Jeffrey Kane Crave Analysis

In Crave by Sarah Kane, the discussions of violence between a series of characters, named C, M, B, A, that express a unique form of poetic narrative that expresses the subconscious mind of reactionary violence in terms of victim status. The exchange between predator and victim status is an important aspect of the character, A, that illustrates the cycle of family abuse that define familial relationships. These family relationship define the reactionary forms of violence that exchange the aggressor/victim role in the passing of highly dysfunctional forms of abuse between the family members. In this case, A defines the abusive behaviors of a mother that projects the exchange of violence as a common feature of family life. This is also true
of the familial exchanges between Michal and Katurian, which, provide a similar expression of reactionary violence that results in the murder of three children. In this manner, the seemingly random exchange exchanges between the various characters defines this aspect of violence in the family unit, which expresses the underlying motives of the victim to suffer at the hands of a parental oppressor:
A: A mother beats her child savagely because it runs out in front of car.
M: Just stop thinking of yourself as I, think of we.
B: Let’s just go t-bed.
C: Cry blue murder.
M: Do not remove your gloves until you lave the last town.
B: Are you a lesbian?
M: OH please.
B: I thought that might be why you don’t have children.
A.: Why?
(Kane 161).
In this dialogue, A is expressing the abuse that a mother brings down on her child, which reflects the ongoing cycle of violence that forms the premise of the victim. The child in this dialogue is not unlike Michal, as he struggles to understand why he has committed the murder of children, yet it is known that he had been tortured and beaten by his parents on a regular basis. The causal reactions to this type of ”savage” abuse of a child by her mother also reveals the callous and casual reactions to violence in the other characters, such as C, M, and B. Much like Michal and Katurian talk causally about being tortured by the police, so does C, M, and B define the comedic nature of callous responses to violence that appear to be normalized as a form of family dysfunction. This is also true of Stevie’s jealous rage, which transforms her victim status to an aggressor that seeks to kill a harmless animal, such as Sylvia, due to the betrayal of her husband. This transference of violence onto the victim is a major part of the family relations that illustrate the interactive relationships of family members, which often involves a callous and extremely volatile domestic environment. These familial relationship define the victim status of individuals living in these families, which must endure torture and heinous acts of cruelty as a realization of self. Certainly, Kane’s character, A, provides a context in which the abstract nature of comedy and poetic narrative infuse the victim status of the individual within a group setting, or more importantly, within the context of a highly dysfunctional family unit that accepts torture and physical abuse as an acceptable way of life.
In Albee’s characterization of Stevie, it is important to define the causal nature of reactionary violence as a source of her victim status in the family unit. This aspect of reactionary violence in terms of marital status defines Stevie’s murderous desire to torture and, eventually, to kill Sylvia. Albee forms the familial role of reactionary violence as a key concept in the transformation of Stevie as a victim of her husband’s altered sexual interests, but more so, how she becomes a violent aggressor in the victimization of Sylvia. Certainly, Stevie’s own source of rage is part of the victimization she must endure under the authority of Martin. In this manner, the vengeance that Stevie feels is deeply imbedded in the betrayal of marital values that martin has broken in their relationship. In this manner, Stevie projects her own sense of victimhood onto martin, since she feels the need to kill Sylvia to restore the love that she once shared with Martin. Stevie’s response to Martin’s plea to stop having sex with Sylvia defines this relationship as part of reactionary violence in the family unit:
Martin: Stevie, I…I promise you, I’ll stop; I’ll…
Stevie: How stopping has nothing to do with having started? How nothing has anything to do with anything? (tears—if there—stop.) You have brought me down, you goat-fucker; you love of my life. You have brought me down to nothing! (accusatory finger right at him). You have brought me down, and, Christ, I’ll bring you down with me!
(Albee 44).
In this dialogue, Stevie is venting her anger at Martin, which has primarily been based on verbal abuse against the loss of martial fidelity in their marriage.
However, this rage will soon turn to revenge, which illustrates the familial role of reactionary violence as a motivation for Stevie to kill Sylvia as a threat to her existence. In this manner, Stevie commits the act of murder within the context of her victimization under the authority of her husband, since martin is seemingly able to justify his love for Sylvia as the head of the household. However, Stevie will get her revenge by killing the goat in order to devolve this aspect of marital dysfunction in the home with the hopes of resorting some semblance of sanity in the family. This aspect of dysfunctional family relations shows the dislocation of the mind from reality, as Stevie has now committed herself to murder and mayhem to resolve the issue of lost love. In terms of violence and family values, Stevie, much like Michal, shows a callous disregard for human life, especially before he and Katurian are about to be executed for the murder of the children:
Katurian: but they’re coming back to torture and execute us in a minute.
Michal: Exactly, so it might be the last sleep we get for a while (pause.) Might be the last sleep we get forever. Wouldn’t that be terrible? I love sleeping. Do you think they have sleeping in Heaven? They bloody better, else I’m not going (Pause.)
(McDonagh
63).
This is another comparison between these two plays, which show the similar reactions of Michal and Stevie as a victims of family abuse. These circumstances define the overt acceptance of violence as a way of life, which allows them to devalue life to the point of committing murder against innocents, such as the goat or the three children. Certainly, Stevie is a lot like Michal in that they are capable of transforming their victimhood into a reactionary form of murderous violence against yet another victim. This is a major part of the familial roles of reactionary violence as a continually escalating form of violence and death for Stevie and Michal. More so, it shows the causal and humorous effect of family dysfunction that has allowed violence to be an acceptable form of behavior in terms of family relations. The family unit is really a setting in which the cause and effect of violence is part of the alternating roles of victim and aggressor win these horrific responses to injustice that occur in the behaviors of Michal and Stevie.
Another factor of reactionary family violence is the destruction of innocence, which illustrates the victim status of Stevie, Michal, and the character, A, that define the humorous aspects of the tragicomedy as part of cycle of abuse that is found in society. In this manner, Kane’s character, A, continually reflects on the loss of innocence that is symbolized in the gruesome death of children as part of this violent family environment. In this form of abstract narrative, it is important to follow A’s interpretation of violence against children, which directly correlates with the violence that Michal experiences and Katurian observes in their own childhoods. This is, after all, the crux of victimhood that they project in their callous, yet humorous depiction of the destruction of innocence. This is part of the chain reaction of family violence that occurs at childhood, which illustrates the overarching trauma these individuals define through the destruction of childhood. These are important aspects of the victim status of young people that A describes as one of the defining features of abuse and violence that affect characters, such as Michal and Katurian, in the destruction of innocence imposed on children:
A: A small boy and an imaginary friend. He took her to the beach and they played in the sea. A man came from the water and took her away. The following morning the body of a girl was found washed up on the beach.
M: What’s that got to do with anything?
A: Clutching a fistful of sand.
B: Everything.
C: What’s anything got to do with anything.
M: Nothing.
A: Exactly.
(McDonagh 163-164).
In this manner, the role of children symbolizes the underlying role of victimhood that Michal and Katurian experience in their own childhood upbringing, the abduction of Michal in A’s commentary on the abduction of an “imaginary friend” defines the abstracted trauma of family life, which the characters, M,B, and C also dictate in the reluctance to find a significant meaning in the abduction of a child. Tragically, none of the other characters in this play care about the effects of violence that A continually vocalizes in this narrative form. Of course, the comedic aspect of the family is the seemingly random speech of A, which causally projects violent acts on children as a type of acceptable or normative way of life. This form of callous and apathetic view of child murder is a key component in the familial role of reactionary violence that Michal, Katurian, and A express in their interpretation of the world through the unremitting cruelty of child abuse and murder. These are important aspects of the psychological effect of the child perspective, which define the reactionary modes of violence that so easily accepted or denied due to the trauma and horrific abuse that Michal, Katurian, and A define in the destruction of innocence. Certainly, these plays illustrate the overarching theme of child abduction, torture, and murder as a major component in the reactionary violence that is projected by these characters within the context of tragicomedy.
In conclusion, a drama analysis of the familial role of reactionary violence in the portrayal of victimhood will be defined in The Goat or, Who is Sylvia?, The Pillowman, and Crave. In Albee’s play, Stevie is an important example of a victim of martial infidelity that defines the reactionary violence of family members that seek to exact revenge upon their familial counterparts. Martin is obsessed with bestiality as an expression of the humor and immoral aspects of modern life that are forged on poor communication and violence as an extreme form of resolving these family issues. In McDonagh’s play, Michal and Katurian are both victims of violent parental abuse, but is Michal that takes the brunt of this violence as a prime victim in the family unit. More so, Michal represents the transformation of the victim into the aggressor when he confesses to killing thee children, just as a Stevie becomes the aggressor to revolve her own victim issues at having been betrayed by her husband, Martin, to the love of a goat. In Kane’s Crave, the character, A, also symbolize an abstract version of Michal and Stevie’s callous view of violence, especially in the commentaries made about abusive parents and the murder and abduction of children. In this manner, A represents the destruction of family values in the overt expressions of abuse and violence aimed at children, which exposes the source of many of these victimization issues that occur in Michal and Stevie’s own abusive patterns. Certainly, these character define the relationship between family members and the various reactionary aspects of violence that occur due to the cause and effect family relations that create these violent and highly dysfunctional behaviors. In this manner, the familial role of reactionary violence has been examined through the victimhood of various characters in The Goat or, Who is Sylvia?, The Pillowman, and Crave.