One of the ways though which The Dragon undercuts the standards established within the realm of Socialist Realism is through its lack of a clear positive - hero. In the beginning of the third act, the townspeople shout as they praise the Mayor, whom they perceive to be their hero – or at least are willing to pretend is – while the true hero and the slayer of the evil dragon is clearly Lancelot (Schwartz 193). Interestingly enough, the townspeople praised the villainous dragon in the same way, which clearly illustrates a pattern. This pattern suggests that they merely obey whoever claims to be in power. Furthermore, this confusion of prescribed roles doesn’t stop there. Lancelot is only fully recognized as the hero by the very end of the play and even then he fails to meet the requirements for a positive – hero for two reasons. One of the reasons is becomes he comes from the outside of their society. The second reason is because Lancelot is a hero by profession rather then by choice. He roams the lands rescuing those in need, fighting dragons, or doing whatever else is included in his job description. This places him outside the traditional hero because patriotism or other passions do not drive him and he is not a member of their society.

The play fails to divide the characters into the categories of being simply good or evil (Tertz, 139). The division of these roles is muddled for various reasons. For example, Lancelot was attempting to relieve the seemingly innocent townspeople of their unfair and tyrannous rulers; however; there are many implications within the text that the townspeople were not as innocent themselves. One of the instances through which this becomes apparent is during Elsa’s conversation with her girlfriends before her wedding ceremony to the Mayor (Schwartz 208). When the third girlfriend says, “And then think of the good you’ll be able to do for people. You could ask him to sack my dad’s boss, for a start. Then my dad’ll get his job, his wages’ll be double, and we’ll be so happy”, she is presented as being selfish, uncaring, and materialistic (Schwartz 208). Throughout the play, the townspeople in general are portrayed as those who are easily manipulated, selfish, and ignorant, which makes it difficult to perceive them as ‘the innocent’. This concept is once again confirmed within Elsa’s monologue during the wedding ceremony scene (Schwartz 211). In her emotional speech to the townspeople, she says, “I used to think you were all loyal to the Dragon only in the way the bandit’s knife obeys the bandit. But it turns out that you, my fiends, are bandits too” (Schwartz 211). After Lancelot comes back and speaks to different members of their society, such as the Gardener and the First Man, he questions them about their loyalty to the self- proclaimed president (Schwartz 216). The first man says, “In private I knew it …(in reference to the true slayer of the dragon), but in public…” (Schwartz 216). This illustrates the townspeople’s conscious decision to perpetuate the facade. Furthermore, while the Dragon was eventually identified as being the ‘bad guy’, the subsequent leader is presented as being even worse, which perpetuates the pattern of going from ‘bad to worse’.

One of the most obvious ways though which The Dragon undermines the formula of Socialist Realism plays is though its structure. Socialist Realism literature, cinema and art was targeted towards the masses, most of whom had minimal or no education. For this reason the formula required the entire artistic production to be very simple in structure, easily recognizable and understandable. It was to present a readily digestible plot line, a clear conflict, a number of stock characters and a neatly tied conclusion, all the while glorifying the Socialist ideology. However, The Dragon defies this structure as it presents the first resolution rather early on, and it appears to possess two conclusions. In the end of the second act, Lancelot defeats the evil dragon and his rather lengthy monologue creates a sense of completion (Schwartz 192-193). Within the monologue, Lancelot says goodbye to Elsa and the town and speaks of “Death calling” him, thereby alluding to his impending death (Schwartz 192 -193). Furthermore, the continuation of the story into the third act is necessary for the illustration of the inevitable cycle of dictatorship and tyranny within the society.

In his introduction to the book entitled The Trial Begins and on Socialist Realism, Czeslaw Milosz touched on the topic of simplistic structure and content within literature of Socialist Realism. He suggested that, “The main argument used by Solviet “liberals” is the fact that readers and audiences are more intelligent than the product served up to them by the higher paid practitioners of socialist realism. A simplified picture of the world is not enough; the demands of these readers and audiences cannot be satisfied until the presentation of life in Solviet Union is clearer of its numerous taboos” (Tertz, 142). This is exactly what Schwartz does in this play. He addresses the ultimate taboos of their society, some of which are propaganda and dictatorship.

Another way through which this play refuses to meet the Socialist Realism standard is through its inability to provide a sense of optimism for the future. In the final scene of the second act, as we learn of the defeat of the dragon through the conversation between the Mayor and Henry, we also get a foreshadowing glimpse into the dark future of their society (Schwartz 190). This happens when Henry asks,” What are you rubbing your hand for, father?” at which point the Mayor replies, “Ah, my boy. Because power has just fallen into them, all by itself” (Schwartz 190). He later elaborates on this idea by suggesting that the dragon taught people to take orders from whoever is holding the whip (Schwartz 190). This prediction is realized, after the Mayor easily rises to power through Henry’s skillful manipulation of the masses. Another example of Schwartz undermining the Socialist Realism standard for optimism is through the Dragon’s comments to Lancelot. At the end of the second act, after Dragon’s defeat by Lancelot, the Dragon’s third head verbalizes his outlook on the town’s future when he says, “My only consolation is that what I’ve left you are burnt-out, threadbare, dead spirits” (Schwartz 191). There is no possible optimism within the concept of ‘dead spirits’, for that which is dead is unchangeable, static, and without hope.

The notion of a happy ending within the formula prescribed by Socialist Realism is different then that of The Dragon in a larger sense as well. In the end of the play, the town is finally freed from the Mayor but this play’s ‘happy ending’ is not a complete resolution. During his conversation with Elsa, Lancelot says ‘I can see I’ve got my work cut out with you” (Schwartz, 217). He acknowledges that his battle with the evil dragon and the corrupt Mayor has ended but his work on liberating the spirits of the townspeople had merely begun. Lancelot also mentions that, “We have some very tricky and boring work to do, even worse then embroidery. The Dragon has to be killed in each and every one of them” (Schwartz, 216). The play leaves the reader with an unsettling feeling of unease about the future of the town because their previous rulers had disheartened its residents quite significantly. This illustrates Schwartz desire to present the truth through his art, as unpleasant as it may be, as opposed to a deprived product of manipulative propaganda.

The Dragon also deviates from a standard artistic product, devised to support the ideology of Socialist Realism, in its lack of a simplistic message and accessibility. Aside from the fact that underneath the surface, its message exists in direct opposition to that of Socialist Realism, the manner with which it is presented also differs. The Dragon employs literary devises such as irony, analogy, symbolism and metaphor to shed light on its message, while Socialist Realism aggressively imposes their views in a direct and invasive manner. One of the examples of the use of irony within The Dragon is when Henry is giving instructions to the First Man regarding the speech about The Mayor, to whom at this point everyone refers to as the Dragon–killer (Schwartz 194). He says, “That’s what I want. Why, you all know the Dragon-killer. He is a man simple to the point of innocence. He likes frankness and sincerity ” (Schwartz 194). What the Mayor claims to represent is in reality the complete opposite of the truth. They bluntly contradict themselves without being questioned. How is it possible that the Mayor likes frankness and sincerity, when only moments earlier Henry gives strict instructions as to the manner in which the speech should be spoken and what its actual content should be? Henry goes on to say, “Just remember, speak in an orderly fashion, but at the same time in a free and easy democratic way. It was the Dragon who went in for all that ceremonial, but we…” (Schwartz 195). Henry speaks of the Dragon as a horrible tyrant while they had become significantly worse. The Mayor claims to uphold a democratic system, while all of his actions are in complete contradiction to his claims. There is also a clear example of symbolism being used within the text during the scene when Gaoler reveals to the Mayor that the prisoners had been writing the letter ‘L’ on the walls (Schwartz 197). Gaoler says, “Yes, the letter ‘L’ on the walls. ‘L’ stands for Lancelot” (Schwartz 197). To which the Mayor replies, “Rubbish. ‘L’ means we love our president” (Schwartz 197). The confusion of the possible interpretation for this phenomenon illustrates the Mayor’s tendency to bend the meaning of every fact to his own benefit. This scene also creates the possibility for the letter ‘L’ to symbolize the abbreviation for Lenin, which creates a more penetrating and multi-layered effect. This play is entirely composed of such literary devises and these are but a few of the many examples.

Socialist Realism is concerned with the depiction of what should be as opposed to what is (Groys 197). Its goal is to project the future and the new (Groys 197). The Dragon, on the other hand, addresses issues concerning social reality and attempts to make a statement on what is happening rather then what should be happening. It questions the traditional ways of perceiving daily routines, social issues, and clichés by employing defamiliarizing devises Furthermore, by operating within the fairy tale form, Schwartz was able to evade or at least minimize heavily imposed censorship. This play is not devised to ‘glorify the state’, or to ‘portray the power of the state as the greatest good’, but on the contrary it questions these notions and attempts to unveil the truths behind them (Dobrenko, 113). Furthermore, through its fairy tale elements, this play presents the flaws in the communist ideology as opposed to possessing manipulative strategies of depicting its perfection.