The literary review

Aicha Khemakhem, Hamza Najjar

Marwa Selmi, Mohamed Ala Sghaier

3rd group

Contents:

I. Introduction
II. Main concepts
III. Our approach to theater
IV. Character overview
V. Our creative process

1
 I. Introduction/ summary 

Presiding over the highest seats of authority of the great Banana republic there is; An
anonymous hollow man with crude manners, a money-craving opportunistic capitalist, a
corrupt self-absorbed man of God, and a sorry excuse for an intellectual. This congregation
joins forces to make up the Bananian Congress and the fate of the Republic is to be
determined by a merry band of grotesques. The play unravels each character’s different
approach in solving problems, highlighting their faulty natures and mislead convictions.
The self-interest serving undertones is what unites these individuals, each character seems
to indulge in tackling issues through their very own narrow scope.

II. Concepts

This play is imbued with numerous concepts that serve its thematic and aesthetic
purposes.

 Satire:

It can be described as the literary art of diminishing or derogating a subject by making it

ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement, contempt, scorn, or indignation.
It differs from the comic in that comedy evokes laughter mainly as an end in itself, while
satire derides; that is, it uses laughter as a weapon, and against a butt that exists outside
the work itself.” (A Glossary of Literary Terms, M.H Abrahms)

It is clear that The Banana Republic is satirical play. Its central themes are handled in a
playful, trenchant manner. In the 1944 article ‘The Nature of Satire’, Northrop Frye
remarks that two things as essential to satire: “one is wit or humor, the other an object of
attack” (1944.76) The play can therefore be considered comic, in the sense that it invokes
laughter through the ridiculous, but it is mostly satirical as it portrays its characters,
setting and overall plot in a derisive, critical way.

 Grotesque:

The Concept of the « Grotesque » developed through the years. Its understanding
necessitates not only an account of the historical development of the word “grotesque” and
its usage, but also the various concepts with which it has often been associated, and the
different theories and opinions expressed about it. Nevertheless, our major interest is the

2
« Grotesque » theorized by Sherwood Anderson. Sherwood Anderson’s Winsberg Ohio is a
composite novel that features autonomous but interrelated short stories. These short
stories introduce characters, although diverse, conditioned by Grotesqueness. In the first
story, « The Book of the Grotesque », Sherwood Anderson imparts his conceptualization of
the Grotesque. The character of the writer conceptualizes the term Grotesque through the
idea of uncanny metamorphosis. People appropriate truths, amorphous ideas, in a
selective, arbitrary way. By this appropriation people become blind to other truths they
relegate. Eventually they become objects of the truth they appropriated and other truths
would be perceived as threats.

 Grotesque is one who is replica to one and exclusive truth he/she abides by. His/her
conformity with such truth turns him/her into a falsehood.

III. Our approach to theater :

Julian Gough, a British writer, claims that to be taken seriously, a writer is required to
privilege tragedy over comedy. However, we deemed comedy with its vivacious aspect to
be the adequate dramatic genre for the play.

Comedy is a type of drama as well as a literary genre. The conception of comedy could be
traced back to Aristotelian poetics, according to which it is defined as « an imitation of
inferior people ». Such a conceptualization is achieved in an attempt to emphasize the
difference between tragedy that mainly revolves around a hero of noble decent and
comedy, which focuses on ordinary humans, in other words, society. Comedy holds the
mirror of society, for the comedic character is in conformity with society reflecting its
follies and vices.

In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein claims that

the hero in comedy is surrounded by imposters, boors, and buffoons. Although the play
does not have a central hero, the characters of the play, with their diversity, are but
buffoons. Buffoons are literary or self-created types, known for being witty and funny.
They make fools of themselves but are pathetic, for they live out of self-parody and
humiliation. The character of the buffoon is defined through his relationship with others
that highlights dynamics of masculinity, subjectivity, identity, and power. Although the
characters of the play do not conform to some of the qualities of a buffoon, they impart an
urge of self-display, as they engage in highlighting their subjective views of the world, in
order to assert their identity.
3
The characters of the play also fit in the traditional features of comedic characters. They
are witty and humourous. Wit implies both a mental agility and a linguistic grace that is
very much a product of conscious art. Quintilian, a Roman educator and rhetorician from
Hispania, describes wit at some length in his Institutio oratoria; it partakes of a certain
tincture of learning, charm, saltiness, or sharpness, and polish and elegance. Members of
congress in the play are characterized with their linguistic dexterity that shapes their «
façade », or in the words of Donald Winnicott, their « false selves ». Their eloquence
conceals their emptiness, for they are mere appearances. Furthermore, the characters’
humor stems considerably from their incongruity. According to Incongruity Theory, things
that are funny or ludicrous show us the differences between how we perceive the world
and how it exists. Throughout the play, the characters show the audience that their
abstract knowledge about the characters’ respective domains is inadequate, through their
controversial attitudes and contradictory claims. This contributes in instigating laughter.
The characters of the play are also Aristophanic characters, whose comedy arises in their
aside remarks. They are free to comment explicitly, which furthers the comedic situation.

However, the play subverts the dominant style and standard structure of the comedic
drama. It is liberated from a dominant atmosphere through humor and chaos. This
invokes the literary mode of the Carnivalesque, which gives voice to different individuals
with different ideologies and worldviews. One of the major features of the carnivalesque is
eccentricity that can be traced in the play through the use of gestures and discourses.
Furthermore, in plays dialogue is fundamental in revealing character attributes as well as
character relationships. However, as much as the dialogue is revelatory of the characters in
the play, there is a conspicuous lack of interplay between the characters, as characters
flout the cooperative principle during the dialogue. Indeed, they do not seek interaction
and mutual understanding, but aim essentially at promulgating their own thoughts.

IV. Character overview

1. The chairman:
 Identity

The Moderator is remindful of the nameless character in The Unnamable by Samuel

Beckett. The Unnamable represents both the title and the main character, who lacks
specific gender, age, race, nationality or any other markers of identity. Essentially
“unnamable,” this character is not worthy to be given a name or identified by name, as the
4
suffix “-able” suggests so. He exists in a vast indeterminate space whose parameters he
cannot figure out, and it does not seem that he can move either. All he can do is speak -
incessantly, to no end. He says that he is under the control of "his delegates," or "masters,"
who are forcing him to speak and who try to convince him that he exists.

Similarly to the unnamable character, the Moderator is deliberately nameless as he

possesses no individual identity that is supposed to distinguish him from the rest of the
named characters. He merely reports current issues to the Banana Republic, whose
conflicting members attempt to assert their very own interpretations of the matters, upon
him. Aside from lacking identity, the Moderator stands as a passive receptacle who
struggles to express an incommunicable reality to fellow self-assertive characters.

The unnamable character, who opens the novel asking, “Where now? Who now? When
now?” is a disembodied person, living in a large jar in a restaurant window in Paris. In the
same vein, Samuel Beckett’s version of Descartes’ “Cogito, Ergo, Sum”: “I am conscious;
therefore I am” explains the character-crafting process. He further adds “Who then am I?
What is consciousness? And what do we mean by being?”

This interrelationship between consciousness and identity is relevant to the Moderator

character assessment. Throughout the play, he opts to objectively report current issues
albeit being heedful of their solemnity. This deliberate choice to act impartial and to be
completely detached, eradicates possibilities of self-expression and of self-assertion .His
strong reluctance to display responsiveness towards other characters’ stances, suppresses
his own conceptualizations of the matters deep within himself, and, therefore, renders him
immersed in a process of identity loss .Thus, identity creation necessitates consciousness’
presence

 Grotesqueness

The moderator utterly represents a Grotesque character as he conforms to the modernistic

definition of the Grotesque, as well as, to the various manifestations of grotesqueness.

Being in charge of representing major issues facing the country, the moderator is
supposedly in such a powerful position that allows him to exert influence over the
decisions taken. Nevertheless, he rather remains an ineffective character that lacks the
assertion required to actually contribute to decision-making processes. The moderator’s
grotesqueness lies in his passivity as he displays no human agency throughout the play. He
solely reports the current matters without any forceful statement of subjective beliefs.

5
Following the same line of reasoning, his passiveness is especially amplified as he
represents the receptacle of antitheses from fellow self-contradictory Grotesques. The
moderator is only acted upon, as he is bombarded with a set of inefficient alternatives by
self-serving Grotesques. Ultimately, he is being receptive of their grotesqueness.

The American novelist “Waldo Frank” highlights “ineffectuality of human thought” as one
of the three shortcomings of the Grotesques. Being a Grotesque, the moderator considers
his very own thoughts to be ineffectual; therefore, he is unwilling to convey them to
members of the Banana Republic .He is immersed in a state of inertia as he is reluctant
either to take a course of action or to express his own conceptions of the matters, all under
the name of objectivity and of impartiality.

The fact that the moderator lacks a name further confirms his passiveness as a Grotesque
character. This absence of identity pretty much justifies his reluctance to offer an
individualized stance. Being a nameless character, he is depicted as a mere reporter and a
receptive listener to the other named characters who evidently possess their own
identities.

The Moderator is reminiscent of the Grotesque character of George Wilson in

Winesburg,Ohio. In the short story of Awakening, George states: “In every little thing
there must be order…I must myself be orderly. I must learn that law. I must get myself
into touch with something orderly and big that swings through the night like a star. In my
little way I must begin to learn something, to give and swing and work with life, with the
law.” According to George, the world is based on order. So, he acknowledges his duty to
become aligned with the ordered world. By comparing himself to the orderliness of a star
and the swing of the law, George's is making a claim to the universal. He affirms that he is
a creature of the world and that he must work among its rules.

Similarly to George, the Moderator abides by the notions of law and order in the process of
presenting the issues to the Banana Republic. His complete adherence to being an
impartial reporter highlights his grotesqueness as a character. He is adamant to showing
subjectivity and he strongly believes in the supremacy of objectivity and of impartiality.
That way, he metamorphoses into a monomaniac who solely functions on law and order.
This obsession leads him to blindly adopt a static approach to life matters, and therefore,
to turn into a Grotesque.

2. Mr. Bling Ching Dola Dola

 Grotesqueness
6
A money-craving opportunistic capitalist who grotesquely and unapologetically sees
everything green ! One can see the onomatopoeia of a money machine in the name Bling
ching and the clever pun that emphasizes Bling’s greed ; Dola Dola.

Bling’s blinding love for money makes him constantly offer self-serving advice, from
boycotting nations for self-gain to exploiting immigrants and bribing fellow congress
members who were protesting the deaths of children Mr Dola Dola’s conscience is oblivous
to anything that isn’t golden or green.

 Reference

As found in his wiki page , Vincent Kennedy McMahon is an American professional

wrestling promoter, executive, and media proprietor, he plays the onscreen character of a
greedy, conceited and evil boss. Mr Mcmahon has a signature over-exaggerated strut
toward the ring, swinging his arms and bobbing his head from side to side in an arrogant
manner. He is well known for showing up and flaunting the fortune he amassed from
organizing wrestling events while bullying employees and even firing them live on national
television.

3. Sheikh Farzit
 Grotesqueness

Mr Sheikh Farzit is a character uprooted in reality. His crafting is inspired from the over-
rising of religious extremism. Religious extremism is currently a highly debated topic, it is
often reduced to a unidimensional construct that is linked to religious violence. However,
extremism in religion incorporates different dimensions. Religious extremism is developed
in theological, ritual, social, and political dimensions.

The character is to embody religious extremism, however his extremism stems from his
grotesqueness. The character’s perception is governed by a one-dimensional pattern,
which is the religious pattern that curtails him from considering different perspectives and
various aspects of matters. The character, nevertheless, remains faithful to reality from the
perspective that he embodies the hypocrisy and avariciousness of men of religion.

 Religiosity

7
The Canterbury Tales is a frame story written by Geoffrey Chaucer. It narrates the journey
of thirty pilgrims to the shrine of Thomas Becket in Canterbury. The pilgrims agree to
engage in a storytelling contest as they travel.

The tales involve characters from all walk of life: peasants, knights, men of law, men of
religion and merchants. The ecclesiastical characters, including the summoner, the
pardoner, the monk, the Parson and the Friar, inspired the establishment of Mr. Sheikh
Farzit’s character. The monk defies the rules of ecclesiastic life and monasticism defined
by Saint Benedict, taking satisfaction in hunting and idleness. The Pardoner is, on the
other hand, introduced as gluttonous and avaricious. Cynical and witty, he preaches
against avarice while he sells pardons of sin in exchange for money. The summoner is,
furthermore, portrayed as a willful sinner. The paradox between the position of these
characters as clergy and their deeds is what makes them ironic

Just like these characters, Mr. Sheikh Farzit is an ironic character, for he defies the
religious principles he is supposed to represent in many ways:

*His name implies his pertaining to Islam, however he quotes Christian references

*He talks in the name of religion to serve personal interests

*He feigns the mastery of the Bible but misinterprets it and misuses it

4. Mrs. Thakafoot
 Grotesqueness

Mrs Thakafoot’s grotesqueness lies in her arrogant pseudo intellectualism. She views life
through one and only lens, that of the academic world. Her grotesqueness stems from her
belief in the superiority of her education, or rather, the uniqueness of the knowledge she
possesses.

She remains unalterable, stuck in her own belief system that is delimited by the very few
readings that she had done. This knowledge is itself dubious. She uses untrusted sources
(despite her insistence on doing the exact contrary) and difficult words to simulate real
knowledge. It is all a performance, and she mastered the ruse. The arrogance conceal the
unreliability of her utterances.

The praise she receives after delivering her lines contributes in strengthening her position
and deepen her grotesque nature. Her focus on bananian greatness provokes a sense of
8
patriotism in her interlocutors who feel it is their duty to compliment her propos. Despite
the lack of any valuable meaning, or any logical coherence in her speeches, she is elevated
to the rank of a real intellectual.

 Pseudo intellectualism

Thakafoot: A Tunisian Arabic slang term, usually used to designate an intellectual, or a

pseudo-intellectual in a disparaging manner. People designated by this term are usually
arrogant, snobbish and can even be pretentious.

The choice of this character’s name is clearly deliberate. These ‘traits’ fit perfectly with our
bananian intellectual as she displays signs of haughtiness among her fellow congressmen.

The Tunisian audience is familiar with this term. Contextualizing it in a play spoken in
English heightens the comic effect and makes the word choice more striking. The
character’s main feature is put at the forefront through this choice.

In his infamous Candide Or Optimism (1759), Voltaire constructs the iconic character of
Pangloss. The story is a poignant attack towards the metaphysical optimism of the 18th
century. Indeed, it is a critique of the belief that the world is the best it can be. The book
denounces this view by showcasing the absurdity and horror of the real world. More
specifically, Pangloss is the literal representation of the ‘enlightened’ philosopher who
adopts the overly optimist stance. His attempts to teach Candide, the protagonist, this
philosophy are undercut by his own personal tragic past and are further undermined by
the absurd situations they characters themselves in. In a context of war and extreme
horror for example, the idea that the world is “the best of all possible worlds” cannot stand
as correct.

It can also be argued that “Pangloss represents the constant menace of the ivory tower
intellectual who, for all his scholarship, works complacently within a preordained system
of values,” (Candide: Optimism Demolished by Haydn Trevor Mason)

Similarly, Mrs Thakafoot seems to be living in a world apart, separated from the others.
She is however still a functional part of the system as she helps maintain the status quo by
divulging propaganda related to the greatness of the Banana Republic.

9
 V. Our creative process

We wanted to devote this part to our personal experience of writing and playing The
Banana Republic. Aside from all the academic, literary references and concepts that we
utilized while constructing the play, we tried to have fun, and we believe that the
combination of seriousness and playfulness are apparent in the final product.

We organized numerous workshop sessions. First they were dedicated to brainstorming.

Coming up with the initial thematic was the hardest part. At that stage, many thoughts
crossed our minds and it was very confusing. We finally settled on political satire and we
channeled all our thoughts through that frame.

Later on, our meetings were centered around writing the dialogue. This was arguably the
best part of the process. We challenged ourselves, for writing was not as easy as expected.
As soon as we began, there was a continuous flow of ideas that took over us. The hardest
parts were starting, but also holding in our laughter while working.

Laughing was also a major problem during the rehearsals. We managed to get through it
with difficulty as we found our own jokes very funny. We also noticed our below average
acting talents while rehearsing, but that became a part of the joke. We did our best to
channel the characters and we hope that our enthusiasm will show in the final
performance.

10
11