38 pages • 1 hour read
John GuareSix Degrees of Separation
Fiction | Play | Adult | Published in 1990A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Sections 3-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Section 3 Summary
When the others ask Paul about the thesis that was allegedly stolen in the attack, he explains that it was about The Catcher in the Rye, specifically the fact that a number of murderers cited the book as a reason for, or defense of, their crimes. He says that he was aiming to “find out why this touching, beautiful, sensitive story […] had turned into this manifesto of hate” (32).
One aspect of the book that Paul highlights is the habit the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, has of calling everyone “phonies.” Discussing re-reading the book, he says, “It’s exactly as I remembered. Everybody’s a phoney” (32) and observes that Caulfield “wants to do so much and can’t do anything. Hates all phoniness and only lies to others” (32).
Paul also suggests that, at its core, the book is about “emotional and intellectual paralysis” and “the death of the imagination” (33). Expanding on his theory, he argues that “the imagination has been so debased that imagination—being imaginative—rather than being the lynchpin of our existence now stands as a synonym for something outside ourselves like science fiction” (33). Opposing this, Paul argues that “the imagination is the passport we create to take us into the real world” (34).
The others are impressed by Paul’s argument with Flan, saying that, “I hope your muggers read every word” (35), and with Geoffrey promising to “buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye at the airport and read it” (35). Paul says he should leave, proposing to simply walk around for a while before meeting his father in the morning. Ouisa and Flan insist that he stays and Paul, seemingly reluctantly, accepts their offer. At Flan’s prompting, he even promises to get them parts as extras in Poitier’s movie adaptation of Cats.
While Paul, to Ouisa’s amazement, washes the dishes, Flan and Geoffrey leave the stage. When Flan returns, he reports that Geoffrey is “in for two million” (39). Ouisa outlines the situation for Paul, commenting that they can get the Cezanne for Geoffrey’s two million dollars and sell it to “the Japs” (39) for ten million.
Ouisa explains that “[t]onight was a very nervous very casual very big thing” (41) and both she and Flan credit Paul with helping them convince Geoffrey to invest in the painting. They offer Paul fifty dollars for “walking-around money” in case “your father’s plane is late” (42). Paul appears reluctant again, but Flan insists, saying “you saved us a fortune. Do you know what our bill would’ve been at the little Eye-tie store front?” (42). Paul takes the money, promising to return it the next day, and goes to bed.
Section 4 Summary
Ouisa and Flan “get ready for bed, pulling on their robes” (43), and discuss their good fortune in securing the money. Flan leaves and Ouisa tells the audience about a dream she had about Sidney Poitier. Paul enters “in dinner clothes” (45) and plays Poitier and they have a conversation about the themes Poitier is “going to try” (45) and get in the movie of Cats, including “Constitutional amendments. Marches! When does life begin? Or the converse. The end of life. The right to die” (45).
Flan replaces Ouisa and tells the audience about something that he “didn’t dream so much as realize” (45). He remembers the love of art that first encouraged him to become an art dealer and recalls a time when he “felt so close to the paintings. I wasn’t just selling them like pieces of meat” (46). At this stage, however, he still seems fixated on the prices of artwork at least as much as the actual art itself.
Ouisa returns and tells the audience about getting up at six in the morning feeling “so happy” (46) and going to wake Paul up so that he would not be late to meet his father. She turns on the light and “the stage is blindingly bright” (47). Paul “sits up in bed” and “a naked guy stands up on the bed” (47).
Named only “hustler” (47), the “naked guy” demands, “What the fuck is going on here? Who the fuck are you?” (47). Ouisa calls for Flan and he comes on stage “tying his robe around him” (48). “Naked but for white socks” (48), the hustler “stretches out on the sofa” while Paul insists that he “can explain” (48).
Outraged, Ouisa asks Paul, “You went out after we went to sleep and picked up this thing?” (48). Paul apologizes but Flan is already echoing his wife as he says, “You brought this thing into our house! Thing! Thing! Get out! Get out of my house!” (49). He tips the hustler off the sofa onto the floor and tells Paul to “Give me my fifty dollars” (49). When Paul says he has spent it, Ouisa tells him to “Get out!” and Flan tells him to “Go back to sleep in the gutter” (49).
The hustler leaves and Paul apologizes repeatedly, explaining that, “I got so lonely. I got so afraid” and saying, “You had so much. I couldn’t be alone” (50). Ouisa tells him to, “Just go” (50) and Paul apologizes again before leaving. Ouisa and Flan then repeat much of the content of the play’s opening, again trying to ascertain if anything has been stolen and declaring that “we could have been killed” (51).
When the phone rings, Ouisa thinks it will be Paul and tells Flan not to answer. Flan does, and it is Geoffrey, calling to discuss the painting and offer another $250,000 if needed. He also has a suggestion “for South Africa” (53): “What about a Black American Film Festival? With this Spike Lee you have now and of course get Poitier down” (53). He names a couple of other black celebrities before declaring, “And also they must have some new blacks—” (53). Flan agrees that “[i]t sounds a wonderful idea” (53) and they say goodbye and end the call.
Sections 3-4 Analysis
Paul’s discussion of his thesis on The Catcher in the Rye highlights an important theme and an important motif. Firstly, the book itself is symbolically significant. The central character, Holden Caulfield, is famously obsessed with people being “phoney,” or fake. Of course, the irony is, as Paul observes, that Caulfield, as someone who “only lies to others” (32) about his identity and background, is a phoney himself. This is offers a reflection of Paul’s own deception and the “phoney” identity he has adopted to court the Kittredges.
It also mirrors some of the “phoney” aspects of the older couple’s liberalism. Although they appear to be tolerant and progressive in some respects, there is, like the double-sided Kandinsky painting, another side to their view of others. Although this becomes more apparent as the play progresses, there is an early indication in their willingness to use racial slurs like “the Japs” (39) and “Eye-tie” (42).
Paul’s theories on “the death of the imagination” (33), which extend from his discussion of The Catcher in the Rye, are also significant. He resents the way imagination has come to mean something external, something more to do with producing things than to do with the self. In his view, “the imagination is the passport we create to take us into the real world” (34). Like his previous discussion of Poitier “conjur[ing] up the kind of worlds that were on the other side and what [he’d] do in them” (22-23), this is another allusion to the fact that Paul is inventing a new identity in order to create a new life for himself. This theme will also become more pronounced as the play progresses.
The “phoniness” and duality of the characters is revealed in the next section. The “wild and vivid” (3) side of Paul’s character is revealed when he is found in bed with a male prostitute, something which the other characters view as undermining the respectable, upper-class persona he has presented to Ouisa and Flan. However, it is these characters that show a morepronounced change, revealing a more prejudiced view of others than their sophisticated, liberal personas would suggest.
Immediately outraged, Ouisa and Paul manically refer to the “hustler” as “this thing” (48) and “Thing! Thing!” (49) and tell Paul to “Give [them] back [their] fifty dollars” (49). Despite being enchanted with Paul when they thought he was the rich son of a famous actor, as soon as they find him in bed with a “hustler,” they are disgusted and tell them to “Get out!” and “Go back to sleep in the gutter” (49).
The faux liberalism of this rich, white couple is reinforced by Geoffrey’s discussion of a “Black American Film Festival” “for South Africa” (53). His discussion of black actors is tokenistic, shallow, and ignorant, especially when he declares that “they must have some new blacks” (53).
