Streetcar Named Desire

665 Words3 Pages

A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams exhibits the worst of human nature. Stanley, the antagonist, best exemplifies the terrible qualities of humans. Stanley is brutal, animalistic, and possessive. Stanley’s malicious personality is seen through the poker night, his descriptions in the play, and the Napoleonic Code. Stanley’s brutal character is best shown through his many actions during the pokers night. The night begins with Stanley and his friends playing poker. After a while of playing poker, Mitch says,”I oughta go home pretty soon,” due to his sick mother (47). Although Stanley knew about his sick mother, he rudely states,”Shut up,” to Mitch (47). Stanley’s unsympathetic reply shows his callous nature, especially toward weak …show more content…

While talking to Stella about her abusive relationship with Stanley, Blanche states,”the only way to live with such a man is to-go to bed with him!” which shows his strong sexual desires(79). Just like an animal, Stanley has very powerful sexual desires. Also hitting Stella, Williams writes,”He throws back his head like a baying hound and bellows his wife’s name,”(Williams, 66). In the last statement, Williams directly compares Stanely to a dog. This idea continues on page sixty-seven when Williams writes,”Then they come together with low animal moans.” Not only does this show Stanley’s animal like a character but his relationship’s animalistic characteristic as they moaned together. Through the playwright’s and Blanche's commentary on Stanley, both of their animalistic characters is …show more content…

Stanley is brutal, animalistic, and possessive. Stanley’s malevolent attributes are shown through the first poker night, his relationship with Blanche and Stella, and The Napoleonic Code. To continue with the Napoleonic Code, there are many differences between the real Napoleonic Code and Stanley’s. In the real one, it’s main focus is the freedom of man however in Stanley's it is the exact opposite and expresses possessiveness over a spouse. This paradox shows how a person can twist things in order to justify their own deeds such in the case of