Timebends Analysis
by Arthur Miller

Start Your Free Trial

Download Timebends Study Guide

Subscribe Now

Timebends Analysis

(Literary Essentials: Nonfiction Masterpieces)

It is a willful amnesia that Miller finds so distressing in American society. Writing is impossible without any historical awareness, though making connections to the past can also be hazardous. Miller gave the title Danger: Memory! (1987) to two one-act plays he wrote immediately before Timebends. His description, in the autobiography, of their sense of “imploding time,” of “moments when a buried layer of experience suddenly surges upward to become the new surface of one’s attention and flashes news from below,” is as applicable to the perilous exhilaration of Timebends itself as it is to the plays.

“In the sense that we lack any real awareness of a continuity with the past,” he laments, “we are, I think, a country without a theatre culture.” Miller’s plays have been important to whatever such culture there is in the United States, though Death of a Salesman is the only one of his theatrical works to have received largely favorable reviews at its premiere. More than poets and novelists, playwrights are dependent on the verdict of critics, particularly of whoever is writing for The New York Times, and on the vagaries of avaricious producers. Describing his successful adaptations throughout the rest of the world, Miller presents himself as a prophet with little honor in his own country, which once even stripped him of his passport. True, he has been a guest at Democratic and Republican White Houses, but the America he describes is one in which serious drama is increasingly neglected. During the previous four decades, he saw the United States “devolving into a mania for the distraction it called entertainment, day-and-night mimicry of art that menaced nothing, redeemed nothing, and meant nothing but forgetfulness.”

Timebends is a guerrilla action against the insidious appeal of oblivion and an effort to remember when, for all of its difficulties, theater mattered. Miller’s ambitions from the outset were to offer something more important than diversion in the face of war and oppression. “I could not imagine a theatre worth my time that did not want to change the world,” he declares. In its earnestness, this autobiography is worthy of Miller’s seventy-two years and the several hours a reader might spend on it.

“Celebrity is merely a different form of loneliness,” writes a man who, during the moments of his greatest public triumphs, mistrusted success and fled from the public gaze. “He is strongest who is most alone,” according to a line Miller quotes from Henrik Ibsen’s En folkefiende (1882; An Enemy of the People , 1890), a play he adapted into English. Though reticence is one of his themes, it is a disingenuous pose for an autobiographer. Critical of a culture in which “most people would much rather laugh than cry, rather watch an actor being hit on the head by a pig bladder than by some painful truth,” Miller presents himself with self-righteousness and self-pity as a solitary seeker of truth who defies the frivolousness of the American public. He is wary of the kind of acclaim that is capable of destroying its own object: “The story of American playwrights is awfully repetitious—celebratory embraces soon followed by rejection or contempt, and this without exception for any playwright who takes risks and does not comfortably repeat himself.” The story that this playwright tells of himself is of an author who refused to...

(The entire section is 854 words.)