The Pillowman

Katurian, Michal, Ariel, and Tupolski all use violence at some point in the play. In fact, all of them commit murder. Explore how each character justifies their use of violence. What values do they draw on in making these justifications, and how are these values in conflict?

The Pillowman takes place in a fictional totalitarian state. What relationship does this fictional state bear to actual totalitarian states? In what ways does the play comment on political reality, and how does this relationship between fiction and reality align—or conflict with—Katurian’s stance on the political and moral impact of his own plays?

Working under a totalitarian regime, police detectives Ariel and Tupolski possess a high degree of power. Do they use this power to benefit citizens, do they use it selfishly, or both? Does the play take a stance on what the role of police should be in society?

Analyze the themes of Katurian’s stories. Are their messages bleak, wholesome, immoral, optimistic, etc.? What commonalities do his stories all share? Which ones stand out as different from the others, and why? Explain the significance as it relates to the play as a whole.

McDonagh makes a clear allusion to John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, which takes place in the US during the great depression. After reading the book, what qualities does it share with The Pillowman? Analyze both novels as they relate to each other. Consider, for example, George and Lennie’s relationship, their backgrounds, how the culture of their society affects them, etc.

What different opinions do the various characters hold about freedom of speech and intellectual expression? What, ultimately, does The Pillowman say about freedom of speech? In your opinion, should there be a limit to freedom of speech, and if so, what are the limitations?

MacDonagh is known for his black humor. Choose three instances of this in the play and explain their rhetorical effects.

Katurian resists being held accountable for how his writing affects those who read it. What does the play suggest about the degree to which artists are responsible for how people react to their work? Who does the play argue has ultimate authority over the interpretation of art—artists or audiences?