named-desirea-serve-as-a-requiem-for-the-old-south;

Throughout the 19th century, an ostentatious society of plantation owners dominated

the American south. As the first half of the 20th century progressed and the pre-Civil
War era became an increasingly distant memory, a societal evolution rocked the world
views of these genteel yet outdated folks, while industrialization and immigration
became key drivers of the American social landscape. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
famously embodies the clash of these two cultural worlds in its conflict between two
characters, Blanche (Vivien Leigh) and Stanley (Marlon Brando).

Blanche embodies the image and ideals of the Old South, while Stanley is a Polish
immigrant’s son, born in America, employed as a factory worker, and steadfastly
contributing to the demise of the aristocratic southern lifestyle Blanche represents. In the
middle is Stella (Kim Hunter), Blanche’s sister and Stanley’s wife, who was raised in the
same setting as Blanche but took to the changing times and married Stanley despite his
lower social rank. The film is set in late 1940’s New Orleans, a diverse and modern
society in the New South where Stanley thrives and Blanche, quite literally, loses her
mind.

Immigrants are the foundation of the United States, but Blanche harbors resentment
about them and fosters antiquated ideals and pretensions about the social elite. By the
time period of A Streetcar Named Desire’s setting, many people considered Americans
to be Americans despite where they came from, and the number who shared Blanche’s
romanticized attachment to the Old South was dwindling.

TheatreFolk, discussing this very topic explains it thusly;

“This play is very much about the symbolic clash between old versus new and past
verses present. Whether that’s Old America versus New America, old south versus new
south, the dying aristocratic class versus the rising industrial working class, or imagistic
pastoral sensitive past versus harsh straightforward brutal present. In all of these
examples, Blanche and Stanley act as representatives of their respective sides. Blanche
is all about the past. We learn about her past, the fake version and then the real. Stanley
has no past. We know he was a soldier, but that’s it. He is always in the moment,
consistently present. Everything we know is what we see in front of us. Whatever the
clash, there is a clear victor in Stanley: A new industrial straightforward harsh America
rises to the top. I wouldn’t necessarily say that Stanley wins the battle but he’s certainly
the victor,” (https://the-take.com/read/how-does-aa-streetcar-named-desirea-serve-
as-a-requiem-for-the-old-south).
 While it is informative and entirely relevant to analyze this clashing of worlds and
ideals, my preoccupation is to narrow the focus of my analysis from the macro to the
micro more often than not. I am especially interested to analyze the implications one
might derive from examining the interpersonal dynamics amongst characters. If we
constrict analysis to examine the characters as embodiments of the antebellum era and
present day (1940s) America, it seems to me that a great deal of nuance is lost in the
process. My goal is thus not to contradict nor to disagree with all that has been
thoughtfully written about the play. Rather, it is my goal to contribute yet another
perspective that might add to the preexisting tapestry of ideas that currently exist.
Finally, you have likely by now noticed that this writing is not structured like a
traditional essay. This is of course, not an accident. It is my intention to offer a ‘play-by-
play’ analysis as it happens in the play.

As Stella continues to acquaint Blanche with her new surroundings, it is not long
before the conversation shifts yet again to Stanley Kowalski. At first Stella vaguely states
that “you can’t describe someone you’re in love with,” which is rather a ponderous thing
to say (18). It would seem that being in love and married to a person, no less, would
actually enable one to be extremely descriptive about the person in question, perhaps
above all others. As it turns out, I suspect this is an embarrassed, though limp-wristed
attempt at evasion. Stella knows well enough that the defining characteristics of Stanley
Kowalski, those that draw her to him, are of the basest sort, and are predicated primarily
by lust. This becomes evident when she begins explaining Stanley’s work schedule to
Blanche. It turns out that Stanley travels for work, and is thus often not home. Blanche’s
first reaction to this fact is relief, yet again shedding light upon what married life had
apparently meant in her mind. A husband, evidently, is one to be evaded, if not dreaded.
Thus, any leave a husband might take would be seen as a respite of sorts. Stella,
however, quickly remedies Blanche’s misapprehension, explaining, “I can hardly stand
it when he’s away for a night…When he’s away for a week I nearly go wild! […] And
when he comes back I cry on his lap like a baby,” (19). The intended implication here is
that Stella has an insatiable sexual lust for Stanley, and that any disruption to satiating
the aforementioned lust is torturous for her.

Blanche next launches into a verbose, yet convoluted monologue concerning the
fate of Belle Reve (21-22):

I, I, I took the blows in my face and my body! All of those deaths! The long parade to the
graveyard! Father, mother! Margaret, that dreadful way! So big with it, it couldn't be put in a coffin! But had to be burned
like rubbish! You just came home in time for the funerals, Stella. And funerals are pretty compared to deaths. Funerals are
quiet, but deaths--not always. Sometimes their breathing is hoarse, and sometimes it rattles, and sometimes they even cry
out to you, "Don't let me go!" Even the old, sometimes, say, "Don't let me go." As if you were able to stop them! But funerals
are quiet, with pretty flowers. And, oh, what gorgeous boxes they pack them away in! Unless you were there at the bed
when they cried out, "Hold me!" you'd never suspect there was the struggle for breath and bleeding. You didn't dream, but
I saw! Saw! Saw! And now you sit there telling me with your eyes that I let the place go! How in hell do you think all that
sickness and dying was paid for? Death is expensive, Miss Stella! And old Cousin Jessie's right after Margaret's, hers! Why,
the Grim Reaper had put up his tent on our doorstep!... Stella. Belle Reve was his headquarters! Honey--that's how it slipped
through my fingers! Which of them left us a fortune? Which of them left a cent of insurance even? Only poor Jessie—one
hundred to pay for her coffin. That was all, Stella! And I with my pitiful salary at the school. Yes, accuse me! Sit there and
stare at me, thinking I let the place go! I let the place go? Where were you! In bed with your--Polack!

Blanche suddenly shifts the topic of conversation. On the surface it seems as

though Belle Reve is entirely unrelated to what was previously being discussed.
However, upon closer examination, Stella’s lust for Stanley and the loss of Belle Reve
are inextricably linked. It begins with Blanche cryptically explaining that she was
abandoned by Stella, and was left to manage the plantation and their family obligations
alone, apparently fighting, bleeding, and nearly dying in order to honour said
obligations (20). As she continues to elaborate, it is more or less explained that one family
member after another died penniless, leaving Blanche with the burden of paying for
funerals and managing the plantation alone (21). Sensing that Stella holds her
responsible for the loss of Belle Reve, Blanche declares, “Yes, accuse me! Sit there and
stare at me, thinking I let the place go! I let the place go? Where were you! In bed with
your—Polack!” (22). So what is the link between Stella’s apparent insatiable lust for
Stanley and the loss of Belle Reve? The answer to this question can be found in Scene
Two, when Blanche explains to Stanley how it is that the plantation slipped through her
fingers, “our improvident grandfathers and father and uncles and brothers exchanged
the land for their epic fornications […] The four-letter word [lust] deprived us of our
plantation,” (44). When examined together, Blanche’s words suggest that she sees Stella
as no less culpable than the improvident patriarchs of the family, who traded the
plantation, piece by piece, for their so-called ‘epic fornications’. Hence her accusation
that Stella was pursuing sexual gratification with Stanley, rather than assisting with the
family obligations. The full breadth of the accusation Blanche is levelling at Stella can
only come to be grasped when the implications of the aforementioned quotes are
considered alongside one another.

The accusatory exchange between the sisters is suddenly punctuated by Stella

fleeing in tears to the bathroom (22). Do note that Stella at no point refutes the accusation
levelled at her. One suspects that the aforementioned accusation, were it not true, would
be grounds for a heated exchange, if not an outright denial. Further, based on her
conduct for the remainder of the play, Stella never denies Blanche’s accusation because
it is of course true.

Stanley arrives home as an exchange between himself, Steve and Mitch is

underway. The dynamic of the exchange clearly depicts Stanley as the alpha of the
group. He dictates to his friends what their plan will be, and in whose home those plans
are to take place. The animalistic motif involving Stanley emerges yet again, not just
through the aforementioned behavior, but also when the stage directions describe his
movement and character as a whole thusly, “Stanley throws the screen door of the kitchen
open […] Animal joy in his being is implicit in all his movements and attitudes. Since earliest
manhood the center of his life has been pleasure with women, the giving and taking of it, not with
weak indulgence, dependently, but with the power and pride of a richly feathered male bird among
hens. Branching out from this complete and satisfying center are all the auxiliary channels of his
life, such as his heartiness with men, his appreciation of rough humor, his love of good drink and
food and games, his car, his radio, everything that is his, that bears his emblem of the gaudy seed
bearer. He sizes women up at a glance, with sexual classifications, crude images flashing into his
mind and determining the way he smiles at them,” (25). This portrait of Stanley is extremely
informative, because it repeatedly and at length blurs the boundaries between animal
and man. He is depicted as a hedonistic alpha whose main concerns and preoccupations
are all entirely surface level, and largely sexual or reproductive as they relate to women.
The latter portion of the passage becomes more ominous in tone as readers are offered
greater insight into the manner in which Stanley’s mind functions. It is seemingly his
nature to mentally sexualize women in the most lurid of manners upon meeting them.

At this point I want to address the motif of Stanley’s animalization in greater

depth. Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to animals, and its
opposite is dehumanization, which consists of attributing animal qualities to a person,
often with pejorative intent. Taking these respective definitions into account, it does not
strike me as accurate to suggest that Williams intends to dehumanize Stanley. There is
no debate that Stanley is depicted in a fashion that is disturbing and unsettling due in
no small part to his unyielding aggression, his seemingly bottomless well of malicious
intent, and his complete lack of sentimentality, among other things. However, rather
than Stanley’s depiction being pejorative in nature, which strikes me as a facile
conclusion, particularly when considering the play as the complex, multifaceted whole
that it is. In other words, Williams designed Stanley to serve as a critical exploration of
a certain potential in every man (This discussion is intentionally gendered, though it will later
and separately be pursued with a focus on the female characters). As such, he proposes an
understanding of what it means to be human that deviates from narratives that suggest
humans are superior life forms, or creatures whose origins are not firmly rooted in the
bestial. Stanley is the embodiment of what emerges when a person invests no effort to
mitigate their more bestial traits, instead opting to embrace them. Stanley exploits the
civility of those around him, because while they are constrained by the parameters of
civil society, he simply rejects that paradigm and flourishes as everyone else in his midst
remains civil, even in the presence of his most brutal moments. It might perhaps be the
case that through Stanley, Williams is suggesting that in each person the remnants of
our bestial past are neither as miniscule nor as obscure as some might like to believe.
Thus, it is within each person’s capacity to be a Stanley Kowalski, and it is only through
the exertion of sheer will that such traits do not surface. Therefore, Stanley as a character,
is an exploration of what we become in the absence of the will to mitigate the bestial
tendencies that are never so far from the surface to begin with. Rather than being
pejorative, Stanley’s depiction is simply an exploration of what arises when one sheds
or rejects the encumbrances of civilization and society.

Stanley and Blanche appear to meet for the first time, and awkward conversation
ensues (25-26). In the midst of their small talk, Stanley removes his shirt (26), invoking
the previous description of his resembling a “richly feathered male bird among hens,” (24).
He removes his shirt because he needs to display the so-called rich feathering in the way
of his physique. Soon after, animal imagery is yet again invoked as a “cat screeches near
the window,” causing Blanche to spring up (27). Williams was foreshadowing that a
vicious conflict akin to a cat fight would at some point occur.
 The scene closes with Stanley, evidently uninformed about Blanche’s past,
inquiring about the fact that she was once married. Blanche’s reaction to the question is
peculiar, as it triggers her to become nauseous to the point of nearly vomiting (28).

Discerning readers should be left with a series of questions about Blanche by the
end of scene one. These questions include:

1. Why is Blanche, a high school teacher, available to take a seemingly open-ended vacation in the
midst of the school year?

2. What specifically happened to Belle Reve? How did a plantation ‘slip through Blanche’s
fingers’?

3. What happened with Blanche’s late husband that causes her to become sick at his mere
mention?

4. What happened in Blanche’s life that has caused her to feel dirty and in need of drinks and
bathing?

Answers to the above questions will arise throughout the remainder of the play.
 Scene Two

Scene two opens with Stanley first expressing his disdain for Blanche and the fact
that the ladies will leave the apartment so the men can play poker undisturbed (29). It
also seems that Stella was hoping to prevent Blanche from witnessing the way that
Stanley and his friends conduct themselves at such gatherings, “I’m going to try to keep
Blanche out till the party breaks up because I don’t know how she would take it,” (29).
The contrast between how the Dubois family and Kowalski’s social circle entertain and
conduct themselves would be extreme, superficially, to say the least. The irony, of
course, is that Stella is attempting to shield Blanche from seeing something that they
have both already seen in their own family. Readers soon learn this fact towards the end
of the scene when Blanche explains to Stanley that Belle Reve was lost “piece by piece,”
due to the ”epic fornications” of their “improvident grandfathers and father and uncles
and brothers,” (44). In other words, while Blanche is certain to judge Stanley and his
social circle for their conduct, it would be yet another act of sheer hypocrisy on her part.
What this further suggests is that despite the fact that the Dubois family might have
dressed better and lived in superior conditions, in addition to ‘epically fornicating’ on a
more sizable budget, once you peel away the façade that distinguishes the southern elite
from the working class New Orleans immigrant, there is very little that distinguishes
them from one another in reality. This very fact will be further reinforced later in the
play once Blanche’s secrets are exposed, in addition to the undeniable parallels that exist
between Stanley and Blanche. In sum, it is pure snobbery and illusion that cause people
to assume that any true distinction exists between the elite and the working class, or the
traditional versus the more cosmopolitan values of the new, big city based America.
Williams seems to be suggesting the old values and the new ones are little more than
aesthetic variations on an enduring theme.

Scene two marks the first of many occasions that Blanche will be depicted as
retreating to the bathroom to cleanse herself and quell her nerves (29). This will be
addressed at length in later passages.

While nearly the entirety of this scene consists of Stanley seeking an explanation
of what actually happened to Belle Reve, it should not be overlooked that it is Stella who
caused Stanley to seek answers from Blanche on this matter (30).

Stella: Stan, we’ve—lost Belle Reve!

Stanley: The place in the country?
Stella: Yes.
Stanley: How?
Stella: Oh, it had to be—sacrificed or something […]
The fate of Belle Reve was not a concern of Stanley’s until Stella brought it to his
attention, highlighting the vague, cryptic nature of Blanche’s answer. Knowing Stanley
to any extent, Stella would have understood how he was likely to respond to learning
such news. Thus, Stella intentionally aroused Stanley’s curiosity and ire with the goal of
directing it toward Blanche. Did Stella lack the courage to seek a more clear, direct
answer from Blanche? Did Stella implicate Stanley in this matter as an act of revenge?
It's reasonable to assume that Stella was upset with Blanche for a variety of reasons, with
their exchange toward the end of scene one being only the most recent example. During
their suddenly emotional and intense exchange, Blanche accused Stella of abandoning
both her and family obligations that should have been shared by the sisters. Blanche’s
accusatory monologue is punctuated by accusing Stella of evading all responsibility in
favor of being “[i]n bed with your—Polack!” (22) While readers can only speculate as to
Stella’s motivation for bringing this matter to Stanley’s attention, there can be no doubt
that Stella understood Stanley’s intervention was certain to be aggressive, since that is
characteristic of how he does everything.

The implications of the fate of Belle Reve gradually dawns on Stanley as the scene
continues; if Blanche has ‘lost’ Belle Reve, that means it is lost to Stella too. Losing Belle
Reve, ‘the place in the country’ as Stanley refers to it, means a significant loss of money.
Suddenly, Stanley starts to care. Suddenly, Stanley is a legal expert referring to the
Napoleonic Code, feebly explaining to Stella “what belongs to the wife belongs to the
husband and vice versa,” (32). Stanley, of course, only understands this concept in terms
of personal benefit, but fails to understand that according to the way he articulated the
premise, this would apply equally to debts the Dubois family might still be responsible
for.
 Before continuing, here’s how Britannica.com explains the Napoleonic Code:

Under the code all male citizens are equal: primogeniture, hereditary nobility, and class
privileges are extinguished; civilian institutions are emancipated from ecclesiastical
control; freedom of person, freedom of contract, and inviolability of private property are
fundamental principles.

The first book of the code deals with the law of persons: the enjoyment of civil rights,
the protection of personality, domicile, guardianship, tutorship, relations of parents and
children, marriage, personal relations of spouses, and the dissolution of marriage by
annulment or divorce. The code subordinated women to their fathers and husbands,
who controlled all family property, determined the fate of children, and were favoured
in divorce proceedings. Many of those provisions were reformed only in the second half
of the 20th century. The second book deals with the law of things: the regulation of
property rights—ownership, usufruct, and servitudes. The third book deals with the
methods of acquiring rights: by succession, donation, marriage settlement, and
obligations. In the last chapters, the code regulates a number of nominate contracts, legal
and conventional mortgages, limitations of actions, and prescriptions of rights
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/Napoleonic-Code).
 Quickly, without knowing Blanche or any of the details as to the fate of Belle Reve,
Stanley concludes that Blanche has perpetrated a ‘swindle’. In other words, Stanley
believes that Blanche sold the family estate, keeping the proceeds for herself, while
failing to share the annuities with Stella. His sole evidence of the so-called swindle is
Blanche’s possessions, “Open your eyes to this stuff! You think she got them on a
teacher’s pay?” (33) The specific items that cause Stanley to accuse Blanche of theft
include feathers, a few furs, a gold dress, some bracelets, a string of pearls, a rhinestone
tiara, etc. (34-35) It evidently never occurs to him that a woman who sold a vast, valuable
property would probably be able to afford the expense of a hotel, if not her own home.
Further, had Blanche profited handsomely from the alleged swindle, she would likely
have far more possessions than could fit in a single trunk.

The creepiness of this scene must be fully understood by readers in order for the
events to properly resonate. While Blanche is bathing, Stanley has taken the liberty of
rummaging through her personal, private possessions, “[h]e hurls the furs to the daybed.
Then he jerks open small drawer in the trunk and pulls up a fist-full of costume jewelry,” (34).
This is an attack on Blanche’s very personhood, it is an indication that nothing belongs
to her any longer. In Stanley’s home, everything belongs to him, including the people
themselves who dare enter. Not only is this a violation of Blanche’s private possessions,
the violation continues as Blanche returns from bathing. Stanley, rather than granting
Blanche the privacy any person would expect and want after bathing, remains in the
room.

Readers must take a moment to imagine themselves in this scene; a stranger

awaiting them the moment they emerge from bathing, all that they own in the world
cast about by a person immediately and aggressively accusing them of theft on the basis
of literally no factual information. Blanche is in danger at her sister’s home. Further, this
scene is yet another depiction of Stanley’s animalism. A civilized person would ask
questions, engage in an inquisitive exchange to gather facts, and then draw conclusions
on the basis of the information uncovered. Stanley, on the other hand, behaves like a
woodland creature frantically searching for a lost nut on a vast expanse of land.

Despite Stanley’s limited grasp of the Napoleonic Code, Williams evidently had a
more firm grasp of it. This scene, in addition to the majority that follow, perfectly
captures key elements of the code as it relates to women and their (lack of) rights and
status. The earlier explanation of the Napoleonic Code states that it, “subordinated
women to their fathers and husbands, who controlled all family property.” Williams
thus depicts for readers via Stanley and his treatment of Blanche what the code looks
like in practice. According to the code, Stanley had every right to take control of
Blanche’s personal property, despite how readers may otherwise feel about that fact.
That being said, it is also important to note that, “[d]espite popular belief, it is incorrect
to say that the Louisiana Civil Code is, or stems from, the Napoleonic Code. Although
the developing Napoleonic Code influenced Louisiana law, the Napoleonic Code was
not enacted until 1804, one year after the Louisiana Purchase,”
(https://www.louisiana.gov/about-
louisiana/#:~:text=Despite%20popular%20belief%2C%20it%20is,year%20after%20the
%20Louisiana%20Purchase.) In other words, the Napoleonic Code was not the law of
the land, so to speak, in New Orleans, but it certainly was in Stanley Kowalski’s home.

Upon exiting the shower, Blanche declares, “Hello, Stanley! Here I am, all freshly
bathed and scented, and feeling like a brand new human being!” (36) This will mark the
beginning of the motif of Blanche regularly trying to cleanse herself. Bathing in and of
itself is hardly noteworthy, however, in this instance, it merits a closer look. [SPOILER
ALERT] Every time Blanche baths in this play, one of her secrets is about to be revealed
or has been revealed; scene 2 is the interrogation about the fate of Belle Reve, in scene 7
Blanche is bathing as Stanley reveals the totality of her secrets to Stella, and in scene 11
Blanche is bathing before her humiliated departure. One gets the sense that beyond the
utilitarian function of bathing, Blanche is attempting to wash away that which is dirty
about her. Hence why she emerges from the shower declaring that she feels like a new
person. The image that this motif always invoked in my mind was that of a baptism.
Blanche is attempting through this repeating motif to wash away her sins. The Bible says
the following about baptism, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord,” (Acts 22:16). Obviously Blanche is not literally baptizing herself, but
the imagery of baptism is nonetheless invoked all the same. Blanche has seemingly
convinced herself that her cleansing has transformed her into a new person, which may
be the case for her status in the eyes of God. However, man is not nearly as forgiving.
While readers at this point have no clue what Blanche’s sins consist of, they will
ultimately be exposed, providing insight into why it is that Blanche feels such a
desperate need to cleanse herself at every opportunity.

Stanley’s interrogation of Blanche in this scene shifts tones a few times. Blanche
initially attempts to distract Stanley with flirtation, first asking him for a cigarette (a
phallic object upon which she intends to suck) (37), then she attempts to have him admit
that she is attractive (38). Neither of these strategies works especially well, as Stanley is
singularly focused on the notion that he has not received something that he is entitled
to (Stella’s share of the family estate). As Blanche shifts her flirtatious strategy to flattery,
“when you walked in here last night, I said to myself—“My sister has married a man!”
(40), Stanley becomes aggressive, signifying the next shift in tone, as he screams at
Blanche demanding, more or less, that she cut the bullshit. Blanche is initially not
thwarted, shifting her compliments to Stanley’s intellect, “My, but you have an
impressive judicial air!” (41) until Stanley directly confronts her, “If I didn’t know you
was my wife’s sister, I’d get ideas about you!” (41) This piece of dialogue suggests that
Stanley is directly accusing Blanche of being interested in him, sexually, and the only
thing stopping him from following through on that matter is the fact that he is married
to her sister.

Finally, upon seeing that her typically effective strategies are achieving nothing
with Stanley, Blanche cuts the act completely, and becomes direct. “All right. Cards on
the table. That suits me. I know I fib a good deal. After all, a woman’s charm is fifty per
cent illusion, but when a thing is important I tell the truth, and this is the truth: I haven’t
cheated my sister or anyone else as long as I have lived,” (41). Blanche attempts to take
control of the moment by dispensing with the charm/ flirtation, now cornered and
forced into candor. Upon inspecting the quote, however, it should be noted that Blanche,
even as she claims to tell the truth, lies. She explains that she lies when something is
trivial, but can be relied upon for the truth when it comes to matters of importance. What
could be more important than the family estate and the explanation for an apparently
lost family fortune? Further, Blanche’s statement begs several questions; what
constitutes issues worthy of lying about? What has Blanche been thus far lying about?
Finally, Blanche’s quote about a woman’s charm is highly revealing, because by her own
word, half of what she says at any given time is a lie. The nuances and contradictions of
this dialogue might be lost on Stanley, but readers should note it well. Blanche, by her
own admission, is not a reliable source of information. Readers should thus look for
contradictions, inconsistencies, and blatant lies in anything she says.

Stanley immediately shifts the discussion back to the topic at hand; a concrete,
evidentiary explanation of what happened to the family estate. His first order of
business is thus to view the paperwork documenting the substance of Blanche’s claims.
Upon learning that the documents are in Blanche’s trunk, Stanley without seeking
Blanche’s consent, “crosses to the trunk, shoves it roughly open and begins to open
compartments,” (41). Here we see an interesting contrast; while Blanche is always telling
half-truths, trying to conceal unfortunate facts, Stanley is completely uninhibited and
entirely direct. He didn’t wait to secretly rummage through Blanche’s things behind her
back, he did it in front of her with the same verve as when she was in the shower. Stanley,
it should be noted, does not hold himself to the same standard of truth he expects of
Blanche. While Blanche must provide her brother-in-law with documentation to support
her claims to a man who is little more than a stranger to her, Stanley requires no evidence
whatsoever to conclude that Blanche has ‘swindled’ him. For Stanley, we might say, “A
man’s charm is one hundred per cent his privilege to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes.”

The ham-handed investigation of Blanche’s trunk unearths love letters from

Blanche’s late husband. Again, the mere insinuation of this man arouses an intense
emotional response in Blanche, who upon seeing Stanley’s fingers make contact with the
letters, declares, “Now that you’ve touched them I’ll burn them!” (42) Readers still have
no clue what happened with her late husband, but it was clearly something traumatic
that left Blanche still wounded for what appears to be years later. Blanche ultimately
hands Stanley a stack of documents that he lacks the capacity to understand. They
reveal, according to Blanche, that the family (it’s not clear who specifically) continually
mortgaged their land without the means to repay the loan until the bank repossessed it
(42-43).

Despite Stella’s earlier request that Stanley not mention her pregnancy and that he
compliment Blanche’s appearance (30), he opted to do the opposite, choosing to insult
her throughout the scene, ultimately revealing news of the pregnancy by the end of the
scene (44). Upon Stella’s return with Blanche’s lemon coke, she apologizes, “I’m sorry
he did that to you” (45). Blanche replies that she flirted with Stanley. Interestingly, we
see that the conduct of both Blanche and Stanley is completely disrespectful to Stella,
neither of whom seem to care about her feelings or wishes at all. Further, Stella emerges
as completely incapable of standing up to Stanley in this scene; she cannot even convince
her husband to leave the room after her sister returns from bathing. Rather than staying
around to ensure that Stanley does not further cross lines with Blanche during his
interrogation of her, Stella flees their home to acquire Blanche’s beverage. Upon
returning, Stella has nothing to say to Stanley whatsoever regarding his aggressive
conduct with Blanche. Between his complete disregard for Stella’s wishes, and his
unrestrained treatment of Blanche and her possessions, we see that Stanley is a man
unconstrained by the social conventions of how civil people are expected to treat one
another.

The scene ends rather symbolically, one might say. Despite not knowing where
she is going, Blanche nonetheless attempts to lead the way, before she declares “The
blind are leading the blind!” (45) In other words, neither of these women have any clue
where they are actually going. We will return to this discussion in later scenes once
further events will lend greater substance to its exploration. The last words of the scene
are uttered by a street vendor, who selling his street food cries out, “Red-hot!” (45) For
the ladies, this is the white noise that fills the atmosphere of their neighborhood.
Readers, on the other hand, should understand that things in the play are about to heat
up, to use a colloquial turn of phrase.
 Scene Three

Scene three opens by invoking Vincent Van Gogh’s painting Night Café, though
referred to as billiard parlour at night by Williams in the opening passage.

“Roughly two thirds of the artwork is taken up by the jaundiced yellow-greens of

the floorboards, with a billiard table standing starkly in the center. Patrons of the café sit
morosely, slumped over tables, apart from one figure who stares unflinchingly at the
viewer. Although they are surrounded by vestiges of good times- wine glasses, bottles
and the billiard table- it does not appear to be a happy occasion, but rather one that is
quiet and slightly despondent. Although the room is illuminated by lanterns, there is a
completely different atmosphere compared to other nighttime pieces by van Gogh, such
as Café Terrace at Night. While Café Terrace has a jubilant, warm quality to its depiction
of a café at night, The Night Café has a gloomy, almost sinister atmosphere”
(https://www.singulart.com/en/blog/2019/12/16/the-sinister-composition-of-the-
night-cafe-by-vincent-van-gogh/).

Streetdirectory.com analyzes the painting thusly: “"Night Café" depicts the interior of a
pool in Arles' Place Lamartine. A more striking van Gogh canvas would be difficult to
find, but no one could call this particular picture beautiful. It was the artist's intention
to show the lowest edge of humanity, without adornment, with as much impact and
sincerity as possible,”
(https://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/14507/education/analysis_of_the_ni
ght_cafe___vincent_van_gogh.html#:~:text=%22Night%20Caf%C3%A9%22%20depicts
%20the%20interior,impact%20and%20sincerity%20as%20possible).

Singularart.com explains the painting as follows, Vincent van Gogh called The
Night Café “one of the ugliest paintings I have ever done.” The artwork depicts a
desolate café scene at quarter past midnight in violently contrasting colors. In a letter to
his brother Theo, Van Gogh described the café as “a café de nuit… staying open all night.
Night prowlers can take refuge there when they have no money to pay for a lodging, or
are too drunk to be taken in […]” The author continues to explain, “The perspective of
the scene is particularly noteworthy to critics. The narrowing perspective draws the
viewer’s eye towards the curtain at the back of the room, leading the way into the
mysteries that lie beyond the café. The fact that the perspective is slightly tilted also gives
the piece an eerie, nightmarish feeling, where perhaps the viewer cannot quite put their
finger on why the scene feels so wrong. Author Nathaniel Harris writes, “The scene
might easily be banal and dispiriting; instead, it is dispiriting but also terrible.”
(https://www.singulart.com/en/blog/2019/12/16/the-sinister-composition-of-the-
night-cafe-by-vincent-van-gogh/).

Invoking the imagery depicted by van Gogh immediately sets the tone for the
scene that is about to unfold. The atmosphere of the Kowalski apartment is not meant to
be understood as a jovial, lighthearted gathering among friends. Rather, Williams seems
to intend for readers to envision a dreary scene of decay and darkness—hence the
selection of a painting that van Gogh once referred to as one of his “ugliest”. It should
thus be seen as no surprise that Williams describes Stanley and his gathering of friends
as wearing the very colors that most prominently feature in the painting, “Stanley, Steve,
Mitch and Pablo—wear colored shirts, solid blues, a purple, a red and white check, a light green,”
(46). These men, in other words, are an embodiment of the individuals and the
sentiments conveyed by van Gogh through his painting. As Williams continues, he
describes the men thusly, “they are men at the peak of their physical manhood, as coarse and
direct and powerful as the primary colors,” (46).

If we combine the last words of scene two, and the first words of scene three, we
end up with the blind leading the blind into a red-hot scene of darkness, decay, and
ugliness. Thus, to call the aforementioned foreshadowing would be an understatement.

Scene three opens with the men playing cards. Despite Williams describing all of
these men as ‘powerful’ and so forth, Stanley nonetheless emerges as the alpha of the
group. Even among these rough and tumble working class factory workers, Stanley still
manages to emerge as the most domineering, yelling at the men, mocking them,
ordering them around, and having the last word on everything. Readers should note
that none of Stanley’s friends object to or oppose anything that he says, confirming his
status (46-49).
 After Williams has established the atmosphere of the scene and the dynamic
among the men, Stella and Blanche return from their night out (49). Williams clearly
intended to invoke a powerful imagery in the minds of readers in order for a clear
contrast to emerge. Blanche especially clashes (or at least seems to) with the
aforementioned surroundings, which are a far cry from the upper class gatherings
regularly attended by the southern elite. Returning to the discussion of color for a
moment, while the men are depicted as wearing primary colors and so forth, Blanche’s
name itself projects the opposite. “[W]hite, in physics,” is “light seen by the human eye
when all wavelengths of the visible spectrum combine. Like black, but unlike the colours
of the spectrum and most mixtures of them, white lacks hue, so it is considered an
achromatic colour,” (https://www.britannica.com/science/white-color). However,
while the human eye perceives white as a singular hue, so to speak, it is in actuality a
combination of every primary colour. Thus, while Blanche may appear to stand out from
her surroundings, she, as her name suggests, is comprised of the same elements that are
definitive of Stanley and his drunken poker playing friends.

While we are still exploring the topic of Blanche’s name, verywellmind.com offers the
following analysis of the psychological characteristics of white:

 White represents purity or innocence. While a bride wearing white was often thought to convey the bride's
virginity, blue was once a traditional color worn by brides to symbolize purity.

 White is bright and can create a sense of space or add highlights. Designers often use the color white to make rooms
seem larger and more spacious.

 White is also described as cold, bland, and sterile. Rooms painted completely white can seem spacious but empty
and unfriendly. Hospitals and hospital workers use white to create a sense of sterility.

 The color white can also convey a sense of austerity and minimalism. Some may find this calming or refreshing,
while others may find it stark or bland.

(https://www.verywellmind.com/color-psychology-white-2795822)

As the play continues, readers should begin to question whether Blanche’s name was
selected by Williams to convey a dark irony.

The women arrive home to discover that the men’s poker game is still underway,
despite the fact that they have been playing for hours into the evening, and it now
technically being the morning (2:30 am) (49-50). Blanche’s initial impulse is to socialize
with the men and to perhaps even join their game (50). Stanley is quick to reject her
efforts, dismissing the women to go sit upstairs with Eunice to wait for the game to end,
neither to be seen nor heard by the men at play (50). Stanley even slaps Stella on the
thigh (posterior) in front of everyone, seemingly to remind her of her place in their home
and within the broader hierarchy. Stanley has knowingly done something to Stella that
upsets her, causing her to respond immediately to his crass gesture, “That’s not fun,
Stanley. […] It makes me so mad when he does that in front of people,” (50). Despite
being from Mississippi, it is in the multiracial cosmopolitan city of New Orleans where
Blanche discovers segregation is equally alive and well, only in the Kowalski household,
it’s also predicated along the lines of gender, rather than race.

Early in this scene Blanche and Mitch awkwardly meet for the first time (51).
Mitch, rather than sharing the bluster of his companions, is awkward, he seems to be the
only unmarried person among his friends, and further distinguishes himself by being a
caregiver to his ailing mother. Mitch therefore emerges as unique in his peer group; he
does not objectify women, does not make crass jokes, and does not see himself as being
above undertaking a traditionally feminine role as his mother’s caregiver. Blanche
swiftly notes the aforementioned for herself, “That one seems—superior to the others,”
(52). While Blanche does take an interest in Mitch, do note that it is on the basis that he
is superior, in her estimation, to his immediate peer group, not due to the fact that she
has an actual interest in him.

As Blanche and Stella discuss Stanley and his friends, Stella explains that he is “the
only one of his crowd that’s likely to get anywhere,” (52). Blanche is baffled by Stella’s
appraisal of Stanley, and presses her to elaborate. The best that Stella can muster is to
feebly attribute his chances for advancement to “a drive he has,” (53). Interestingly,
despite being aware of the common social norm that women do not expose their
seminude bodies to anyone other than their husbands, Blanche, as she is speaking with
Stella in the bedroom, has begun removing her clothing, exposing her pink silk brassiere
in full view of the men. This prompts Stella to chastise her, “You’re standing in the light,
Blanche!” (53) Just as Stanley removed his shirt as soon as he met Blanche in scene one,
Blanche seems to share his impulse to remove her own in order to expose her desirability
to the men she has just met—her rich feathering, if you will.
 Here’s a brief explanation of what is often referred to as modesty around the
world:

Modesty, sometimes known as demureness, is a mode of dress and deportment which

intends to avoid the encouraging of sexual attraction in others. The word "modesty"
comes from the Latin word modestus which means "keeping within measure". Standards
of modesty are culturally and context dependent and vary widely. In this use, it may be
considered inappropriate or immodest to reveal certain parts of the body. In some
societies, modesty may involve women covering their bodies completely and not talking
to men who are not immediate family members; in others, a fairly revealing but one-
piece bathing costume is considered modest while other women wear bikinis. In some
countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is also
considered to be public indecency, and public nudity is generally illegal in most of the
world and regarded as indecent exposure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty).

Naturally, Stella and Blanche, unable to sleep due to the noise created by the men
playing games, continue to talk. Soon the talking becomes audible laughter, which for
Stanley is completely unacceptable (54):

Stanley: You hens cut out that conversation in there!

Stella: You can’t hear us.
Stanley: Well, you can hear me and I said to hush up!
Stella: This is my house and I’ll talk as much as I want to!
 The standard of conduct Stanley expects of Stella and Blanche brings to mind a
proverb from the 15th Century, which states that “children are to be seen and not heard.”
“This proverb has its origins in the religious culture of the 15th century, where children,
particularly young women, were meant to stay silent unless spoken to or asked to
speak,” (https://writingexplained.org/idiom-dictionary/children-should-be-seen-
and-not-heard). In the case of the Kowalski household, Stanley’s expectations seem to
surpass even the most stringent of the medieval period, since is clear that he believes
women should neither been seen nor heard.

Stanley’s objections to the conduct of the women continues when Blanche puts on
some music—the primary infraction here is that the women did not become completely
invisible in the proximity of men entertaining themselves (55). By this time Mitch is
developing an interest in Blanche, repeatedly averting his attention from the poker game
that is underway to the bedroom area where glimpses of Blanche can be stolen (56).

Mitch soon leaves the poker game in order to socialize with Blanche (56). As they
engage in small talk, Mitch shares an inscription etched into his cigarette case, “And if
God choose, I shall but love thee better—after—death!” (57) The full poem:

How Do I Love Thee?

By Elizabeth Barrett Browning

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.
 I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

Here is a terse analysis of the poem:

The theme of Barrett Browning’s poem is that true love is an all-consuming passion. The
quality of true love the poet especially stresses is its spiritual nature. True love is an
article of faith. References to “soul,” “grace,” “praise,” “faith,” “saints,” and “God” help
create this impression. The last line confirms the power of true love, asserting as it does
that it is eternal, surviving even death
(https://opentextbc.ca/provincialenglish/chapter/how-do-i-love-thee-by-elizabeth-
barrett-browning-
sonnet/#:~:text=The%20theme%20of%20Barrett%20Browning's,God%E2%80%9D%20
help%20create%20this%20impression.)

The passage that Mitch shares with Blanche is striking for reasons that readers will not
realize at this point in the play. The excerpt essentially conveys Browning’s hope that
God will permit her to love her husband even better upon her death, from the spiritual
or celestial realm, presumably. It is a rather odd aspiration, when further reflected upon,
however. Why not actually love a person as well as possible when both parties are still
living? While there is no conclusive way to determine whether the living can sense or in
any way benefit from the love of a spirit, there can be no doubt as to the benefits of love
for the living.

**SPOILER ALERT: SPOILER TO FOLLOW IN THE FORTHCOMING PASSAGE**

In scene 6 readers learn about Blanche’s ill-fated marriage when she shares the
particulars with Mitch on a date. It turns out that Blanche discovered her late husband
was secretly gay, and her reaction to learning that fact was instrumental in his suicide.
Readers can thus understand why the excerpt of this poem is so meaningful for Blanche.
Whether Blanche loves her late husband better after death, or if it is he who loves her
better his death, one can easily imagine Blanche convincing herself to find comfort in
such a notion. It is the only redemption she can find from an event that the play will
ultimately reveal she never recovered from.

**SPOILER FINISHED**

During their ongoing exchange, Mitch reveals that he and Blanche have something
in common; the tragic premature death of a romantic partner. They seem to bond over
this, and Blanche states, “Sorrow makes for sincerity,” (58). Just based on the little
readers thus far know about Blanche, it can easily be concluded that this is a fraudulent
statement. Blanche has arrived to New Orleans with no explanation for why she has the
liberty to leave her teaching position for an indeterminate period of time, she is
unwilling to precisely explain what happened to the family estate, she has yet to explain
why the mere mention of her late husband causes her such distress, etc. Sorrow, if
anything, has seemingly had the inverse impact upon Blanche.

As their exchange continues, Blanche informs Mitch that her ancestors were
French Huguenots (59). History.com explains them as follows:

Huguenots were French Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries who followed the
teachings of theologian John Calvin. Persecuted by the French Catholic government
during a violent period, Huguenots fled the country in the 17th century, creating
Huguenot settlements all over Europe, in the United States and Africa
(https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/huguenots).

There is a clear parallel between Blanche and her French ancestors. Just as the French
Protestants fled oppression and persecution in their homeland, so too has Blanche fled
her hometown due to being persecuted for reasons that shall later be revealed. This
scene, as readers are hopefully starting to note, is filled with subtle references and each
of them reveal something important about the play and its characters.

Blanche says something rather neurotic to Mitch, “Stella is my precious little sister.
I call her little in spite of the fact that she’s somewhat older than I […]” (60). She says
things so quickly and with such charm that that nobody ever takes the time to actually
consider the content and implications of her words. Blanche is a rather vain woman who
prides herself upon her youthful appearance, so why would she intentionally mislead
people into thinking she is older? One interpretation might be that Stella’s conduct and
life choices forced Blanche to age beyond her years. Thus, despite being the younger
sister, Blanche looks and feels older. Hence why she describes herself as a daisy several
days after being picked, and characterizes her appearance by explaining that, “daylight
never exposed so total a ruin.”

As they continue to speak, Blanche asks Mitch to install a Chinese paper lantern
that she purchased over an exposed light bulb. Blanche explains that she’s having it
installed because she, “can’t stand a naked light bulb, any more than […] a rude remark
or a vulgar action,” (60). This gesture is emblematic of much that is to come in the play.
For now, the important thing to note is that this act fits well with Blanche’s belief that ‘a
woman’s charm is fifty percent illusion’. Blanche has arrived attempting to soften or
outright omit the harshest details of her past and present. The paper lantern is essentially
an item that takes something harsh and unyielding, and harnesses it into a dim, pretty
palatable glow.

As Mitch installs the paper lantern over the naked light bulb, Blanche installs a
metaphorical paper lantern via her explanation for her trip to New Orleans, explaining
the reason for her trip is that “Stella hasn’t been so well lately […] she’s very run down,”
(60). Readers, meanwhile, have no indication that Stella is in any way ‘run down’.
 Stanley’s hold over his home and friends begins to show signs of weakening.
Mitch left the men’s poker game to flirt with Blanche, and is shortly thereafter
summoned by Stanley to rejoin (61). While Mitch answers that he will rejoin the game,
he continues nonetheless to speak with Blanche.

Subtle, though it may be, this signifies the first time in the play that Stanley is secondary
to anybody. It should thus not be overlooked that mere moments after his alpha status
is questioned or threatened, he physically attacks Stella.

Once the lantern is installed, Blanche turns on music yet again to celebrate the
transformation of the raw, unyielding light into something pretty. This seemingly
benign gesture is for Stanley an intolerable act of defiance. “Stanley stalks through the
portieres into the bedroom. He crosses to the small white radio and snatches it off the table. With
a shouted oath, he tosses the instrument out the window,” (62). This gesture causes Stella to
first chastise Stanley, “Drunk—drunk—animal thing, you!” then to eject his friends, “All
of you—please go home! If you have one spark of decency in you—“(62).
 This marks the beginning of perhaps the most iconic sequence of events in the
play. “Stanley charges after Stella. […] She backs out of sight. He advances and disappears.
There is the sound of a blow. […]” (63). Moments after being defied by Mitch, Blanche, and
then finally, Stella, Stanley attacks his pregnant wife. This incident is the outburst of an
alpha sensing, perhaps merely obscurely, that his position as leader of the pack is being
challenged. Friends must instantly respond when summoned, women must sit in utter
silence when instructed, and a wife can never disturb the games of men, nor
misguidedly believe that she can decide when a man’s guests leave their home.

The attack upon Stella is jarring for a variety of reasons that we will explore in a
moment. On the surface, the first reason that the attack upon Stella is so disturbing is
because not only is it an event in which an extremely powerful man is attacking a
woman, but further, the man in question is attacking the woman whom is pregnant with
his unborn child. This signifies that Stanley is completely governed by unfiltered
emotion and reflex, at least in such moments. Stanley remains unburdened by morality
and logic, he simply behaves as he likes, and continues on without consequence.

Before delving into this further, here is some research about the potential medical
consequences of a pregnant woman suffering an attack such as Stella’s. According to the
University of California San Francisco Health (UCSF Health), the following defines the
characteristics of abuse, and the potential health consequences for a pregnant woman
(https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/domestic-violence-and-pregnancy):

Domestic violence is more common than any other health problem among women during pregnancy. It greatly
threatens both the mother's and baby's health. Domestic violence is a pattern of assault and coercive behavior, including
physical, sexual and psychological attacks, as well as economic coercion that adults use against their partners.
 This includes, but is not limited to, being:

 Hit, hurt, pushed

 Threatened or made to feel afraid by your partner
 Forced to have sex or do something you didn't want to do
 Kept from your family, friends or from being in control of your own money

Effects of Domestic Violence During Pregnancy

If you are being hurt or threatened by your partner while you are pregnant, you have a higher chance of:

 Injury to your uterus

 Miscarriage, stillbirth or premature baby
 Getting a dangerous vaginal infection from forced or unprotected sex with someone who has an infection
 Increased first and second trimester bleeding

Violence also increases your baby's risk of:

 Weighing too little at birth

 Having trouble nursing or taking a bottle
 Having sleeping problems
 Being harder to comfort than other babies
 Having problems learning to walk, talk and learn normally
 Experiencing lasting emotional trauma
 Being physically and sexually abused
 Being hurt during a fight

Stanley may lack the educational background to grasp the above, but on the most basic
level, he certainly must realize, if only obscurely, that attacking his pregnant wife puts
her and their unborn child at risk. In other words, it happens because Stanley does not
care either way.

Returning to the initial discussion, Stanley’s attack upon Stella is jarring because
his violence is entirely disproportional to the incident that inspired it. It is not my intent
to suggest that violence against women or anyone else is ever acceptable, because it is
not. However, Stanley was not threatened, he was not insulted, he was not even in the
midst of an incident that was especially stressful until he introduced violence. Thus, in
Stanley’s world/sphere/home, violence is not a tool or device solely employed out of
necessity or survival; any reason, big or small, will suffice, at least against women. While
Stanley might be gruff and bossy with his friends, there is no evidence of him physically
threatening or attacking them anywhere in the play, apart from when two of his friends
restrain him after his attack upon Stella (63).

Another jarring thing about the conjugal violence incident is everyone else’s
reaction. In scenes three and four Blanche fulfills the role of voicing that which most
readers are likely to be feeling and thinking. However, sticking strictly with scene three
for the moment, Blanche declares that the whole situation is lunacy (63), she comforts
her scared and wounded sister (64), and takes her upstairs to Eunice’s apartment.
Meanwhile, Mitch declares that “Poker shouldn’t be played in a house with women,”
(63), and then Stanley’s friends comfort him, as though he was somehow the victim in
this scene (64):

Stanley: What’s the matter; what happened?

Mitch: You just blew your top, Stan
Pablo: He’s okay, now.
Steve: Sure, my boy’s okay!
Mitch: Put him on the bed and get a towel.
Pablo: I think coffee would do him a world of good, now.

Notice that there is no mention of Stella at all. Not a single man there asks about her,
checks in on her, or takes even a moment to reflect upon the grave danger Stanley’s
attack posed to her and the unborn child. Stanley’s friends dote on him, comfort him,
and most importantly, absolve him of his sins, so to speak. “They speak quietly and lovingly
to him and he leans his face on their shoulders,” (63). According to Mitch, all of this occurred
because women were under the same roof as men drinking and playing cards. Just like
that, everyone conspires to absolve Stanley of any wrongdoing.

The next sequence is the most iconic in American theatre and cinema; it is the scene
in which Stanley is calling for Stella in front of their apartment in the middle of the street.
Before covering that, it will be useful to assess Stanley’s state leading up to it all. Initially,
Stanley is described as aggressively liberating himself from the grip of his friends after
they have intervened in the violent altercation, then he’s described as limp in their grasp
(63), followed by moving about his apartment, now empty of all occupants, apart from
himself, dripping water from the shower (65). Stanley then breaks into sobs, seemingly
at the realization that Stella is no longer in their home. I have sequentially mapped this
out in order for us to attempt an analysis. I find myself confused as I try to determine
whether Stanley is relatively sober, if he’s blackout drunk, or if we are witnessing the
erratic behavior of a mentally ill person. There can be no doubt that Stanley consumed
alcohol from the later afternoon until 2:30 am, which is at least seven hours of drinking.
On the other hand, Stanley seems to sober up rather quickly for a person intoxicated to
a drastic extent. A cold shower and a few kind words from friends do not suddenly alter
one’s blood alcohol level. In other words, is Stanley drunk or sober? It is not possible to
instantly shift between the two polar opposite states. An alternative explanation is that
perhaps while Stanley’s state of sobriety might be up for debate, a rarely discussed topic
is the state of his mental health. Blanche’s shaky mental health increasingly moves to the
forefront of the play to such an extent in the latter half it eclipses discussions about
everyone else’s. However, while sobriety is not something people can weave in and out
of willy-nilly, mental health is quite the opposite. This would explain Stanley’s
overblown rage over women making sounds while men are in the house. It would also
explain the unhinged attack upon his pregnant wife, followed by the instant shift to the
screaming, moaning, weeping man calling for his wife in the street.

Here is an excerpt of what one website wrote about this topic

(https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/master-sergeant-stanley-kowalski-
tennessee-williamss-portrait-ptsd):

Battle Neurosis, the PTSD of Its Day

Audiences in the 1940s and ’50s might have recognized Stanley’s hypersensitivity to insult or threat and his
violent overreactions (as well as Blanche’s loose grip on reality) as symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), though that medical diagnosis wouldn’t be adopted for decades.

During and after World War II, the condition “was referred to as battle neurosis more often than not,” said
Stephanie Hinnershitz, historian for the National WWII Museum’s Institute for the Study of War and
Democracy. “It wasn’t treated the way we would treat or approach PTSD today.”

For World War II veterans, there was no long-term treatment for battle neurosis, Hinnershitz said, adding, “It
was something people thought would eventually go away on its own as service members reintegrated back into
normal life.

“Of course, that’s not what happened.”

Symptoms of battle neurosis mirror a Stanley Kowalski personality profile: fear, anxiety, alcoholism, more.
“Behavior like Stanley’s, his impulsive behavior, his outbursts—that would have been very recognizable to most
people,” Hinnershitz said.

Due to the popular press’s coverage of “psychoneurotic casualties,” the symptoms would be familiar to Streetcar
audience members even if they hadn’t had direct personal contact with a combat veteran (such contact was a
statistical improbability anyway, McCaffrey observes, given that only about 6 percent of Americans who served
in World War II experienced frontline combat).
Near the end of the war, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in
Europe, addressed public concern about the mental challenges facing returning soldiers. “For God’s sakes don’t
psychoanalyze them,” he said in a 1945 press conference, as cited by McCaffrey. “They are perfectly normal
human beings. They have been through a lot and very naturally they want a pat on the back and they want to
be told they are pretty good fellows and they are. But they want to be treated just like they were treated when
they went away.”

In creating Stanley—a soldier who risked his life for a country that still looks down on his ethnicity and working-
class background, but also a rapist who lies and banishes his sister-in-law to a mental institution—Williams
skewers this reductive portrait of traumatized veterans. No one can call Stanley a “pretty good” fellow who has
“been through a lot” and just wants “a pat on the back” and to be treated as though he is the same person he
was before he went to war.

As you can see, there is a strong case to be made that Stanley is far more than a
bad guy with a temper. To elaborate a little further, it is often misunderstood that when
we explain and seek to understand one’s problematic behavior, it is somehow being
justified. Understanding that Stanley Kowalski may have had post-traumatic stress
disorder does not forgive his awful actions, it simply gives readers greater insight into
them.

Once Stanley gains clarity, realizing that Stella has fled their apartment, he calls
Eunice’s home (65). He does this reflexively, suggesting that there has been a multitude
of occasions in the past, causing Stella to flee prior incidents of conjugal violence. Upon
Eunice hanging up on him, Stanley “stumbles half-dressed out to the porch and down the
wooden steps to the pavement before the building. There he throws back his head like a baying
hound and bellows his wife’s name,” (66).

After wildly screaming for Stella in front of their apartment building, Eunice emerges
from her upper level apartment, telling Stanley to, “Quit that howling out there an’ go
back to bed!” (66). Beyond simply chastising Stanley, Eunice’s declaration confirms that
it is not merely the readers who characterize Stanley’s conduct as animal like; the people
around Stanley perceive it as well. Just as Stanley rummaged without apprehension
through Blanche’s possessions in search of answers and evidence, invoking the image
of a creature wildly digging for a lost nut in scene two, Stanley’s conduct in this scene
yet again vividly invokes the image of a beast. This time as Stanley ‘howls’ Stella’s name
in the middle of their neighborhood, without regard for who might be sleeping, without
regard for how the people might perceive or judge him, the image of a wolf howling at
the moon is invoked.

The animalization of Stanley continues to develop. Pulling the imagery thus far
depicted in the play together, what we have is a man who does not so much buy the
groceries, as hunt for meat. A man who has no regard or acknowledgement of the public
versus the private spheres (everywhere is the wild); whether it is personal possessions,
intimate details of one’s life, outbreaks of violence towards loved ones, or pining for the
return of his wounded and fearful wife. This is not the attitude or conduct of a civilized
man, but rather those of a beast. Even Williams’ descriptors never miss an opportunity
to inextricably link readers’ visuals of Stanley to those of an animal; a finely feathered
bird among hens, a canine howling at the moon, and so forth. Thus, moving forward, as
readers anticipate what will happen next and how Stanley will respond, we must always
remember to ask ourselves how a cornered, threatened, or angry apex predator would
react.

“[The] apex predator, also called top predator or top carnivore, in ecology, any
flesh-eating animal that has no natural predators or enemies. Apex predators hold the
top rank in a plant-herbivore-carnivore food chain and the uppermost position of an
ecosystem’s trophic (or energy) pyramid, making them the final destination of energy
flow in a given biological community. Some experts acknowledge, however, that in
some ecosystems a scavenger (an animal that feeds on the carcasses of dead animals),
such as a vulture, could be the apex predator,”
(https://www.britannica.com/science/trophic-pyramid).

Despite Eunice’s chastising, Stanley continues to howl for Stella, prompting her to
scream, “She ain’t comin’ down so you quit! Or you’ll git th’ law on you! […] You can’t
beat on a woman an’ call ‘er back! She won’t come! And her goin’ t’ have a baby!...You
stinker! You whelp of a Polack, you! I hope they do haul you in and turn the fire hose
on you, same as the last time!” (66) Eunice’s exclamations are interesting; first, because
they confirm our earlier speculation that Stanley has attacked Stella on previous
occasions, the most recent one ending with his apparent incarceration. Second, despite
Eunice’s confident declaration that a woman will not return to a man whom has beaten
her, Stella moments later will prove her wrong. This suggests that Eunice is completely
inaccurate, or, that Stella is a different type of woman. In other words, while for many
women conjugal violence is one of the lines that can never be crossed, Stella, on the other
hand, evidently does not see it so gravely.

After Stanley’s final howl for Stella, “The door upstairs opens again. Stella slips down
the rickety stairs in her robe. Her eyes are glistening with tears and her hair loose about her hair
and shoulders. They stare at each other. Then they come together in low, animal moans. He falls
to his knees on the steps and presses his face to her belly, curving a little with maternity. Her eyes
go blind with tenderness as she catches his head and raises him level with her. He snatches the
screen door open and lifts her off her feet and bears her into the dark flat,” (67).

While this is an analysis of the script, readers should nonetheless examine the still photo
captured from the cinematic performance. Stella’s facial expression does not depict fear
or apprehension. Between Williams’ description and the cinematic performance, what
we see is a woman who appears to be hypnotized or intoxicated. Further, while one
suspects that a traumatized, fearful woman would remain in hiding in order to evade
further violence upon her, this is not what we see with Stella. On the contrary, the
conjugal violence, followed by the performative escape, are punctuated by the
impassioned reunion. They “come together in low, animal moans,” before Stanley sweeps
Stella off of her feet, to return to their apartment for an evening of making love.

At this point, readers must now decide; is Stella a helpless, trapped victim, or does
she enjoy the violent and volatile dynamic of her marriage? One possibility paints her
as a victim, the other as an aroused and enthused participant. I will now present
information for both possibilities so readers can decide for themselves. It is important to
take a stance on this matter, because it will impact your analysis and understanding of
Stella for the remainder of the play. Whatever you conclude, read scene four with the
understanding that your perspective is highly likely to change.
Intimate Partner Violence (Formerly Battered Woman Syndrome)

By FindLaw Staff | Legally reviewed by Nicole Prebeck, Esq. | Last reviewed November 09, 2022
https://www.findlaw.com/family/domestic-violence/battered-women-s-syndrome.html

The term "battered woman syndrome" is an outdated one. Now known as "intimate partner violence" (IPV), it refers
to varieties of abuse occurring between romantic partners, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC).

Abuse can affect anyone --regardless of sex, gender, age, class, or any other way of categorizing a person.

Presenting similarly to the symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), IPV can lead to "learned
helplessness" -- or psychological paralysis. In "learned helplessness," the victim becomes so depressed, defeated, and
passive that they believe they are incapable of leaving their abuser.

This gripping fear feels absolutely real to the victim. Feeling weak while also remaining hopeful that the abuse will
stop, the victim remains with their abuser. In the cycle of abuse that occurs with IPV, this fear and these feelings only
reinforce the hopelessness and powerlessness of "learned helplessness."

The symptoms of intimate partner violence have been recognized by many state courts, while there are also
many support systems available to victims of this kind of abuse. Some states also take the condition into account when
addressing violent outbursts by victims of IPV.

If you or someone you know is afraid of speaking to authorities about an abuser, there may still be ways to improve
the victim's situation. Read on to learn more.

What Does the Cycle of Intimate Partner Violence Look Like?

IPV begins as an abusive cycle with three stages. First, the abuser engages in behaviors that create tensions in the
relationship. Second, the tension explodes when the abuser commits some form of abuse: physical, psychological,
emotional, sexual, or otherwise. Third, the abuser tries to fix their wrongdoing and apologizes.

This third stage is frequently referred to as the "honeymoon" stage, and it involves the abuser making amends for
their bad behavior. During the honeymoon stage, the abuser is forgiven, and the couple are both on their best behavior. But
the cycle starts all over again.
Feeling as though the abuse is their own fault, as the cycle continues, the victim develops "learned helplessness."
They feel such helplessness because they are convinced of their fault in the cycle. But at the same time, the victim cannot
understand why the abuse continues if it really is their own fault. As a consequence, they feel as though the abuse cannot
be escaped, unless the most dramatic measures are taken.

The above article presents a strong case for Stella suffering with IPV. Stella, it can
be argued, does manifest symptoms of learned helplessness, she is the victim of physical
abuse, and her abuse is punctuated by a so-called honeymoon stage; Stanley apologizes,
she takes him back, they run off to make love.

The other possibility, which I believe more accurately captures Stella, is that she
enjoys the violence of her relationship. The excerpts that follow explore that possibility.

Enjoyment of Violence?
 “It has frequently been contended that sexual and aggressive motives are intimately linked. For example, Freud
(1933) noted that desires to hurt or be hurt by one's lover form a normal part of heterosexual relations. Similarly, Berne
(1964) has suggested that the arousal of aggressive motives often serves to enhance sexual pleasure for both men and
women. Empirical evidence for the existence of a close bond between sexual and aggressive drives has been obtained by
Barclay (1971), who observed that the arousal of one of these motives is generally associated with increments in the other.
Apparently, then sexual and aggressive drives are indeed closely linked,”
(https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03333488.pdf).

Here is another interesting post from Britannica.com about sadomasochism:

Sadomasochism, also called S&M, SM, or S/M, deriving pleasure, often of a sexual nature, from the infliction of
physical or psychological pain on another person or on oneself or both. The term is a portmanteau of sadism—deriving
pleasure from inflicting pain—and masochism—deriving pleasure in receiving pain.

While the public image of sadomasochism perpetuated in popular culture is often extreme in nature,
sadomasochistic acts can vary widely. Physical discomfort may be inflicted in minor forms such as tickling, hair pulling,
and orgasm denial, for example, or more extreme activities such as slapping, whipping, flogging, or piercing the skin with
knives or needles. Emotional or psychological discomfort can also range from mild to extreme; it is usually inflicted via
humiliation, degradation, or use of epithets and slurs, among other methods. In consensual sadomasochism, all of these
acts are colloquially known as “play.” Sadomasochistic play often occurs between a sadist partner and a masochist partner,
but other configurations are possible, including group settings in private homes or in clubs. Most practitioners prefer either
sadism or masochism, although a minority, known as “switches,” alternate between the two. Autosadism or
automasochism, inflicting pain upon oneself, is also a possibility.

Although much of the general public believes sadomasochism to be dangerous in nature, much sadomasochistic
activity is practiced between consenting adults and often involves the preplanning of agreed-upon activities. Partners may
discuss beforehand what activities they are comfortable exploring and what their boundaries are. Even when the course of
events is determined extemporaneously, it may still be controlled by either partner with use of a “safe word” or
communicative hand signals or gestures. Many consider these to be an essential element of safe and consensual
sadomasochism. As an object or mode of play may be to intentionally deny requests from the masochistic partner, a “safe
word” is often something other than no, stop, or similar terms that might be willfully ignored within the context of a play
scene. Something unrelated that breaks the context, such as banana, is preferable; some use a red-yellow-green system in
which red means stop all activity immediately, yellow means a partner is approaching a limit for an activity, and green
means something like “let’s continue.” Aftercare, in which partners take time after play to engage in calming activities such
as bathing, cuddling, and hydrating and to discuss what they enjoyed and did not enjoy, is a commonly recommended
practice.

Sadomasochism is usually, but not always, practiced for sexual gratification, either as a sex act itself or as a
precursor to other sex acts. Sometimes sadomasochistic play is used as an end in itself or for stress relief or to promote
intimacy with a partner, among other reasons. The extent to which sadomasochism is used in any context also varies widely
among participants—some practice it only occasionally, and some do so all or nearly all of the time.

The term sadomasochism originated in the early 1900s, a time when psychologists and psychoanalysts were
inclined to pathologize sexual behaviours deemed to be aberrant. Sadism and masochism were coined by the 19th-century
German neurologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing—sadism in reference to Donatien-Alphonse-François, comte de Sade, also
known as the Marquis de Sade, who described sadistic sexual acts in his novels, and masochism in reference to Leopold
von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian novelist who wrote about his submissive sexuality. Sigmund Freud also wrote extensively
on the topic, positing that sadomasochistic urges stemmed from aberrations in childhood development. For much of the
20th century, sadism and masochism were considered psychosexual disorders, but modern psychology views them as
healthy sexual expressions as long as the acts are consensual and cause no distress to the individuals who engage in them.

Modern practitioners of sadomasochism often identify as part of the larger BDSM community, an initialism
(thought to have originated on the Internet) that stands for Bondage and Domination, Domination and Submission, and
Sadism and Masochism. Some sadomasochists participate in these other forms of sexual expression, while others do not.
For many practitioners, BDSM or sadomasochism is integral to their identity and their daily lives
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/sadomasochism).
 I have always gravitated toward the conclusion that Stella, rather than being a
victim, is a willing and exhilarated participant in the violent dynamic of her marriage.
We see after Stanley’s attack upon Stella that she takes her leave from their apartment
for a few minutes. Rather than seeking refuge far away from Stanley, she simply walks
upstairs, keeping herself as close to him as possible. Stanley needs only to howl Stella’s
name a few times before she answers his animal cries for her, appearing to be in a
hypnotic or intoxicated trance. What ensues is a sequence that has seemingly played out
before; Stanley falls to his knees, the couple embraces and they kiss passionately before
he “snatches the screen door open and lifts her off her feet and bears her into the dark flat,” (67)
to spend the remaining hours making love. This does not strike me as the conduct of a
trapped woman with nowhere to run, it seems more akin to foreplay. Again, I would
not make such an argument about conjugal violence in reality, unless the evidence was
as ample as that which is provided in the play. However, when we consider the totality
of the play, and not just scene three in isolation, it seems undeniable. Especially once we
consider scene four, which I will shortly link to scene three as part of making my case.

The scene closes with Blanche exiting Eunice’s apartment and engaging in
conversation with the still lingering Mitch. While Blanche remains traumatized and
distraught over the evening’s events, Mitch continues to have the lighthearted attitude
that “[t]here’s nothing to be afraid of,” and further, that Stanley and Stella are “crazy
about each other,” (68). The last gesture of the scene has Mitch taking out his cigarette
case to share the inscription with Blanche, yet again invoking a deathly sentiment, “I
shall but love thee better after death…”
 Scene Four

Scene four commences with Blanche voicing the very thoughts readers are likely
left with after scene three. Indeed, these are the sentiments many of us would articulate
if a loved one in our own lives endured the events depicted in the previous scene. What
is shocking, however, is Stella’s reaction to it all. She neither expresses anger, nor fear,
instead justifying Stanley’s conduct and how exhilarating she considers it to be.

Williams sets up the scene, as always, with vivid descriptors that set the table for
that which is about to transpire. “It is the early morning. There is a confusion of street cries
like a choral chant,” (70). It is telling that while there is ostensibly chaos all around her,
“Stella is lying down in the bedroom. Her face is serene in the early morning sunlight. […] Her
eyes and lips have that almost narcotized tranquility that is in the faces of Eastern idols,” (70).
In other words, Stella is at peace in the midst of chaos. The apartment itself is in an awful
state, with trash from the previous evening and remnants of the new day’s breakfast
strewn about. “Blanche appears at the door. She has spent a sleepless night and her appearance
entirely contrasts with Stella’s,” (70). Blanche is distraught, fearful, and hesitant just to
enter her sister’s home. Stella, on the other hand, is singularly at ease, lounging, and
entirely oblivious as to why Blanche would be stressed and anxious (71).

Stella: Blanche, what is the matter with you?

Blanche: He’s left?
Stella: Stan? Yes.
Blanche: Will he be back?
Stella: He’s gone to get the car greased. Why?
Blanche: Why! I’ve been half crazy, Stella! When I found out you’d been insane enough to come back in here after what
happened—I started to rush in after you!

In this excerpt, we see how the sisters have completely divergent feelings about the
events of the previous evening. Stella is entirely nonchalant about the fact that Stanley
physically attacked her in front of multiple witnesses, despite being pregnant. Blanche,
on the other hand, is traumatized; she spent the remainder of the evening worrying
about Stella’s wellbeing. As the conversation continues, Blanche seeks answers and
understanding; how could Stella so quickly return to Stanley after suffering such an
attack? “You must have slept with him!” (71) Whether or not Stella had sexual
intercourse with Stanley after the attack, there are more significant issues to resolve; has
this happened before? If so, how often are you attacked by your husband? Is the baby
alright? It is peculiar to inquire about whether they had intercourse when it would seem
that there are more significant, pressing concerns.

As the interaction continues, readers see how divergent the sisters are on this
matter. While Stella minimizes, Blanche seems to be dumbstruck (72);
Stella: […] I know how it must have seemed to you and I’m awfully sorry it had to happen, but it wasn’t anything as serious
as you seem to take it. In the first place, when men are drinking and playing poker anything can happen. It’s always a
powder-keg. He didn’t know what he was doing…He was as good as a lamb when I came back and he’s really very, very
ashamed of himself.

Blanche: And that—makes it all right?

Stella’s initial response is first to tell Blanche that she is having an exaggerated reaction,
as though she is simply overly sensitive. Stella then goes on to more or less justify
Stanley’s behavior as a predictable and commonplace occurrence when men drink and
play cards. In other words, because women made the mistake of being in the midst of
men at play, it is more or less their fault. The above excerpt is punctuated with Stella
explaining that Stanley is ashamed of himself. One is inclined to speculate that this is an
utter fabrication; first, this is not a unique occurrence, and second, Stanley’s conduct
thereafter gives readers no indication for the remainder of the play that he is ever under
any circumstances encumbered by the pangs of shame.

The next section of their exchange accounts for the remainder of my argument that
Stella does indeed enjoy and find exhilaration in the violent dynamic of her marriage,
and from Stanley’s violent tendencies in general (72-73).

Stella: […] Stanley’s always smashed things. Why, on our wedding night—soon as we came in here—he snatched off one
of my slippers and rushed about the place smashing light-bulbs with it.
Blanche: He did—what?
Stella: He smashed all the light-bulbs with the heel of my slipper! [She laughs.]
Blanche: And you—you let him? Didn’t run, didn’t scream?
Stella: I was—sort of—thrilled by it […].

These are not the sentiments of a fearful woman, nor do they suggest someone living in
denial. Stella is explicitly stating that she is thrilled by Stanley’s violence. When
combined with the events of the latter half of scene three, what readers can reasonably
conclude is that Stanley’s violent outbursts are arousing for Stella. She enjoys that his
conduct is explosive and unpredictable. Blanche, however, is having (to reiterate) the
reaction that most readers are likely to be experiencing; in the presence of such violence you
did not flee in fear at the realization that you had married a brute? Stella’s candid explanation
is unfathomable to Blanche, and by extension, to the audience. Our inclination is always
to view one on the receiving end of violence as a victim. However, are we not
infantilizing Stella if we do not take her at her word, imposing victimhood upon a person
who does not see herself as a victim? Nothing in what she has thus far stated suggests
that she is in denial nor is she otherwise oblivious, she is turned on by brute violence. It
is we, the readers, who find ourselves in dismayed denial; there is simply no way for
most to fathom that this is in any way desirable.

The earlier discussion about the animalization of characters exclusively focused

upon Stanley. Even his conduct as described by Stella on their wedding night further
reinforces his brute animalism. Stanley, rather than using light switches to turn the lights
off, trundles about their home smashing light-bulbs like a primate who has not been
made aware of the existence of such a device. It should be noted that the latter half of
scene three and all of scene four also help us begin to make the case that Stella is no less
an animal than Stanley. In the presence of conduct that would strike fear in the hearts of
most, as connoted through Blanche’s reaction, Stella is turned on. Stella is the female of
a species that chooses a mate based upon its ability to exert dominance and violence.
Even when her unborn offspring is put at risk due to Stanley’s violence, Stella is not
deterred. Stella’s loyalty is to her mate and her lust for him, and as we will come to see
in the remainder of the play, nothing will be allowed to interfere in her pursuit of that.

What further reinforces the animalization of Stella is her lack of practical priorities
as a mother-to-be, a wife, and a sister. While it would be entirely unrealistic to suggest
that everyone should share the same values, and further, that each person should
prioritize those to the same extent, we see that Stella has as much a sense of maternity
or sentimentality as a reptile. For example, here is what one website explains about the
maternal tendencies of snakes; “There’s no maternal instinct in the reptilian world of
snakes. Snake mothers abandon their eggs soon after laying them, never to return again.
Sometimes, a female snake will give birth to a live snake, after having incubated the eggs
inside her body. As soon as the creature has left her body a mother snake slithers away
never to return again. Lucky for snakes, infants hatch with the ability to take care of
themselves,” (https://animals.mom.com/animals-mothers-abandon-after-birth-
9940.html). Furthermore, in general, “reptiles do demonstrate basic emotions.
According to Dr. Sharman Hoppes, clinical assistant professor at the Texas A&M College
of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, the main two are fear and aggression,
but they may also demonstrate pleasure when stroked or when offered food,”
(https://vetmed.tamu.edu/news/pet-talk/reptile-emotions/).

In this scene Stella will present no maternal instinct whatsoever, nor will she
demonstrate any interest in protecting her sister Blanche, or even herself. She will
uncritically justify, make excuses for and accept Stanley’s conduct. The above excerpt
explains that reptiles demonstrate emotions, including fear, aggression and pleasure.
Looking at the totality of the play, one would be hard pressed to see a demonstration of
any other emotions from Stella.

As the exchange between the sisters continues, Blanche seems to be attempting to

awaken Stella from a slumber. Only, the slumber is not literal, as Stella is literally awake,
the slumber is a metaphorical one. In other words, she is willfully blind to a life that she
should be horrified by. Blanche confronts Stella, demanding how Stella can laze about
smiling nonchalantly on the heels of suck horror (73).

Stella: What do you want me to do?

Blanche: Pull yourself together and face the facts.
Stella: What are they, in your opinion?
Blanche: In my opinion? You’re married to a madman!
Stella: No!
In the above excerpt, Blanche is confronting Stella with the facts, as she sees them, but
Stella is defiant. As the confrontation continues, Stella unambiguously clarifies her
position for Blanche and the readers (74):

Stella [slowly and emphatically]: I’m not in anything I want to get out of.
Blanche [incredulously]: What—Stella?
Stella: I said I am not in anything that I have a desire to get out of. Look at the mess in this room! And those empty bottles!
They went through two cases last night! He promised to stop having such parties, but you know how long such a promise
is going to keep. Oh, well, it’s his pleasure, like mine is movies and bridge. People have got to tolerate each other’s habits,
I guess.

Twice Stella confidently states that she has no desire to leave Stanley, firmly standing
her ground against Blanche. This would have been her chance to flee and to start a new
life, if it’s truly what she wanted.

Blanche continues to confront Stella, dismayed; if she is going to insist on tolerating his
violence, if she is going to make love in the aftermath of his attacks, if she is going to
stay, rather than flee, at least do not clean up his mess—what Blanche ostensibly sees as
the scene of the crime, you might say (75). Stella’s reply demonstrates that a man doing
housework, even to clear up the chaos he created, is not even within the realm of
consideration in her household.

Blanche, as she continues in her campaign to liberate Stella from Stanley,

simultaneously shares the plan she has in mind, while also revealing some of what she
has been up to in the recent past. Blanche recounts that she took a trip to Miami over the
Christmas holidays, hoping to meet and presumably marry a wealthy man, and crossed
paths with one of her wealthy former suitors, Shep Huntleigh (75-76). Blanche’s plan
assumes that Huntleigh would be willing to fund her and Stella’s escape from Stanley,
lavishly setting the two sisters up in their new beginning. The irony, of course, is that
Blanche’s apparent plan leaves the women entirely dependent upon a man. While the
sisters might not agree, readers will likely note that depending upon men and being
vulnerable to them has been the cause of most of their apparent hardships.

Blanche then begins to compose a telegram (77). While young readers may never
have heard of a so-called ‘telegram’ before, they should understand it as being the
precursor to the text message. Here’s a brief explanation and history of the telegraph:

By 1850, there were 20 telegraph companies in the United States, some of which merged together in 1851 to form Western
Union, the largest telegraph company in the country. By 1861 they’d built the first transcontinental telegraph line. In 1866
the Transatlantic cable connected the U.S. and Britain, and we were on our way to our modern wired world.

Telegrams developed a unique prose style called telegraphese. (Telegraph refers to the entire system; telegram was the
printed-out message delivered to your door.) Since telegraph companies charged by the word, telegraphese tried to pack
as much information into as few words as possible. For instance, instead of “We’re going to Philadelphia. We will meet you
there.” a telegram might read “GOING TO PHILLY STOP MEET THERE STOP”. (Telegrams were all capital letters, and
“STOP” became the preferred way of ending a sentence, particularly during the world wars, when misplaced punctuation
could have disastrous consequences. […]

Telegrams reached their peak of popularity during the 1920s and 30s, even though the telephone had been around since the
1870s. The telegraph had a head start on its infrastructure, and for a long time, it actually cost less to send a telegram than
make a long-distance phone call. It was also less tedious; a long-distance phone call could involve a series of operators
connecting through multiple exchanges to manually make the connection (https://www.abc27.com/history/on-this-date-
western-unions-last-
telegram/#:~:text=(WHTM)%20%E2%80%94%20It%20was%20the,electricity%20going%20through%20a%20wire.).

The telegram that Blanche begins to compose, but never sends, declares that the sisters
are in a ‘desperate situation’, despite Stella’s contrary sentiments (78).

Readers also learn that Stanley gave Stella ten dollars as part of his effort to
‘smooth things over’ after the violence. Blanche refuses Stella’s offer to give her half of
the money because she does not want to be complicit in the toxic dynamic, nor in
creating the illusion that his flimsy offering has been accepted (78-79). While Blanche’s
stance is respectable, particularly since she apparently only has sixty-five cents left to
her name (78), it should not be overlooked that Blanche will continue to live rent free in
the Kowalski home, unable to offer any financial compensation for her protracted visit.
In other words, Blanche has already accepted Stanley’s charity, and could not otherwise
survive without it.

Stella, as the heated exchange escalates, attempts to make excuses for Stanley,
claiming that Blanche saw him at his worst (79). To be clear, first, typically seeing a
person at their ‘worst’, colloquially speaking, tends to entail a fleeting moment of
crankiness, or perhaps unintentionally saying something that turned out to be offensive.
In this case, the worst (which readers actually have yet to see) was an outbreak of conjugal
violence that easily could have resulted in the death of an unborn baby and its mother.
Blanche, however, retorts, “On the contrary, I saw him at his best! What such a man has
to offer is animal force and he gave a wonderful exhibition of that! But the only way to
live with such a man is to—go to bed with him! And that’s your job—not mine!” (79)

Blanche’s reply echoes the position I have taken repeatedly throughout this
analysis; Stanley exhibits the traits of an animal so much so that Blanche observes that
anyone hoping to have any influence with him must satiate one of his more base needs.
Blanche, thus concludes that such influence with Stanley will not be possible for her,
since she has no such desire.

Despite Stella’s assurances, Blanche continues to insist that she is in need of rescue.
Blanche also attempts to remind Stella of their origins, more or less stating that Stella
should not be settling for her present conditions and husband (80). Blanche then
attempts to empathize with Stella, acknowledging that Stanley in his uniform must have
been a handsome specimen. However, Stella rejects this premise as well, explaining that
“there are things that happen between a man and a woman in the dark—that sort of
make everything else seem—unimportant,” (81). In response, the next part of the
exchange is highly telling and deserves analysis.

Blanche: What you are talking about is brutal desire—just—desire!—the name of that rattle-trap street-car that bangs
through the Quarter, up one old narrow street and down another…
Stella: Haven’t you ever ridden on that street-car?
Blanche: It brought me here.—Where I’m not wanted and where I’m ashamed to be…
Stella: Then don’t you think your superior attitude is a bit out of place?

Before analyzing the above exchange, this would be an appropriate time to examine the
meaning of the word desire, given its prominence in the exchange, not to mention, the
title of the play itself. According to etymonline.com, desire is “"to wish or long for,
express a wish to obtain," c. 1200, desiren, from Old French desirrer (12c.) "wish, desire,
long for," from Latin desiderare "long for, wish for; demand, expect," the original sense
perhaps being "await what the stars will bring," from the phrase de sidere "from the
stars," from sidus (genitive sideris) "heavenly body, star, constellation"”
(https://www.etymonline.com/word/desire#:~:text=desire%20(v.)&text=%22wish%2
C%20desire%2C%20long%20for,%22%20(but%20see%20consider). ) Here’s what the
Merriam-Webster dictionary offers (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/desire):

Desire noun
1: conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment
ridding oneself of all desires
how humans process desire
2 a: LONGING, CRAVING
teenagers' desire for independence
… the inexpensive homebuilt craft that satisfy many people's desire to fly—James Fallows
b: sexual urge or appetite
3: something longed or hoped for: something desired
You are my heart's desire.

Looking at the etymological origins, the explanation references the origin of the word
desire, which can be traced to waiting to see what the stars will bring. Now, think back
to what Blanche says when she first sees Stella, “Stella for Star!” (10) Blanche’s first
encounter with Stella in the play references the etymological roots of the word desire
(not to mention that her name itself is one letter short of being the word ‘stellar’).
Continuing to the dictionary definition, in the context of the exchange between the
sisters, they are both cryptically discussing desire in the context of it referring to a
longing or craving with regard to a sexual urge or appetite. As Stella explains herself to
Blanche, she directly states that things happen between a man and a woman in the dark
that essentially eclipse all else. In other words, the sexual gratification that she derives
from her relationship with Stanley eclipses everything that might be viewed as a flaw or
a concern for Blanche. The full extent of this sentiment can only be grasped once the play
has been read to completion.

Blanche’s reply to Stella is no less packed with meaning; she first references the actual
streetcar named Desire that provides public transit throughout the French Quarter,
calling it a “rattle-trap”. The key word being ‘trap’. Blanche sees Stella as trapped by her
desires, essentially enslaving her to Stanley. Further, as may have been previously
mentioned, Blanche and Stella both are not the conductors of the so-called streetcar named
Desire, they are passengers upon it. In other words, both women, rather than governing
their desires, are actually passengers to them. Blanche continues to say, rather
cryptically, referring both literally and figuratively to the aptly named streetcar, that it
brought her to a destination which is a source of great shame for her. Readers do not yet
know the details of how Blanche has ended up in New Orleans, but we now know that
it involves shame. What distinguishes the two sisters from one another with regard to
desire, is that Stella feels no shame for being governed by her lustful desires, nor for the
destination those have guided her to in life. Blanche, on the other hand, admits to being
equally governed by desire, but it is a great source of shame for her. Blanche is not proud
of the impact it has had upon her life, and seems, at least cryptically, to be cautioning
Stella as to the fate that awaits her if she continues to traverse her current path.

Blanche is a pragmatic woman, and rather liberal, given the era during which this
play was set and written. She does not shame Stella for her lust nor for satiating her
carnal desires. Rather, she attempts to explain that, “A man like that is someone to go
out with—once—twice—three times when the devil is in you. But live with? Have a
child by?” (81) Stanley is like a roller coaster or a Big Mac; these things should not be the
foundation of a lifestyle, they should be occasional indulgences. Blanche, we should
note, seems to have greater concern for her sister and her unborn child than Stella
herself, again speaking to the reptilian manifestation of Stella’s animal traits.

Stella, on the heels of Blanche’s reasonably expressed concerns, can only flaccidly
reply, “I have told you I love him,” (81). Blanche is confronting her with logic, Stella is
replying with emotion, refusing to acknowledge what Blanche is saying. There would
at least be something to respect in Stella were she to say, ‘You’re right, but this is the
choice I am making. I am forfeiting all that we were raised to seek in a relationship in
favor of what I have with Stanley, and I understand what that means for me and our
unborn child’. It might be detestable, but at least she would be taking a clear position. ‘I
love him’ is not an adult reply to the legitimate concerns expressed by Blanche, it is
vacuous and adolescent, at best.

Undeterred, Blanche continues, and unleashes her true thoughts about Stanley. A
few things to note before we examine what Blanche is about to say. First, unbeknownst
to the ladies, “Stanley enters [the apartment] from the outside. He stands unseen by the
women,” (82). Thus, Stanley will hear all that Blanche says about him. Readers can predict
Stanley’s response to what he is about to hear based upon two factors. First, we have the
precedent of his conduct in the previous scenes. If Stanley is willing to attack his
pregnant wife for ejecting his friends from their home in the early morning, it is pretty
easy to imagine how he will respond to somebody attacking his reputation and
ostensibly attempting to convince his wife/ mate to leave him. Second, if we consider
the case I have been building throughout this analysis regarding the animalization of
Stanley, then we need only to examine how an alpha creature/ apex predator would
react to another creature attempting to abscond with its mate.

Here is what https://www.animal-ethics.org writes about this matter and related

topics:
Territoriality is a widespread cause of intraspecific conflict. It occurs when an individual animal
defends a particular area (the territory) against intrusion by other animals, and thereby maintains
exclusive access to the resources within that territory. Those resources may include food or nesting
sites. The territory might give them more access to mates. Animals use a variety of methods to
demarcate and defend their territories. These methods include scent marking, where the animal marks
her territory with strong smelling substances; visual marking, for example by clawing at trees, or
rubbing against them to leave fur deposits; and vocalizations such as birdcalls or wolf howls.
Sometimes, however, animals use force to defend their territories, and this means risking injury or even
death for the defender or the intruder.

Writing about mammals in particular, animal-ethics.org continues, “Intergroup violence is common

among chimps. These conflicts have been compared to human wars, due to their duration and high
levels of planning and coordination. Such conflicts usually center around control of territory or the
kidnapping of fertile females,” (https://www.animal-ethics.org/intraspecific-fights/).

Readers will note that the term ‘territory’ arises a few times in the excerpts above.
Territory in this context refers not just to the land, but also to the females that occupy it.
Thus, Stanley’s response to what Blanche will say about him should be analyzed or
understood in much the same way we would anticipate an animal’s response to its
territory being invaded by an unwelcome and competing creature. It would be fair to
point out that Blanche does indeed have no intention to mate with Stella, but her intent
is nonetheless to steal Stanley’s mate, and further, to challenge his rule over a territory
(his home and wife) that was once indisputably his.

Blanche’s first indictment of Stanley is that he is ‘common’. In this context, Blanche

is saying that Stanley is a person who has not emerged from a class or group of people
whose status is worthy of their own—you might call this a lack of breeding.
Furthermore, common is a reference to Stanley’s lack of culture and manners, his
crassness, if you will. The Collins Dictionary explains it thusly, “If you describe someone
or their behaviour as common, you mean that they show a lack of taste, education, and
good manners,”
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/common#:~:text=7.-
,adjective,coarse%20More%20Synonyms%20of%20common). This, of course, is just the
beginning. Blanche continues (82-83):

[…]You can't have forgotten that much of our bringing up, Stella, that you just suppose that any part of a gentleman's in
his nature! Not one particle, no! Oh, if he was just--ordinary! Just plain--but good and wholesome, but--no. There's
something downright--bestial--about him! You're hating me saying this, aren't you? […] He acts like an animal, has an
animal's habits! Eats like one, moves like one, talks like one! There's even something--sub-human--something not quite to
the stage of humanity yet! Yes, something--ape-like about him, like one of those pictures I've seen in--anthropological
studies! Thousands and thousands of years have passed him right by, and there he is--Stanley Kowalski-survivor of the
stone age! Bearing the raw meat home from the kill in the jungle! And you--you here--waiting for him! Maybe he'll strike
you or maybe grunt and kiss you! That is, if kisses have been discovered yet! Night falls and the other apes gather! There
in the front of the cave, all grunting like him, and swilling and gnawing and hulking! His poker night!--you call it--this
party of apes! Somebody growls--some creature snatches at something--the fight is on! God! Maybe we are a long way from
being made in God's image, but Stella--my sister--there has been some progress since then! Such things as art--as poetry and
music--such kinds of new light have come into the world since then! In some kinds of people some tenderer feelings have
had some little beginning! That we have got to make grow! And cling to, and hold as our flag! In this dark march toward
whatever it is we're approaching.... Don't—don’t hang back with the brutes!

There is a lot to analyze in Blanche’s dramatic soliloquy to Stella. This is not just a plea,
Blanche is fighting for her sister’s soul, at least as she seems to see it. Blanche begins by
reiterating her point about Stanley’s being common, only she expands upon it. She says
that it would be entirely fine if he was just a basic, unsophisticated person. The basis of
her objection is that Stanley is bestial. As she continues, Blanche likens Stanley to a
caveman, drawing attention to his unpredictable, volatile nature, which leaves all
around him uncertain as to whether he will indulge his violent or tender impulses. When
Blanche continues, referring to the human capacity to create art, poetry and music, she
is essentially making the point that at one time, women had no choice but to accept
brutish, unsophisticated males, because that was the only possibility available to them.
However, since the humble, gruff beginnings of the human species, there has been great
evolution. Thus, in a time when women have choices, it makes no sense at all that she
would accept to be with such an inferior man with so many superior options available.
Hence the closing line, “don’t hang back with the brutes,” (83)—do not settle for less when
so much more is now available to women. Blanche’s criticisms of Stanley are undeniably
harsh, but they are offered from a place of love and concern.

Blanche’s soliloquy alternately refers to Stanley as bestial and a caveman, further

establishing the notion that Stanley should not be seen as a mere man. Another
reinforcement of this notion arises in the narration, which depicts Stanley, still listening
to the women, thusly, “Stanley hesitates, licking his lips. Then suddenly he turns stealthily
about and withdraws through the front door. The women are still unaware of his presence,” (83).
The image invoked is that of an animal licking its chops as it stalks its prey. Finally,
Stanley enters, calling for Stella and making his presence known. “Stella has embraced him
with both arms, fiercely, and in full view of Blanche. He laughs and clasps her head to him. Over
her head he grins through the curtains at Blanche,” (84). Blanche does not realize it yet, but
she is now at war. Even when she will realize that she is at war, her realization will come
all too late. Despite calling him variations of a beast for the entirety of the play, she will
continue to engage in conflict with Stanley as though he were a gentleman. In this
context, that would mean conflict would occur within reasonable parameters, and thus
a clear sense of boundaries might exist.
 Scene Five

Scene five commences with the narration depicting Blanche laughing as she re-
reads a letter she has just finished composing. Blanche’s letter to the wealthy love
interest from her past, Shep Huntleigh, depicts a luxurious life of travel and fine dining.
Blanche is of course laughing because the lies of the letter contrast so extremely with the
actual surroundings in which it has been composed (85).

The lighthearted exchange is disrupted by a domestic disturbance that suddenly

erupts upstairs between Steve and Eunice (85). The sisters overhear Eunice, to explain it
more directly, accusing Steve of cavorting with a blonde woman at the local bar,
ultimately going up to her apartment with her, presumably to have sexual relations.
Hence Eunice saying, “I wouldn’t mind if you’d stay down at the Four Deuces, but you
always going up. […] I seen you chasing her ‘round the balcony […]” (86). Their
argument escalates until Eunice is heard exclaiming, “You hit me! I’m gonna call the
police!” The narration continues to describe the scene further, “A clatter of aluminum
striking a wall is heard, followed by a man’s angry roar, shouts, and overturned furniture. There
is a crash; then a relative hush,” (86). The violence is so drastic that Blanche is prompted to
inquire whether Steve killed Eunice.

In short order Eunice runs downstairs, dramatically demanding that somebody

call the police in response to the physical attack she just suffered (87). Nobody does.
Instead, the narration describes that “[t]hey laugh lightly,”again depicting that all but
Blanche seem to be completely at ease with the violence of their daily lives. When
Stanley inquires as to what is happening between Steve and Eunice, Stella blandly
explains that they had a fight, and upon learning from Stanley that Eunice went to the
bar, rather than filing assault and battery charges with the police, Stella lightheartedly
says, “That’s much more practical,” (87). Not long after, Steve appears seeking to know
Eunice’s whereabouts, because evidently, just as Stella runs upstairs every time Stanley
attacks her, Eunice apparently runs downstairs every time Steve assails her.

Before I continue to analyze the scene, here is an excerpt what Time magazine
recently wrote about conjugal violence during this era
(https://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/):

[W]hen it comes to understanding domestic abuse, we’ve made a lot of progress since 50 years ago when doctors thought
“wife beating” was therapeutic. An article in the issue of TIME dated 50 years ago today — Sept. 25, 1964 — highlights a
mind-boggling study that concludes couples stay in abusive relationships because their fighting can “balance out each
other’s mental quirks.”

Yep, seriously. “Mental quirks.”

The study, which was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, looked at 37 cases of assault between couples in
Massachusetts courts and found a common trend: “though reasonably hard-working and outwardly respectable, [the
husbands] were in reality ‘shy, sexually, ineffectual mother’s boys.’ The wives also fitted a pattern—’aggressive, efficient,
masculine and sexually frigid.'”

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that 1960s scientists subscribed to such rigid gender norms wherein shy men were
“mama’s boys” and bold women were “frigid.” But the science behind alcohol causing a role reversal in every couple, which
was another element of the study, is questionable at best: “Usually the wife was boss, and her weak-willed husband was
content to play the subservient role — until he had a few drinks. Then ‘role alternation’ would take place, and the husband
would insist belligerently upon his conjugal rights.” (By “insisting on conjugal rights” the writer does probably mean rape.)

What’s most shocking is that doctors believed that a man beating his wife under these circumstances was actually a good
thing. They called it “violent, temporary therapy”:

‘The periods of violent behavior by the husband,’ the doctors observed, ‘served to release him momentarily from his anxiety
about his ineffectiveness as a man, while giving his wife apparent masochistic gratification and helping probably to deal
with the guilt arising from the intense hostility expressed in her controlling, castrating behavior.’

The idea that women ought to feel guilty for being more assertive than their husband is tantamount, of course, to victim
blaming. But the study also overly simplifies the assailant-victim relationship to a temper tantrum. We now know that
physical violence is only one part of domestic abuse: abusers often use other means like isolation, threats to family members
and pets, controlling of personal finances and psychological abuse to hurt their victims. Domestic violence is not a way to
sort out issues: it’s a systematic and calculated means for perpetrators to control their victims.

The next part of this moment is telling, though easy to overlook, in terms of its
significance. As Steve exits in pursuit of Eunice, he refers to her as a ‘rutting hunk’—I
suspect that Williams opted for that term because it was as close as possible to profanity
that Steve actually would have exclaimed in reality, which likely would have been to
call her a ‘fucking bitch’, or some variation thereof. Either way, this crass turn of phrase
prompts Blanche to snobbishly declare that she will record Steve’s profanity because she
is “compiling a notebook of quaint little words and phrases,” that she has learned during
her visit (87-88). The revealing part is Stanley’s reply, “You won’t pick up nothing here
you ain’t heard before,” (88). Stanley’s reply indicates that he knows about Blanche’s
past, hence his confidence in the notion that this is far from her first exposure to such
profanity. We can also deduce that this is recently acquired information, because at the
beginning of the play, Stanley did not even know the story of Blanche’s late husband.

Blanche then shifts the conversation to another topic altogether, either sensing
Stanley’s cryptic insinuation, or simply hoping to take another snobbish cheap shot. As
she shifts the exchange to Stanley’s astrological sign, he is described as violently
interacting with objects in his bedroom, “He jerks open the bureau drawer, slams it and
throws shoes in a corner. At each noise Blanche winces slightly,” (88). The conversational shift
is to Stanley’s zodiac sign, which turns out to be “Capricorn—the Goat!” (88)

Here is what https://www.almanac.com/capricorn-zodiac-sign explains about

Capricorns:

What is the personality of a Capricorn? With whom is Capricorn compatible?

Celeste Longacre
April 26, 2023
Are you a Capricorn or is a loved one a Capricorn? Symbolized by a horned goat, Capricorns are the achievers of the Zodiac.
Learn about Capricorn dates, personality, and compatibility.

What are the Capricorn Dates?

The tenth astrological sign in the Zodiac, originating from the constellation of Capricornus, Capricorn’s symbolized by the
horned goat. Under the tropical Zodiac, the Sun enters Capricorn on December 21.

Capricorn Personality

You knew at a very young age that society has levels and you do not want to be stuck at the bottom. This makes you quite
an ambitious, often serious child. You study. You watch. You learn. You put in that extra time on the homework that allows
you to excel in the classroom. You intuitively know that you want a career and not just a job. Others may find you to be
overly serious but you understand that the game has winners and losers and you want to come out on the top.

You are extremely responsible and can be counted upon to do what you say you will. Because you want to do it well, you
analyze the pieces and study how they can best be put together. Friends trust you and they come to see you with their
questions. You always have the answers.
You are almost single-mindedly focused on having a title and you allow nothing to get in your way until you do. You want
your friends and neighbors to be able to say, “____(You) are a ____(career title).”

Once you have achieved this goal, you lighten up considerably. With your name on the door of the corner office, you begin
to seek out some fun. Your wit is dry and you have a deep appreciation for things that are truly well made. You seek out
hand crafted furnishings and prefer superior entertainments whether in movies, books or music. Ticky tacky will
never suffice.

Culture is very important to you and you will always treat your guests to the best table settings when hosting a dinner
party. You choose quality name brands over the ones currently in vogue as you know they will pass the test of time.

Capricorn Compatibility

Best matches for you: With Virgo the two of you can build an empire as you are both well aware that the details make the
difference. Taurus will help to keep you grounded and provide you with culinary delights.

Good matches for you: Scorpio wants the same things out of life and will also strive to excel. Pisces will help you leave
your troubles at the office by providing a soft landing for you.

*Highlights added

I will not debate the validity, if indeed there is any, of Zodiac signs. I offer this
supplemental information because Blanche seems to believe that they are revealing of
one’s character traits. While many of Capricorn’s defining characteristics seem to not
describe Stanley at all, there are a few key passages in the above article that offer insight
into Blanche’s / Tennessee Williams’ thoughts regarding Stanley. As of scene four’s
closing, there is indeed a vicious game that starts being played, and as we will see,
Stanley intends to win. Perhaps most interestingly, Virgos, Blanche’s sign, are the best
match for Capricorns. Williams seems to have had darkly ironic intentions by selecting
these characters’ respective signs.

Here is what https://www.almanac.com/virgo-zodiac-sign has to say about Virgo,

Blanche’s sign:
Happy Birthday, Virgo!

Celeste Longacre
April 26, 2023

Virgo Zodiac Sign: Personality and Compatibility

Virgo Personality

The Virgo is the most modest of all the Zodiac signs. Symbolized by a Virgin, Virgos are nurturing, calming, controlling,
and rule-oriented—focused on order versus chaos. Everyone sees Virgos as calm and composed, when in fact Virgos can
also get stressed to bring order wherever they may be.

If you’re a Virgo, consider yourself the organizer of the Zodiac. You want all of the pieces to be precisely where they belong
and chaos upsets you to the core. Some say that you are neat freaks but this is not necessarily so. You do, however, have
places and things that you keep in impeccable order but they may be right next to a drawer full of jumbles. Things that you
touch or look at often will be at the top of the list for organization. Perhaps dirty keyboard keys or phone pads can make
your skin crawl. Dirty bathrooms cause you to cancel gym memberships and phase out friends.

You are scientifically-gifted and love to learn all of the parts of things whether they be of the periodic table ilk or the specific
steps to create a favorite recipe. You love to see how everything works. You want to know how to do it and how to do it
correctly. You can be counted upon to do what you say and employers love your dedication to keeping order. It is
impossible for you to misfile.

You make excellent business people as you fastidiously note everything that you spend, how much time you have dedicated
and the concrete results that you have experienced. You build upon your knowledge and can go far in your chosen field.

Virgos are amazing friends. Others often ask for your advice as they know that you will give them an answer only after
you have thoroughly thought it through. Your good taste is also reflected in your home where you love clean lines and
refreshing art. Your kitchen is immaculate and you can be counted upon to have all the necessary tools and equipment to
make a wide variety of dishes. Friends love to come and visit because they can be sure of a fine meal.

Virgo Compatibility

Best matches for you:

Capricorn shares your desire for the good life. You will be among the noted couples in your community and you can
accomplish much.

Taurus knows just where to rub your back to ease the tensions and will be happy to fix you a delicious meal as well.

Good matches for you:

Cancer keeps the home fires burning and will be sure to appreciate all that you do.
Scorpio knows how to be successful and will be happy to bring you along, too.

Interestingly, while there are some descriptors of Capricorns that capture Stanley,
Blanche does not fare so well with Virgo. Blanche is so entirely the opposite of what
Virgos supposedly are, that one imagines it was intended as ironic, or that Blanche
herself is lying about being a Virgo. Blanche is not organized, her private and personal
life are utter chaos. Virgos are supposedly fixated upon cleanliness, yet Blanche is
always bathing because she is so dirty—this might be misinterpreted as proving that she
is a Virgo. However, a true Virgo would never have become so dirty to begin with. The
main allure for Blanche claiming this astrological sign is that “Virgo is the Virgin,” (89).
The motivation for this questionable claim is that it is seemingly an endorsement for
being the woman she pretends to be; someone of solid morals, someone whose life is
organized, someone of elevated status, someone who is chaste, and so forth. Let us also
not forget Blanche’s iconic lines about a woman’s charm being fifty percent illusion, and
(later in the play) that she does not tell the truth, but rather what ought to be the truth. She
repeatedly states variations of the notion that she is untruthful, opting instead to lie in
order to misrepresent herself or circumstances on the whole, as better than they actually
are.

Returning to the interaction that is still underway between Blanche and Stanley,
once the conversation shifts to astrological signs, Blanche uses it as an opportunity to
take a passive aggressive swipe at Stanley. In similar fashion, she uses the opportunity
to reassert her superiority, hence her seeming boast that “Virgo is the Virgin,” (89). If we
combine the imagery invoked by this exchange; the goat born “just five minutes after
Christmas,” (88) and the Virgin, it suggests a Jesus and Virgin Mary imagery—though
the goat part also invokes the devil. In this regard, we see both characters manifesting a
corrupted or perverted iteration of the details the aforementioned imagery they embody.

Stanley, however, is ready for Blanche, and his thinly veiled inquiry, “Say, do you
happen to know somebody named Shaw?” (89) reveals the methodology he will employ
in order to retaliate against Blanche in response to her (perceived) transgression in scene
four. Asking about a person that Blanche may be acquainted with indicates that Stanley
has investigated Blanche’s past. Her reaction to the inquiry, “Her face expresses a faint
shock. She reaches for the cologne bottle and dampens her handkerchief as she answers carefully,”
equally reveals that she is unsettled by the information that he must now have in his
possession. Blanche’s initial flaccid attempt to brush the inquiry aside fails, and he
continues, “Well, this somebody named Shaw is under the impression he met you in
Laurel, but I figure he must have got you mixed up with some other party because this
other party is someone he met at a hotel called the Flamingo,” (89). Blanche again
attempts to deflect the inquiry, characterizing the Flamingo as an establishment that is
beneath her. Curiously, as Stanley continues, Blanche then ostensibly admits,
(contradicting her previous claim) that she has been there because she was personally
aware that the establishment had the odor of cheap perfume.

Readers at this point are likely wondering why Blanche would deny knowing a
man named Shaw and the hotel Flamingo only to admit moments later to at least being
familiar with the establishment. While I cannot address this authoritatively, I think this
speaks to how panicked Blanche is that Stanley has gained access to her personal, private
information; she loses her composure and betrays herself in the process. It may also be
that this is yet another subtle hint offered by Williams as to Blanche’s deteriorating
mental state. She no longer has the strength or mental fortitude to maintain the illusions
she has carefully crafted and curated.

As the exchange winds down, Stella and Stanley ready themselves to leave for an
evening out with Steve and Eunice, despite Steve physically attacking Eunice mere
moments before. On his way out, Stella solicits a kiss from Stanley, who has suddenly
developed an aversion to public displays of affection, “Not in front of your sister,” (91).
This marks a change in Stanley, who only two scenes prior was slapping Stella’s
posterior in mixed company. This is interpreted by some to suggest that, “Stanley’s
refusal to kiss Stella in front of Blanche could show that he is inhibited in Blanche’s
presence, or that he resents his wife for allowing her to stay with them,”
(https://www.yorknotes.com/alevel/english-literature/a-streetcar-named-desire-
2017/study/studying-the-play/01050000_scene-
five#:~:text=Key%20interpretation,her%20to%20stay%20with%20them). While there is
reason behind this interpretation, it nonetheless strikes me as lacking. Blanche has spent
her stay in Stanley’s home judging everyone due to her supposed moral and class based
superiority. Stanley, having just learned about Blanche’s past, suddenly feigns reserve
and chastity. I think this actually arises from conclusions he has formulated due to the
newly learned information/ secrets about Blanche (yet to be specifically disclosed in the
play). Stanley is conveying that it is he who is morally superior to her, and not the other
way around. Further, refusing to behave as he normally would have in Blanche’s
presence suggests that he is conveying to her that she has become an outsider. Stanley,
for all of his faults, is not altogether wrong, if this is indeed what he is thinking. Blanche,
after Stanley’s research, suddenly transformed from Southern Belle to [SPOILER] a
career destroying, promiscuous, shamed woman with no remaining reputation to speak
of. Stanley is thus doing what in modern times is called ‘othering’. “Othering is a social
process of marginalization through which a person highly values their own group while
denigrating and excluding anyone from a group different from theirs. This process lies
at the heart of many societal ills, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and
transphobia. Learn more about this social sciences concept and how to combat it,”
(https://www.masterclass.com/articles/othering). We might thus argue that Blanche
has spent the entirety of her visit attempting to other Stanley on the basis of his having
inferior breeding, inferior values, inferior conduct, inferior social status, and so forth.
Discovering Blanche’s lurid secrets, at least in Stanley’s mind, has restored his sense of
superiority, and has equipped him with ammunition to treat Blanche in the same way
she has treated him. It is now Blanche who has inferior values, an inferior reputation,
and so forth. [END OF SPOILER]

Upon his departure, Blanche “looks about her with an expression of almost panic,” (91),
indicating a major concern over the fact that Stanley spoke to a man named Shaw. This
is then reinforced by the three questions immediately posed to Stella in quick succession:

1. What have you heard about me?

2. What have people been telling you about me?
3. You haven’t heard any—unkind—gossip about me?

Blanche’s initial effort to vaguely address the secrets that Stella has yet to learn is to
claim that she ‘wasn’t so good’ and people began to gossip once Belle Reve had begun
to escape her grasp.

Stella’s equally cryptic response suggests that even though she has yet to learn the
substance of Shaw’s claims, she nonetheless seems to have some notion of their
substance. Hence Stella’s interrupted attempt at a reply, “All of us do things we—“, I
imagine the word she was prevented from pronouncing was ‘regret’ (92). Stella knows
her sister well enough to realize that this is not the first time Blanche’s conduct has
aroused gossip.

Blanche’s interruption of Stella is more or less a non sequitur, as she begins to

explain, “I never was hard or self-sufficient enough. When people are soft—soft people
have got to shimmer and glow—they’ve got to put on soft colors, the colors of butterfly
wings, and put a—paper lantern over the light…It isn’t enough to be soft. You’ve got to
be soft and attractive. And I—I’m fading now! I don’t know how much longer I can turn
the trick,” (92). I will analyze this line by line in an attempt to decode Blanche’s
cryptically expressed sentiments. First, Blanche’s reference to never being hard or self-
sufficient enough suggests that she is the inverse, which would be weak and dependent
upon others. Blanche lacks the resiliency and toughness to cope, though she is not
precise as to what she is specifically referring to. Blanche then refers to being soft,
meaning vulnerable, susceptible to being crushed. The soft colors refer to Blanche feeling
as though she needs to attire herself in such a fashion as to be appealing to those whom
are hard—the self-sufficient, the tough, those who can protect and care for the soft. In
this context, that would be desirable men. Knowing what we know about Blanche, that
would of course not be any man, but rather men of elevated status and wealth who can
provide her with the life of privilege she believes she deserves and was bred to inhabit.
The line about the paper lantern relates entirely to Blanche’s earlier statement about a
woman’s charm being fifty percent illusion. Let us examine what a paper lantern actually is;
in the absence of a light fixture or a lamp shade, a paper lantern is a thin façade employed
to camouflage something ugly and crass underneath. While a paper lantern is an
improvement over a naked, exposed lightbulb, it certainly is not fooling anyone.
Blanche’s exterior physical presentation is the paper lantern, it is designed to trick
people into thinking that she is what she wants us to think she is; a refined, classy,
elegant, Southern lady of elevated status. However, the cryptic references to Shaw and
the secrets Stanley has apparently learned suggest that beneath the exterior, there is
something ugly being hidden, the other fifty percent that defines Blanche, you might
say. The last two sentences of dialogue convey that Blanche’s attractiveness is waning
as she ages, and further, that she lacks the energy to continue fooling people.

Stella makes it clear that she has no interest in Blanche’s morbidity and attempts
to distract her with a soda. Blanche takes it with a shot of whiskey and becomes
sentimental to a degree that yet again causes Stella discomfort (93). Blanche’s tone
reaches a ‘hysteric’ level as she declares her intent to leave before Stanley ejects her from
their home (93). The moment is punctuated by Blanche’s “piercing cry”, which arises due
to the soda overflowing and spilling on Blanche’s white skirt as Stella clumsily pores it
(94). This reaction is jarring for both Stella and readers because it is so disproportionate
to that which she is reacting to. This is a symbolic moment for a variety of reasons that
demand analysis. First, it suggests that there is about to be an explosion; something
being contained is about to overflow. From the previous section of dialogue that was
just analyzed, we know that Blanche is having great difficulty projecting the illusion of
who she pretends to be. Thus, this is a massive foreshadow of a plot twist on the horizon.
Further, Blanche’s white skirt has become soiled—and if you recall, Blanche’s name itself
is the French word for white. Thus, it is Blanche herself whose illusory image is about to
be stained when the secrets she has worked so hard to contain will overflow.
As to why Blanche screamed, there are two possibilities in my opinion. First, it might be
that Blanche, an English teacher, sees the symbolism exactly as readers do. Second, it
may be yet another indication of Blanche’s compromised mental state; she is clearly
unable to manage her emotional responses, nor to communicate with clarity and
precision, though I suspect that it could easily be a combination of both.

Blanche, unable to explain the hysterical response, moves on to discussing her

concerns related to Mitch, whom she has recently started dating. Blanche is uneasy
because she faces a conundrum; she wants to keep Mitch interested in her, yet she
believes that if she is overly sexual/ intimate with him, he will lose interest in her,
particularly because she is over thirty. Blanche expresses the notion that women over
thirty are expected to ‘put out’, in other words, engage in sexual contact prior to
marriage as a strategy to maintain the interest of a man. Once a woman is over thirty
and still single, it suggests, seemingly in Blanche’s mind, that she is essentially ‘damaged
goods’, and must therefore offer sexual intercourse or some form of sexual contact to
mitigate that fact (94-95).

Unmarried women during this time were referred to as ‘spinsters’, here is an explanation
of the term:

Long before the Industrial Age, "the art & calling of being a spinster" denoted girls and women who spun wool. According
to the Online Etymological Dictionary, spinning was "commonly done by unmarried women, hence the word came to denote"
an unmarried woman in legal documents from the 1600s to the early 1900s, and "by 1719 was being used generically for
'woman still unmarried and beyond the usual age for it'". As a denotation for unmarried women in a legal context, the term
dates back to at least 1699, and was commonly used in banns of marriage of the Church of England where the prospective
bride was described as a "spinster of this parish".

The Oxford American Dictionary tags "spinster" (meaning "...unmarried woman, typically an older woman beyond the usual
age for marriage") as "derogatory" and "a good example of the way in which a word acquires strong connotations to the
extent that it can no longer be used in a neutral sense."

The 1828 and 1913 editions of Merriam Webster's Dictionary defined spinster in two ways:

1. A woman who spins, or whose occupation is to spin.

2. Law: An unmarried or single woman.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinster)

While being unmarried and over the age of thirty is highly common in the West today,
arousing less scorn than ever before, such was not the case at the time of this play.
Blanche’s concerns related to dating Mitch are rooted in societal expectations, and in a
clear understanding of her diminishing social status as an aging, unmarried woman.
Blanche falls into a category of women that are seen as defective; hence no man being
willing to marry her. We see that as Blanche calculates how to conduct herself dating
Mitch; she must balance satiating his sexual yearnings, making him desire her enough
to marry her, without granting him so much sexual contact that he loses interest in
marrying her altogether. It is a complex balancing act which entails tempting a man
enough to want more, which a woman will only offer if she gets what she wants, which
would be marriage.

Blanche goes onto inform Stella that Mitch has yet to learn her “real age”,
suggesting that she has evaded mentioning her age due to the aforementioned reasons.
The exchange continues thusly (95);

Stella: Why are you sensitive about your age?

Blanche: Because of hard knocks my vanity’s been given. What I mean is—he thinks I’m sort of—prim and proper, you
know! [She laughs out sharply] I want to deceive him enough to make him—want me…
Stella: Blanche, do you want him?
Blanche: I want to rest! I want to breathe quietly again! Yes—I want Mitch…very badly! Just think! If it happens! I can leave
here and not be anyone’s problem…

This exchange is telling because Blanche first alludes to hardships that have eroded her
vanity—something happened that diminished her in some way. Further, Blanche openly
mocks the notion that Mitch sees her as a proper lady. This is curious, because that is the
way she has presented herself throughout the entire play thus far. Blanche then states
that Mitch’s attraction to her is based upon deception. In other words, if Mitch knew the
truth of who she actually was, he might not ‘want’ her any longer. Stella seems surprised
that Blanche has an interest in Mitch, notice the italics. Blanche goes on to confirm that
she has an interest in Mitch, but it seems as though she has a greater desire for the fact
that he will liberate her from Stanley and Stella’s home, and from the fate of being a
spinster. In other words, Blanche’s interest in Mitch strikes me as more strategic than
sincere and emotion based. Finally, do note that when Blanche mentions leaving and
ceasing to be anyone’s problem, Stella makes no effort to correct her.

Stella departs the Kowalski home, leaving Blanche with the final words, “don’t
take another drink!” (96) Not long after, the Young Man character appears at the door.
His intention is to collect the money that Stanley and Stella owe for the delivery of The
Evening Star, a local newspaper. The Young Man is evidently a teenager, and from his
appearance would not be mistaken by any reasonable person as a fully grown adult
male.
The above image from the film confirms the youthfulness of this character, though the
play never specifically states his age. However, between the actor cast to play him in the
film and all of the critical commentary online (in addition to some of Blanche’s dialogue
at the end of this scene), there is broad, unanimous consensus that he is indeed a
teenager, and a high school student in all likelihood. This will be important to keep in
mind for the remainder of the scene.

Blanche’s conduct instantly changes upon the introduction of the Young Man
character. Prior to his arrival, Blanche was distraught and disconcerted by the notion
that Stanley had gained access to details from her—at times she seems to be restraining
a frantic reaction. When the Young Man enters the Kowalski home, suddenly Blanche’s
demeanor shifts from the aforementioned to what could only be characterized as
flirtatious. Blanche is suddenly making small talk, cracking banal jokes about the
newspaper and the boy’s temperamental lighter (96-97). Blanche’s flirtations become
more bold, as she “touches his shoulders” (98) in order to confirm whether he evaded
recent rainfall, until she tells him, “You make my mouth water,” as she smiles and
touches his cheek (98). It should be noted that the Young Man is not described as
relishing Blanche’s attention, but rather “looks yearningly at the door,” seemingly in search
of escape. Despite the nonverbal cues that he is uncomfortable with Blanche’s conduct,
she continues to escalate, telling him (99);

Young man! Young, young, young man! Has anyone ever told you that you look like a young Prince out of the Arabian
Nights?
[The Young Man laughs uncomfortably and stands like a bashful kid. Blanche speaks softly to him.]
Well, you do, honey lamb! Come here. I want to kiss you, just once, softly and sweetly on your mouth!
[Without waiting for him to accept, she crosses quickly to him and presses her lips to his.]
Now run along, now, quickly! It would be nice to keep you, but I’ve got to be good—and keep my hands off children.
[He stares at her a moment. She opens the door for him and blows a kiss at him as he goes down the steps with a dazed look. She stands
there a little dreamily after he has disappeared. Then Mitch appears around the corner with a bunch of roses.]

Williams depicts Blanche in a fashion that invokes predatory arachnid imagery,

hence the narration describing her as taking “a large, gossamer scarf from the trunk,” (98)
and draping it about her shoulders as she flirts with the Young Man—he has unwittingly
stumbled into her web. This imagery foreshadows the dialogue that Blanche will later
speak during her confrontation with Mitch in scene nine, when she will explain that she
brought her ‘victims’ to a hotel called The Tarantula Arms (146). The mere appearance
of a youthful male invokes a predatory countenance in Blanche, so much so that all stress
and anxiety melt away when her reflexive response is aroused.

While readers have not yet received conclusive answers to all of the questions we
were left with at the close of scene one, we can nonetheless deduce one of the answers
from the latter half of this scene. Blanche, in all likelihood, is available to take her
seemingly interminable vacation at Stanley and Stella’s home, despite being a high
school teacher, because she is no longer a teacher. Blanche is no longer a teacher, one can
deduce, based on her conduct with the seventeen year old in this scene—his mere arrival
at her front door triggered her to immediately flirt with and ultimately kiss him. If we
consider her final words to the Young Man as he departs, “I’ve got to be good—and
keep my hands off children,” they imply that keeping her hands off of underage males
has been an ongoing struggle for Blanche, one that has evidently been fraught with
failure. This also decisively marks the beginning of readers viewing Blanche in an
altogether different manner. Up until this scene, we had no concrete reason to doubt that
Blanche was the elite Southern person she presented herself to be. If we take this scene
into consideration alongside Blanche’s earlier statements, we begin to see that the fifty
percent illusion she referred to was rather quite a euphemism that simultaneously hid
and hinted at the darker truth of the lady. If Blanche misrepresented herself as a teacher,
and further, as a lady with exemplary values and class, what else is a lie? We can now
begin to understand that Blanche’s charm being fifty percent illusion suggests the
following dichotomy; the façade she presents of herself is the first half (illusion), while
the actual truth of who Blanche is would be the remaining fifty percent (reality).

A final word on this scene relates to Blanche’s recklessness; Mitch was mere
moments away from walking in on her as she was in the midst of kissing a teenager.
Blanche became so swept up in her yearnings for ‘children’ (as she puts it) that she
struggles to keep her hands off of them, even when being caught is imminent. One can
reasonably deduce that this is not Blanche’s first brush with recklessness, and further,
that more examples of this fact relating to Shaw and others are certain to emerge.
 Scene Six

Narration opens this scene, informing readers that it is two A.M., as Mitch and
Blanche are in the midst of a date. Blanche is described as an utterly exhausted
“neurasthenic personality,” (100). In case you are unfamiliar with the term, neurasthenia
is “a condition that is characterized especially by physical and mental exhaustion
usually with accompanying symptoms (such as headache and irritability), is of
unknown cause but is often associated with depression or emotional stress, and is
sometimes considered similar to or identical with chronic fatigue syndrome,” (
https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/neurasthenia#:~:text=%3A%20a%20condition%20that%20is%
20characterized,identical%20with%20chronic%20fatigue%20syndrome). In other
words, Blanche’s state during her date with Mitch demonstrates the symptomology of
depression. Mitch as well is described as depressed on their date, although I suspect that
their respective depressions can be attributed to different causes. While Blanche’s secrets
seem dangerously on the verge of spilling out entirely, Mitch’s depression might to some
extent be related to his ailing mother, in addition to the awkwardness he is presently
enduring with Blanche on their date.

The awkwardness of their date is palpable from the opening lines of the scene.
Neither Mitch nor Blanche seem able to latch on to a topic that might arouse dynamism
or a connection. It is interesting, however, that in the midst of such awkwardness,
Blanche yet again mentions the streetcar named Desire—this would be the third
mention, for anyone keeping count. This time Blanche refers to it by inquiring, “Is that
street-car named Desire still grinding along the tracks at this hour?” (100) Literally
speaking, Blanche is merely inquiring whether a mode of transit is still available as the
date will presumably soon end. Symbolically, Blanche might actually be inquiring about
Mitch’s desire for her, or might at least be offering him an opening to express it. Further,
as we will come to see, the metaphorical streetcar named Desire is always running, it
never stops, and it is always heading to a singular destination.

Mitch and Blanche take turns claiming credit for their date going dismally as she
attempts to find the keys for the Kowalski apartment. Rather than simply kissing
Blanche, Mitch asks permission, demonstrating that he is not the alpha figure Stanley is.
Blanche asks why Mitch always seeks her permission to kiss, and he explains that it is
unclear whether she wants him to kiss her or not. This indicates that Blanche’s conduct
with Mitch does not offer him a clear insight as to whether she is actually interested in
him (102). Do note, however, that while there seems to be ambiguity as to Blanche’s
feelings and desire for Mitch, she was certainly unambiguous when in the presence of
the under-aged paperboy. Further, we learn that on a previous date, Blanche rebuffed
Mitch’s apparent attempts at intimacy when they extended beyond simply attempting
to kiss her.

Blanche attempts to explain her rejection of Mitch by saying “that a single girl, a
girl alone in the world has got to keep a firm hold on her emotions or she’ll be lost,”
(103). In other words, if a woman gives into her lust, or at least that of her male
companion, she will ultimately be committing an act of self-sabotage that will not serve
her well at all. Thus, a woman should not whimsically give into lust, meaning that
perhaps there is some degree of calculation as to when lust is indulged. Mitch then
earnestly attempts to compliment Blanche by stating, “I have never known anyone like
you,” (103) and her immediate reaction is to laugh in his face. Blanche evades Mitch’s
demand to know why she laughed, but I suspect it is for one of two reasons, if not both
equally. First, Mitch is so boyishly yet earnestly saccharine that his naiveté is
embarrassing, if not entirely misguided. We as readers have only seen this fact hinted at
thus far, but between the secrets revealed by the man named Shaw to Stanley (yet
undisclosed to readers), and Blanche’s conduct with the Young Man in the previous
scene, we can begin to have a vague notion of why Blanche is laughing. Second, while
we as readers along with Mitch remain almost entirely uninformed as to Blanche’s
secrets, Blanche, naturally, has full knowledge of them, thus she is laughing at Mitch
because his idealized view of her is so woefully off the mark.

Blanche and Mitch enter the Kowalski apartment, where Blanche immediately
commences a search for alcohol (103). Readers are now likely beginning to note that
Blanche drinks in almost every scene of the play, apart from when it is the morning.
Again, Blanche makes a point of mentioning to Mitch that their time together is fleeting
(104), seemingly to insinuate that it is time for him to take decisive action. In this context
that means a marriage proposal is expected, which would explain why Blanche is
curtailing physical intimacy with Mitch—if he wants more, he will need to marry her.
This is, of course, highly contradictory, because the same person refusing to kiss Mitch
seems to expect a proposal to form the most intimate relationship possible.

Blanche attempts to flirt with Mitch, but he is simply too uncomfortable to play
along. Speaking in French, she jokingly suggests that they have sexual intercourse, but
even that escapes Mitch (104). The conversation continues in a similar vein, with Mitch
revealing that he will not remove his coat because his shirt is soaked through with
perspiration (105). The exchange then shifts to their respective body types, as Mitch
suggests they guess one another’s respective weights (106-107). The entire interaction is
mind-numbing, though it is revealing in one essential way; it offers insight into Mitch’s
character. Mitch is a kind, gentle man, who despite his bulky frame, and crass group of
friends, stands apart. For example, one struggles to imagine Stanley or any of the other
men in their group of friends caring for an ailing relative, or asking permission to kiss a
woman on a date. Mitch is not sexy, he is not exciting, and seems to be conventional in
every conceivable way—he is essentially the man Blanche should want but simply cannot
bring herself to. Blanche wants reckless, risky, dangerous—stolen kisses from nervous
seventeen year olds, and the cheap perfume of the Hotel Flamingo. Mitch represents the
life Blanche needs, but has nothing to offer that Blanche actually wants.

After Mitch lifts Blanche in order to estimate her weight, he engages in a more
direct attempt to kiss her, and finds himself again rebuffed. Blanche explains her
rejection thusly, “I don’t want you to think that I am severe and old maid school-
teacherish or anything like that. It’s just—well—[…] I guess that I have—old-fashioned
ideals!” As she says this, Blanche “rolls her eyes, knowing he cannot see her face,” (108). On
the heels of the previous scene, Blanche claiming to have ‘old-fashioned ideals’ becomes
a bit of darkly comical irony, when previous to scene five it could have been easily
understood by readers as a sincere sentiment. As for the eye roll, it is not clear for me
whether Blanche is rolling her eyes due to Mitch’s clumsy abortive attempt at physical
intimacy, or at herself for making claims that even she does not believe in the slightest.

As the conversation continues to awkwardly progress, Mitch suggests that they

double date with Stanley and Stella. Blanche outright rejects the idea and begins to ask
about Stanley, much in the way Stanley was asking Shaw about her (109). Blanche goes
on to explain that living with Stanley is unbearable due to his rudeness. Blanche also
falsely claims she is mainly visiting to care for Stella, who continues to be pregnant (110).
However, if readers take a moment to reflect on the play thus far, it is actually Stella who
is caring for Blanche, waiting on her as though she were a handmaid. Blanche then goes
on to elaborate on how dreadful it is to live with Stanley, again due to his lack of basic
manners, and then offers a completely different reason for staying with Stanley and
Stella. Suddenly, the reason Blanche is staying with the Kowalskis is due to the financial
limitations that arose from being an underpaid teacher (111).

Things get interesting when Blanche states, “He hates me. Or why would he insult
me? The first time I laid eyes on him I thought to myself, that man is my executioner!
That man will destroy me, unless—“(111). Blanche claims that she knew from their
initial encounter that Stanley would kill her. What does this even mean? What was it
about Stanley that triggered such a drastic and immediate realization? Blanche will not
further elaborate on this sentiment, however, if we consider it alongside her first words
in the play, she arrived to the French Quarter and was struck immediately by a sense of
foreboding. She was unsettled upon uttering the trajectory of her trip aloud because it
was so ominous; Desire to Cemeteries to Elysian Fields. Desire, in other words leads to
one’s ultimate destruction. While we do not yet have full insight into this matter, we can
at least begin to understand how lustful desire in some way led to the destruction of
Blanche via her interaction as a high school teacher with the Young Man in scene five.
This is a woman who instantly acquiesces to her desire the moment it is aroused, no
thought, no hesitation, just immediate adherence. This manner of conduct, being guided
by one’s lustful desires without attempting to control or mitigate them in any way,
would lead to the destruction of any person who lived that way. Finally, the dialogue
ends on an interrupted note; the “unless” is curious because Blanche never fully explains
how she would evade destruction at Stanley’s hands. I suspect the ‘unless’ in this context
relates to some form of escape, whether it entailed Blanche simply fleeing, or perhaps
the realization that Mitch is her last chance for escape. After all, once she expresses the
incomplete thought about Stanley destroying her, things take a rather sudden tonal shift
between Blanche and Mitch.

Mitch is completely oblivious to the ominousness of what Blanche is attempting

to communicate; she has repeatedly told him that she is in danger, that his best friend
intends to gravely harm or kill her, and his reply is to ask about her age (112). While
Blanche is prepared to discuss the possibility of Stanley murdering her at length, she
seems to find the topic of her actual age far more unsettling, and expertly evades the
question altogether. Instead of answering, Blanche asks why Mitch wants to know her
age, at which point he explains that his mother wants to see him settled and taken care
of before she dies (113). Mitch’s honesty and vulnerability seem to stir something in
Blanche, and this seemingly is the reason she opens up to Mitch in a way we have yet to
see in the play. In so doing, we gain a definitive answer to one of the questions we were
left with at the end of scene 1; why does Blanche become ill at the mere mention of her late
husband?

Here is Blanche’s monologue in full (excluding the narration, 114-115);

He was a boy, just a boy, when I was a very young girl. When I was sixteen, I made the discovery — love. All at once and
much, much too completely. It was like you suddenly turned a blinding light on something that had always been half in
shadow, that’s how it struck the world for me. But I was unlucky. Deluded. There was something different about the boy,
a nervousness, a softness and tenderness which wasn’t like a man’s, although he wasn’t the least bit effeminate looking —
still– that thing was there…. He came to me for help. I didn’t know that. I didn’t find out anything till after our marriage
when we’d run away and come back and all I knew was I’d failed him in some mysterious way and wasn’t able to give the
help he needed but couldn’t speak of! He was in the quicksands and clutching at me — but I wasn’t holding him out, I was
slipping in with him! I didn’t know that. I didn’t know anything except I loved him unendurably but without being able to
help him or help myself. Then I found out. In the worst of all possible ways. By coming suddenly into a room that I thought
was empty — which wasn’t empty, but had two people in it… the boy I had married and an older man who had been his
friend for years. Afterwards we pretended that nothing had been discovered. Yes, the three of us drove out to Moon Lake
Casino, very drunk and laughing all the way. We danced the Varsouviana! Suddenly in the middle of the dance the boy I
had married broke away from me and ran out of the casino. A few moments later — a shot! I ran out — all did! — all ran
and gathered about the terrible thing at the edge of the lake! I couldn’t get near for the crowding. Then somebody caught
my arm. “Don’t go any closer! Come back! You don’t want to see!” See? See what! Then I heard voices say — Allan! Allan!
The Gray boy! He’d stuck the revolver into his mouth, and fired — so that the back of his head had been — blown away! It
was because — on the dance-floor — unable to stop myself — I’d suddenly said — “I saw! I know! You disgust me!” And
then the searchlight which had been turned on the world was turned off again and never for one moment since has there
been any light that’s stronger than this — kitchen — candle…
 Since this is one of the more lengthy and detailed monologues of the play, and
furthermore seems to be one of the few moments Blanche is completely candid without
a manipulative agenda, it merits a detailed analysis. The opening of Blanche’s
monologue already provides us with valuable information; Blanche’s late husband was
sixteen when they fell in love, and she was approximately the same age. What is the age
of the Young Man in scene five? Sixteen or seventeen. How old are the students Blanche
teaches at high school? Sixteen or seventeen. Blanche explains that the love she felt was
fleeting due to something “different about the boy”. Blanche offers a series of cryptic
insinuations about her late husband that all more or less hint at his being gay, though
obviously closeted. In other words, her late husband was secretly gay and thus living a
lie by marrying her. Going to Blanche for help seems to suggest that he was essentially
hoping that she would somehow cure him of his gayness, so to speak. Blanche, of course,
had no idea that he was struggling with this secret, and her dialogue about them running
away and her failing him seems to mean that as a young couple they would attempt to
make love, but he was unable to achieve arousal. Blanche interpreted this initially to
mean that she was faulty since she could not arouse her husband. Blanche shockingly
learned why she was unable to arouse her young husband when she suddenly walked
in on him engaged in sexual contact with another man. It seems that initially, her late
husband and his male lover did not realize Blanche had witnessed their intimate
moment. Later that evening, the three go on an excursion to the Moon Lake Casino,
where one suspects that after a few beverages, Blanche lost her ability to remain silent
or composed. What ensued was her condemnation, “I saw! I know! You disgust me…”
Readers might at this point be wondering; why would Allan Grey kill himself upon
being exposed as secretly gay? This excerpt from Something Changed: The Social and Legal
Status of Homosexuality in America as Reported by the New York Times
(https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:204754/datastream/PDF/view)
will offer some insight into Allan Grey’s drastic decision to take his own life immediately
upon being exposed as gay;

Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, gay citizens were committing crimes by going about their
daily lives. Lillian Faderman notes that “homosexuals understood at mid-century that their greatest adversaries were the
churches, which dubbed them sinful; the mental health profession, which dubbed them sick; and [then] the law, which took
its clues from the other authorities and thus justified their cruelty.” Orientation-based violence was a real threat, as was
being “outed” in one’s personal life due to enemies or nosy neighbors—and since homosexuality was against the law, this
made for dangerous living conditions for homosexuals in America. Conditions were precarious for homosexual citizens.

[…]

The start of the Great Depression led people to value a more reserved lifestyle: behavior that was tolerated during the
twenties was decidedly less so in the 30’s: women had fewer rights, men were expected to work harder, and the funloving
society of the 1920’s gave way to a grim, tight-laced society in the 1930’s. Medical doctors, psychologists, and anti-vice
squads branded homosexuals as sick, mentally deranged, and abnormal. The American Psychiatric Association classified
homosexuality as a disease, a response to the common societal belief that homosexuality was unnatural and undesirable.
“Hundreds of gay men were arrested in New York City for cruising or visiting gay locales; thousands were arrested every
year in the [decade following the end of World War 1]”.
The above excerpts help us to understand why Allan Grey being publicly outed
triggered such a drastic and immediate reaction. Grey understood that there was
complete consensus medically, socially, legally, and religiously, among others, that gay
people were sick, deviant individuals in need treatment and punishment. His
reputation, his social status, and his life as a whole were figuratively, if not literally over.

Pulling various strands of the story together, another of our questions from the
end of scene one can be decisively answered. Blanche becomes sick at the mere mention
of her husband, Allan Grey, because she harbors great guilt over his death. Blanche must
realize that had she spoken with Allan in a calmer, more discreet setting, rather than
publicly confronting and outing him, he would likely still be alive. In this regard,
Blanche has reason to feel sadness and guilt. However, Blanche is also a victim; she
seemingly married Allan Grey because she loved him, but he was deceptive. Allan was
pretending to be something he simply was not; a heterosexual man. He used Blanche by
misleading her into thinking that he shared her affections and intentions, when he
obviously did not. What we are left with is destruction on both sides; a man dead by his
own hand, governed by shame and fear, and on the other, a woman destroyed and
bearing the burden of unshakable guilt. My intent is not to condemn Blanche or Allan,
they both found themselves in an impossible situation, and ultimately ended up with
only awful options. However, if we examine the lasting impact of Allan’s death upon
Blanche, I believe it offers yet another dark way that she has something in common with
Stanley; she too may be suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If this is the case,
we see, through these two characters the duality of how mental health afflictions can
manifest; in Stanley we see how one’s sickness can lead to the harm of others in their
midst. Conversely, in Blanche we see how the sickness can manifest internally, causing
one to behave in such fashion that they end up harming themselves (though the
collateral damage is undeniable).

This scene marks the beginning of another recurring motif; that of the polka music
that Blanche will hear with increased frequency as the play henceforth continues (115).
Before elaborating on this motif, here is an explanation of this particular piece of music;

The varsovienne, also known as the varsouvienne or varsoviana, is a slow, graceful dance in time with an accented
downbeat in alternate measures. It combines elements of the waltz, mazurka, and polka. The dance originated around 1850
in Warsaw, Poland. The words varsovienne and varsoviana are French and Spanish feminine adjectives, respectively,
meaning 'from Warsaw'. The dance was popular in 19th-century America, where it was danced to the tune Put Your Little
Foot. It quickly became a favorite folk dance in the Scandinavian countries as well. The unique armhold by the same name
– also known as the promenade hold – is used in other dance styles such as the American square dance, contra dance, and
some ballroom dances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsovienne).

The Varsouviana is playing as Allan kills himself, which ties it inextricably in with what
appears to be the worst trauma of Blanche’s life. Initially readers are likely to understand
the polka music as little more than an easily overlooked swath of score accompanying
the events of the play. However, as the play continues, we will come to see that the polka
music is actually part of an auditory hallucination that Blanche will continue to have
with both increased frequency and intensity. In other words, while the music is playing,
it is not heard by anyone apart from Blanche, despite her belief that it is audible to all.
This will become evident in scene nine when Mitch confronts Blanche.

Upon learning the particulars of Blanche’s profound trauma, Mitch says, “You
need somebody. And I need somebody too. Could it be—you and me, Blanche?” The
narration describes the moment, “She stares at him vacantly for a moment. Then with a soft
cry huddles in his embrace. She makes a sobbing effort to speak but the words won’t come. He
kisses her forehead her eyes and finally her lips. The polka tune fades out. Her breath is drawn
and released in long, grateful sobs,” as Blanche utters the final dialogue of the scene,
“Sometimes—there’s God—so quickly!” (116) By the end of this scene we see that Mitch
and Blanche seem to connect through their respective traumas, causing their
relationship to become official. If we re-examine Mitch’s dialogue, it seems that the term
‘need’ has a different for Mitch and Blanche, respectively. Mitch needs companionship
and somebody to love, thus he is speaking to an inherent need he has. On the other hand,
Blanche’s so-called need is far more pragmatic in nature; she literally needs to be with
Mitch because otherwise she will be destitute. While I think it is reasonable to be cynical
as to Blanche’s true motivations with Mitch, the narration seems to describe Blanche as
being truly in earnest; she is not rebuffing his sincere affections, which are loving rather
than sexual in nature. Blanche also allows herself to be held as she has what appears to
be a sincere outpouring of emotion and relief. Blanche’s somewhat cryptic dialogue at
the close of the scene suggests that she views Mitch as someone sent by God to rescue
her in her moment of profound need.

A final word on this scene. If this is your first reading of the play, you are likely
concerned that the remainder is about to tumble into a schmaltzy disaster. Such is not
the case. Williams has offered Blanche just a peak of the happiness she yearns for in
order to compound the pain and suffering that awaits her in the remaining scenes of the
play. This minute glimpse at what could be is designed to compound the suffering on
the horizon for Blanche.
 Scene Seven

The scene opens with Stella preparing a humble birthday celebration for Blanche.
The bulk of events will feature an exchange between Stanley and Stella. Blanche will
spend the majority of her time in the bathroom, with the lyrics she sings in the bathtub
thematically capturing key aspects of who she is, you might say.

Stanley enters the kitchen inquiring about Stella’s activities. It is clear that
anything Stella says to Stanley will serve as a basis for him to mock and complain about
Blanche. Stanley is openly disdainful of Blanche’s frequent habit of bathing, and Stella’s
habit of waiting on her like a servant (117-118). The tone shifts even more darkly when
Stanley says, “Set down! I’ve got the dope on your big sister, Stella,” (118). What follows
is a list of what Stanley learned about Blanche from the man named Shaw:

1. While Blanche projects the image of a person who has very little sexual experience
with men, the opposite is actually the case. Seemingly, once Blanche was no longer able
to manage Belle Reve on her own, she ultimately began to stay at a low end, low class
hotel called The Flamingo. While there, she was so promiscuous that her conduct not
only aroused gossip around town, but the hotel, despite its lowly reputation, forced
Blanche to leave because her conduct was so objectionable (119-120).

2. Blanche was also seemingly run out of town due to the aforementioned conduct once
it reached the broad awareness of the town people. After a few dates with Blanche, men
would apparently figure out the truth—that she was not the classy, Southern Belle she
pretended, and dump her. Ultimately, Blanche came to be regarded as mentally unstable
due presumably to her promiscuity, and seemingly to increasingly erratic behavior.
Blanche’s promiscuity was so rampant that her dwelling was designated as ‘out-of-
bounds’ to the soldiers training nearby (121).

3. Blanche was fired from her teaching position after the father of one of her seventeen
year old male students discovered she was having sexual relations with him. Stanley
especially savors sharing this fact (122-123). *Do note that in many places this constitutes statutory rape,
the legal definition of which states that an adult cannot engage in sexual contact with a minor, even if that minor consents.
The reasoning here is that a minor lacks the sophistication to truly understand that which they are consenting to.

Stella does her best to deflect or minimize what Stanley has said to her. First she
euphemistically refers to things about Blanche she never approved of, things that caused
great sorrow at home during their youth (124), but attempts to reduce them to Blanche
being ‘flighty’. Flighty means fickle and irresponsible, yet what Stella is cryptically
hinting at would seem to be that Blanche was promiscuous from a very early age, and
even then her conduct brought great shame and embarrassment to the family. Stella on
some level seems to know that what Stanley is saying to her is more or less the truth.
The final revelation is that Stanley shared all of the above with Mitch, who should no
longer be expected as an attendee of Blanche’s birthday gathering (125-126). We also
learn that Mitch and Blanche, prior to these revelations, were on track to getting married
(126). Stanley explains that while Mitch is not necessarily entirely finished with her,
marriage is seemingly no longer an option. In other words, Mitch, according to Stanley,
now views Blanche as little more than a sexual object to have his turn with since she will
no longer qualify as marriageable.

We now see Stanley’s strategy with Shaw; Stanley investigated Blanche’s past in
order to weaponize any negative information he discovered against her. Another way
to describe this is character assassination. The Collins Dictionary defines it thusly, “A
character assassination is a deliberate attempt to destroy someone's reputation,
especially by criticizing them in an unfair and dishonest way when they are not present,”
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/character-assassination).
Part of the proper definition undoubtedly accurately applies to Stanley; he did
deliberately act to destroy Blanche’s reputation, however, he seemingly did so by using
the truth. Perhaps the deception in all of this is not whether Blanche did everything
Stanley alleges, but rather that she should be defined solely through her worst conduct.
Is a person more than just the awful things they have done, if indeed any of Blanche’s
conduct is actually awful? This is where the individual values of readers factor in to their
respective appraisals of Blanche. What is a reasonable consequence for a person who
was rampantly promiscuous to the point that their reputation was destroyed? Should a
former teacher who became entangled with a student lose all opportunities to move
forward in their life? Who among us has never behaved regrettably? Who among us
could withstand the most awful deeds of our lives being cherry-picked and publicly
scrutinized? In other words, Stanley did apparently expose pieces of the ‘truth’, but the
truth is the whole story, not just the pieces that serve a particular agenda. I am not
attempting to exonerate Blanche so much as stagger the immediate impulse in some to
reflexively condemn.

The strategy employed by Stanley to destroy Blanche encapsulates and further

reinforces the argument I have presented throughout this analysis; the animalization of
Stanley demonstrates the most brutal, merciless elements of his bestial nature harnessed
by the calculated sophistication of the human intellect. Stanley is not merely a beast
tearing its rival to shreds, he is also a man delighting in the gradual and methodical
public dismantling of a challenger. Beyond all this, it is not enough for Stanley that
Blanche is publicly ruined in New Orleans, he has also purchased a bus ticket for Blanche
so that she, with nowhere left to go, will be forced to go back to Laurel (127). For me this
invokes the stories of the fleeting moments that Jesus had left on earth; he endured the
tortures of dragging the cross upon which he would be crucified, he was cut, he was
whipped, and a thorny crown was mockingly placed upon his head, until finally he was
nailed to the cross upon which he would die scorned and publicly humiliated.

Let us now backtrack to Blanche’s role in this scene. As Stanley continues to

destroy her, Blanche is yet again obliviously bathing. It is no accident that as Stanley
spills her ‘dirty secrets’, Blanche is busily attempting to wash their filth away. Before we
analyze Blanche’s dialogue in the form of song lyrics, I will first transcribe the lyrics that
make their way into the scene, followed by the complete lyrics of the song. Here are the
lyrics that feature in the scene:

-It’s a Barnum and Bailey world, Just as phony as it can be—

But it wouldn’t be make-believe
If you believed in me

-Without your love,

It’s a honky-tonk parade!

-Without your love,

It’s a melody played
In a penny arcade

-It’s a Barnum and Bailey world,

Just as phony as it can be—

Here is the history of the song, “"It's Only a Paper Moon" is a popular song published in
1933 with music by Harold Arlen and lyrics by Yip Harburg and Billy Rose. It was
originally titled "If You Believed in Me," but later went by the more popular title "It's
Only a Paper Moon." The song was written for an unsuccessful 1932 Broadway play
called The Great Magoo that was set in Coney Island,” (https://www.lyrics.com/lyric-
lf/872344/Nat+King+Cole/It%27s+Only+a+Paper+Moon)

The full lyrics:

It is only a paper moon

Hanging over a cardboard sea
But it wouldn't be make believe
If you believe in me

It is only a canvas sky

Sailing over a muslin tree
But it wouldn't be make believe
If you believe in me

Without your love

It's a honky tonk parade
Without your love
It's a melody played
On a penny arcade

It's a Barnum and Bailey world

Just as phony as it can be
But it wouldn't be make believe
If you believe in me

Without your love

It's a honky tonk parade
Without your love
It's a melody played
On a penny arcade

It's a Barnum and Bailey world

Just as phony as it can be
But it wouldn't be make believe
If you believe in me

The song and particularly the lyrics that make their way into the scene perfectly capture
Blanche’s previously expressed sentiments. The lyrics convey the notion that while
Blanche is telling lies, they would not be lies if everyone essentially accepted them as the
truth. This links perfectly with her declarations that a woman’s charm is fifty percent
illusion, and also (yet to appear in the play) that Blanche does not tell the truth, but what
ought to be the truth.

When Blanche momentarily emerges from the bathroom, she instantly senses
something is wrong (123). Stella evades her attempts to gain clarity, and the scene ends
with Blanche accusing Stella of lying (128).

Scene seven provides us with the remaining answers we were seeking at the end
of scene one; Blanche is endlessly available to stay in the Kowalski home because she
lost her job as a teacher after becoming sexual with a student, and also because she was
exiled from her home town for rampant promiscuity.
 Scene Eight

Scene eight continues three quarters of an hour after scene seven ends. The
birthday dinner mentioned in the previous scene is now underway, the “three people are
completing a dismal birthday supper. Stanley looks sullen. Stella is embarrassed and sad. Blanche
has a tight, artificial smile on her drawn face. There is a fourth place at the table which is left
vacant,” (129). The fourth spot was obviously intended for Mitch. The atmosphere of this
scene is pregnant with awkwardness and profound sadness. Blanche is distressed
because she knows, as she mentioned in the previous scene, that Stanley and Stella are
aware of something that they are not mentioning to her. Additionally, Blanche is
saddened by the fact that Mitch is unexpectedly absent from her birthday celebration
without explanation. Stanley’s sullenness is in all likelihood due to the fact that Stella is
upset with him over his malicious pursuit of Blanche. Readers know the particulars as
they relate to each character, and thus we find ourselves suddenly bombarded by the
multitude of morose emotions overflowing from each of them simultaneously in this
scene.

In an attempt to disrupt the awkward silence, Blanche asks Stanley to tell a joke.
This is a clear indicator of Blanche’s present state of distress; she would rather hear one
of his crass anecdotes than squirm in the skin crawling silence. Before Stanley can
answer, Blanche acknowledges the elephant in the room, Mitch’s absence, claiming that
this marks the first occasion that she has been stood up by a male companion.
Interestingly, Blanche makes a joke at her own expense by mentioning that she has had
a ‘good deal’ of experience with men of ‘all sorts’ (129). This may be a passive
acknowledgement of what she imagines Stanley learned from the man named Shaw.
Stanley declines Blanche’s request for a joke or humorous anecdote, stating, “I don’t
know any refined enough for your taste,” (129). Earlier in the play this could easily have
been a sentiment expressed in earnest. In this instant and moving forward, we know
that such comments are intended as passive aggressive sarcasm.

Blanche is forced to break the silence herself, and thus commences to recount what
is intended to be a humorous parrot joke. As Blanche struggles to tell her joke, “Stanley
pays no attention to the story but reaches way over the table to spear his fork into the remaining
chop which he eats with his fingers,” (131). Stanley is behaving crassly in an effort to
continue displaying his disdain for Blanche. However, Stella’s reaction to Stanley’s
conduct suggests that Blanche’s arrival has gradually brought about a shift in the power
dynamics of the Kowalski home. In the beginning of the play Stella is meek, she never
addresses Stanley aggressively or critically, simply acquiescing to his will—the one
exemption to that norm resulted in her severe beating. During this scene, conversely, we
see the most overt and direct defiance of Stanley’s status as the central authority of his
home when Stella aggressively criticizes his table manners, “Your face and your fingers
are disgustingly greasy. Go and wash up and then help me clear the table,” (131).
Suddenly Stella is not gently cajoling or suggesting what Stanley should do, she is now
authoritatively chastising and ordering him. We might say that the women of the
Kowalski home have been mounting a gradually escalating coup in opposition Stanley’s
leadership. Stanley’s reaction to Stella’s brazen response thus constitutes the crushing of
the burgeoning rebellion (131).

[He hurls a plate to the floor.]

Stanley: That’s how I’ll clear the table! [He seizes her arm] Don’t ever talk that way to me! “Pig—Polack—disgusting—
vulgar—greasy!”—them kind of words have been on your tongue and your sister’s too much around here! What do you
two think you are? A pair of queens? Remember what Huey Long said—“Every Man is a King!” And I am the king around
here, so don’t forget it!

Stanley’s outburst is not merely a man losing his temper, it is, as previously mentioned,
the crushing of a rebellion. Stella and Blanche began to believe that they could address
Stanley as gruffly and aggressively as he does everyone else. Stanley needed to disabuse
the women of their misguided notions concerning their status in the Kowalski home. It
is Stanley who is in charge, who criticizes, who yells and insults, nobody else, and
certainly not women.

As Stanley crushes the fleeting rebellion in his home, he quotes Huey P. Long, here is a
lengthier excerpt of the section he quotes, “Every man a king, so there would be no such
thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be
dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipse dixit of the financial martyrs for a
living,”
(https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/EveryManKing.pdf)
. Here are a few explanations of the sentiments expressed in the full speech, ““Every
Man a King” is the title of a speech delivered in 1934 by Senator Huey Long of Louisiana.
The speech, which Long delivered on national radio, is one of Long’s most famous
speeches, along with his “Share the Wealth” speech. Long, a populist politician, used
the speeches to rail against the concentration of wealth in a few hands and to highlight
the problems of the […] poor people in his own state,”
(https://politicaldictionary.com/words/every-man-a-king/). Another website
explained the speech thusly, “In this speech, Long sketched out in broad form his
redistribution plan. When the Founding Fathers wrote "all Men are created equal," Long
said "Did they mean, my friends, to say that all men were created equal and that that
meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was
to be born to inherit nothing?"” (https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-
the-textbook/23919?subpage=2)

When Long referred to every ‘man’ being a king, he meant all people, not just males.
Furthermore, it was in a context of aspiring to oppose the inequitable distribution of
wealth in Louisiana. In other words, in the same way that Stanley misunderstood the
Napoleonic Code, cherry-picking a decontextualized excerpt, he did the same with
Huey Long’s quote, which in actuality rejected the idea that some in America live as
kings, while others live in squalor. Stanley invokes Long to reinforce the idea that every
man should be seen as occupying an elevated status in his home above women, and thus
quotes Long to actually reinforce privilege and patriarchy. Regardless of his
misunderstanding, there should be no doubt in the minds of readers that Stanley
extinguished the rebellion blossoming in his home, and went on to reprise his place on
the throne by the end of this scene.

After Stanley’s reclamation of the Kowalski kingdom, he steps outside for a

cigarette. Blanche quickly seeks answers from Stella because it is clear that she has
learned things about Blanche, but is refusing to admit to knowing anything (132). Stella’s
precise motivation for lying is unclear; is she a coward? Is she simply evading something
unpleasant? Is she too disgusted by what she has heard to discuss it? Regardless of the
motivation, it is cruel. In modern times people tend to refer to such conduct as
‘gaslighting’. ““Psychologists use the term “gaslighting” to refer to a specific type of
manipulation where the manipulator is trying to get someone else (or a group of people)
to question their own reality, memory or perceptions. And it’s always a serious problem,
according to psychologists,” (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/what-
gaslighting-how-do-you-know-if-it-s-happening-ncna890866).
While the term ‘gaslighting’ is invoked with far too much ease in modern times, it
certainly applies in scene eight with regard to Stanley and Stella’s treatment of Blanche
during her birthday dinner. Blanche is already suffering due to the diminished state of
her mental health. We see that there is a complete incongruency between the woman she
pretends to be, and by extension, the way she expects others to perceive her, versus the
woman her secrets actually reveal her to be. In other words, Blanche’s grip on reality
seems to become increasingly tenuous as the play unfolds. Thus, when Blanche during
this scene and prior accurately detects that something is wrong or that she is not being
told something, her perception is accurate, despite Stella’s insistence to the contrary. The
gaslighting is part of Stanley’s strategy; it was not simply that he wanted to destroy
Blanche using her own secrets as weapons, he also wanted her to torturously marinate
in the anticipation of never knowing exactly what he knew, when he would expose it,
and to whom he would expose it. This is the maddening cruelty of Stanley’s mutlitiered
strategy.

Blanche attempts to contact Mitch to seek the answers that Stella is evidently
refusing her (132-133). Simultaneously, Stanley begins to seduce Stella with how great
their lives will be upon Blanche’s departure and after the baby is born. He reminds her
of how they will be able to make love once more without Blanche’s presence posing any
hindrance (133). They all return to partake in Blanche’s all white birthday cake, and
Blanche insists that the candles not be wasted because they should be preserved for the
baby’s upcoming celebrations. Stanley, of course, uses this as another opportunity to
make a disparaging comment at Blanche’s expense (133-134).

We begin to see that Blanche is offended by Mitch’s unexplained absence, she feels
taken for granted. Stanley’s reply has no relation to Blanche’s comment, instead he
complains about how hot the apartment has become due to Blanche’s constant bathing.
What follows is the first aggressive exchange between Blanche and Stanley (134):

Blanche: I’ve said I was sorry three times. I take hot baths for my nerves. Hydro-therapy, they call it. You healthy Polack,
without a nerve in your body, of course you don’t know what anxiety feels like!

Stanley: I am not a Polack. People from Poland are Poles, not Polacks. But what I am is one hundred percent American,
born and raised in the greatest country on earth and proud as hell of it, so don’t ever call me a Polack.

Blanche’s dialogue may reveal something interesting. Her reference to “hydro-therapy”

suggests that she may have been hospitalized at some point in her life, which could
explain why she uses this treatment during her visit. Here is an explanation of how
hydrotherapy was used in asylums when this play was written:

Hydrotherapy was a popular method of treatment for mental illness at the beginning of the twentieth century, and was
used at many institutions, including the London Asylum for the Insane. Water was thought to be an effective treatment
because it could be heated or cooled to different temperatures, which, when applied to the skin, could produce various
reactions throughout the rest of the body. One of the main benefits of hydrotherapy treatment was its ability to take effect
quickly. Hydrotherapy could be accomplished with baths, packs, or sprays. Warm continuous baths were used to treat
patients suffering from insomnia, those considered to be suicidal and assaultive, and calmed excited and agitated
behaviour. A patient could expect a continuous bath treatment to last from several hours to several days, or sometimes
even over night. Continuous baths were the most effective when held in a quiet room with little light and audio stimulation,
thus allowing the patient to relax and possibly even fall asleep. Bath temperatures typically ranged from 92°F to 97°F, so as
not to cause injury to the patients. Packs consisted of sheets dipped in varying temperatures of water, which were then
wrapped around the patient for several hours depending on the case. Sprays functioned like showers, and used either warm
or cold water. Cold water was used to treat patients diagnosed with manic-depressive psychoses, and those showing signs
of "[e]xcitement and increased motor activity." Application of cold water slowed down blood flow to the brain, decreasing
mental and physical activity. The temperature for a cold pack ranged between 48°F and 70°F. Hydrotherapy was used
throughout the early twentieth century at the LAI (
https://www.lib.uwo.ca/archives/virtualexhibits/londonasylum/hydrotherapy.html).

The above article explains that the hot water based hydrotherapy was used for people
who were suicidal. In other words, Blanche’s mention of hydrotherapy suggests that she
may have been hospitalized in an asylum at some point, and the hot water indicates that
she may have been suicidal. This is sheer speculation, Blanche could just have easily
read about hydrotherapy in a magazine, and then implemented her own version of it at
home. However, if we take the ending of the play into account and how readily she is
sent to her ultimate destination, perhaps it is not so outlandish a speculation.

Stanley’s dialogue provides us with some interesting insights as well. When Blanche
refers to him as a “Polack”, she is othering him. She uses the term with pejorative intent,
seemingly to suggest that he is a different breed of human, that he stands negatively
apart from her and Stella. Blanche’s comment speaks to the immigrant experience in
America; while immigrants are expected to go to America and join the so-called ‘melting
pot’, essentially dropping the previous notions of who they once were and to embrace
being American, those who lived in America for a greater period of time always saw
them as foreign. Stanley is thus an American born man who by virtue of his ancestry
will nonetheless never be seen as fully American by people like Blanche. One gets the
sense that this is not the first time Stanley has been called a “Polack” by somebody who
refuses to see him as a true American due to his family name alone.

The phone rings, Blanche thinks it is for her, Stanley instructs her to stay seated as
he answers the call that turns out to be for him (134-135). Blanche begins to chastise Stella
for looking at her “with that pitying look,” (135), until Stanley aggressively silences her.
The moment his call ends, Stanley gleefully offers Blanche the gift he purchased for her
birthday (135), a “Ticket! Back to Laurel! On the Greyhound! Tuesday!” (136) The
narration describes the Varsouviana music starting to play, the very song playing the
night Blanche’s husband killed himself. The music had not been mentioned in the play
since Blanche and Mitch made their relationship official. The auditory hallucinations
have commenced again. “Stella rises abruptly and turns her back. Blanche tries to smile. Then
she tries to laugh. Then she gives both up and springs from the table and runs into the next room.
She clutches her throat and then runs into the bathroom. Coughing and gagging sounds are
heard,” (136). Stanley has purchased a gift intended to send Blanche back to her
ruination. He intends for her to return to her home town penniless, homeless, without
any way of earning a wage, in order to suffer the persecution and humiliation that surely
await her. Blanche is mortified for a variety of reasons; first, the gift suggests that Stanley
knows exactly what fate awaits her in Laurel. Second, Blanche realizes that she has no
other option, she is literally destitute.

We might look at Blanche’s exile to Laurel as her own personal Golgotha, so to

speak. I will explain the significance of Golgotha shortly, however, I first wish to offer a
point of clarity. Golgotha, of course being the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, is
not now being invoked in order to suggest that Blanche was a martyr or in any way like
Jesus. Rather, it is my intent to suggest that this final series of events that remain in the
play for Blanche resemble Jesus’ final trajectory. I will return to this after providing some
background information.

Encyclopedia Britannica explains, “Golgotha, (Aramaic: “Skull”) also called Calvary, (from Latin calva: “bald head” or
“skull”), skull-shaped hill in ancient Jerusalem, the site of Jesus’ Crucifixion. It is referred to in all four Gospels (Matthew
27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33, and John 19:17). The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near
a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried. Its exact location is uncertain, but most scholars prefer either
the spot now covered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or a hillock called Gordon’s Calvary just north of the Damascus
Gate,” (https://www.britannica.com/place/Golgotha). Leading up to his execution, Christ was tortured and humiliated
in a fashion designed to mock his claim of being the king of the Jews, “They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him.
And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down
before Him and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’” (Matthew 27:28, 29).

[SPOILER ALERT] Blanche arrived in New Orleans as a false queen, so to speak. Early
in the play Stanley even sarcastically refers to her as ‘visiting royalty’. Blanche goes to
great lengths to create the impression that she is a lady of elevated status, breeding and
manners. It is this false impression that gives her the basis to look down upon all in her
midst in the French Quarter. Stanley is especially offended by this because, as he says in
this very scene, he is the king in his home. When there can only be one central royal
figure, one of them must be eliminated. Blanche makes her plea to Stella in scene four,
reminding Stella of their superior values and status, and furthermore, that a woman of
the modern world no longer needs to tolerate the brazen crassness of a man like Stanley
when there are far superior men available. Blanche is thus attempting to strip Stanley of
his kingdom on the basis that he has corrupted fundamental notions of what home,
family and marriage should be. For me, this invokes the story of Jesus casting the
merchants out of the temple, “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who
were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the
benches of those selling doves. ‘It is written,’ he said to them, ‘‘My house will be called
a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers,’” (Matthew 21:12-13). The
remainder of the play is Stanley’s retaliation and ultimate humiliation of Blanche for
challenging his status and attempting to cast him out of his own temple, so to speak. He
successfully sets out to destroy the false impressions she has cultivated within those
around her; essentially stripping her of her throne. The imagery of a false queen
dethroned is invoked in scene ten when Stanley confronts Blanche, telling her directly,
“I’ve been on to you from the start! Not once did you pull the wool over this boy’s eyes!
You come in here and sprinkle the place with powder and spray perfume and cover the
light-bulb with a paper lantern, and lo and behold the place has turned into Egypt and
you are the Queen of the Nile! Sitting on your throne and swilling down my liquor! […]”
(258) While Christ was humiliated in a variety of vile fashions leading up to his
crucifixion, so too was Blanche leading up to her public, metaphorical crucifixion.
Stanley exposes Blanche for all of the world to see, essentially ripping the metaphorical
Chinese lantern off of the bulb for all of the world to view the true ugliness hiding just
beneath the thin façade. He exposes her secret-riddled past to ensure nobody
misguidedly perceives her as a queen. He ruins her chances for happiness with Mitch,
he rapes her at the end of scene ten, the ultimate attack against a person who sees herself
as a queen, treating her as little more than a common whore to be used and destroyed
without experiencing any personal consequence. Finally, the crucifixion that Blanche
experiences in the play occurs in scene eleven. Stanley assembles all of the people who
once misguidedly believed in Blanche’s queenliness to witness her ultimate destruction
whereupon she is fetched and driven off to an asylum. [END OF SPOILER]

Incidentally, if you have difficulty accepting the Jesus parallels, which readers could
reasonably argue are tenuous, we can simply look at the history of the many royals who
were conquered and forced to endure shockingly barbarous humiliations. Here are but
a few in no particular order:
Roman Emperor Valerian (AD 253 to 260): was “overthrown by Shapur king of Persia, and being soon after made prisoner,
grew old in ignominious slavery among the Parthians." An early Christian source, Lactantius (thought to be virulently anti-
Persian, thanks to the occasional persecution of Christians by some Sasanian monarchs) maintained that, for some time
prior to his death, Valerian was subjected to the greatest insults by his captors. For example, being used as a human footstool
by Shapur when mounting his horse. According to this version of events, after a long period of such treatment, Valerian
offered Shapur a huge ransom for his release. In reply (according to one version), Shapur was said to have forced Valerian
to swallow molten gold (the other version of his death is almost the same but it says that Valerian was killed by being flayed
alive) and then had Valerian skinned and his skin stuffed with straw and preserved as a trophy in the main Persian temple,”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerian_(emperor)#:~:text=In%20reply%20(according%20to%20one,trophy%20in%20th
e%20main%20Persian).

Zedekiah, King of Judah (Ruled (597–587/586 BC): “was the twentieth and final King of Judah before the destruction of
the Jewish kingdom by King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. After laying siege to the city for about thirty months,
Nebuchadnezzar finally succeeded in capturing Jerusalem in 586 BC. Zedekiah and his followers attempted to escape,
making their way out of the city, but were captured on the plains of Jericho and taken to Riblah. There, Zedekiah saw his
sons put to death. Then his eyes were put out and he was loaded with chains and carried captive to Babylon […], where he
remained a prisoner until he died,”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedekiah#:~:text=There%2C%20Zedekiah%20saw%20his%20sons,a%20prisoner%20unti
l%20he%20died).

Bayezid I (Ruled 16 June 1389 – 20 July 1402): ruled the Ottoman Empire and “was defeated in the Battle of Ankara and
became a prisoner, just as Byzantine officials were on their way to hand him the keys of the city, as a symbol of
Constantinople’s surrender.
Tamerlane (of Mongolia) then locked Bayezid up in a cage and had him paraded as a sign of his victory. Bayezid was held
there until his death, a few months later. The invincible Thunderbolt, in a dark-humored twist of fate, went from becoming
the greatest conqueror of his time to be Tamerlane’s “pet” and died a most inglorious death,”
(https://www.wonderslist.com/10-powerful-rulers-went-total-humiliation/).

The above are but three of many examples of rulers whose conquering entailed brutal
public humiliation and torture. It seems that throughout history the way to fully and
effectively dethrone a royal was to publicly debase them to ensure no person would ever
make the mistake of perceiving them as royal or elevated in any regard. To reiterate my
above point about Blanche and Stanley, both are competing to rule, though Stanley has
evidently already won. What thus remains is to complete the torture and humiliation
essential to ensuring that nobody will ever again doubt his kingliness.

Returning to the remains of scene eight, Stella confronts Stanley over his treatment
of Blanche, “You didn’t need to do that. […] You needn’t have been so cruel to someone
alone as she is. […] You didn’t know Blanche as a girl. Nobody, nobody, was tender and
trusting as she was. But people like you abused her, and forced her to change,” (136).
Stella’s cryptic dialogue suggests that Blanche was abused as a child, and not only that,
but she then knowingly married a man akin to the men who abused her sister. Readers
should note that despite realizing this fact, Stella demonstrates no sign of even thinking
about leaving Stanley.

The evening of Blanche’s birthday seems to have been specifically selected by

Stanley as the perfect occasion to unveil his retaliation against her, and there is no way
it is a coincidence. If anything, there is a dark irony to be found in the fact that the
occasion commemorating Blanche’s birth will henceforth become the eve
commemorating her ultimate destruction. To compound this fact even further, by the
end of the scene, Stella will go into labor, which in all likelihood will mean that the
Kowalski baby, in addition to sharing a birthday with Blanche, will have a birthday that
will forever serve as a painful reminder of her dreadful fate, which we shall see in the
scenes to come.

After destroying Blanche (though subsequent scenes will reveal Stanley has not
yet finished with that particular pursuit), Stanley begins to nonchalantly prepare for an
evening of bowling with his friends. This again speaks to Stanley’s completely
animalistic lack of sentimentality or conscience; he destroys a woman as calmly as he
might eat a sandwich or a pork chop, as it were. Meanwhile, what he has actually done,
to reiterate, is blood curdling; Stanley investigated Blanche’s past in search of the worst
details he could unearth. Upon collecting said information, he shared all he learned with
Stella, Blanche’s one remaining living family member, with all of her new acquaintances
in New Orleans, where she was poised to start a new life, and with Mitch, the man she
was soon likely to marry. Finally, if all of that was not enough, Stanley bought Blanche
a bus ticket whose destination is Blanche’s hometown, the place she fled/ was exiled
from, due to the previously mentioned scandals from her private life. Upon arriving in
Laurel, Blanche would be universally hated by all, there would be no chance of her
finding a job or a home, leaving her literally destitute. Most people after having wrought
such devastation would not in all likelihood cap it all off with a lighthearted bowling
outing with their comrades. All of this to say, Stella is utterly shocked, and confronts
Stanley, “You’re not going bowling. Why did you do this to her?” (137) Stanley’s reply
will mark the second occasion he speaks more than a sentence or two at a time in the
play;

When we first met, me and you, you thought I was common. How right you was, baby. I was common as dirt. You showed
me the snapshot of the place with the columns. I pulled you down off them columns and how you loved it, having them
colored lights going! And wasn’t we happy together, wasn’t it all okay till she showed here? And wasn’t we happy together?
Wasn’t it all okay? Till she showed here. Hoity-toity, describing me as an ape […]” (137-138).
Stanley offers no apology for who he is or what he has done. On the contrary, he proudly
reminds Stella that he exposed her to his common as dirt hedonistic world, and further,
that she was perfectly happy with it until Blanche arrived. (In case you are wondering,
the so-called ‘colored lights’ is a reference to placing a colored swath of fabric over a
lamp so that an ambience can be created in a room prior to physical intimacy.) Stanley
resents Blanche for causing Stella to doubt or consider turning her back on the lifestyle
that once indisputably satisfied her. Additionally, we see yet another reference, this time
offered by Stanley himself, to his manifesting animal traits, which evidently upsets him.
Finally, do note that when Stanley makes the ape reference, he is indicating to Stella that
he heard her conversation with Blanche in scene four.

In the midst of his outburst, Stella goes into labor and asks that Stanley take her to the
hospital as the scene draws to a close (137-138).
 Scene Nine

At the outset of scene nine, Blanche is alone in the Kowalski apartment wearing
“her scarlet satin robe.” Beside her there “is a bottle of liquor and a glass,” as the
previously mentioned polka song is now playing at a ‘feverish’ pace. Williams, evading
any ambiguity, explains via the narration that the “music is in her mind; she is drinking
to avoid it and the sense of disaster closing in on her,” (139). It is not directly stated just
yet, however, Blanche is of course having an auditory hallucination of the Varsouviana
that played the night Allan committed suicide. Stanley’s humiliation and exposure of
Blanche’s secrets seem to have triggered a complete crumbling of her already shaky
mental state. The sense of disaster which closes in on Blanche is due to the fact that she
is now essentially without a home, a family, a romantic partner or prospects of any
income. Blanche is completely alone and destitute with nowhere to go. Further, do note
that the narration has depicted Blanche as wearing the color scarlet (a deep tone of red),
which in literature often “symbolizes some of the most powerful human emotions, like
passionate love or lust. On the other side of the spectrum, this warm color is also the
color of blood, often symbolizing anger, danger, and violence,”
(https://www.masterclass.com/articles/color-symbolism-in-literature). If we combine
the various strands of this explanation, we see that its totality captures Blanche’s current
state perfectly. Blanche’s lust has indeed aroused anger in those around her, and further,
she has been in a perpetual state of danger from the moment of her arrival to the
Kowalski home. We might further look at this scarlet robe as invoking Nathaniel
Hawthorne’s 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, which depicts a female protagonist who upon
being found guilty of adultery must wear a scarlet letter ‘A’ on her garments so that all
in her midst know that she is guilty of infidelity/ succumbing to carnal desire.

Scene nine continues a few hours after the events of scene eight during the same
evening. After Blanche’s fragile and agitated state is described at length, “Mitch comes
around the corner in work clothes: blue denim shirt and pants. He is unshaven,” (139). From
this description we can conclude that Mitch is out of sorts, he is disheveled, and is
seemingly reeling from learning the information that Stanley in all likelihood
salivatingly shared with him about Blanche.

Before continuing with the events of this scene, I would like to establish the context
in detail, because it will help readers to have a more enriched understanding of Mitch’s
emotional state and why he is upset with Blanche. Mitch has spent the summer dating
Blanche, and she has thwarted his attempts at physical intimacy consistently. She
attributed this fact to her ‘old fashioned ideals’, which among other things, would
dictate that a lady will only become physically intimate with her husband. Mitch is now
profoundly hurt and humiliated because if Blanche was as rampantly promiscuous as
Stanley recounts, then there must be something drastically wrong with him. Otherwise,
why would a woman who would have sexual intercourse with anyone indiscriminately,
including one of her own students, reject him? Further, their dates are always in dark
places and Blanche tends to drink a lot, suggesting to Mitch that she perceives herself as
superior to him and is embarrassed to be seen with him. While Mitch’s interpretation, if
my inferences are accurate, is entirely reasonable, it is nonetheless wrong. First, Blanche
journeyed to New Orleans out of desperation, to be sure, but also to begin anew. When
she presents herself as an elite Southern lady of traditional values, Blanche is seemingly
aspiring in earnest to be just that. Thus, if Mitch believes that about her, it is essentially
the truth, harkening back to the lyrics Blanche sings during one of her many baths; it
wouldn’t be make-believe if Mitch believed in me. In sum, Mitch seems to believe that Blanche
was deceiving him due to malice, and furthermore, perceived him as inferior to all of
the other men she was willing to sleep with before him, hence why she continually
rejected his attempts at physical intimacy. All of this being said, Blanche is not a woman
without contradictions, despite her sincere intentions to be a new person. After all,
midway through scene five, the moment Blanche finds herself in the presence of a
teenage boy, she immediately attempts to seduce him. Let us keep in mind that this boy
is not unique or remarkable in anyway, the main if not the only trait that attracts her is
the fact that he is an adolescent. So, how much has Blanche changed? How successfully
could she inhabit the persona of the woman she pretends to be? There is no way of
knowing for sure.

When Mitch announces his presence as the person knocking at the apartment
door, Blanche’s auditory hallucination halts instantly (139). When Blanche opens the
door so he can enter, “[s]he offers him her lips. He ignores it and pushes past her into the flat,”
(140). Mitch’s conduct is aggressive, marking the first occasion we see another side of a
man best known for caring for his ailing mother, and mourning the death of a woman
he was presumably engaged to. Interestingly, it seems as though Mitch has a habit of
being drawn to weak and unwell women. Blanche begins rapidly speaking in
paragraphs, her anxiety, combined with the alcohol she has been consuming, seems to
render her verbose and frantic. The narration also confirms that Mitch “has had a few
drinks on the way over,” though when Blanche offers him a drink, Mitch rejects it, “I don’t
want Stan’s liquor,” (140).

Blanche observes, based on Mitch’s appearance and conduct that, “Something’s

the matter tonight,” (141). It seems as though Blanche is attempting to avoid addressing
the fact that Mitch has been made aware of everything that Stanley has discovered about
her. Then the auditory hallucination recommences, which Blanche remarks, “That—
music again…” We receive official confirmation of the music being an auditory
hallucination based upon Mitch’s reply, “What music?” Once Blanche elaborates, we
definitively learn that Blanche has not only been hallucinating the music that played the
night her late husband committed suicide, but further, that she seems to be locked into
repeatedly reliving the traumatic event on loop:

Blanche: The “Varsouviana”! The polka tune they were playing when Allan—Wait!
[A distant revolver shot is heard. Blanche seems relieved.]
There now, the shot! It always stops after that.
[The polka music dies out again.]
Yes, now it’s stopped.

As their exchange continues, Blanche inquires whether Mitch forgot his invitation to her
birthday gathering, to which he replies, “I wasn’t going to see you any more,” (142).
Blanche pretends not to hear the answer while she also pretends not to know whether
there is any liquor in the apartment. We know there is, because Blanche hid it just before
granting Mitch entrance to the apartment. Blanche further lies, also pretending not to
know what the beverage Southern Comfort is. The irony of this aptly selected beverage is
that there is no comfort forthcoming for this Southern lady, quite the opposite.

Blanche again offers the alcohol to Mitch, whose refusal begins to reveal what
Stanley has told him about her, “I told you already I don’t want none of his liquor and I
mean it. You ought to lay off his liquor. He says you been lapping it up all summer like
a wild-cat!” (143) Blanche sidesteps the insult, instead returning to inquiring about the
evident shift in attitude that Mitch is now displaying, “What’s in your mind? I see
something in your eyes!” Blanche does not yet definitively know what Mitch has learned
about her, so for her, the shift in Mitch is somewhat puzzling; he is aggressive, crass,
accusatory, half drunk and unshaven.

The next section of their exchange will focus on darkness, and we should be
thinking about darkness in a variety of regards beyond simply the literal. There is
darkness with regard to a lack of illumination, there is darkness with regard to
concealment and treachery, and of course the darkness of that which is about to occur.
Before examining their exchange, look closely at three still images from the film. Again,
I realize that this is an analysis of the play, however, Elia Kazan, the director, regularly
lit Blanche in such a fashion that she was often half in the darkness or somehow
obscured. This is a way that the medium of film added depth to Williams’ words in the
play.
In the first image, which marks Blanche’s first appearance in the film, we see Blanche emerging from hazy smoke. This
suggests that something about the woman herself is obscured or unclear, hence why we are left with so many questions at
the end of scene one.

In the second image we see Blanche, again in scene one, reuniting with Stella. Notice how much of her anatomy is
obscured in shadow, fifty percent we might say.

In the third image we have Mitch ripping the Chinese lantern/ darkness away, exposing Blanche to the unyielding
illumination of the naked lightbulb/ truth.

Here is the next section of their exchange about darkness (143-144):

Mitch: It’s dark in here.

Blanche: I like the dark. The dark is comforting to me.
Mitch: I don’t think I ever seen you in the light. That’s a fact!
Blanche: Is it?
Mitch: I’ve never seen you in the afternoon.
Blanche: Whose fault is that?
Mitch: You never want to go out in the afternoon.
Blanche: Why, Mitch, you’re at the plant in the afternoon!
Mitch: Not Sunday afternoon. I’ve asked you to go out with me sometimes on Sundays but you always make an excuse.
You never want to go out till after six and then it’s always some place that’s not lighted much.
Blanche: There is some obscure meaning in this but I fail to catch it.
Mitch: What it means is I’ve never had a real good look at you, Blanche. Let’s turn the light on here.
Blanche: Light? Which light? What for?
Mitch: The one with the paper thing on it. [He tears the paper lantern off the light bulb. She utters a frightened gasp.]
Blanche: What did you do that for?
Mitch: So I can take a look at you good and plain!

There is something extremely meta about this scene, because both characters seem to be
simultaneously referring to the literal and the metaphorical in much of what they say to
one another. When Mitch says that it is dark, he is not just referring to the room’s
lighting, but to Blanche’s deceptions and the mood itself—she has kept him in the dark
regarding the truth of her past. Blanche replies that she likes the dark and finds it
comforting, reiterating a notion expressed earlier in the play; a woman’s charm is fifty
percent illusion. In other words, half of Blanche is exposed, while the other half always
remains obscured in darkness and shadow. Further, Blanche finds the darkness
comforting because that is where she hides her secrets. So long as they remain hidden
in the darkness, Blanche can continue propagating that which she wants people to
believe about her at all times. The next part of this exchange involves Mitch insinuating
that there was an unstated intention behind why Blanche was never willing to meet with
him during the daylight hours. Mitch’s interpretation is that Blanche saw him as a loser
whom she was embarrassed to be seen with publicly, hence why she would only go out
with him during the darkest time of the day. The reality, however, would seem to be
that Blanche did not want to be seen in the unyielding lights because the truth risked
being exposed in the light of day. The truth in this case being all the secrets of her past
that Blanche is attempting to conceal from everyone in her midst. Mitch then illuminates
the lights, explaining that he has never had a ‘good look’ at Blanche. Here there are
multiple connotations; first, Blanche has always favored shadowy places for their dates
at shadowy times of day. Second, in light of having learned Blanche’s secrets, Mitch
seems to realize that he had never seen Blanche for who she truly is. Thus, when he
removes the paper lantern from the lightbulb, Mitch is tearing away the half-truths and
deceptions in order to expose Blanche to the unyielding light of truth—seeing Blanche
for who she truly is without façade or pretense.

Blanche shifts the conversation about lighting to the metaphorical, revealing that
she is well aware of the grander implications behind this exchange about darkness and
light. In so doing, she delivers yet another of the play’s most iconic pieces of dialogue,
“I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic! I try to give that to people. I
misrepresent things to them. I don’t tell the truth, I tell what ought to be the truth. And
if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it!—Don’t turn the light on!” Mitch, despite
Blanche’s pleas, “crosses to the switch. He turns the light on and stares at her. She cries out
and covers her face. He turns the light off again,” (145). Mitch then explains how he is feeling,
[slowly and bitterly]: “I don’t mind you being older than what I thought. But all the rest
of it—Christ! That pitch about your ideals being so old-fashioned and all the malarkey
that you’ve dished all summer. Oh, I knew you weren’t sixteen any more. But I was a
fool enough to believe you was straight,” (145). To translate Mitch’s words more directly,
he is essentially saying to Blanche that he understands why a woman would
misrepresent her age to a man. However, in light of all that Stanley has revealed to him
about her, he has concluded that she is not ‘straight’, in other words, she is disingenuous,
or more bluntly, a liar. He refers to her ‘old-fashioned ideals’ as malarkey (bullshit)
because Blanche has spent the entirety of the summer repelling his attempts at physical
intimacy on the basis that she is conservative, only to discover that Blanche was in
actuality rampantly promiscuous. To reiterate a point raised earlier, Mitch takes this as
a personal insult because he feels as though Blanche has rejected him on the basis that
he is not good enough for her. Her refusal to be intimate with him, since she in actuality
does not live in accordance to so-called ‘old-fashioned ideals’, for Mitch indicates that
she has been playing a malicious game with him, both wasting his time and humiliating
him. Returning to Blanche’s quote about realism and magic, Blanche seems to elevate
her lies and deceptions to a level of altruism, as though telling ‘what ought to be the
truth’ was an act of courage and goodness, rather than simple self-preservation. Please
do not misunderstand, I empathize with Blanche and do not judge her, but this
reasoning strikes me as further evidence of her being delusional.

Blanche continues attempting to cast doubt upon what Stanley has told Mitch
about her, but Mitch reveals that he investigated the allegations himself and apparently
they were proven true. Mitch, in order to demonstrate that he has learned actual facts
and not just vague hearsay, inquires about The Flamingo, the low cost, lower class hotel
Blanche was living in until her promiscuity caused her to be ejected (145-146). Blanche
sarcastically corrects Mitch, informing him that the hotel was actually called The
Tarantula Arms (146). Blanche then elaborates, offering us a dreary, foreboding
monologue (146-147):

Blanche: Yes, a big spider! That’s where I brought my victims. Yes, I had many intimacies with strangers. After the death
of Allan—intimacies with strangers was all I Seemed able to fill my empty heart with…I think it was panic, just panic, that
drove me from one to another, hunting for some protection—here and there, in the most—unlikely of places—even, at last,
in a seventeen-year-old boy but—somebody wrote the superintendent about it—“This woman is morally unfit for her
position!” True? Yes, I suppose—unfit somehow—anyway…So I came here. There was nowhere else I could go. I was
played out. You know what played out is? My youth was suddenly gone up the water-spout, and—I met you. You said
you needed somebody. Well, I needed somebody, too. I thanked God for you, because you seemed to be gentle—a cleft in
the rock of the world that I could hide in! But I guess I was asking, hoping—too much! […]

Blanche says a great deal in this monologue that deserves detailed analysis. Blanche first
likens herself to a predatory arachnid, and her victims are the men she enticed to join
her at The Flamingo. Blanche is of course being somewhat facetious, playing into the
narrative she seems to suppose Stanley crafted about her past. She explains that she
became promiscuous in an effort to quell the suffering she was experiencing after the
traumatic death of her late husband, Allan. Blanche seems to have sought comfort,
warmth and distraction in the arms of a number of men. This evidently spiraled until
she sought said comfort in one of her teenage students. This is where things become
interesting; I think it can be argued that Blanche ultimately sought a seventeen year old
for ‘comfort’ because that was the age of her late husband when he died. Furthermore,
as she became increasingly unwell, the boundaries began to blur in her mind until she
saw the seventeen year old as her husband. Thus, Blanche sought out minors as a sort
of redemption, we might say. In other words, if she got together with a teen and did not
destroy him, that would be her way of atoning for the grand error she made with Allan.
We as readers know that the dead husband and a random teen are not the same person,
however, Blanche is delusional to the degree that I at the very least question the extent
to which she actually believes her own lies. Blanche then explains that after she lost her
career as a teacher, she also lost her potential as a viable mate due to her age. Between
losing her career and any chance of marrying, she thought all hope was lost until she
met Mitch. Meeting Mitch and building their relationship gave Blanche hope until
Stanley and his informants ruined it all for her. Do note that Blanche does not take any
personal accountability for her conduct, nor for the consequences that resulted. I will
not debate whether Mitch is right to feel the way he does, nor if Blanche deserves the
consequences that she is presently enduring. I would simply point out that Blanche, even
in this moment, could have apologized for deceiving Mitch. She could have explained
her conduct and then she could have listened to why Mitch felt so hurt and deceived.

Mitch directly accuses Blanche of lying about everything, and her carefully
worded response, “Never inside, I didn’t lie in my heart…” (147) confirms that she did
indeed lie to him, despite her feelings for him being the truth. Until the end of this scene
moving forward, a Mexican street vendor will be repeatedly heard saying “Flores para
los meurtos,” which means flowers for the dead. While it is customary for people to buy
flowers to place on the graves of dead loved ones, there can be no doubt over the
symbolism of her words. The Mexican street vendor is being used to foreshadow both
to readers, and seemingly to Blanche, that death is on the horizon. Blanche seems to see
this vendor and her particular product as a sign of what is to come.
The street vendor arouses what seems to be a flashback within Blanche. Suddenly she
begins to cryptically refer to and relive an event from her family’s past that involved her
changing bloodstained linens. We will never be told whose blood it was or what caused
it to spill upon the linens. All we know for certain is that her present trauma has
triggered the memory of a past trauma. Blanche’s surreal state suddenly suggests that
she has lost her bearings with regard to where and when she is, so to speak, “Death—I
used to sit here and she used to sit over there and death was as close as you are…We
didn’t even admit we had ever heard of it,” (148-149). The street vendor has invoked
death via the product she is selling, as Blanche is in the midst of realizing all that is now
dead around her; her reputation is dead, the lies are dead, her future is dead, and so
forth. Blanche is fully surrounded by death and destruction, which seems to trigger her
flashback to a time in her own family when death was prevalent and all-encompassing—
the epic fornications of the men in her family that ripped everything away from
everyone.

Blanche then veers into discussing the soldiers who used to stop by Belle Reve;
they would stand outside of her home and call for her, and she would apparently on
occasion answer their beckoning. The particulars are not offered, but from the sound of
it, they were calling upon her in the hope that she would have sexual contact with them,
and she would answer those calls, potentially having intercourse with multiple soldiers
on certain select evenings.

As the scene winds down, Blanche seems to regain her bearings, at least
somewhat, when “Mitch rises and follows her purposefully. The polka music fades away. He
places his hands on her waist and tries to turn her about,” (149). The polka music stopping
suggests that Blanche thinks Mitch is there to forgive her, and thus she asks, “What do
you want?” Mitch answers, “What I been missing all summer,” and Blanche, failing to
grasp the meaning of what he has just said, declares, “Then marry me, Mitch!” His
intentions are clarified when he replies, “I don’t think I want to marry you any more […]
You’re not clean enough to bring in the house with my mother,” (149-150). In other
words, Mitch is attempting to attain the sexual intercourse from Blanche that she denied
him all summer. Blanche is no longer a potential wife, she has simply become a whore
to him, a sexual object that he should have his turn with. The scene ends with Blanche
dramatically casting Mitch out of the Kowalski apartment so she can resume sitting
alone with her sadness in the dark.
 Scene Ten

The narration at the outset of this scene captures the profound sadness and mental
illness of the moment. “It is a few hours later that night. Blanche has been drinking steadily
since Mitch left. She has dragged her wardrobe trunk into the center of the bedroom. It hangs
open with flowery dresses thrown across it. As the drinking and packing went on, a mood of
hysterical exhilaration came into her and she has decked herself out in a somewhat soiled and
crumbling white satin evening gown and a pair of scuffed silver slippers with brilliants set in
their heels. Now she is placing the rhinestone tiara on her head before the mirror of the dressing-
table and murmuring excitedly as if to a group of spectral admirers,” (151). There is much to
analyze in this description. First, Blanche has continued steadily to drink, indicating that
she is in all likelihood intoxicated. Next, as she packs, Blanche is described as being in a
state of ‘hysterical exhilaration’, which might be mistakenly read by some as being in
some way positive. However, if we take a moment to consider the definition of
hysterical; “Someone who is hysterical is in a state of uncontrolled excitement, anger, or
panic,” and additionally, “Someone who is hysterical is in a state of violent and
disturbed emotion that is usually a result of shock,”
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hysterical), it is not in any
way positive. In other words, Blanche’s present state is a response to shock and trauma.
To reiterate points raised previously, Blanche suddenly went from having a new life, a
fiancé, the potential for having a family and stability, and most importantly, escaping
her past, to seeing it all ripped away from her simultaneously and publicly. Add to this
her preexisting mental health struggles (though never specifically defined, nonetheless
observably present to readers), and we see Blanche in the worst condition she has so far
experienced in the play. Further, Blanche’s pantomime of holding court before a
‘spectral’ or ghost like group of individuals suggests two things; first, her hallucinations
have augmented to now include visual elements in addition to the auditory
hallucinations previously described. Second, it suggests that Blanche has retreated to a
fantasy realm where she is the center of attention and adored, and based on the dialogue
she first speaks, it seems as though Blanche is once more a teen (aged sixteen or seventeen
perhaps), socializing with a group of companions that might, to groundlessly speculate,
include her late husband.

The aforementioned hallucination described via narration and the dialogue that
immediately follows has Blanche addressing ‘spectral admirers’, in other words, ghosts,
in a scenario that suggests a gathering place for adolescents. Apparently there is a cliff
that people jump from into a body of water. The risk of that particular endeavor being
death or paralysis. According to Blanche’s dialogue, everyone in her hallucination is
drunk. Interestingly, even in her fantasy world, Blanche finds herself in a place of
profound risk and danger; the old rock quarry is a place where reckless adolescents go
to die, in the same way that Blanche took a streetcar named desire, transferred to
Cemeteries, and emerged at Elysian Fields. The French Quarter is the old rock quarry,
and Blanche has failed to “dive where the deep pool is,” (151).

More narration follows Blanche’s hallucinatory dialogue, and it continues to

capture Blanche’s mental state, “Tremblingly she lifts the hand mirror for a closer inspection.
She catches her breath and slams the mirror face down with such violence that the glass cracks.
She moans a little and attempts to rise,” (151). Readers should note that this scene begins
and ends with glass being broken by Blanche, and in the film, it is a mirror in both
instances. The trembling suggests that Blanche is frazzled and nervous—unsteady, you
might say. Blanche destroys the mirror upon observing her reflection because she is no
longer able to lie to herself or anyone else about what she sees, and even she is shocked
by what has become of her. Returning to the broken glass for a moment, we might look
at the first description of broken glass as foreshadowing Blanche’s fate by the end of this
scene, while the broken glass at the end of the scene symbolizes that which occurs to her.

The narration next describes Stanley’s arrival. He is wearing his “vivid green
bowling shirt,” as honky-tonk music plays from that moment until the end of the scene
(151). Since honky-tonk music will be playing throughout this most important and
disturbing scene, it is important to understand what it actually is. Most sources seem to
concur that it is a reference to a certain type of establishment and the music typically
played there live. Honky-tonk is a more upbeat form of country music that people dance
to. Here is an excerpt from https://grizzlyrose.com/the-history-of-the-honky-
tonk/#:~:text=The%20definition%20of%20a%20Honky,centering%20around%20a%20c
ountry%20theme:

Historians believe the word might have been meant to describe cattle drive trails where cowboys would bring their livestock
to market. These were very common around the border of Texas and Oklahoma during that time period. As cowboys were
common in these types of establishments, this localized slang may have developed into the name for their local drinking
holes over time.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/honky-tonk) is not as generous in its explanation:

a usually tawdry nightclub or dance hall

especially: one that features country music

If we combine the historical and dictionary explanations of honky-tonk, respectively,

what we end up with is both a sound and an environment that invoke the swagger of
something manly and tawdry. This music does not pretend to be classy or elite, much
like its fans. It thus serves as the perfect accompaniment for a man who two scenes prior
reminded Stella that he was “common as dirt” and proudly pulled her “down off them
columns” at Belle Reve (137). Stanley strips pretense and any sense of elitism away from
people, he is the equalizer who brings everyone in his midst down to his level in the dirt.
 In the final bit of narration before the scene truly gets underway, readers are
informed that Stanley enters the kitchen, slamming the door, whistling at a low level as
he looks in at Blanche. He has consumed multiple alcoholic beverages on his way home,
and has brought several bottles with him in order to continue imbibing at the apartment
(151)

Before we start examining what remains of this scene, it is first important to

consider both its significance and the horror that undergirds it all. Since at least scene
four we have been awaiting the ultimate confrontation between Blanche and Stanley.
They have both indirectly attacked one another via Stella; Blanche was attempting to
liberate Stella from circumstances that she felt were unacceptable—namely Stanley’s
violence toward her and their unborn child. We saw in scene eight that while Stella
showed no signs of wanting to leave Stanley, she was nonetheless beginning to find his
crassness and brutish aggression less alluring than ever. Stanley, on the other hand, went
to great lengths to tarnish Blanche’s reputation in direct response/ retaliation to the
aforementioned. Furthermore, Stanley’s retaliatory efforts extended to all of those whom
Blanche fooled into thinking she was in any way superior. The fundamental difference
between Stanley and Blanche is the notion that he basks in the dirt, while Blanche
constructs grand fairy tales that falsely elevate her. Stanley did not just pull Stella off the
columns of Belle Reve, he pulled all that remains of the DuBois family into the dirt that
will sooner, rather than later, serve as the metaphorical final resting place for the
destroyed family. As to the undergirding horror, we might look at scenes ten and eleven
as direct repetitions of scenes two and three. Scene two was the first direct confrontation
between Stanley and Blanche, and if you recall, there was a creepiness that underpinned
the entirety of the scene. Blanche emerged from the shower to discover Stanley had
rummaged through all of her personal possessions, she had no privacy, and her sister
stood by and allowed it all to happen. In scene ten, Blanche yet again finds herself alone
with Stanley; the man who maliciously investigated her past and shared all of the lurid
details with everyone in her midst. The man who ripped her only chance for happiness
and survival away from her. The man who bought her a bus ticket in order to return to
a place where she would be destitute, scorned, shamed and condemned. [As to my terse
mention of scene eleven, I will elaborate upon that point when analyzing that scene shortly.] In
short, Blanche is in grave danger.

Upon Stanley’s arrival, Blanche immediately inquires as to Stella’s status—she is

in labour, if you recall. Stanley does not really answer the question, instead explaining
that he was sent home to sleep while Stella gives birth alone (152). Blanche’s next
question, “Does that mean we are to be alone in here?” hints at the danger she knows
she is in. No person would ask such a question if they felt safe in the presence of the
individual in question. Stanley’s answer is a statement of fact, followed by a cheap shot
taken at Blanche’s expense, “Yep. Just me and you, Blanche. Unless you got somebody
hid under the bed. What’ve you got on those fine feathers for?” (152) Stanley’s cheap
shot is a thinly veiled reference to Blanche’s apparent promiscuity. However, he also
takes note of Blanche’s attire, which is admittedly odd. On the evening when her life has
been entirely destroyed, Blanche is wearing a feathers and a tiara as though she might
be attending a costume party masquerading as a princess. Blanche’s reply, which does
not rationally explain why she would be dressed in such a fashion, is that Shep
Huntleigh sent her an invitation to join him on cruise of the Caribbean (153). To reiterate,
neither her attire nor her claim about Shep Huntleigh make any sense whatsoever. First,
an invitation is no reason to suddenly dress up in a princess costume. Second, Huntleigh
is married, so Blanche has lied, as the remainder of the scene will soon reveal.

Blanche and Stanley continue to discuss Huntleigh and the allegedly impending
cruise of the Caribbean. Stanley’s responses to Blanche make it unambiguously clear that
he knows she is lying. As they speak, Stanley is beginning to remove his shirt, prompting
Blanche to tell him, “Close the curtains before you undress any further,” (154). Stanley
then recounts an anecdote about a cousin of his who had a habit of opening bottles with
his teeth until he broke them out of his mouth. After that, “he was so ashamed of himself
that he used t’ sneak out of the house when company came…” (154-155). This anecdote
is extremely revealing, because first, when Stanley mentioned being as common as dirt,
we now know what he meant by that. Second, perhaps there is an intended subtext in
Stanley’s recounting of this anecdote. The main concept is that a shamed family member
upon being humiliated forever stayed out of sight, which is essentially what he seems
to now expect of Blanche.

Just after his anecdote, Stanley opens a bottle of alcohol, “and a geyser of foam shoots
up,” as he asks Blanche whether they should “bury the hatchet and make it a loving
cup?” Blanche replies, “No, thank you,” (155). First, do note that this is the second
depiction of a foamy beverage overflowing, and just like the last time, it signified that
there was going to be an explosion or an overflowing of some sort. Furthermore, there
is a clear sexual connotation implied by a phallic object shooting a frothy stream. Second,
when Stanley offers to ‘bury the hatchet’, he is literally offering to make peace with
Blanche. Before analyzing this further, here is an article about the aforementioned idiom:

What’s the origin of “bury the hatchet”?

A STAFF REPORT FROM THE STRAIGHT DOPE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
By Straight Dope Staff May 11, 2004, 2:00am EDT

Dear Straight Dope: Any chance you can dig up the derivation of “bury the hatchet”? Michael Wallace

bibliophage replies:

"Bury the hatchet" is an Indianism (a phrase borrowed from Native American speech). The term comes from an Iroquois
ceremony in which war axes or other weapons were literally buried in the ground as a symbol of newly made peace. The
other two languages spoken by Europeans in close contact with the Iroquois in and around what is now New York state
also use the phrase: enterrer la hache de guerre and de strijdbijl begraven. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine
which is French and which is Dutch.)

According to tradition–no doubt based largely on fact–the Iroquois leaders Deganawidah and Hiawatha convinced the Five
Nations (the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca) to stop fighting amongst themselves and form a
confederacy. This probably happened before Columbus sailed, but how much before is a matter of dispute. To celebrate the
new peace, the Iroquois buried their weapons under the roots of a white pine. An underground river then miraculously
washed the weapons away so the tribes could never use them against each other again. I haven’t been able to determine
whether this was the first such ceremony or just a continuation of an older Iroquoian peace-making tradition.

European missionaries and settlers took note of the tradition in the seventeenth century. French records from 1644 relate
that the Iroquois visiting Quebec "proclaim that they wish to unite all the nations of the earth and to hurl the hatchet so far
into the depths of the earth that it shall never again be seen in the future" [translation from Thwaites’ monumental Jesuit
Relations].

The first mention of the practice in English is to an actual hatchet-burying ceremony. Years before he gained notoriety for
presiding over the Salem witch trials, Samuel Sewall wrote in 1680, "I writt to you in one [letter] of the Mischief the Mohawks
did; which occasioned Major Pynchon’s goeing to Albany, where meeting with the Sachem the[y] came to an agreement
and buried two Axes in the Ground; one for English another for themselves; which ceremony to them is more significant &
binding than all Articles of Peace[,] the hatchet being a principal weapon with them."

If the phrase is of Indian origin, why "hatchet" and not "tomahawk"? It wasn’t always. In 1705 Beverly wrote of "very
ceremonious ways to concluding of Peace, such as burying a Tomahawk." Tomahawk variations remained popular for over
a century, but eventually "hatchet" buried "tomahawk." That’s not inappropriate, since tomahawk is an Algonquian word,
not Iroquoian.

Though the practice was familiar early on, the exact phrase "bury the hatchet" didn’t crop up until 1753. On September 18th
of that year, the Lord Commissioners of Trade and the Plantations in London wrote a letter to the Governor of Maryland
that reads, "His Majesty having been pleased to order a Sum of Money to be Issued for Presents to the Six Nations of Indians
[the Iroquois] and to direct his Governour of New York to hold an Interview with them for Delivering those presents [and]
for Burying the Hatchet …"

Non-Iroquois tribes were practicing the ceremony by the end of the French and Indian War. In 1761, after the French
surrendered Canada, their traditional allies the Micmac (an Algonquian people) buried the hatchet with the British. In the
decades after American independence, Congress buried the hatchet with several tribes, many of which (like the Chickasaw)
were not Iroquoian.

The opposite of burying the hatchet is taking it up, which occurs in English as early as 1694. Variants include "dig up,"
"raise," etc. But these war-making phrases are now much more rare than "bury the hatchet."

Before the end of the eighteenth century, the phrase was extended to include peace between countries, specifically between
the U.S. and U.K. After signing their treaty in 1794, John Jay wrote to Lord Grenville, "To use an Indian expression, may the
hatchet be henceforth buried for ever, and with it all the animosities, which sharpened, and which threatened to redden it."

In the early nineteenth century, the phrase was extended further to refer to personal or professional relations between
individuals, the sense in which it is most widely used today. In 1807, during the Aaron Burr trial, Maj. James Bruff testified,
"I had long been persecuted by the General [Wilkinson], but wished to bury the hatchet." Knowing now that Wilkinson was
a traitor, we can form our own opinions on where he should have buried it.
(https://www.straightdope.com/21343301/what-s-the-origin-of-bury-the-hatchet)
In short, Stanley made a peace offering during a time of war, and Blanche refused. By
definition, that means the war is still on, whether Blanche realizes the grand implications
of the refusal or not. Please do not misinterpret my analysis to suggest that Blanche
either deserves or is responsible for the fate that shortly awaits her, because she does
not. Furthermore, Blanche can hardly be blamed for not wanting to share a drink and
make peace with the person who destroyed her in every conceivable way.

As their exchange continues, Stanley encourages Blanche to continue expounding

upon her supposed invitation from Huntleigh (156):

Blanche: When I think of how divine it is going to be to have such a thing as privacy once more—I could weep with joy!
Stanley: This millionaire from Dallas is not going to interfere with your privacy any?
Blanche: It won’t be the sort of thing you have in mind. This man is a gentleman and he respects me. [Improvising feverishly]
What he wants is my companionship. Having great wealth sometimes makes people lonely! A cultivated woman, a woman
of intelligence and breeding, can enrich a man’s life—immeasurably! I have those things too offer, and this doesn’t take
them away. Physical beauty is passing. A transitory possession. But beauty of the mind and richness of the spirit and
tenderness of the heart—and I have all of those things—aren’t taken away, but grow! Increase with the years! How strange
that I should be called a destitute woman! When I have all of these treasures locked in my heart. [A choked sob comes from
her] I think of myself as a very, very rich woman! But I have been foolish—casting my pearls before swine!

Blanche relishes the return of her privacy, perhaps yearning for a new context in which
she can once more have the opportunity to convince people of what ought to be the truth,
spreading her fifty percent illusory charm. However, as the narrative details indicate
throughout her dialogue, none of what Blanche is saying is true, she is ‘improvising
feverishly’. Furthermore, despite her lurid, scandalous secrets being revealed, Blanche
continues to refer to herself as a superior being ‘casting pearls before swine’. For those
unaware of that particular idiom, the central idea is that if one was to share a beautiful
string of pearls with a group of pigs, those pigs would be unable to appreciate them
because they are unsophisticated creatures who would rather roll around in excrement.
Stanley is evidently aware that Blanche is lying, which is why he encourages her to
continue sharing her fabricated narrative—this way it will be that much sweeter when
he pulls the rug out from under her.

Blanche’s improvised fabrications reach new heights when she explains what she
explains actually happened between herself and Mitch. Rather than recounting that
Mitch confronted her, indicating that he learned about her past from Stanley and his
sources, calling off their engagement, and coming uncomfortably close to sexually
assaulting her, Blanche instead claims that Mitch returned to beg her forgiveness. In her
version, she rejects Mitch due to their backgrounds being incompatible (157). What
ensues is the confrontation Stanley has been awaiting since scene four (157-158):

There isn’t no millionaire! And Mitch didn’t come back with roses ‘cause I know where he is—[…] There isn’t a goddam
thing but imagination! […] And lies and conceit and tricks! […] And look at yourself! Take a look at yourself in that worn-
out Mardi Gras outfit, rent for fifty cents from some rag-picker! And with that crazy crown on! What queen do you think
you are? […] I’ve been on to you from the start! Not once did you pull the wool over this boy’s eyes! You come in here and
sprinkle the place with powder and spray perfume and cover the light-bulb with a paper lantern, and lo and behold the
place has turned into Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile! Sitting on your throne and swilling down my liquor! I say—
Ha!—Ha—Ha! Do you hear me? Ha—ha—ha!

There is much to be analyzed in Stanley’s dialogue, which I combined to form a

soliloquy. First, returning to my earlier point about royalty, Stanley in the above
passage, makes two additional references to Blanche essentially being a false queen who
never fooled him with her deceptions. The implication, of course, is that he is the one
true king and he is basking in his undeniable victory. Beyond decisively establishing his
status as the king, so to speak, Stanley basks as well in being the arbiter of truth and the
detector of lies. His sense of superiority lies not just in reinforcing the aforementioned
status, but also in having the intelligence and wisdom to resist being fooled by Blanche
while everyone else was.

Blanche, meanwhile, is horrified. The narration informs us that “Lurid reflections appear
on the walls around Blanche. The shadows are of a grotesque and menacing form,” (158-159).
These images, once we consider the events that remain in this scene offer us an ominous
foreshadow of the fate that awaits Blanche. The narration continues thusly, “The shadows
and lurid reflections move sinuously as frames along the wall spaces. Through the back wall of
the rooms, which have become transparent, can be seen the sidewalk. A prostitute has rolled a
drunkard. He pursues her along the walk, over takes her and there is a struggle. […] Some
moments later a Negro Woman appears around the corner with a sequined bag which the
prostitute had dropped on the walk. She is rooting excitedly through it,” (159). It is interesting
that Williams, in his effort to foreshadow something about Blanche’s fate, used a sex
worker to do so. This now brings into question whether part of the revelations about
Blanche, vague though they might have been, related to her actually being a sex worker
in Laurel. It would make sense, since promiscuity alone would likely not be reason
enough to have a person ejected from a hotel, let alone a town. Further, it would also
explain Mitch’s rage and his attempt to objectify Blanche at the end of scene nine. It is
not simply that she bedded a multitude of men, but further, that she was charging them
for the opportunity. Hence Mitch telling her that she is not clean enough to be in the
same surroundings as his mother.

An English teacher from Toronto has some interesting insights into Blanche. Read
what he wrote and consider it alongside the perspective presented here as you develop
your own: https://maisonneuve.org/article/2006/02/20/misreading-blanche/

After Stanley aggressively confronts Blanche, she reasonably senses that she is in danger
due to being alone with him in the Kowalski apartment. She repeatedly attempts to
frantically send a telegram to Shep Huntleigh, seeking his assistance in escaping her
dyer situation. Blanche never successfully sends that telegram. Further, despite
Blanche’s belief that Huntleigh will save her, it should be noted that Blanche does not
even know his contact information or address as she speaks to the phone operator (158-
160). Blanche’s second attempt to send a telegram to Huntleigh is interrupted when the
“bathroom door is thrown open and Stanley comes out in the brilliant silk pajamas [that he wore
on his wedding night…]. He grins at her as he knots the tasseled sash about his waist. She
gasps and backs away from the phone. He stares at her for a count of ten.” He then notices the
phone off the hook, and hangs it up (160).

Stanley’s behaviour in this scene, subtle though it may be initially, is unsettlingly

intimate and invasive. He is wearing attire he would not normally wear, he is lingering
in close proximity to Blanche, and he is staring at her. Blanche detects that something is
indeed amiss, prompting this exchange (160-162):

Blanche: Let me—let me get by you!

Stanley: Get by me? Sure. Go ahead.
Blanche: You—you stand over there!
Stanley: You got plenty of room to walk by me now.
Blanche: Not with you there! But I’ve got to get out somehow!
Stanley: You thing I’ll interfere with you? Ha-ha!
[[…] He takes a step toward her, biting his tongue which protrudes through his lips.]
Stanley: Come to think of it—maybe you wouldn’t be bad to—interfere with…
Blanche: Stay back! Don’t you come toward me another step or I’ll—
Stanley: What?
Blanche: Some awful thing will happen! It will!
[…]
[He takes another step. She smashes a bottle on the table and faces him, clutching the broken top.]
Stanley: What did you do that for?
Blanche: So I could twist the broken end in your face!
Stanley: I bet you would do that!
Blanche: I would! I will if you—
Stanley: Oh! So you want some rough-house! All right, let’s have some rough-house!
[He springs toward her, overturning the table. She cries out and strikes at him with the bottle top but he catches her wrist.]
Tiger—tiger! Drop the bottle-top! Drop it! We’ve had this date with each other from the beginning!
[She moans. The bottle-top falls. She sinks to her knees. He picks up her inert figure and carries her to the bed. The hot trumpet and
drums from the Four Deuces sound loudly.]
This highly disturbing scene is punctuated with Stanley sexually assaulting Blanche as
her sister/ his wife gives birth to their first child. The layers of malice in the play build
to a crescendo in this scene; it started with low grade antagonism, escalated to assaulting
Stella in Blanche’s presence, until it ultimately became the methodical destruction of
Blanche’s reputation among the last friends and family she had left in the world. Stanley
refused to even allow Blanche her delusions.

Returning to the sexual assault, Stanley’s dialogue just before the heinous act is a
clear admission that he intended to rape Blanche from the first moment he met her. It
fits with the narrative detail offered early on that Stanley upon meeting women
immediately begins to sexually classify and luridly fantasize about them. While there is
one element that remains in order to complete Blanche’s complete destruction (which
will occur in Scene 11), Stanley’s assault of her was seemingly a part of that agenda. By
raping her, Stanley stripped away Blanche’s notion that she as a free person had any
autonomy over her physical anatomy. It was an assertion of control and what in the
parlance of war is referred to as ‘full-spectrum dominance’; he was showing her via his
grotesque actions that he was her superior in every conceivable domain, be it physical,
intellectual, or otherwise.

Beyond my terse explanation, I will now present you with research which will explain
sexual assault among humans, and then in the animal kingdom.
Beginning with humans, here is an excerpt of what one research-based article has to say
on the matter (https://universe.byu.edu/2017/03/07/psychologists-explain-why-
men-rape-women1/):

The psychology behind rape is complex, and researchers have different hypotheses about what goes on in the mind of a
rapist.

Otterbein University psychology professor Norm Shpancer detailed evolutionary psychology reasons for why men rape
women in a 2014 Psychology Today article. Shpancer said men tend to be physically stronger by genetic design; therefore,
they rape because they can.

“All of us behave in scripted ways in many areas of our lives, including sex,” Shpancer told the Daily Universe. “Our scripts
are shaped in part by biology, in part by society and in part through our own experiences.”

Acts of sex and violence share the hormone testosterone, and so the two are biologically linked. Primeval men were
“rewarded” for aggression by gaining access to women and protecting them from other males. This may have caused sexual
aggressive impulses in men to be passed down through generations, according to Shpancer. This does not excuse sexual
assault, however, as men have control over these urges.

Social pressure and culture tend to have greater influence over people’s behavior than genetics or biology, according to
Shpancer.

He wrote that some men internalize a pervasive social norm that flirting and foreplay lead to intercourse. People hate to go
against social norms, according to Shpancer. Therefore, when a woman says, “No,” or “Stop,” these men become angry
with the woman rather than questioning their own behavior.
Zoё D. Peterson, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, examined whether men were more
likely to rape or pressure women into sex if the men thought they could get away with it. The researchers also examined
whether men who thought their peers would approve or accept such behavior were more likely to engage in rape or sexual
coercion — sexual acts obtained through verbal pressure or manipulation.

Peterson’s recent study surveyed 120 heterosexual men between ages 18 and 30. Peterson and her colleagues found those
who felt sure they could get away with rape without punishment were more likely to report they used coercive behavior.

There was no significant association between punishment certainty and rape, according to the study. Men who self-reported
they raped and those who said they did not rape were both likely to say punishment was uncertain.

Peterson said in the study that men who rape sometimes have antisocial tendencies. Those who are antisocial care less about
society’s rules and judgements, Peterson said. Therefore, men who rape could possibly not care about punishment.

Men who perceived their peers approved of sexual aggression reported they engaged in verbally coercive behavior.
Peterson said this might be because sexually aggressive men seek out other sexually aggressive men to be part of their peer
group. The study author also mentioned men might think their peers accept or approve of sexual aggression when they
actually do not.

One notable section of the above article posits that some men who commit sexual assault
are known to have antisocial tendencies, and are furthermore not concerned with
society’s negative judgment of their conduct. It goes on to state that such men tend to
seek out friend groups of likeminded individuals. In other words, they seek out friends
who either engage in similar conduct, or at least friends who will not negatively judge
said conduct. This would seem to capture Stanley Kowalski quite accurately; we see in
the play that both Steve and Stanley assault their wives, we see that Mitch just about
rapes Blanche at the end of Scene 9, and in Scene 11, nobody holds Stanley accountable
for his conduct, given that they all join him at the scene of the crime to enjoy yet another
of his famous poker nights.

I have just finished offering you some minute insight into sexual assault and why
humans commit such heinous acts. I would next like to present you with research aimed
at explaining why and how it happens in the animal kingdom. I have gone to great
lengths to demonstrate that Williams was animalizing Stanley throughout this play. The
fundamental notion being that within humanity, and especially within Stanley, the
bestial origins are never as far from the surface of his psyche as one might hope. Thus, I
contend that understanding sexual assault/ coercion in the animal kingdom will offer
readers increased insight into Stanley as well.

Below you can read excerpts from a research-based article addressing the
aforementioned topic (https://www.animal-ethics.org/sexual-conflict/):

Sex among animals in the wild is often antagonistic. Males sometimes coerce females into mating with them, by physically
forcing them to mate, harassing them until they accede, or by punishing refusals to mate. In addition, there are also cases
of infanticide where males kill the offspring of females in order to be able to reproduce with them. Below we will see all
this explained in detail.

Sexual coercion
Sexual coercion is common among animals of many species, including insects, fishes, birds, bottle-nosed dolphins, and
primates. The victim usually struggles and attempts to escape and is often immobilized by the attacker. In some cases, it
results in severe injury from actions like scalping (tearing the skin over the head) among aquatic birds. The rape attempts
can be made individually or in groups, like the “rape flights” performed by groups of drakes. The risk of injury is high and
the severity of the act may lead to the drowning of the assaulted animal. Below we will investigate some of the kinds of
sexual coercion employed by males of different species, and the negative effects they have on female animals.

Mammals
The coercive methods employed by male animals vary widely, as do the kinds of injuries sustained by the female animals.
Northern elephant seals are extremely polygynous and sexually dimorphic. Mature males, who can weigh up to 11 times
the weight of an adult female, fight to control beaches and a harem of females. Male “courtship” behavior is direct and
aggressive. If the female resists, the male will pin her to the ground with his massive bodyweight and bite the back of her
neck repeatedly until she submits. This can result in severe injuries to the female, including bite wounds, broken ribs and
internal bleeding. In some cases, the female will actually be killed by the male in the course of mating. Misplaced bites can
cause lethal brain damage and the male’s massive weight can damage organs or cause internal hemorrhaging.

Infanticide

Mammals
Infanticide is a common reproductive strategy for males in several species of mammals. Since females often don’t ovulate
while lactating, it is in the reproductive interests of a male who has taken over a group of females to kill the children of the
previous male in order to make the female available for mating with him. Infanticide has been observed in several species
of primates including chimpanzees, orangutans and baboons, as well as in lions and mice. Infanticide is a very significant
cause of infant mortality in some mammalian species. It is the cause of 21% of infant mortality in mountain gorillas; between
31% and 38% in Hanuman langurs, and approximately 25% in lions.

You might be reasonably questioning what the link is between Stanley and sexual
aggression in nature. There is a callous ruthlessness in Stanley that emerges in his attacks
on Blanche. There is never a hesitation depicted, there is never guilt or any sign that
Stanley sees anything negative about his conduct. He traps Blanche in the bedroom, she
exposes her claws, via the broken bottle, to clearly convey that she objects to his obvious
intention, and he physically dominates her no differently than the above article describes
in sea lions or otters. The fundamental distinction between Stanley and the beasts of the
above article, is that animals are seemingly conducting themselves in accordance to the
impulses with which nature has imbued them. Whereas Stanley, while the savage
heartless aggression may be entwined in his nature, nonetheless seems to savor the
cruelty he targets Blanche with. Another distinction worth noting, is that while humans
have no insight into the thoughts animals may be having as they commit assaults, we
can reasonably infer that Stanley is aware of the laws which prohibit assault, and further,
that such conduct is not broadly viewed as lawful, moral or acceptable in civil society.
Civil society, however, quickly becomes the jungle when people flout social norms both
in terms of how one conducts oneself, and whether those in their midst hold them
accountable for their conduct.
 Scene Eleven

Scene eleven begins nearly identically to scene three; the same poker players have
gathered in the Kowalski home, and they have again been drinking and playing since
the previous evening. The atmosphere is described in the narration as “raw” and “lurid”
(163). Further, while Williams depicts this scene as the ‘same’ as its predecessor, it
should be noted that he does not invoke the unsettling Van Gogh painting, perhaps
because rather than resembling the morose painting, the Kowalski home has
transformed into it.

Stanley’s friends curse his luck and his brazen bravado, however beyond success in
poker and World War 2, the subtext seems to suggest that they (excluding Mitch) view
him as ‘lucky’ for having gotten away with sexually assaulting Blanche. Stanley boasts
of surviving the unsurvivable military campaign in Italy and the narration describes him
as “prodigiously elated” (163), which is a rather disturbing frame of mind to be in when
we consider what is about to happen to Blanche by the end of the scene—due in large
part to Stanley’s actions, no less. A propos of the aforementioned, Mitch utters his one
line of dialogue in the scene, “You…you…you…Brag…brag…bull…bull,” prompting
Stanley to reply, “What’s the matter with him?” (164) On the surface it appears as though
there is no relation between poker, WW2 and Blanche. However, I would contend that
all of these are competition-based scenarios from which Stanley has emerged victorious.
Stanley went to war with Blanche over Stella, and he was the undisputed victor. As to
Mitch’s dialogue, it suggests to me, at least, that he is disgusted with Stanley, yet lacks
the courage to confront him in any way. Stanley’s reply to Mitch is identical to his reply
to Eunice, who upon entering the Kowalski home declares, “I always did say that men
are callous things with no feelings, but this does beat anything. Making pigs of
yourselves,” (164). While it might be tempting to suggest that Stanley is such an immoral
or perhaps amoral individual that he has no clue why everyone is upset with him, such
a conclusion would overlook the context and the scenario that Stanley himself has
created. He pretends to be confused, yet it is he who gathered all of his and Blanche’s
acquaintances in his home to witness his victory and her ultimate ruination /
humiliation. This poker gathering is not happening by accident, it was initiated to make
a spectacle of Blanche’s destruction. It is an act of deliberate cruelty.

Eunice and Stella speak discretely in the bedroom as Blanche baths yet again. They
make vague reference to what will become of Blanche. Blanche was euphemistically told
that she was going to ‘rest in the country’, meaning a mental hospital, but she decided
it meant she was going to be rescued by Shep Huntleigh, and seemingly nobody
invested any effort to correct her misunderstanding of the matter (165).
In scene four Stella told Blanche that things happen between a man and a woman in the
dark that make everything else ‘unimportant’ (81). Her exchange with Eunice in this
scene demonstrates how literally she meant that (165-166):

Stella: I don’t know if I did the right thing.

Eunice: What else could you do?
Stella: I couldn’t believe her story and go on living with Stanley.
Eunice: Don’t ever believe it. Life has got to go on. No matter what happens, you’ve got to keep on going.

In other words, Stella has chosen not to believe Blanche’s account of having been raped
by Stanley because it is the only way she can continue to be married to him. Eunice’s
advice is choose never to believe it, think only of self-preservation and survival. Thus,
when Stella explained herself in scene four, we now see that she meant it literally.
Everything in her life will be eclipsed by her lust for Stanley, and anything that becomes
a barrier to her lust will be eliminated, be it her sister and one imagines even her child.

The euphemistic exchange between Stella and Eunice reveals that Blanche is being sent
to a mental hospital. Readers might find themselves wondering why. I will attempt to
offer an insightful explanation, but please do not view it as a justification of any crime
she has been the victim of. First, from the outset of the play we see that Blanche is
struggling in a variety of regards. Upon arriving at the Kowalski residence, Blanche’s
reflex is to immediately search for alcohol. She spent the remainder of the play searching
for alcohol and misrepresenting how much of it she actually consumes. It seems
reasonable to deduce that Blanche is self-medicating with alcohol. Another fixation that
emerges in scene one and seems to emerge in nearly every scene is Blanche’s constant
compulsion to bath. This compulsion suggests that there is something dirty in Blanche’s
life that she feels the need to cleanse so she can begin anew. However, by the end of the
play, it is evident that neither the bathing nor the drinking will effectively treat what ails
her. Readers beginning in scene one see that Blanche is unwell when the mere mention
of her late husband has her fleeing the room in need of vomiting. As the play progresses
Blanche’s erratic conduct, her auditory hallucinations, her speaking out loud to people
who are not there, among other things, clearly demonstrate that she is a person in need
of medical attention. Her shaky, fragile state is destroyed once she is confronted
successively by Mitch, then by Stanley who ultimately sexually assaults her, and then
finally humiliates her in the final scene. However, while all of the aforementioned are
legitimate reasons for a person to require medical attention, Blanche is only sent away
for said medical attention to cover up her rape accusation. Rationally looking at it, when
a person makes a rape allegation, they either go to the police and file a charge, or they
are viewed as a liar who is so mentally ill that they would opt to lie about such a thing.
In other words, Blanche’s mental illness is weaponized against her, and is seemingly
instrumental in Stanley escaping all accountability.
Interestingly, Williams’ own sister, Rose, seems to some extent to be the inspiration for
Blanche. Modern scholars today believe that she may have been autistic and perhaps
even schizophrenic, her original diagnosis. Here is an account from Rose’s life that
echoes Blanche’s significantly
(http://www.tennesseewilliamsstudies.org/journal/work.php?ID=113):

[Rose was known for making allegedly delusional statements] among these supposedly delusional statements are her
accusations of sexual immorality among her family, especially the notion that her father, Cornelius Coffin “C. C.” Williams,
had made sexual advances toward her (Spoto 59). Even if we are to accept the commonly held position that C. C. Williams,
by all accounts a violent and sexually promiscuous man who showed no genuine affection toward other human beings,
was not sexually abusive toward Rose, the various autistic qualities of her character suggest explanations other than
delusion for the (probably) false story. The accusation is clearly delusional only if viewed in strictly neurotypical terms:
sexual immorality has a certain, definite meaning, and is thus either happening or not happening. This formulation
discounts the complexities that can arise from communicative impairment (which might give sexual immorality meanings
other than the usual), social impairment (which might cause behavior to be misread as sexual), and inflexible thinking
(which might define acceptable behavior more narrowly than usual). In other words, it is possible that Rose was not
hallucinating sexual misconduct that was not really there, but rather viewing behavior that was really there (and that most
might consider innocuous) as being sexually inappropriate. In any case, as her perceptions became more inconsistent with
those of others, and her reactions to those perceptions became more socially unacceptable, Rose was subjected to psychiatric
treatment that almost certainly exacerbated her difficulties and may in fact have created psychosis that was not previously
there.7 The final solution, the prefrontal lobotomy, left her in a docile, childlike state that Williams labeled “tragically
becalmed” (Memoirs 126). Based on what we now know about the autism spectrum, its erroneous conflation with
schizophrenia, and the destructive effects of certain mid-twentieth-century psychiatric treatments, Rose’s fate would appear
to have been the result not of psychosis but of a combination of atypical neurological wiring (which, depending on one’s
perspective, might be seen as involving as many strengths as weaknesses); anxiety caused by that atypical neurological
wiring; unusual behavior related to that anxiety; a lack of acceptance and tolerance of that unusual behavior on the part of
the people in her life, most importantly her family; and the destructive medical treatments that she was subjected to as a
result of that lack of acceptance and tolerance. Williams, who seemed to have an intuitive, if unconscious, understanding
of these causes for Rose’s decline, was, for much of his writing career, haunted by guilt over his not having been there to
prevent the procedure and consumed by resentment of his parents for consenting to it. 8 These emotions would be the
driving force behind his best plays, including The Glass Menagerie (1944), Suddenly Last Summer (1958), and The Night of the
Iguana (1961), all of which feature female characters inspired by Rose.

Here is an explanation of the closeness that existed among Tennessee and Rose, offering
insight into how devastating her fate was and the impact it had upon his writing
(http://www.tennesseewilliamsstudies.org/journal/work.php?ID=113):

Early in his life, Tennessee Williams shared with his older sister, Rose, an intensely close relationship that left an indelible
mark on his life and most of his literary work. Over time, Rose’s increasingly erratic behavior would lead to temporary
estrangement from her beloved brother, institutionalization, insulin shock treatments, and, on January 14, 1943, some three
months before Williams would begin writing the play that would become The Glass Menagerie, a bilateral prefrontal
lobotomy. That Rose’s tragic medical history was a source of torment for Williams, one that he grappled with in some of
his best work, has long been a critical commonplace. Explorations of this matter, however, have been relatively unaffected
by our ever-increasing understanding of neurology and human behavior, let alone by the theoretical insights of disability
studies. A case in point is the issue of Rose’s specific medical diagnosis: dementia praecox, mixed type, paranoid
predominating—in other words, schizophrenia. In the seven decades that have followed the original assessment of Rose,
diagnostic criteria and practices have changed radically, to the point where the word schizophrenic might even be thought
to have a slightly different meaning; still, the diagnosis has never been seriously reconsidered. (In the most recent scholarly
article on Rose’s condition, C. Allen Haake takes the schizophrenia diagnosis for granted.) In this essay, I will revisit Rose’s
case and show that if her troubled adolescence took place today, she would likely be diagnosed with the autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) Asperger’s syndrome. My purpose here is not to perform a postmortem diagnosis based on anecdotal or
literary evidence, but rather to use a different interpretation of these symptoms to demonstrate two important ideas: first,
that notions of mental illness are subjective and culturally relative, and second, that certain long-standing assumptions
about Rose Williams and her relationship to her brother’s canon should be called into question. Underpinning this
examination will be neurodiversity, a relatively new theoretical concept that both informs and is informed by Williams’s
conflicted feelings concerning Rose and her mental state, his exploration of those feelings through his plays, and the ways
in which those feelings and literary explorations evolved over time.

At this juncture, whether or not scholars agree about the links between Blanche and
Rose, Williams’ personal story strikes me as nonetheless relevant. One of the most
important women in his life struggled with mental health, she made accusations much
akin to Blanche’s against Stanley, and consequently ended up destroyed.

It should also be pointed out that between the time Stanley raped Blanche until the
events of scene eleven, Blanche has had no choice but to live in the same domicile as the
person who attacked her.

Upon exiting the shower, Blanche emerges unsteady. She speaks in hysterical
bursts and demands to know what is happening. She is clearly disoriented. Eunice and
Stella attempt to distract or placate her by offering her food and putting together the
outfit in which she misguidedly thinks she will greet Shep Huntleigh (167-170). As
Blanche verbalizes her fantasy to die a romantic death at sea (170), she is interrupted by
the Doctor and Matron (nurse) who have arrived to collect her and bring her to the
mental hospital (171). Williams describes them thusly, “The gravity of their profession is
exaggerated—the unmistakable aura of the state institution with its cynical detachment,” (171).
Blanche of course thinks Huntleigh is there to collect her, though her delusion is
disrupted when Eunice refers to multiple people seeking Blanche, rather than an
unaccompanied Huntleigh (172).

As she exits the bedroom to greet what turns out to be the Doctor and Matron, rather
than Huntleigh, Blanche must pass before the men, who all stand, apart from Mitch, who
cannot even look at her (173). Blanche upon seeing the Doctor instantly realizes that she
has been deceived by both herself and those around her. The room falls silent and the
only sound that can be heard is Stanley “steadily shuffling” the cards (174). Blanche
attempts to flee, and “Stanley suddenly pushes back his chair and rises as if to block her way,”
(174) partially reenacting his conduct from the evening he sexually assaulted her.
Blanche pretends to have lost something in order to create an opening to seek some form
of escape. The Matron is dispatched to retrieve her (174-175). While the Matron pursues
Blanche, Stanley inquires whether Blanche is looking for the paper lantern she installed
over the lightbulb with Mitch. As he says this he “seizes the paper lantern, tearing it off the
light bulb, and extends it toward her. She cries out as if the lantern were herself,” (176). The
gesture, insubstantial though it may be, especially after all Stanley has done to Blanche,
nonetheless perfectly captures his conduct toward her from scene five on. Stanley ripped
away Blanche’s façade, her ‘fifty percent illusion’ if you will, and exposed that which
she attempted to conceal. He laid her secrets, her transgressions, her humiliations, and
her tragedies bare for all to scorn and judge.

The reality of what Stella has participated in doing to her sister seems to dawn on
her. She watches the scene unravel on the porch as Eunice restrains her, “Oh my God,
Eunice help me! Don’t let them do that to her, don’t let them hurt her! Oh, God, oh,
please God, don’t hurt her! What are they doing to her? What are they doing? […] What
have I done to my sister? Oh, God, what have I done to my sister?” (176) At the same
time, Mitch seems to realize that he too has colluded to enable Stanley to escape without
consequence for what he did to Blanche. “Mitch has started toward the bedroom,”
presumably to help Blanche. “Stanley crosses to block him. Stanley pushes him aside. Mitch
lunges and strikes at Stanley. Stanley pushes Mitch back. Mitch collapses at the table, sobbing,”
(177).

Stella’s conduct and emotional response in this scene makes sense, to me at least. She
decided not to believe Blanche’s allegations, and as Blanche is collected and restrained
by the Matron, the implications of that decision inescapably confront her. She may have
sugarcoated how this all might go in her mind, but no cognitive dissonance is powerful
enough to deny the tragedy that now unfolds before her. Mitch’s conduct in this scene,
on the other hand, is confounding. Everyone present is seemingly aware of both
Blanche’s allegations (which one suspects they all believe) and the events they are
certain to witness by virtue of being there. While I am willing to accept Stella’s denial,
Mitch confuses me. If he has such anger toward Stanley, why show up to play cards with
him, and why stay to witness the horrific spectacle of what will happen to Blanche?
Perhaps Mitch, like Stella, accepted Stanley’s narrative as some form of self-
preservation. However, upon seeing Blanche in her broken, unwell state, and realizing
Stanley’s role in it, Mitch found himself no longer able to self-delude. Not only is this
scene Stanley’s victory celebration, it is his successful attempt to make collaborators of
everyone in his circle. By accepting his narrative and plan to dispose of Blanche,
everyone in the Kowalski home has colluded in the victimization of Blanche DuBois. It
is thus not Stanley alone who raped Blanche, they all raped her in one form or another.

As the Matron’s pursuit and restraint of Blanche finds success, the doctor
approaches, only this time his approach has been altered. “His voice is gentle and
reassuring as he crosses to Blanche and crouches in front of her. As he speaks her name, her terror
subsides a little,” (177). The Matron inquires whether Blanche will require a strait jacket,
and the doctor declines, satisfied that Blanche’s outburst and struggle have ended (177-
178). As he assists her to her feet, Blanche offers one more of the play’s iconic quotes,
“Whoever you are—I have always depended on the kindness of strangers,” (178). There
is such a sad irony in this simple line of dialogue. Blanche has evidently depended upon
the kindness of strangers, yet none of her experiences thus far in life have ever
demonstrated to her that strangers are kind. Even the very people in her midst, all of
them more or less strangers to her, rather than being kind, colluded in her assault and
ultimate destruction. In other words, when earlier in the play Blanche declared that she
did not want realism but magic instead, we see that she has blinded herself to realities
that are simply too difficult to face. The reality is that people are all too often cruel, and
deliberately so. The magical thinking that Blanche indulges is at her own expense, and
she cannot shake it, despite that it is now to some extent implicated in ushering her to
her next destination, a mental hospital.

As Blanche is escorted away by the Doctor, Stella repeatedly cries out her name,
but Blanche does not even turn to offer her sister a final glance or a good-bye (178).
Eunice leaves Blanche’s side, and Stanley joins her outside, standing before her as she
“sobs with inhuman abandon” the narration goes on to describe that there “is something
luxurious her complete surrender to crying now that her sister is gone,” (179). While there is
evidently guilt and a sense of personal responsibility for Blanche’s fate, Stella also seems
to be relieved. She has protected her husband, her marriage is no longer at risk, and
Blanche will no longer be a source of future issues in her life. I offer these deductions
because Williams had the option to use any descriptors to capture Stella’s emotional
state and response. Rather than emphasizing sorrow or guilt, Williams uses words such
as ‘inhuman’ and ‘luxurious’ repeatedly.

The play closes with Stanley “voluptuously” and “soothingly” pantomiming a

gesture of comfort toward his crying wife. He repeatedly says “Now, honey. Now, love,”
however, as he kneels beside her, “his fingers bind the opening of her blouse,” (179). Stanley
is aroused by the scene that has horrified and traumatized everyone else present.
Blanche’s destruction, or his victory, in other words, have aroused him. The second
Blanche has left, Stanley intends to seamlessly return to his previous life. Do note that
the narration does not describe Stella in any way thwarting his efforts at foreplay.

The play ends with Steve declaring, “This game is seven-card stud,” (179), in essence
showing us that life will instantly return to normal. All present have reacted to Blanche’s
tragic fate as benignly as when Stanley attacked the pregnant Stella in scene three.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary explains stud poker thusly; it is a card game “in
which each player receives seven cards dealt two facedown and one faceup on the first
round, one faceup on each of the next three rounds, and one facedown on the last round
with betting following each round and a final showdown in which a player selects five
of his cards as his poker hand,” (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/seven-
card%20stud#:~:text=noun,cards%20as%20his%20poker%20hand).
Whether we wish to invoke war metaphors or card playing metaphors, it cannot be
denied that Stanley emerged victorious in his conflict with Blanche.
 The Afterward

Upon reading this play in its entirety, readers are left with much to ponder. My
instinct is to reflect upon the ideas and themes I am left with. Having read the play well
over a hundred times in the last two decades or so, I have had many opportunities to
engage with it, and I always find myself stumbling upon something new. I will now try
to explore these themes and ideas in an orderly fashion.

An idea that I have reflected upon many times over the years relates to gender.
While Stanley and Blanche appear to be on opposite sides in so many regards, they
nonetheless have much in common. Both characters are governed by their carnal desires.
Both characters are guilty of rape; Stanley brutally assaulted Blanche, and Blanche in
having a romantic liaison with one of her minor students committed what in most places
constitutes statutory rape. Both characters have committed a variety of misdeeds
throughout their lives, and particularly within the time frame of the play. Despite the
similarity of their respective transgressions, it is the consequences these characters
experience where the distinctions begin. In essence, what we see in the play is that
women are eternally damned for the very deeds men are never held to account for.
Stanley is guilty of conjugal violence, rape, character assassination, etc., yet everyone
conspires to ensure that he is never punished or held to account. On the other hand,
Blanche’s transgressions are all in the past. We can debate to what degree they are
behind her, so to speak, but she was caught, punished, and humiliated. However, what
we see in the play is that the consequences that Blanche previously endured will never
be enough. Her career, her reputation—all was already lost, yet for Stanley and those
around her, that simply is not enough. And based on the reactions and conduct of those
around Blanche, all seem to concur. As for Stella, it is not clear how things will be
between her and Stanley, moving forward. However, while Stella may or may not be
pleased with the life she has to look forward to with Stanley, I think most readers would
agree that the outcomes she is left with by the end of the play see her losing to the same
extent Blanche has. To reiterate a previous point, Stanley evades punishment and
accountability for literal crimes he committed in the present moment of the play, while
Blanche is destroyed and punished anew for crimes and misdeeds she was already
punished for.

One of the themes of the play is encapsulated in the title itself. What we see in the
characters of Blanche, Stella and Stanley are three people who rather than being in
control of their carnal or lustful desires are instead passengers to them. However, as was
mentioned in the previous paragraph, the consequences for this tendency are
determined by gender in this play. Women who are governed by their lustful desires
above all else traverse a pathway to their ultimate ruination. Just look at the trajectory
of Blanche’s journey to the Kowalski residence; Desire—Cemeteries—Elysian Fields.
Being governed by lustful desire will lead to death—for women. Stanley, on the other
hand, due to being a man in a patriarchal society, gets to follow his lustful desire
wherever it may lead him, and has the luxury of immunity from all negative
consequences or personal accountability. Furthermore, as the sole character in this play
who attains literally all he desires, emerging victorious in all senses, it seems to me that
Williams is conveying the notion that the only people who truly win, so to speak, in this
world, are those capable of or willing to exhibit character traits akin to Stanley’s.

Recurring Motif: Animalization

Throughout my analysis of this play, I attempted to make the case for Williams
‘animalizing’ Stanley, and to a lesser extent, Stella. I chose the term ‘animalization’
because I did not want to invoke the pejorative connotations that arise from the term
dehumanization. Instead, it was my intent throughout to demonstrate what for me is a
recurring motif throughout the play. In just about every scene that features Stanley
Kowalski, Williams describes him using terms that invoke the appearance, conduct or
thought process of animals. Sometimes Stanley is a bird using his plumage convey his
alpha status and viability as a potential mate. On other occasions he loses control of his
conduct with complete abandon, engaging in remorseless acts of violence, or howling
for Stella in much the way a wolf howls at the moon.

This motif becomes truly unsettling when Stanley combines the intellect of man with the
unwavering cruelty of animals to exact his revenge against Blanche. This begins to take
form at the end of scene four as Stanley secretly listens to the private conversation
between Blanche and Stella. Blanche, hoping to liberate Stella from Stanley’s explosive
violence, attempts to convince her to leave him. From that moment Stanley begins an
investigation into Blanche’s past, instinctually sensing that she is not all she pretends to
be. Upon learning the tragic facts of Blanche’s past, Stanley weaponizes those against
her, alienating all in her midst. This of course is the methodical conduct of the human
side of this motif. On the animal side, we see a man unfettered by conscience, ethics or
morality. For Stanley, it seems that there is no such thing as going too far; once he senses
he is wronged, or that what belongs to him is threatened in anyway, he is simply entitled
to enact any measures he sees fit. At the end of scene four, I suggested to readers that if
they wanted to anticipate how Stanley would conduct himself next, it would be best to
imagine how an apex predator would conduct itself under similar circumstances. I
realize that I invoke the traits of many different creatures, rather than a singular species.
I do this because Williams himself invokes many different creatures in his descriptions
of Stanley at various junctures in the play. In scenes ten and eleven the type of creature
that most comes to mind is primate. When primates feel wronged by a rival, their
retaliations are breathtakingly vile. It is common for one primate to eat another’s hands,
to tear off its genitals, and even rip off its face. For me, the sexual assault of Blanche,
followed by her exodus from the clan, so to speak, falls into that category. Not only is it
a vile act of unrelenting brutality, we see that Stanley is entirely unmoved in the final
scene. While those in his midst are shocked, if only fleetingly, Stanley continues to
shuffle cards. While Stella is completely destroyed and crying over the traumatic loss of
her sister, Stanley is reaching into her blouse in order to recommence the mating ritual
that was staggered by Blanche’s presence.

The discussion of this recurring motif was largely centered around Stanley, since
Williams went to such lengths to deliberately describe him as an animal. However, while
such descriptors were largely reserved for Stanley, Stella’s conduct was no less animal.
Stella, however, is a beta. In other words, while she is governed by largely bestial
instincts, they tend to fall into a more submissive category. Stella submits to her carnal
and lustful desires in much the way she submits to Stanley. To find greater insight into
this motif and how it manifests via Stella, we must examine her inaction in key scenarios
throughout the play. In scene three, Stella returns to her mate because he howled for her.
In scene four Stella fiercely defended Stanley offering arguments to Blanche that had no
basis whatsoever in logic, but rather solely in her brute, animal lust for her husband. For
a moment Stella forgets her place in the clan, she mistakenly begins to see herself as an
alpha in scene eight. Stanley rises up, destroys things and conjures a vicious roar to
remind those around him that there is one true alpha, and thinking otherwise is an ill-
advised mistake. Returning to one of the final narrative descriptions of the play, right
on the heels of tearfully witnessing her sister taken away to a mental hospital, Stanley is
depicted as unbuttoning Stella’s bra. Do note that she makes no effort to thwart this
action. While Stanley is the undeniable victor of the play, Stella is not far behind; she
keeps her husband and child, she has rid herself of the burden of a troubled sister, and
she will once more get to resume her life and lustful pursuits with her husband. It was
Stella who in scene four told Blanche that there are things that happen between a man
and a woman in the dark that make all else unimportant. By the end of the play we see
that she meant this literally. In Stella we do not see conscience so much as remorse. In
other words, ethics and morality will not pose hurdles for her, but she does feel badly
after the fact. Stella’s animalization seems like more of a surrender; in meeting Stanley,
she tapped into and embraced the animal part of her nature that might otherwise have
gone unexplored had she never met him.