A Walk in the Woods by Lee Blessing

First published: 1988

First produced: 1987, at the Yale Repertory Theater, New Haven, Connecticut

Type of plot: Political

Time of work: The 1980’s

Locale: Outskirts of Geneva, Switzerland, in a pleasant wooded area

Principal Characters:

• Andrey Botvinnik, a fifty-seven-year-old Soviet career diplomat
• John Honeyman, a forty-five-year-old American negotiator

The Play

A Walk in the Woods is the story of an impossible friendship, one that grows between an earnest young American arms negotiator and his more cynical Soviet counterpart during their private walks together over a period of many months. It is also the story of two nations attempting to avert a nuclear holocaust in spite of the political and economic forces that seem to be pushing them relentlessly toward it.

The conflict between these two contrasting elements of the play, the public and the private, the political and the personal, is established in the first of the play’s four scenes, during which the novice American negotiator, Honeyman, repeatedly refuses the more experienced Botvinnik’s offer of friendship.

His rebuff is not due to any personal hostility based on Cold War rivalry. On the contrary, he comes to the table full of enthusiasm and high hopes for a rapid and successful conclusion to the talks, replacing a more experienced negotiator named McIntyre, whose personal inflexibility was a source of irritation to Botvinnik. “We negotiated for two years, and he never changed his position,” complains Botvinnik. “The American position changed . . . ” objects Honeyman, to which the Russian responds: “No, no—his position. Sitting there, at the table. He always sat straight up. For two years he never relaxed.”

Honeyman appears in the opening scene to be cut from the same stiff cloth as McIntyre, and much of the play revolves around Botvinnik’s attempts to break through his bureaucratic exterior and find the man within, while Honeyman struggles to hammer out an agreement on arms reduction.

The second scene opens, two months later, with the two men on another of what has become a regular series of walks: Botvinnik’s pursuit of an informal relationship between the two negotiators seems to have succeeded. Yet, the essential conflict of the first scene reemerges with greater intensity when Honeyman begins pressing Botvinnik for some movement, any movement, in the Soviets’ position before the upcoming American presidential election. Botvinnik agrees on one condition: that the two men have a “frivolous” conversation.

Honeyman awkwardly slips into a discussion of space weapons technology before finally declaring: “Well . . . let’s see. OK, um—I hate brown suits.” Botvinnik is disappointed with the attempt, noting that “There’s a difference between trivial and boring.” In spite of this failure, however, the act concludes with Botvinnik’s promise to push his government toward a gesture of compromise prior to the American election.

The second act opens in late winter, with the two men chasing a rabbit through the woods, in much the same way that Botvinnik recalls doing as a young boy in Leningrad, before the war. This somewhat comical moment illustrates the two men’s growing friendship but is also symbolic of their seemingly fruitless pursuit of a meaningful agreement between their two countries. Botvinnik tells Honeyman that his government has rejected the latest proposal, not due to any real objections, but because it is “too good.”

Honeyman will not be deterred, however. He has learned enough about the politics of arms negotiations from his counterpart to know that “a new name, a few insignificant points altered” may be all it takes to save the proposal, and the scene ends with the two returning together to meet the waiting reporters, “Because we don’t often do that, and they will be confused.”

The final scene of the play takes place in early spring, after the rejection of Honeyman’s revised proposal, this time by his own government. The wooden idealist of the play’s opening scenes has become a more disillusioned creature of flesh and blood, as demonstrated by Honeyman’s retelling of an incident earlier that day in which he was nearly arrested for littering. Botvinnik responds to his counterpart’s anecdote by asking his favorite color; he wants to buy him a tie.

The reason for this gesture is made clear when the Soviet announces that he is leaving and will soon be replaced by a new negotiator. Their relationship has come full circle. Soon Honeyman will find himself playing the role of the wiser, older man, struggling to transform a less experienced antagonist into a friend.

Dramatic Devices

A Walk in the Woods is a very simple play, requiring only two actors and one set. Every scene takes place in the same “pleasant woods” outside Geneva. Such classical unity of place is offset, however, by the fact that each of the play’s four scenes is separated from the others by a period of several months. In fact, each scene takes place in a different season, beginning in late summer and ending in early spring. This simple device illustrates not only the passage of time but also the dramatic arc of the ongoing conversation between the two protagonists. Summer fades into winter as Honeyman’s initial hopes fade into bitterness and despair. Yet, the play concludes not in the coldest depths of winter, but with the renewal of hope promised by the earliest days of spring.

The cycle of the seasons also reflects the changing relationship between the two protagonists. Botvinnik begins as the mature mentor to Honeyman’s naïvely optimistic newcomer, but in the second act the American assumes a more clear-eyed maturity, while the Russian moves toward retirement. The contrast between these two characters, and the development of their relationship over the course of the play, is a key element of the drama.

Another important dramatic device in A Walk in the Woods is paradox due, in part, to the paradoxical nature of the subject matter. The principle of “mutual assured destruction” on which the concept of nuclear deterrence is based dictates that each side must maintain a massive nuclear arsenal in order that neither side will ever have to use it. The United States and the Soviet Union discuss arms control not because they have already ended their political rivalry, but because each still sees the other as a military threat. Botvinnik and Honeyman thus have the opportunity to become friends only because their countries regard one another as enemies.

Botvinnik is especially aware of the paradoxical nature of their situation. Rather than allowing it to confound him, however, he seems to thrive on it. In the opening scene, Botvinnik plays with paradox by agreeing with Honeyman’s position regarding friendship:

Honeyman: You agree?

Botvinnik: Yes

Honeyman: That we shouldn’t be friends?

Botvinnik: Yes

Honeyman: That’s not what you said before.

Botvinnik: But then I didn’t know your view. Now I do, and I want to agree with you.

Honeyman: You want to agree with me.

Botvinnik: Yes.

Honeyman: Why?

Botvinnik: Because you are my friend.

Even at the play’s conclusion Botvinnik continues to express himself through paradox. In his final assessment of their apparently futile efforts, he laments: “Our time together, John, has been a very great failure. But—a successful one.”

Critical Context

Following its world premiere at the Yale Repertory Theatre, A Walk in the Woods had its West Coast premiere at La Jolla Playhouse in 1987, winning the American Theater Critics Association’s award for best play. It opened on Broadway on February 28, 1988, and received Tony Award nominations for best play and best actor (for Robert Prosky as Botvinnik).

In A Walk in the Woods Lee Blessing takes a well-known historical incident and reshapes it to reflect his own political observations and dramatic interests. During deadlocked arms reductions talks in Geneva in the summer of 1982, negotiators Yuli A. Kvitsinsky and Paul H. Nitze stepped away from the table and took a stroll in a nearby park, returning with an unprecedented new proposal, one which was ultimately rejected by the hardliners of both sides.

Throughout his career, Blessing has continued to draw upon historical characters and events for dramatic purposes, using the theater to reexamine social issues and public policy in more than one dozen different plays. Cobb (pr. 1989, pb. 1991) presents the life of legendary baseball player Ty Cobb in all its complexity, including the racism that relegated the “Black Cobb,” baseball player Oscar Charleston, to the Negro leagues. Patient A (pr., pb. 1993) examines the case of Kimberly Bergalis, the first known instance of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) transmission from a health care worker to a patient. Two Rooms (pr. 1988, pb. 1990) explores the various ways in which terrorism is exploited, by all sides, for political purposes. It was the success of A Walk in the Woods that set the stage for Blessing’s continued exploration of the intersection of politics and drama.

Sources for Further Study

Blessing, Lee. “Accidents in a Moral Universe.” American Theater 18 (October, 2001): 10-11.

Blessing, Lee. “An Interview with Lee Blessing.” Interview by Joseph G. Rice. American Drama 2 (Fall, 1992): 84-100.

Henry, William A. Review of A Walk in the Woods. Time 129 (March 9, 1987): 88.

Sauvage, Leo. Review of A Walk in the Woods. The New Leader 71 (March 21, 1988): 23.