Miller Time?
Thursday, March 27th by scott malia
Was Arthur Miller “the Shakespeare of our time,” as a recent article suggests? Although this question has been raised before, both here and elsewhere, perhaps we are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Theatre and Shakespeare buffs are forever using Shakespeare as the measurement of greatness; however, the standards of that measurement are rarely clear. Some might rightly say that there was only one Shakespeare (authorship naysayers be damned) and scoff at any attempt at comparison. Still, that response seems to indicate the limits of the question. Since no one writes in iambic poetry anymore (well, mostly), how do we find a method of comparison?
What if we instead asked the question in reverse, so that we could say that Shakespeare was the [fill in the blank] of his time? This way, the onus is no longer on some poor contemporary writer to live up to the near-religious level of adoration Shakespeare has received. Could we say that Shakespeare was the Arthur Miller of his time? On some levels, yes. Although The Bard dealt with kings and rulers and Miller focused on everyday people, both were masters of tragedy. Still, that genre did not solely define either’s career. In fact, both wrote in many genres, often mixing them freely (witness Miller’s unique, but ill-received The Creation of the World and Other Business). Perhaps the most salient trait linking the two is their timeliness. Although Shakespeare’s plays are often transported to various times and places, when you think of Elizabethan Drama, his name is first on the list. Miller similarly embodied mid-twentieth-century American Drama. Comparisons among writers do not have to favor one over the other; instead, they can highlight commonalities as well as each author’s unique gifts.
