Maximilian R. Schlechtinger

Authorial Responsibility – The Pillowman

Authorial Responsibility – The Pillowman


Martin McDonagh published The Pillowman in 2003 as one of his last plays, before shifting his focus towards screenwriting and cinema. He went on to direct Six Shooter (2004) soon after. The plot of The Pillowman toys with the idea of authorial responsibility and examines the ownership of a work. Arguably McDonagh might have used his character Katurian to function as an amplifier for his own ideas about ethical responsibility and artistic ownership of his own works.

Background-Information about The Pillowman

The Pillowman is one of many plays by the Anglo-Irish author Martin McDonagh. Unlike e.g. The Leanne Trilogy (1996), this play is a stand-alone work. It features just a few characters, where the main protagonist is the writer Katurian.[1] Its main topic is the relationship of an author with his works and the consequences that might play out after publication.

The text was published in 2003 in London by Faber&Faber and has so far been adapted to various stages. Its premiere stage production was on Cottonloe Theatre in London on 13 Nov 2003, featuring David Tennant as Katurian and Adam Goley as Michal.[2] The stage productions have been critically acclaimed, yet also received polarising press for the depiction and description of violence. This continues a sort-of theme in the works of McDonagh.[3]

Overview of the hypothesis and main questions

One of the main points The Pillowman tries to portray is the character Katurian’s confrontation with how his writing is received, especially in the case of his little brother Michal, who commits crimes in the name of the stories. This poses the question, whether an author can be held responsible for the reception of his work.

Is it even possible to hold the author accountable for the consequences their work has? Where is the line between what is written in a play and what actions others undertake, inspired by the text? More generally spoken: Where is the responsibility for cultural influence to be found?

Importance of exploring the artist’s responsibility

Despite the ever-repeated statement by Roland Barthes in “The Death of the Author”,[4] which implies that an author cannot make a real contribution to the reception of their work, it is interesting to examine possible additions of this idea. Could Martin McDonagh be such an author? This term paper shall examine the reception of The Pillowman more closely and describe the praise and criticism that Martin McDonagh received in dealing with authorship on a meta-level.

Theoretical Framework

This term paper will focus on the reception of primarily The Pillowman as a case study in McDonagh’s portray of an author’s responsibility. It is supplemented by a closer reading of the relationship of Katurian and his brother Michal, since this showcases an author and the potential consequences of his stories. Whereas the play has been critically acclaimed, it also sparked polarizing reviews.

Brief Discussion of “The Death of the Author”

Within the subject of literary (academic) education, students are usually confronted with Roland Barthes’ statement of the symbolic “Death of the author”[5]. Barthes himself published his essay in the French magazine Manteia, (no. 5, 1968). Since then it appeared to be one of the defining statements that transformed literary criticism in the 20th century.

Essentially the essay argues that the author cannot be held responsible for his work. Since the subject of a literary work is a character or dramatis persona and not the author himself, it is the reader who attributes meaning to the words. Barthes argues that the reader is the defining instance for the meaning of a text, whereas the initial author is somehow distant and historically in the past of the text. It is the author that composes the text, out of various source materials, making him essentially a re-arranger of previous ideas.[6]

Up to Barthes’ essay one predominant way of interpreting the works of an author, was to attribute key findings about the authors past, biography, education, and so on to the text. It appeared almost as a psychological investigation into a fragment of the authors soul. Barthes’ shifts this focus entirely to the reader, arguing that “every text is eternally written here and now”.[7] Therefore we cannot strive to find an ultimate meaning to a text, just by investigating the author’s life. Moreover the meaning of a text is found the in the process of interpreting the text. Barthes writes:

Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures, and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. […]We know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.[8]

The Concept of Authorial Responsibility

Roland Barthes initiated a whole new discussion about the artist’s responsibility and the moral implications of their works. It is beyond the scope of this text to answer thoroughly the questions of a moral obligation of an artist. For example, when Goethe released his “Leiden des jungen Werther”[9] (1774) it had unforeseen implications, particularly on young men and their contemplation of heart-break; many of them taking their own lives. A situation historically known as “Werther-Effekt”, or more broadly as copycat-suicide.[10]

Every now and then the idea of authorial responsibility surfaces to public discussion, mostly when it connects to a current theme. McDonagh and The Pillowman seem to pose no exception to this. Not only is the depiction of violence a re-occurring theme within McDonagh’s stories,[11] but it also sets them apart from mere comedy. It is emphasised that it is always the characters speaking, within the story – not the author, who potentially uses the characters as mouthpieces.

Another meditation on the idea that an author is hardly responsible for what his works inspire others to do, is the common phrase with which we describe the process: ‘Release to the public’. It means, that the work is set loose and may freely roam people’s imagination, to whatever extend.

Case Study: The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh

The Pillowman was published in 2003 by Faber&Faber and premiered on stage on 13 Nov 2003 in Cottonloe Theatre in London. Martin McDonagh claimed that he wrote this piece as a final milestone before shifting his focus to film. It features just a brief selection of characters and tells the story of a writer who is confronted with the consequences of his own stories.

The text is a meditation on authorial responsibility and on the depiction of violence and cruelty within stories. In an age where internet uses frequently demand trigger-warnings in front of potentially violent content, this play deliberately takes the opposite approach. McDonagh has often been associated with in-yer-face theatre[12] and thus it is almost expected that his stories feature stark expressions of cruelty.

The play also reiterates the role of an author in reception of his works. Therefore it works perfectly as a case study in authorial responsibility. In McDonagh’s play the statement of “Death of the Author” is played out in a literal way, with Katurian being executed in the end. Given that, the question of responsibility is not answered within the play, it is interesting to give it a more academic look.

Overview of the Play

The play is structured into three acts. It features the brothers Katurian and Michal, the two policemen Tupolski and Ariel, a father and mother, and a boy and a girl, making it a total of eight roles. The story revolves around Katurian and his interrogation and ultimate execution at the hands of police force in an undefined totalitarian regime.

The first act opens with a police interrogation of the writer Katurian. He is unaware of why he is questioned, yet he is informed that his, mentally impaired, brother Michal is in a similar situation, just next door. The two policemen engage into a good-cop/bad-cop scenario and accuse the unsuspecting Katurian of child-murder. Katurian subsequently relents and tells the story of his childhood, where his parents played a gruesome trick on him to foster his artistic abilities. They would pretend to torture his brother Michal, so that the resulting trauma might invigorate Katurian’s writing. When he finds out, Katurian smothers them in their sleep with a pillow. The two policemen find out that Michal has acted out some of Katurian’s stories, insofar as that various children have been killed in a similar way to the stories that Katurian wrote.[13]

In the second act, the brothers are in a cell and get a chance to talk about the recent events. Michal then reveals that he has not been tortured by Ariel, just been asked to pretend, thus replicating their childhood situation. Katurian tells the story of the Pillowman, a fictional creature that murders children to spare them a cruel or violent future. He portrays it as an act of mercy. As it becomes clear that the two brothers are going to be executed, Katurian lulls Michal to sleep and smothers him with a pillow.[14] Again, Katurian believes this to be merciful.[15]

The third and final act features a second interrogation of Katurian and him giving a false confession. In an act of saving his brothers reputation Katurian claims all child-murders onto himself. When the policemen find out that Michal took inspiration from a different story for his third murder than Katurian explained, it is clear that the third child might still be alive. Ariel rushes to find out, whereas Tupolski is left with Katurian. As the writer begs for mercy, Tupolski shows no empathy and shoots him in the head. The play closes with Ariel holding Katurian’s unpublished stories. Tasked with burning them, he decides not to and keeps them.[16]

Brief Synopsis focusing on Katurian and Michal’s relationship.

The two brothers Katurian and Michal portray a dynamic relationship. Michal is described as mental impaired, whereas Katurian is an aspiring writer. They both experienced traumatising events in their childhood, yet from different perspectives. Katurian was tricked by their parents into believing that Michal is tortured, therefore developing a devoted caring for his little brother.[17]

Unaware of Katurian, Michal takes most of his bigger brother’s stories in a literal way and acts them out. He seemingly blurs the lines between fact and fiction. This is only revealed in the police interrogation. Yet despite learning of his brother’s insufficiencies, Katurian still loves him deeply. Even the smothering in the police cell is, in Katurian’s eyes, an act of devotion.

With the two brothers depicting two sides of an artistic work (the artist and the recipient) their relationship illustrates the broader theme. Katurian was not confronted with the impact of his story, whereas Michal was unaware of the falsehood of his doings.[18]

Insofar the brothers’ relationship depicts the power of storytelling, including unintended consequences. It toys on the boundary between fiction and reality and facilitates a discussion about the authorial responsibility in niche cases, like cruelty, violence, and death. After all, Katurian is interrogated for the potential moral obligations of an artist.[19]

Analysis of Katurian’s Responsibility

This next section will focus on the implications that The Pillowman has on the question of authorial responsibility. Since the play is a mediation on the artists intention and the consequential implications on the world[20], it should be fruitful to examine the character Katurian more closely. McDonagh uses the whole of the play to give an allegorical interpretation of the “Death of the Author”, as well as the idea of non-existent authorial responsibility.[21]

Examination of Katurian’s intentions vs. Michal’s actions

Katurian as a writer reacts rather perplexed when confronted with the fact that his brother Michal is interrogated for murder.[22] He seems to be puzzled by the fact that a story could inspire someone to murder. In Katurian’s perception “The job of a storyteller is to tell a story.”[23] What is even more intriguing is that Katurian is seemingly unaware of the fact that a story could have implications that are obscure to him. He insists that he is not “trying to tell anything!”.[24]

Michal is a character that takes the stories literally, almost in a childlike way. McDonagh leaves it open, if this might be a way to coming to terms with Michal’s childhood trauma and cruel past, or if this is due to his diminished mental capacity.[25] What is more explicit though is the fact that Martin McDonagh pondered the idea of fairy tales, before writing The Pillowman. His interest in the Brothers Grimm’s fairy tales and their sometimes gruesome twists made him interested in the way that children perceive violence and how this affects a story.[26]

Katurian’s motivation to write dark, twisted, and violent stories might be a result of his experience with torture and trauma in his childhood.[27] From early on the boys learn of the existence of strong violence, almost like a shattering of innocence. It is no use that Katurian later finds out the charade that his parents played on him. He is vengeful and murders them.[28]

On the other hand, Katurian’s brother Michal is portrayed as an “innocent criminal”.[29] Since he is depicted as being mentally impaired, it adds to the interpretation that an intellectual person might grab the irony, allegory, and the symbolism of Katurian’s story, yet Michal is no such character. Even the policeman Tupolski appears to be ignorant of symbolism and fails to recognise the ‘Pied Pieper’ in the Tale of the town on the river.[30]

In academic literature the idea of Michal as the “innocent criminal” is re-iterated. Czech author Jan Doleček writes:

In a cruel twist, it is revealed that Michal enacted the murders inspired by his brother’s writing. It is not Katurian’s fault that someone chose to enact the horrible acts of his stories. The blame should be solely on Michal.[31]

The two brothers serve as a symbolism for two ways to view a story. Katurian, who just likes to write and Michal, who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. Since Michal is also portrayed as mentally impaired, it is difficult to assess his culpability. When it dawns on the brothers that they will both be executed, Katurian decides to commit fratricide. He exclaims “It’s not your fault”[32] before smothering his brother with a pillow, just as he did with their parents. It is clear that he takes on the reasonability instead of his brother, truthful or not. He even writes a false confession, immediately after.[33]

Impact of Katurian’s stories on the audience and characters within the play

Katurian’s stories serve as a symbolic explanation for actions within the play. Most of what Michal or he did can be explained, using the underlying meaning in the stories. For example the idea of a “Pillowman”, who spares children a miserable future is re-enacted by Katurian multiple times. Other stories serve as quite literal instructions for actions, at least for Michal. When confronted by Katurian why he did what he did, he answers: “Because you told me to”.[34]

Since Katurian’s stories have the most impact on Michal, Katurian feels the most authorial responsibility for him, even as he realizes that he does not have to. He gives a false confession and publicly takes on the blame for his brother’s actions. Doleček writes on this: “If Michal is to be considered fully responsible for the murders, Katurian’s fate is tragic even more, because he, by his belief, should not be responsible for anything that his brother did.[35]

Still, Katurian believes that he is innocent in the murder of the children that his brother committed.[36] He insists on “The job of a storyteller is to tell a story!”[37] and denies everything else. He even gets angry at other characters, especially Tupolski, when the meaning of his stories is misunderstood. Tupolski gives a sarcastic comment, when Katurian explains the meaning of the Pied Piper and dismisses it with “Blah, blah, blah.”.[38]

Public Reception and Critique

After its publication in 2003, The Pillowman received polarising press, was critically acclaimed, and was also awarded the Laurence Oliver Award (2004) for ‘Best New Play’ and was nominated for the Tony Award for ‘Best Play‘ in 2005.[39] Yet with its depiction of violence and the toying with dark humour, irony, and straight-up murder, it was discussed broadly.[40]

Discussion on the praise and criticism received by Martin McDonagh

Martin McDonagh has almost become synonymous with the concept of dark comedy within theatre, and subsequently within film. It is no wonder, that the Pillowman was also praised for utilizing dark humour, violence and comedy to explore the themes of child abuse, cupability and tyranny.[41]

As with most of his preceding works Martin McDonagh pushed the limits of what is regared as acceptable on stage. This is part of his artistic influcence, the so called in-yer-face theatre.[42] Whenever violence and cruelty is depicted on stage, the idea is that it has to mean something symbolic, but also to test out the boundaries of what is acceptable. In the case of The Pillowman it is clear that brutality is part of the fate of its main character Katurian and the shattering of his believed innocence.[43]


Since the play itself confronts the recipient with a lot of symbolism in the form of Katurian’s stories, it is intriguing to ask, whether the play itself represents a symbol. Notably, it is a play that climaxes in the death of an author, yet it also emphasises the consequences that stories, and artistic works in general, can have. Katurian voluntarily takes on the responsibility for his brother and pays with his life.

Integration of the analysis with the theoretical framework

As with almost every artistic work, there is a surface interpretation and there is an underlying and obscured meaning. The Pillowman has been subject to various academic discussions about this hidden symbolism. Given the establishment of the above-mentioned resources it becomes a little easier to dissect this symbolism.

First and foremost, the play features a literal and symbolic death of an author. The aspiring writer Katurian is executed at the end. This means several things. It is argued that McDonagh uses the character of Katurian to voice his own statement about the position of an author in the discourse about authorial responsibility.[44] Additionally the play can be seen as a metaphoric play for the ideas in Roland Barthes essay “Death of the author”.

Katurian must stand trial first. It is no coincidence that this is an unfair, unjust, and misleading trial. The two policemen Tupolski and Ariel are representing the ambivalence of public discourse, as well as the arbitrariness of a totalitarian regime. Even though it is hinted on early in the play the execution of Katurian is still a shocking moment.[45]  In a way, this alludes to the conclusion of Barthes essay: “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”[46]

After the death of Katurian, all that is left is the audience in the theatre. McDonagh cleverly removes himself from the discourse about the symbolism of Katurian here. It is an almost typical ironic twist in his play and alludes to the bitter reality of polarising opinions about art.[47]

McDonagh usually uses dark comedy (in-yer-face theatre) to tell a story.[48] His stark symbolism and the expression of violence are not to be taken at face value. Instead it is usually meant as an allegory for something more profound.[49] The Pillowman describes the discussion about authorial consequences and the eventual demise of the author. Katurian has to accept that he never had any power about the interpretation of his stories, neither the symbolic meaning he intended (Pied Piper), nor the literal interpretation by his brother Michal (Green Pig).[50]

Different Characters and their position

The different characters are subsequently no coincidence either. The represent certain aspects and themes, sometimes courses of action or tendencies. Within the play this applies to all characters, whose names are given explicitly; Katurian, Michal, Tupolski, and Ariel. The others, mother, father, and girl are not to be mentioned here.



Unquestionable the main character of the play, Katurian as a character experiences a puzzling situation where he is thrown into. His situation, demeanor and reaction can be compared to Kafkaesque themes.[51] Katurian himself even alludes to this, even though he denies going for “something -esque”.[52] During the first interrogation of the play, he has no idea why he is at the police station. As it dawns on him, that his brother has committed crimes by taking inspiration from his stories, he feels the weight of those deeds crush him. In a devoted effort to wipe his conscious clean he takes on that responsibility and accepts the fate of execution for his.

Katurian is not innocent, though, either. As a child he killed his own parents for (pretending) torturing his brother, yet he is sentenced to death for admitting to all of the murders that his brother also did. Symbolically, as he takes all the responsibility and blame onto his, he pays with his life.[53]


Michael is the seemingly innocent, meaning naïve one.[54] His interpretation of Katurian’s stories is literal and therefore he sees nothing wrong with acting them out. The ascribes mental impaired-ness is an allegory for nativity since the decoding of metaphors requires a cognitive effort. Similarly, a play like The Pillowman that is full of dark humor, violence, and death, requires a cognitive effort to be decoded into symbols and interpretations.

Michal represents one type of “the reader”, that refuses to accept a meaning behind a story and is therefore forced to believe them at face value. Since Katurian also murders him with a pillow, we find the two brothers in a similar situation as the original Pillowman story. Michal is the younger brother, and he is killed by the Pillowman (Katurian) to be spared a more miserable future (execution).[55]


Tupolski listens to many of Katurian’s stories or paraphrases them for the reader/audience.[56] He finds no symbolism in them, yet also doesn’t take them literally. His conclusion is to quickly accuse the author of ill-minded motifs when he asks if he deliberately writes stories that “have murdered children in them”.[57] In Tupolski’s perception there is only authorial responsibility and if a writer causes violence with his work, he is to be punished for it. Therefore, it is no wonder that Tupolski is the one, that shoots Katurian in the end, hence evoking the death of the author.


Ariel is a harsh critic of the actions of both brothers and subsequently of Tupolski. He is easily startled and resolves conflicts with violence. During the opening of the play, he plays tricks on Katurian by having his brother Michal pretend to be tortured, just to get his way. Unknowingly he re-enacts the dynamic of the brothers and their parents. Ariel coldly assesses the truth in the statements of both brothers, which leads him to being able to save the little girl.[58] He is the one who is left with Katurian at the end. In the twist of the aftermath of the death of the author he is the reader that remains. The play closes with him holding the unpublished stories of Katurian and the decision not to burn them – forced to attribute meaning to them.[59]

The spark of Irony

All the characters are foremost dramatis personae and not to be confused with real-life people’s reactions. The play itself serves as an allegory[60] for the multitude of situations an author might find themselves in, when shouldering the potential authorial responsibility. Of course, McDonagh serves this with the usual twists of dark comedy. Overall, the play is funny, even though its contents are violent, and its message is serious.[61]

Revisiting the hypothesis considering the findings

The question was whether an author can be held responsible for their writings’ consequences. The Pillowman proves that yes, this is possible, yet at a cost. It is a concise and dark meditation of authorial responsibility and concludes with the death of the author. In doing so it shows the consequences of this attribution of responsibility. When Katurian takes on the blame for the murders that his brother Michal has committed he takes on something that clearly was not his fault. He is only guilty of killings that happened in his past. It would be unfair to attribute the authorial responsibility to Katurian and make him pay for the killings that Michal has committed.

After the publication of Roland Barthes essay “The Death of the Author”[62], the discussions of literary criticism shifted dramatically. The author himself is not to blame for the effect of his stories. Goethe could be held accountable for copycat suicides after the publication of Die Leiden des jungen Werther,[63] and neither could Katurian for the murders that his stories inspired.

On a meta-level it can be speculated that Martin McDonagh rejects this authorial responsibility for himself and focuses on let the work speak for its own. Like fairy tales that are derived from folklore, he then becomes the messenger of a particular story and not its responsible agent. He even lets the character that portrays this symbolically die at the end.[64]


Within the play The Pillowman by Martin McDonagh we find a symbolic, allegorical, and metaphoric meditation on authorial responsibility, told through dark comedy and twisted humour. It starts out with a Kafkaesque police interrogation and ends with a Death of the Author. This rollercoaster of uncovering of various violent deeds is typical for McDonagh and still alienating and almost grotesque. If the death of Katurian can be viewed as a symbol for McDonagh to reject authorial responsibility for his works is open for interpretation and cannot be answered in an academic paper. This would defy the purpose of Roland Barthes “Death of the Author”.

Instead the meditation of authorial responsibility and the question of whether an author can be held responsible for the consequences of their stories can be answered academically. Given the literary criticism of the past fifty years it is clear that the author, the play’s characters and the voices of said characters are different entities and should be treated as such. There is no way of knowing the exact intention of a play, only vivid interpretation. This clearly applies to the Pillowman.

Source Material

[IRONY] | Barber, Benjamin R. “Politics & Culture: The Price of Irony.” Salmagundi 148-149 (2005 Fall-2006 Winter): 36–44. Print.

[BARTHES] | Barthes, Roland. 15. The Death of the Author. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Authorship: From Plato to the Postmodern: A Reader; (2019-06-01) S. 125-130. Web.

[VIOLENCE] | Basma Abdulhasan Ali, and Sabah Atallah Diyaiy. “Violence in Martin McDonagh’s The Pillowman.”

[JUSTIF] | Carroll, Noël. “Martin McDonagh’s The Pillowman, or The Justification of Literature.” Philosophy and Literature 35.1 (2011): 168–181.

[NEW-STORY] | Cliff, Brian. The Pillowman: A New Story to Tell. pp. 131-148 IN: Russell, Richard Rankin(ed. and introd.), Martin McDonagh: A Casebook. Abingdon, England ; Garland Publishing, Inc., 2007. Print. Garland Reference Library of the Humanities: Casebooks on Modern Dramatists.

[MORALITY] | Doleček, Jan, Ondřej Pilný, and Clare Wallace. Morality and Responsibility in the “Non-Irish” Works of Martin McDonagh ; Etika a zodpovědnost v “neirských” dílech Martina McDonagha’. Univerzita Karlova, Filozofická fakulta: N.p., 2020. 212151; (2020). Web. <>.

[WERTHER] | Goethe, J.W. Leiden Des Jungen Werthers. Reprint 2019. Berlin ; Boston: De Gruyter ([2019]) ; G. J. Göschen’sche Verlagshandlung ([1787]), [2019]; [1787].

[MYTHS] | Jordan, Eamonn. Guilt Affirmation and Interfacing Alternative Systems of Justice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. Justice in the Plays and Films of Martin McDonagh; (2019) S. 45-74. Web.

[PILLOWMAN] | McDonagh, Martin. The Pillowman. London: Faber and Faber, 2003.

[ALLEGORY] | Worthen, Hana, and W. B. Worthen. The Pillowman and the Ethics of Allegory. pp. 198-216 IN: Ackerman, Alan(ed. and introd.), Reading Modern Drama. Toronto, ON ; University of Toronto Press, 2012. Print.

[1] [JUSTIF] p. 169

[2] [MYTHS] cf. p. 61

[3] [VIOLENCE] cf.p. 2

[4] See [BARTHES]

[5] See [BARTHES]

[6] [BARTHES] cf. p.127, 129

[7] [BARTHES] cf. p.127, original italics

[8] [BARTHES] p.129 f.

[9] See [WERTHER]

[10] The Cultural Dynamics of Copycat Suicide, (03.03.24 11:38)

[11] [VIOLENCE] cf.p.2

[12] [VIOLENCE] cf. p. 2

[13] [MORALITY] cf. p.17 f.

[14] [PILLOWMAN] p.67

[15] [MORALITY] cf. p. 18

[16] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.104

[17] [MORALITY] cf. p.17 ff.

[18] [MORALITY] cf. p.18

[19] [NEW-STORY] cf. p.137

[20] [JUSTIF] p.168

[21] [ALLEGORY] cf. p.198

[22] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.14

[23] [PILLOWMAN] p.7

[24] [PILLOWMAN] p.17

[25] [MORALITY] p. 15 f.

[26] [JUSTIF] cf. p. 136, and [NEW STORY] cf. p.169

[27] [VIOLENCE] cf. p.5 f.

[28] [PILLOWMAN] p.59 f., p.76

[29] [MORALITY] cf. p. 17 f.

[30] [PILLOWMAN] p.22

[31] [MORALITY] cf. p. 18

[32] [PILLOWMAN] p.67

[33] [MORALITY] cf. p. 19

[34] [PILLOWAN] p.49

[35] [MORALITY] p. 18

[36] [MORALITY] p. 17

[37] [PILLOWMAN] p.7

[38] [PILLOWMAN] p. 16

[39] [IRONY] cf. p.3

[40] [NEW STORY] cf. p. 131

[41] [VIOLENCE] cf.p.9

[42] [VIOLENCE] cf.p.2

[43] [VIOLENCE] cf.p.2

[44] [NEW-STROY] cf. p.136

[45] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.20

[46] [BARTHES] p.130

[47] [NEW-STORY] cf.p. 131 f.

[48] [VIOLENCE] cf. p. 2

[49] [ALLEGORY] cf. p.198

[50] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.22, p.64

[51] [ALLEGORY] cf. p. 203

[52] [PILLOWMAN] p.18

[53] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.101

[54] [MORALITY] cf. p.18

[55] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p. 67

[56] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.17 f.

[57] [PILLOWMAN] p.16

[58] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.95

­­­[59] [PILLOWMAN] cf. p.104 and [MORALITY] cf. p.19 f.

[60] [ALLEGROY] cf. p. 198 f.

[61] [ALLEGROY] cf. p.199 f.

[62] See [BARTHES]

[63] See [WERTHER]

[64] [MYTHS] cf. p.63


Diese Website verwendet Cookies um die Performance zu verbessern. Mit der Nutzung der Seite stimmst du den Datenschutzbestimmungen zu.  Mehr erfahren