Voyage Act I

The names in Voyage yet again threw me off reminding me of the trouble I had had reading Uncle Vanya and after finishing the first act I was still unclear as to some of the subjects of conversation. One thing that noticed a lot throughout the first act was the fact that no one really payed attention to the other person, there were always many random conversations going on at the same time that it was hard to figure out who was addressing who. All the characters seem to be speaking at the same time and the conversations were very broken and confusing but the play itself was very easy to read. Another confusing thing was the relationships. I was never quite sure who was in love with who because there seemed to be some love triangles and maybe even unknown crushes, the family is very disjointed in their conversations and in their actions. At the very beginning the father shows pride in his family but slowly he loses control and they begin to lost their way, Micheal with his philosophical babble and all his daughters try to search for real love. Their father believes that Michael has poisoned his daughters to think that there has to be true love in marriage and that his son in undermining his plans. Some of the traditions and ideas in the play are definitely striking like the fact that he believes that the husband should be at least twice the wife's age. The play not only exposes early life in Russia but also some interesting cultural information.

The beginning of the first act is very introductory but soon intensifies with the addition of conflict accurate to the time period. It seems to me that the family is losing it's dignity and position because of the conflict and this is why the father is so desperate to marry his daughters off to good, suitable men. "My daughters have been educated in 5 different languages" this quote sounds to me as though their father is trying to rebel or push away some of their Russian culture by teaching them to be more English and they too resent being Russian as well. Both this play and "Uncle Vanya" had characters that didn't enjoy the state that their nation was in with it being racked with corruption and conservatism though I found this play more political and Uncle Vanya more about the environment. I think that the author chose a noble family to show the change in the political environment and how it would affect them. I found it interesting that Tom Stoppard actually wrote the play on a kind of timeline so that maybe it would be easier for the audience to relate the play with the event going on at the time, time goes by very quickly in this play and it must have been very hard to show the lapses of time from one scene to the next. All the daughters get married off quickly but become less satisfied with their matches and thanks to Michael's advice try to wiggle out of their marriages.

I think that Michael could represent the liberal voice of the time because of the types of advice he gives and the people he associates with. "'March here, march there, present ares, where's your cap?', you've no idea, the whole army's obsessed with playing at soldiers..." To me this quote shows him as a liberal because he wants to do things his own way without other's control and then when he turns to all the different philosophers mentioned he tried to think and act just like them. Michael is also very fickle and changes his mind very easily because of one event or another. I think that Stoppard shows this trait in a person as undesirable since he doesn't get along well his powerful and very stubborn father. The confusingly and intertwined relationships in the play show the difference in between obligation and desire when married women fall for other men and situations of the sort but I think it may also be criticizing that way of life because eventually people try to make love prevail instead of arranged marriages but both Alexander and Varvara are too occupied to notice. The deeper Michael gets into philosophy the less his father likes him and the more in debt he becomes. Michael, instead of doing well with his newly acquired knowledge of human nature he begins to get into trouble and become a more difficult person. I think that the way Michael begins to fall apart is the author's way of showing how a man has to take what he knows and put it to good use and since Michael doesn't put it to good use he gets himself into all kinds of problems.

His sisters on the other hand are taken over by him and are always faithful while their parents' frustration grows especially because of his ever changing attitude towards life and people. Alexander in exchange becomes more conservative maybe to spite his son and his actions and out of disgust for the way he is behaving, either way when one becomes more liberal a chain reaction happens showing how the other becomes stricter. The father condemns some kinds of literature and maybe Stoppard was trying to show the state of the nation using this family as his canvas. The family has its share of tragedies to add a touch of reality to the play. I think that the author is doing a good job using the family as an analogy for something bigger making each member a component of Russia, I can only guess but I have enjoyed the play so far.