Why Marry? -- by Jesse Lynch Williams (1918)

Description
The Pulitzer Prize for Drama did not award any play or musical in its first year, 1917. In 1918, the first Pulitzer Prize for Drama was awarded to Why Marry? by Jesse Lynch Williams. Fun, useless fact: It is the only play with a question mark in its title to win the award. Of course, Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? was the second . . . but then the committee stripped the award from Albee, but that's another story . . .

I do not know exactly what surprises me most about the play. It could be that the play is a comedy, and hardly any of the plays that receive this award are in that genre. It could be that the play is so feminist with its acknowledgement of the expectations placed upon women. It could be that the play is simply based on debating marriage. All are valid reasons as to why the play is as engaging and timeless as it is.

The play takes place at a country house and over the course of a weekend. The story includes a family filled with controversial relationships. Lucy is the hostess who fulfills the "requirements" of the gender roles of that time. Her younger sister, Jean, is in a complicated relationship with Rex, their neighbor. Helen, the other sister, is in a complicated relationship with Ernest, a scientist. Both pairings are examined and discussed with their Uncle Everett, a recently divorced judge; their cousin Theodore, a clergyman who opposes divorce; and John, the brother of the sisters.

I am honestly surprised it hasn't seen a revival. I'd think that it would be appropriate, given our current climate and the fact that this year is 100 years from when it was awarded.

Candid Reactions

• Fun fact: The play was initially published with the title And So They Were Married. Parts of the script were altered before it was given its new title. The new title pushed a lot of buttons in that time.  
• These character descriptions are so exact. I love when I start to read something and the writer presents such a clear vision. I don't feel condescended, but relieved at the provision of the artist. 
• In the "Advanced Notice," Williams unpacks a ton of information. From the start, he addresses how the public believes "the truth about marriage must not be pleasant. Therefore, tell us something we know isn't true" (ix-x). Yikes. 
• Williams also addresses the social change aspect of the play: "We can't cure social defects by individual treatment" (xi). Hmmmmmm. What's the solution? 
• Yeah, Williams just holds absolutely no punches in calling out the public: "Man made human institutions, therefore we reverence them. Whereas human nature was merely made by God. So we don't think much of it" (xii). Double yikes. 
• Gotta love the term "frontispiece."
• The start of Act One is pretty uncomfortable given the #metoo movement. 
• His character descriptions in the notes are hilarious. 
• Williams writes in his stage directions, "Alone, [Lucy and Jean] throw off the mask worn before men" (10). A first liberating gesture!
• Okay, so you're telling me that Jean tried to say something that would get under a man's skin, so she said that she supported women's suffrage . . . and it worked . . . Man, how has this not been revived? 
• Lucy asserts, "Men admire these independent women, but they won't marry them. Nobody wants to marry a sexless freak" (13). THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1918. 
• Lucy continues to address how men confine women, "No man, Helen, like a woman to have independent views . . . Marriage is woman's only true career" (18, 22). 
• Jean's note of the financial need for marriage is disheartening. 
• Wow, the Judge's reason for getting a divorce is simultaneously hilarious and heartbreaking. 
•  The Judge's sarcastic quip about a woman's place reminds me of Sondheim's "Simple" in Anyone Can Whistle.
• Williams sprinkles questions into his plays that linger with the audience. For example, the Judge asks, "Is the object of marriage merely to stay married?" (48)
• Helen's assessment on what is womanly with pursuing a career and marriage is challenging. 
• Is it true that 1/11 marriages ended in divorce at that time?
• Now that was a funny moment when they all looked at each other because they didn't know what to say . . . 
• Seriously, I am stunned at the blunt communication in this play. Ernest states, "Woman can be more than sex, as man is more than sex" (102). 1918, people!
• Oh, snap! Preach it, Helen: "I'm not a little debutante to be persuaded that I am needed because I am wanted" (104). 
• Even more empowerment, but this time from Ernest: "You don't own your sister-- she owns herself!"
• Is it just me, but isn't it ironic that the men are defining how free women should be?
• New word alert: messaliance. 
• How more controversial could Williams be when writing, "Modern marriage is divorce" (150)?!
• Oh, these ultimatums are too good. 
• Double standards are being destroyed. 
• BOOM. The Judge indicts, "The most sacred relationship in life has become a jest in the marketplace" (204). 
• Helen asserts, "I do not have to marry any one. I can support myself" (229). Self-empowerment much?
• Really, Aunt Julie?
• Good on Judge for recognizing Helen. 
• I'm glad someone called Ernest out for saying, "Some things are too sacred to be profaned" (239). 

Top Two Aspects/Reasons for Winning
1. Sociology
The play dissects the purpose(s) and necessity of one of man's most common experiences-- marriage. Williams ends his play with a direct implication to society and even ends with the word "beware!" (242). Although the play is a comedy, the play serves as a warning to the public: marriage should not be a thoughtless act; however, marriage can be overly examined or overemphasized, perhaps. The play reminds us that we live in a human world with human emotions and logic, but those should all be kept in check by those who cling to the power of truth. 

2. Feminism   
Outside of The Heidi Chronicles, this might easily be the most blatantly feminist plays of the bunch. Williams ceaselessly addresses the unfair expectations thrust upon women. Williams amplifies the female voice in this play and questions social conventions created that disenfranchise women.

Classroom Implications
I don't know if high school students would find this text engaging, but I think it certainly has potential to ignite debates. The text could be paired with Little Women, Pride and Prejudice, The Awakening, A Doll's House, etc. I think students interested in sociology and feminism would love the text.  

Personal Takeaway
Never underestimate the relevance of older works.

Ranking

	Dialogue	Characters	Plot/Conflict	Symbol/Literary Devices	Overall Enjoyment	TOTAL SCORE 7.75
0	Unfollowable; unrealistic; diction does not match character	Undeveloped; does not reflect humanity	Not engaging; predictable; reader can step away from text because it isn’t gripping	Devices are apparent for cleverness and do not enhance the story	Reader has no interest in re-reading play
1	Not consistently realistic (1.5)	Well-developed; most depictions reflect humanity	Semi-engaging; some unnecessary plot-points	Devices somewhat enhance story (1.5)	Reader would re-read with pleasure and reminded of work (1.25)
2	Realistic; connotative; diction matches characters	Fully-developed; depictions reflect humanity  (1.75)	Engaging; unique; reader finds it impossible to put down text because the conflict is so gripping! (1.75)	Devices seamlessly enhance the story and provide rich interpretation	Reader would re-read the play on own volition, enthusiastically