Therefore, as Janota discussed her response to the climax, I perceive that she has indeed let her emotions and personal values sway her argument, even to the point where personally attacks Williams. As an objective reader, I can identify with the plight of Janota as she stresses her very 90s ideals regarding rape. In do so it becomes much clearer why this disturbing climax was essential especially when considering the shocking conclusion to the play. I prefer to look deeper at the subject, considering both the preceding events and impending resolution before making judgements. This aspect of symbolism was not discussed by Janota, a feature of the text I consider critical to obtain a greater understanding.
Symbolism is very important when analysing the conclusion to the play.
These factors combined are a very important element of my reading of the text. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept Janota s discussions without it being linked to the other aspects of the play. I can agree with her point insofar as Elysian Fields is a society built on desire, and once deprived of this through the intervention of Blanche, Stanley becomes vulnerable. This is the kind of reasoning not offered by Janota who focuses on condemning the actions of Stanley, failing to consider his viewpoint. Therefore, when it comes to the climax, it is very important to carefully analyse how Stanley is being presented, as this has a dire effect on the plight of his character, both during the rape and the conclusion.