Haven't felt like researching the Reynolds comment. What did he have to say about "talent being divided into genius and taste." I know he set the standard for what was tasteful, but like everything, Greenberg must mean more. Is it ironic in some way? Was the division of work meaningless because talent should not be bound by taste?

Renate:
From the beginning, the talk about architecture and liquid light, Walker's year-long absence, his isolation in the city and elsewhere, and Ned and Lina barely understanding each other evoke images of Edward Hopper's paintings. Not any one in particular, but the whole atmosphere he creates—buildings in changing liquid light and people alone or together but always strangely unconnected, isolated. That would be one of the questions I would ask Greenberg: if he had Hopper in mind when he wrote 3DOR.
 

Moon:
Visuals are always helpful. Such angst and desolation. Resnais's film L'Ánné Dernière à Marienbad [Last Year at Marienbad] also comes to mind.

KJ:
I really loved Walker's description of trying to get a cheeseburger, too ("but it didn't work out"). That response being to him "really annihilating...I had to leave" just breaks me up every time!

(Heide) "please, please, please..."
I just hope CF didn't deliver the line in the same tone. And I didn't catch that play-within-a-play reference at all! (I think I needed to see that one!)

According to Nan, her husband Harry "always says the right thing." When Pip appeared to take umbrage at this, Nan said, "He's...what you would be if I hadn't met you until I was 25." What do you think she meant by this? That he'd literally would be a different sort of person or that he would be different in her eyes or what?

When Nan asked Walker whether he was, in fact, in love with Pip, and he answered: "Oh, who knows? You know he's such a dunce, I envied him." I think he was being quite honest about the envy, but what did he mean?

When all is said and done, how do you think Ned really felt about his son Walker?

Karen:
Found some info on Reynolds, and Greenberg's tongue is firmly in cheek again.

Moon:
I also think we should discuss Walker's sexuality. It was a queer remark by Nan. (OK, pun intended)

KJ:
(Moon) I also think we should discuss Walker's sexuality.
Earlier, Walker implied that Ned and Theo might have been lovers because of the single mattress, to which Nan replied sarcastically, "Not everyone is as sexually fluent as you, Walker—our loss, perhaps..."

Karen:
(Evelyn) Building the house with moments 
(KJ) But didn't Ned see with "astonishing clarity" that "the whole thing will blow up in our faces."
I do see the house as Ned; it being built on moments of his life, although not necessarily his future. (He would need a "crystal ball.") Interesting that Ned sees his life blowing up, but maybe it too is not entirely clear. He doesn't foresee that it will be personal and not professional destruction. His losses are of a more personal nature, i.e., relationships (Lina, Theo and his children). These did occur shortly thereafter. Theo died six years later and Lina must have well on her way to...

Nothing is "crystal" clear in this play. Can't be. ;-)

(Renate) evoke images of Edward Hopper's paintings...buildings in changing liquid light and people alone or together but always strangely unconnected, isolated.
Excellent choice of pictures, but where is "Nighthawks"? Walker stopped there for a cup of coffee. ;-)

Cities are usually portrayed as isolating. Where better to get lost (or to hide) than in a big city?

(Heide) please, please, please 
(KJ) I just hope CF didn't deliver the line in the same tone
Actually, yes, but (a) wasn't as loud and (b) head was not stuck out of a window. Who in the audience did not experience a little tingle on hearing that?

(KJ) [Harry's] what you would be if I hadn't met you until I was 25."
Nan seems to be admitting that she couldn't commit to anything or anybody before that age or that's when she finally got her act together. [Criticism coming] Greenberg appears to be another male author who relegates women to lesser roles and simply cannot draw them as equally interesting characters. Nan is a case in point. She is so incompletely drawn that I wonder if any actress could play that role well and not fade into the scenery? (btw, EMcG has not been let off the hook.)

(KJ) I think he was being quite honest about the envy, but what did he mean?
Walker was probably envious of Pip being normal and happy and having had a fairly normal mother.

(KJ) how do you think Ned really felt about his son Walker?
He loved him and gave him the wherewithal to fulfil his own dreams. Shame that Ned couldn't see how unhappy that made Walker.

Does anyone remember how Colin (Ned) and EMcG (Lina) used their hands to describe the Guilt and Genius thing? I can remember the Chicago one very distinctly and remember thinking it worked better, but now can't visualize what was done in London.

Gi:
(Renate) the whole atmosphere...buildings in changing liquid light and people alone or together but always strangely unconnected, isolated.
Yes, very anguishing. What a marvelous insight!

(KJ) That he'd literally would be a different sort of person or that he would be different in her eyes or what?
I think she means that Pip has turned out to be the same kind of person as her husband, but that she and Pip had had their chance at 18, when either he wasn't like that or she hadn't yet appreciated it. If they had met at 25, they might have a relationship even now.

(KJ) I think he was being quite honest about the envy, but what did he mean?
Probably that he admired Pip and now he cannot tell whether it was love or admiration.

(KJ) how do you think Ned really felt about his son Walker?
I've wondered too. He probably admired his son, who had become what he would have liked to be. But he couldn't get close, and I don't think he tried. He must have thought that Walker was strong and didn't need an intimacy that didn't come naturally between them. But we know Walker wasn't strong and his father's remoteness caused him pain.

Evelyn:
(KJ) how do you think Ned really felt about his son Walker?
He probably ignored him because he couldn't relate to him as a child. I don't think he hated his son, but Walker must have grown up thinking so. Pain all over the place.

What makes anyone think that Ned admired Walker? The guy was never around. Was off in Boston or Peru. Was a flaneur.

Moon:
(Karen) Nothing is "crystal" clear in this play. Can't be. ;-)
No, it's all liquid light. Seeing through prisms.

The oldest examples of this use in are churches. When the sun shines through the many colored glasses, prisms reflect all over. The feeling is quite surreal and beautiful. You swim in the light.

Eileen:
(Karen) Greenberg is making a statement about the will of the individual and shaping one's destiny.
That's one statement. Another theme is a legacy or how family dysfunction perpetuates itself from one generation to the next.

At the end of the play, one of the more obvious conclusions is how Walker completely misunderstood his father: "You know, the thing is with people who never talk, the thing is you always suppose they're harboring some enormous secret. But, just possibly, the secret is, they have absolutely nothing to say."

And we come to know the opposite to be true in Act II (underscored by the fact that chronologically it should have been the first, but that would have ruined the effect).

What do you think? The subject ties into the Walker-Ned relationship discussion. How about Lina-Nan? Lina wanted, "Well...one child, at least. One beautiful little girl. Someone precious I can drink with."

KJ:
(Evelyn) Pain all over the place.
Agreed, but Ned must have been aware that Walker was interested enough in architecture to study it. (Indeed, I think that's why Nan erupted with, "It was wicked.") Did she believe that denying Walker the house was done out of spite? Was it?

Did Ned feel neglected and resent it? Or was he contentedly anti-social? Did he avoid contact with the grandchildren, too? (Poor Nan!)

Evelyn:
(KJ) Did Ned feel neglected and resent it? Or was he contentedly anti-social?
Pip thinks that Ned was neglected: "He was a pretty lonely man the last few years. I don't think he was doing that much work on his own...partners buzzing around him...twiddling his thumbs. I thought it was my responsibility. You were always flittering off..."

Ned was anti-social, though he did make cities of Tinker Toys for the children while "he sat in a Modern Chair...flipping silently through an art book"

Walker never had a chance to be normal—by genetic cause or environment.

Heide:
Does Ned appear to be anti-social as a young man? I mean any more so than a man who is shy and has the added burden of stuttering? To me he appears as someone looking in but not daring to join though he'd like to. I think he admires Theo's gregariousness and considers him a valued member of the team. Do you think he became even more withdrawn as he grew older (secluding himself inside his shell as his wife grew madder) so the Ned his children knew was not the same Ned we see in Act 2? Would they have had more sympathy for the younger Ned or would they have misunderstood him too?

Ned's journal entries give away nothing. Why can't he use them to communicate what he can't say out loud? (Aside from then Greenberg wouldn't have a play.) You have to admit, his entries are weird. What does this say of Ned's state of mind? I suppose he can't give outlet to his emotions or else they would overwhelm him as we see when Theo is baiting him and he's gasping for air. He's conditioned to repressing them.

Gi:
(Heide) Do you think he became even more withdrawn as he grew older...so the Ned his children knew was not the same Ned we see in Act 2?
Probably right.

(Heide) Ned's journal entries give away nothing. Why can't he use them to communicate what he can't say out loud?
Maybe he's too private to elaborate. Journals can be found and read. I use photography sometimes the way Ned used his journal entries, to remind me of events.

Evelyn:
(Heide) You have to admit, his entries are weird.
Ned was a man of few words; stutterers measure their words carefully. (Doesn't he say that somewhere?)

Nothing much has been said about Ned's stuttering. Surely, as a child, he must have suffered at the hands of his peers. ("I l-left home to get away from people who have no...people who have no g-grace, people who are randomly cruel...") He never elaborates who these people are who caused pain. Parents? friends?

Stuttering is a neurological disorder. Why did Greenberg create a character that stuttered?

Moon:
The house reflects upon the characters. In this liquid light, you either sink or swim. Ned, Nan, Pip and Walker swim; they survive. Lina and Theo sink.

The house is "the best one for living in" as Nan says. The quality that it does not capture is the "frozen music."

Walker lost it and triggered something in his mother that made her start her flight through the glass. He followed her all the way. Maybe he was trying to save her. But "before the blood started she looked like something crystal." It was too late; he could not save her. He knew because he was like her. We are told that repeatedly. There's the guilt of not being able to save his mother and being the cause of her breakdown. He is a flaneur because it is a curse to settle down.

Ned knows this and decides to leave the house to Pip. He is trying to save his son and indirectly free himself of the curse that has been the house and all it represents. But did Ned do it for love?

Evelyn:
(Moon) and being the cause of her breakdown.
Don't remember any dialogue that relates to this part though.

(Moon) He is a flaneur because it is a curse to settle down.
At least Ned thought so, but Walker wanted to.

Moon:
I see Walker's guilt at having caused his mother's breakdown in these lines: "And I lost it. I mean it was uncontrollable. Anyway this triggered something in my mother and she just dashed out of there." 

He pursued her but couldn't catch her or save her.

KJ:
Walker's guilt about his mother may be implied, but he doesn't seem to feel any responsibility. Her behavior was due solely to her madness (although "an amphetamine may have been involved"). Those who attended the play, was there any nuance placed on any of Walker's comments to imply guilt? His first reaction must have been horror and trauma. He hid in the laundry room. From a sense of helplessness? Probably, but not responsibility.

And he has been running and hiding ever since, because part of the trauma was—for this eight-year-old-boy—the realization that he had no one to run to. Not his mother certainly. Not his uncommunicative father. His sister wouldn't know much more than he. But when he runs away later in life, he does it so that she must look for him—the only sign that anybody cares about him. I suspect that Pip joined in the later searches, but Walker is still a man with no one to run to. He is a burden on Nan, and he knows it. He is still looking for that ideal place to hide—but not too ideal—or Nan won't be able to find him.

Karen:
(Evelyn) He probably ignored him because he couldn't relate to him as a child.
Yes, Ned and Walker share that inherited trait—the inability to relate to children—continuing the saga of Ned's poor relationship with his parents.

Interesting that Ned's parents used money to bridge that "guilt span" just as Ned does for Walker, by giving him the money instead of the house. No one learns in this family.

(KJ) Did Ned feel neglected and resent it? Or was he contentedly anti-social? 
Ned probably withdrew as Lina's madness progressed. She was the one who drew him out and, if she wasn't there, then he became the silent one again.

(KJ) Did she [Nan] believe that denying Walker the house was done out of spite?
Janeway House was Ned's most important legacy and he didn't bequeath it to his children. What else would people think? Unfortunately, it is consistent with Ned's modus operandi. Like his journal scribbles, he didn't care what others understood. He knew what it meant and that's all that mattered to him.

(Heide) Ned's journal entries give away nothing. Why can't he use them to communicate what he can't say out loud?
Geniuses often use a form of shorthand for their ideas. As an architect, it makes sense that Ned wouldn't rely on words. He used his art. With Janeway House, even Walker knew implicitly that "it could only have been designed by someone who was happy."

(Moon) [Ned] is trying to save his son and indirectly free himself of the curse that has been the house and all it represents.
The house was the tangible result of the best three days of his life. If the house were a curse that caused Lina's madness and Theo's loss of self, why would he give it to Pip? He got along fine with Pip. If it were a curse, he would have given it to a foundation, taken it out of the lives of all he cared for.

(Moon) But did Ned do it for love?
Yes, but IMO Ned's mistake was in thinking that Walker would be happy pursuing the life he himself wanted—that of a flaneur. Walker is a combination of both Ned and Lina. He isn't the perfect flaneur-to-be because he has inherited traits from Lina, which make that impossible.

(KJ) was there any nuance placed on any of Walker's comments to imply guilt?
Colin spoke matter-of-factly about the mother's madness, with the line about the amphetamines tossed off very casually.

(KJ) But when he runs away later in life, he does it so that she must look for him—the only sign that anybody cares about him
Nan is his substitute mother image even though she's only two years older. Scares him into returning when she hasn't found him.

Heide:
(Karen) Geniuses often use a form of shorthand for their ideas. As an architect, it makes sense that Ned wouldn't rely on words.
That's the best explanation for Ned's cryptic journal entries but I'm still not satisfied. Did he use his journal for ideas? What ideas? "Theo is dying." "Theo is dying" "Theo is dead". We don't really know what else was in it other than what Walker read to us. If he doesn't rely on words, why use a journal—a diary for boys.

(Karen) The house was the tangible result of the best three days of his life.
Agree. And how well Colin conveyed that happiness. You could see his adoration of Lina. It was wonderful.

Is the house the "beginning of error"? Before he begins he says, "Things are so much better before they actually start." Then he makes his first mark. "The beginning...of error." Speaks of his relationship with Lina too. The beginning of error. Liked what Lina said though, "Make a home." 

Evelyn:
(Heide) "Things are so much better before they actually start."
Lina says that too: "Isn't that moment thrilling, right before it [rain] starts...I love that part." That is so true with many events and experiences.

Moon:
(KJ) her behavior was due solely to her madness (although "an amphetamine may have been involved")
This is his adult analytical response and is probably repeating something he has heard over the years.

(KJ) He hid in the laundry room. From a sense of helplessness? Probably, but not responsibility.
He is a small boy who has just had a major traumatic experience that was triggered by his "losing it." A child would think it was his fault. That feeling of guilt stayed with him.

(Karen) The house was the tangible result of the best three days of his life. If the house were a curse...why would he give it to Pip?
They might have been the only three best days of his life. It is a curse because of the unhappy turn of events: Theo dead, Lina mad, his having to take care of two small children when he didn't like children or want them in the first place. The house for a manqué flaneur is a prison, a curse. He gives it to Pip because he has a different outlook on life. It would not be a prison for Pip as Ned felt it would be for Walker.

(Karen) Ned's mistake was in thinking that Walker would be happy pursuing the life he himself wanted—that of a flaneur.
That was Ned's mistake. But there always was a problem communicating in that family.

KJ:
Initially, those who had seen the play were moved by and sympathetic to Ned. I find it interesting that, as we dig deeper, the mood seems to have shifted.

Walker, the first character introduced, is funny but obnoxious, caustic, opinionated and bitter. Then Nan, who tries to be nurturing but is torn between everyone's needs. We next meet Pip, good-natured, seemingly simplistic. The events in Act I changed how they interpreted their past lives and how they saw their futures. Act II introduced us to Theo, ambitious, brash, an extrovert. He's arguing with Lina, who's just messed up an important interview. She seems sly and vociferous. These two are bounced off Ned, painfully shy, with difficulties communicating, but also bothered by the ongoing argument between the other two. By the end of this act, Theo's ambitions have been, if not thwarted, then greatly altered as is his self-image. Lina's allegiance has been switched to Ned, because he's such "a nice man," and Ned has embarked on a new vision of what his future could be.

By personality, Walker has to be the least sympathetic, with Theo a close second. We watch Walker manipulate and humiliate his friends, who seem to tolerate this behavior because "He's in so much pain."

Is there now greater sympathy for Walker? We know he is in so much pain and has always been, and this is his legacy for the future. Theo loses Lina and a piece of his self-esteem, but he wanders off and gains Maureen. His ego can't be that bruised because he's still in the firm Wexler and Janeway when he dies. Lina's been confused and insecure about Theo, but she gains Ned, marriage and children, just as she wanted. Ned, who is terribly sympathetic, gains love and inspiration and doesn't lose his friend Theo after all. Pip was happy with his life and not much changes. He gains an inheritance of a very valuable house and still seems to be in good books with both Nan and his traveling mother (still looking for another "wet guy"). Nan's been torn up a bit by events, but she has her friends and family to provide moral support.

Walker loses what he expected to gain. He even loses his sense of its value and is given nothing in compensation. Where is his "Lina"? Where is his "family about him"? Where is his future? We perceive his pain and his inability to move beyond it. In the end, it is Walker we sympathize with most.

Moon:
I understand Walker the most but I don't sympathize with him, but you have some very good points.

Evelyn:
(KJ) In the end, it is Walker we sympathize with most.
While I too understand Walker better at the end, I don't sympathize with him. In a way, he too is content at the end. There is closure to his unresolved feelings, i.e., his ritual at the cemetery and burning the journal.

I personally subscribe to the "You-play-with-the-cards-you're-dealt" philosophy.

Karen:
(Heide) If he doesn't rely on words, why use a journal—a diary for boys.
Not relying on words doesn't mean that he doesn't use them. He uses them sparingly, makes each one count.

Ned might have begun the journal because he had something he wanted to record and replay in his own mind. It meant something to him for all time. He made the comment about going to architecture school "to kill time." That was his life before Lina; he was a demi-flaneur. Now, he desired some permanent record of his own existence, even if it was cryptic to the outside world.

(Heide) Is the house the "beginning of error"? Speaks of his relationship with Lina too.
That is the big question of this play! What is the "beginning of error"? Given the play's circularity, it would have to refer to the erroneous conclusions the children form about their parents. But, on another level, it would touch on Ned's life again. As KJ asked earlier, if Ned could see "every moment" of the house with "astonishing clarity," why did he go forward with Lina (the beginning of error)? Simple as it sounds, why not? He was so happy. His fate be damned.

(Moon) The house for a manqué flaneur is a prison, a curse.
Ned wanted to ensure that Walker could live the life of a flaneur and all that required was sufficient means; a house has permanence and causes one to set down roots. Walker had all that was necessary: "most of my money is in traveler's checks." 

(KJ) Is there now greater sympathy for Walker?
I enjoyed the Walker character from the beginning, but then again I love sarcastic, self-centered jerks! ;-) It also didn't hurt that Colin looked pretty damn good as Walker. But I digress...

We, the audience, are average human beings like Pip (not geniuses or connoisseurs), so we fall into the category of feeling sorry for Walker "because he is in so much pain." We are sympathetic to the bad cards he's been dealt (Evelyn's metaphor) by design (the environment in which he was raised) and by life (genetics). Poor baby didn't have a chance. While Walker denied having feelings that his father didn't love him, it appears central to his character. Why else would he need to reconcile Ned's final bequest?

What do you think of Greenberg's use of architecture and marriage as structural elements? Janeway House survived but the Janeway's home did not.

Evelyn:
(Karen) Janeway House survived but the Janeway's home did not.
It is a little unfair to compare the two. The house was built with better foundations than the Janeway marriage. Hey, these two made Paul Ashford's marriage look good!

KJ:
(Heide) If [Ned] doesn't rely on words, why use a journal—a diary for boys.
Using Gi's example, ever notice how totally disinterested we usually are to other people's photo collections? That is because most of the images trigger memories in our heads, whereas they mean little to others. Ned's journal is probably a series of cues. He is probably as secretive of his thoughts as he is with his words. He wouldn't want the journal to be found and reveal all. He'll know what it means. No one else needs to.

(Karen) What is the "beginning of error"?
I seem to recall Ned said something about if he minded total failure or catastrophe, then he wouldn't be part of this project. Evidently he didn't mind; he seemed very fatalistic about it.

Maybe that's where the "beginning of error" remark came from—his belief that he would get nothing, didn't deserve anything and failure was inevitable to him. He is doing this for Lina, but I do not think he has turned into an optimist because of her. He's just willing to go with the flow. And the flow is always downhill, isn't it?

(Karen) While Walker denied having feelings that his father didn't love him, it appears central to his character.
Someone said that the opposite of love is not hate but apathy? Hate at least acknowledges someone's existence; apathy wipes it out. I think the most affective characteristic of Walker is his almost plaintive need to be found by Nan. It reaffirms his existence and worth.

(Karen) Janeway House survived but the Janeway home did not.
Maybe Ned's "error" was that he never paused long enough to "build a home" for his own family?

Moon:
The house represents the beginning of the end to Ned, the manqué flaneur. Without it, there would not have been Janeway/Wexler and all its subsequent successes which blocked Ned's true persona, cursing him to a life not of his choice but chosen for him first by his grandparents who put up the money and second by Lina who got him started on the drawings, something that the "talented" Theo was supposed to do. When one goes against one's true nature, it does not fare well.

I believe that a place can give off good or bad vibrations, and these vibrations reflect the state of mind of the people that live and work there. The Orientals call it Feng-Shui.

As stated in our Cliffs Notes, "Ibsen was a believer in freedom of will, but concerned with how heredity and environment shape a man's destiny." I find Greenberg very influenced by Ibsen.

Back to Discussion Index

Home