So if I told you that it did not take me absolutely forever to read this document, I would be lying. But truth is, now that I have read and understood the text, I have a better feel for what exactly the context of the "Quartet" is. Or maybe it is better to say what the "Quartet" is not. To begin, it is not a typical theater performance for we have two actors representing four different roles. Moreover, they even switch roles with each other, to the extent of playing opposing genders. Now the real twist derives from the fact that the audience is unsure of whether the actual characters are conscious of participating in this game of role playing. This slight unanswerable question stems from the following dialogue:

Valmont: Now what? Shall we go on playing?

Merteuil: Are we playing? Go on to what?

Clearly, these two characters are not on the same level of thinking, but Muller does not offer evidence as to who is correct. This kind of ambiguity is found all throughout the play even in the mere setting as Professor Bergman pointed out ("Time-space: salon before the French revolution/Bunker after the Third World War). I now just realized that this setting alludes to the Third World War not the second or the first. Muller means to be so ambiguous that he is referring to an unknown future seeing as such war has not occurred.

Beauty can be found in this ambiguous environment Muller has so cleverly created. Yet, though some classmates argued that such a tangent, in theater, from social conventions was unnecessary and even confusing. I beg to differ in a sense. For if you think about it, if artists never took a risk and tried something different, would not all art be dull and monotonous? I believe it would be, for change is exciting and mysterious all at once. If you think back, theater use to only employ male actors, and there must be some director who was daring enough to call upon a woman to participate. And because of this original director, it is now socially acceptable, even expected, to watch women perform in theater. Therefore, I believe that though Muller's Quartet is so unexpectedly different, it is a source of innovation that should be admired. And it surely has been for directors continue to interpret his work today, long after it was produced by Muller.