Per instruction, I've been attempting to have discussions with my peers about the issues within The Taming of the Shrew. Mostly, my peers amount to my husband, but we're having a double-date tonight and maybe I'll try to bring it up then. I expect that it will make the other couple extremely uncomfortable as Nate and I rant and rave about the unequal treatment of women within literature and the media (ever read The Woman in White? Ridiculously misogynistic).
I have a hard time talking about women's issues with people - I tend to come on too strong, and it freaks lots of people out (especially around here, where "feminist" seems to be a dirty word to a lot of people). I've been trying, though. It's hard for me not to get onto my bra-burning high horse when I talk about the treatment of women in popular culture (that, and the MPAA just really get me a-ranting. Seriously, can we talk about how flawed the movie-rating system is in this country? Something else to make the other couple uncomfortable).
Moving on: I did something of a textual analysis last week, but what the hey, I'll do some more. I'm going to analyze the ways that Petruchio can be considered verbally or emotionally abusive toward Kate.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Importance Of Gender
I know I'm technically supposed to be blogging on Wednesdays and Fridays, but I don't get up early enough on Wednesdays or Fridays to have a post up by nine.
Anyway, I want to talk about the character of Ariel. Ariel is kind of fairy-like, kind of like the little ball of light that follows you around in Legend of Zelda. Ariel's gender has also been the subject of hotly-contested debate for a very long time.
Traditionally, Ariel is viewed as a male character. He's referred to with male pronouns (all of twice in the entire play), but the part is commonly played by women. I've heard people posit that this might be because more male characters = fewer straw wigs, since women weren't allowed to be actors. From my days at the Southwest Shakespeare conservatory, I've heard that women commonly use Ariel's monologues for auditions. There are so few female parts in most of Shakespeare's plays, so you kind of have to take what you can get.
So, open question: Does the character of Ariel significantly change when his/her gender changes? Does it make a difference? I honestly can't decide. I mean, Ariel is kind of sexless regardless of who plays the character, but water/arial elements tend to have a more feminine quality to them. Also, in our society, Ariel is an exclusively female name. As such, I tend to think of Ariel as a female, but I'm open to other ideas.
Anyway, I want to talk about the character of Ariel. Ariel is kind of fairy-like, kind of like the little ball of light that follows you around in Legend of Zelda. Ariel's gender has also been the subject of hotly-contested debate for a very long time.
Traditionally, Ariel is viewed as a male character. He's referred to with male pronouns (all of twice in the entire play), but the part is commonly played by women. I've heard people posit that this might be because more male characters = fewer straw wigs, since women weren't allowed to be actors. From my days at the Southwest Shakespeare conservatory, I've heard that women commonly use Ariel's monologues for auditions. There are so few female parts in most of Shakespeare's plays, so you kind of have to take what you can get.
So, open question: Does the character of Ariel significantly change when his/her gender changes? Does it make a difference? I honestly can't decide. I mean, Ariel is kind of sexless regardless of who plays the character, but water/arial elements tend to have a more feminine quality to them. Also, in our society, Ariel is an exclusively female name. As such, I tend to think of Ariel as a female, but I'm open to other ideas.
Friday, October 14, 2011
I Am Conflicted
I just want to state for the record that I did, in fact, read The Taming of the Shrew and watch Ten Things I Hate About You. The Taming of the Shrew with Elizabeth Taylor is proving more difficult to track down than I anticipated. Netflix has it, but Nate and I only just got around to watching Lars and the Real Girl yesterday (and I heartily recommend it, by the way. Don't be scared off by the way the plot sounds), and it's still sitting on our coffee table, waiting to be mailed. The local Blockbuster doesn't have it, probably because it didn't come out in the past ten years or heavily feature explosions or women in bikinis.
I liked the play, generally. I think. I don't know. I feel like I should like it. Everyone else likes it. I've been trying to find some feminist interpretations, where I can like it and still retain my self-respect. The thing is, it's aggressively anti-woman. 10 Things I Hate About You toned it down and made it about the relationship between the Petruchio character and the Katherina character more about how all human beings, regardless of gender, need emotionally fulfilling relationships in their lives. That's a moral I can get behind, and Kat didn't have to sacrifice her individual identity to get there. She didn't change the way she dressed or the way she talked and she didn't suddenly start putting up with people's crap. She just let her guard down enough to have a legitimate emotional connection with another person, and I would say that the gender of the other person was, in this situation, largely irrelevant.
Further, the father character (an OB-GYN) was motivated by fear that his daughters would get into trouble if they were allowed to date before they were ready, whatever that means. He wasn't on a power trip, the way Baptista was. He was a single father afraid he couldn't protect his children, and I completely respect that.
According to the ever-infallible Wikipedia, there's some controversy regarding the way the play is supposed to be read. Apparently some people think that Shakespeare didn't mean what he was saying (that women should submit themselves to men), and thus did not say it at all. Which...makes no sense. You can't write a book about how great it is to be a white supremacist and then turn around and claim that you didn't mean it, so the theme of the book is the opposite of what you wrote.
I tend to think that the people who hold that theory are probably people who just want to believe that Shakespeare was a great person who believed in social equality and was a paragon of moral goodness (in which case, they probably ignore the rumors that Shakespeare was having an extramarital affair with a teenage boy). The more I'm exposed to Shakespeare, the less I like him.
I liked the play, generally. I think. I don't know. I feel like I should like it. Everyone else likes it. I've been trying to find some feminist interpretations, where I can like it and still retain my self-respect. The thing is, it's aggressively anti-woman. 10 Things I Hate About You toned it down and made it about the relationship between the Petruchio character and the Katherina character more about how all human beings, regardless of gender, need emotionally fulfilling relationships in their lives. That's a moral I can get behind, and Kat didn't have to sacrifice her individual identity to get there. She didn't change the way she dressed or the way she talked and she didn't suddenly start putting up with people's crap. She just let her guard down enough to have a legitimate emotional connection with another person, and I would say that the gender of the other person was, in this situation, largely irrelevant.
Further, the father character (an OB-GYN) was motivated by fear that his daughters would get into trouble if they were allowed to date before they were ready, whatever that means. He wasn't on a power trip, the way Baptista was. He was a single father afraid he couldn't protect his children, and I completely respect that.
According to the ever-infallible Wikipedia, there's some controversy regarding the way the play is supposed to be read. Apparently some people think that Shakespeare didn't mean what he was saying (that women should submit themselves to men), and thus did not say it at all. Which...makes no sense. You can't write a book about how great it is to be a white supremacist and then turn around and claim that you didn't mean it, so the theme of the book is the opposite of what you wrote.
I tend to think that the people who hold that theory are probably people who just want to believe that Shakespeare was a great person who believed in social equality and was a paragon of moral goodness (in which case, they probably ignore the rumors that Shakespeare was having an extramarital affair with a teenage boy). The more I'm exposed to Shakespeare, the less I like him.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Rhetoric Is Overrated
I think I've decided why I'm not connecting to Love's Labour's Lost. It's contrived. It is contrived and boring and inauthentic. By inauthentic, I mean that the characters don't seem to be fully fleshed out, they don't tend to have much character development, and their motives are stale. There's nothing real about them.
Contrast these characters with Hamlet. Hamlet had a constant, hugely complex inner monologue through the duration of the play, regardless of the actor's or director's interpretation. The inner monologues for these characters can be summed up as follows:
Men: "I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid. But I don't want to look stupid."
Women: "I wanna get laid, but I'm playing hard to get."
And that's it, with maybe a couple exceptions. The plot is like a maze, preventing stale, wooden characters from getting laid via artificial obstacles.
It seems to me that this play is just an excuse for Shakespeare to show off how clever he could be. It's not about the characters or the plot or anything that would make a compelling story - it's Shakespeare showing off his intellect.
Let's take the scene in act V between Sir Nathaniel and Holofernes, where they're speaking Latin for no apparent reason. It does nothing to further the plot or develop the characters, it's more like "HEY EVERYBODY I CAN SPEAK LATIN ISN'T THAT COOL DON'T I LOOK SMART BECAUSE I CAN SPEAK LATIN." In this case, Shakespeare is Dwight Shrute, and we the audience are people who don't really care about beet farming or martial arts or paper sales. Only Shakespeare isn't as funny.
Contrast these characters with Hamlet. Hamlet had a constant, hugely complex inner monologue through the duration of the play, regardless of the actor's or director's interpretation. The inner monologues for these characters can be summed up as follows:
Men: "I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid. But I don't want to look stupid."
Women: "I wanna get laid, but I'm playing hard to get."
And that's it, with maybe a couple exceptions. The plot is like a maze, preventing stale, wooden characters from getting laid via artificial obstacles.
It seems to me that this play is just an excuse for Shakespeare to show off how clever he could be. It's not about the characters or the plot or anything that would make a compelling story - it's Shakespeare showing off his intellect.
Let's take the scene in act V between Sir Nathaniel and Holofernes, where they're speaking Latin for no apparent reason. It does nothing to further the plot or develop the characters, it's more like "HEY EVERYBODY I CAN SPEAK LATIN ISN'T THAT COOL DON'T I LOOK SMART BECAUSE I CAN SPEAK LATIN." In this case, Shakespeare is Dwight Shrute, and we the audience are people who don't really care about beet farming or martial arts or paper sales. Only Shakespeare isn't as funny.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
A Witty Palaver?
Once again, I want to discuss The Taming of the Shrew. The Taming of the Shrew is famed for its witty conversations, especially between Kate and Petruchio. Some of them are delightful. Others, not so much.
Honestly, there are portions of it that kind of make me mad. Let's take, for example, this portion from Act II:
"Thou must be married to no man but me,
For I am he am born to tame you, Kate,
And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate
Conformable as other household Kates."
That's Petruchio speaking, as is probably obvious. Now, the wildcat/wild Kate pun aside, quotes like this make me fume. I know that this play was written before gender equality was invented, but as a modern woman I can't help but be upset by this. Firstly, Petruchio and Kate's father completely remove the issue of consent. Just prior to this, Petruchio basically says "We're getting married whether you like it or not. Your dad already ponied up the dowry, and it's happening regardless of your personal feelings."
("Thus in plain terms: your father hath consented
That you shall be my wife, your dowry ‘greed on,And will you, nill you, I will marry you.")
Now, I know that even the United States government didn't recognize marital rape as a crime until the 1990's, but what about that is supposed to make me feel like this is a positive, non-abusive relationship? I'm having a hard time differentiating this sort of forced marriage from sex slavery.
Secondly, I really resent the idea that women who don't just laugh at men's jokes and want to put out need to be "tamed." I had a boyfriend in high school who told me that I was intimidating because "you're too smart." Women do not exist to feed men's egos and fuel their sex drives. This play has, thus far, completely ignored the validity of women having identities independent from the men in their lives.
Thirdly, I think the idea that a woman needs to be barefoot and pregnant and cooking in the kitchen to fulfill her "womanly duties" is a load of crap. I hate the idea of a woman being compelled to conform to all of the brainless breeders who want nothing more than to pop out babies and make sandwiches for the rest of their lives. Now, if you want to have a bunch of kids, or you want to be a stay at home mother, I think that's a perfectly valid option. I don't think that anyone should be forced into that lifestyle who doesn't actively desire it.
Honestly, there are portions of it that kind of make me mad. Let's take, for example, this portion from Act II:
"Thou must be married to no man but me,
For I am he am born to tame you, Kate,
And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate
Conformable as other household Kates."
 |
| Tyler Shields Photography |
("Thus in plain terms: your father hath consented
That you shall be my wife, your dowry ‘greed on,And will you, nill you, I will marry you.")
Now, I know that even the United States government didn't recognize marital rape as a crime until the 1990's, but what about that is supposed to make me feel like this is a positive, non-abusive relationship? I'm having a hard time differentiating this sort of forced marriage from sex slavery.
Secondly, I really resent the idea that women who don't just laugh at men's jokes and want to put out need to be "tamed." I had a boyfriend in high school who told me that I was intimidating because "you're too smart." Women do not exist to feed men's egos and fuel their sex drives. This play has, thus far, completely ignored the validity of women having identities independent from the men in their lives.
Thirdly, I think the idea that a woman needs to be barefoot and pregnant and cooking in the kitchen to fulfill her "womanly duties" is a load of crap. I hate the idea of a woman being compelled to conform to all of the brainless breeders who want nothing more than to pop out babies and make sandwiches for the rest of their lives. Now, if you want to have a bunch of kids, or you want to be a stay at home mother, I think that's a perfectly valid option. I don't think that anyone should be forced into that lifestyle who doesn't actively desire it.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
For my individual play, I'm reading The Taming of the Shrew. I'm pretty excited, if only because it inspired one of my favorite movies of all time.
The Plot: A Paduan lord, Baptista, decrees that his younger, more attractive, more likable, more airheaded daughter Bianca cannot get married to one of her many suitors until her older, angrier, presumably less-attractive, but also less airheaded daughter Katherina gets married. Unfortunately, no one wants to marry her. Some Italian guy named Petruchio comes to town and is immediately recruited by not one, but two of Bianca's suitors to please, for the love of God, take Katherina off the market. Naturally, hilarity and possible gender discrimination ensue.
My question for the duration of the play, and upon which I will be focusing: The Taming of the Shrew is incredibly sexist. True or False?
Now, as of this moment, I think the answer is very obviously and overwhelmingly true. However, I've already had one discussion about it with someone who disagrees (and a female someone, no less), so I will try to consider both sides of the argument.
I'm seriously considering hosting a viewing party for two fantastic film adaptations. One stars the lovely and glamorous Elizabeth Taylor (I still get sad when I remember she's dead), and the other, the somewhat forgettable Julia Stiles. I think that Julia Stiles is so basic, and I don't understand why she was cast in not one, but TWO Shakespearean adaptations. But I digress.
I expect that we'll be dealing with themes of power, namely, who holds the power in a romantic relationship and why it's important, as well as themes of love. Based on what I know at this point, I have a hard time believing that the relationship between Katherina and Petruchio could be legitimate or long-lasting. As I delve deeper into the characters, I hope to find out.
I'm very excited to look at this from a performance perspective as well. I plan on utilizing the book Speak the Speech!, a book of Shakespearean monologues put in context of the events of the play and possible character motivation. I feel I will be able to easily identify with Katherina, but I question how well I'll be able to understand Bianca or most (if not all) of the male characters.
The Plot: A Paduan lord, Baptista, decrees that his younger, more attractive, more likable, more airheaded daughter Bianca cannot get married to one of her many suitors until her older, angrier, presumably less-attractive, but also less airheaded daughter Katherina gets married. Unfortunately, no one wants to marry her. Some Italian guy named Petruchio comes to town and is immediately recruited by not one, but two of Bianca's suitors to please, for the love of God, take Katherina off the market. Naturally, hilarity and possible gender discrimination ensue.
My question for the duration of the play, and upon which I will be focusing: The Taming of the Shrew is incredibly sexist. True or False?
Now, as of this moment, I think the answer is very obviously and overwhelmingly true. However, I've already had one discussion about it with someone who disagrees (and a female someone, no less), so I will try to consider both sides of the argument.
I'm seriously considering hosting a viewing party for two fantastic film adaptations. One stars the lovely and glamorous Elizabeth Taylor (I still get sad when I remember she's dead), and the other, the somewhat forgettable Julia Stiles. I think that Julia Stiles is so basic, and I don't understand why she was cast in not one, but TWO Shakespearean adaptations. But I digress.
I expect that we'll be dealing with themes of power, namely, who holds the power in a romantic relationship and why it's important, as well as themes of love. Based on what I know at this point, I have a hard time believing that the relationship between Katherina and Petruchio could be legitimate or long-lasting. As I delve deeper into the characters, I hope to find out.
I'm very excited to look at this from a performance perspective as well. I plan on utilizing the book Speak the Speech!, a book of Shakespearean monologues put in context of the events of the play and possible character motivation. I feel I will be able to easily identify with Katherina, but I question how well I'll be able to understand Bianca or most (if not all) of the male characters.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
I See How This Is Going
I'll be honest. I'm having trouble deciding what I want to blog about at this juncture. I confess, I'm not gripped by Love's Labour's Lost quite yet.
We talked about the tradition of monasticism that may have inspired some of the introductory events in Love's Labour's Lost. People sequester themselves away from the world for a period of time and focus on God and learning. My understanding, however, was that joining a monastery was generally optional.
I find myself wondering what motivated Ferdinand to decide that he didn't want any women near his court for a three year period. Like, none at all. No one in his court is even allowed to talk to women. This seems so mind-bogglingly stupid that I can't understand why he would do this. Bad breakup? I've heard that you should take at least fifty percent of the time you were in the relationship to get over it. Maybe he was in a six-year relationship that went south, and he wants to spend the next three years eating ice cream and watching Beaches (that's what guys do after breakups, right?). Maybe he's not sure he likes women and he doesn't want people asking him why he isn't dating. Maybe his ex was super clingy and now he just wants some bro-time, and plans on spending the next three years eating the 16th century equivalent of buffalo wings and watching the 16th century equivalent of Anchorman (Turkey legs and bear baiting?). Who can say?
Quite frankly, I can't really think of any reason a straight guy would choose to only hang out with dudes. This may have preceded the era of cross-gender platonic friendships, but it seems like it would get rull lame, rull fast.
We talked about the tradition of monasticism that may have inspired some of the introductory events in Love's Labour's Lost. People sequester themselves away from the world for a period of time and focus on God and learning. My understanding, however, was that joining a monastery was generally optional.
I find myself wondering what motivated Ferdinand to decide that he didn't want any women near his court for a three year period. Like, none at all. No one in his court is even allowed to talk to women. This seems so mind-bogglingly stupid that I can't understand why he would do this. Bad breakup? I've heard that you should take at least fifty percent of the time you were in the relationship to get over it. Maybe he was in a six-year relationship that went south, and he wants to spend the next three years eating ice cream and watching Beaches (that's what guys do after breakups, right?). Maybe he's not sure he likes women and he doesn't want people asking him why he isn't dating. Maybe his ex was super clingy and now he just wants some bro-time, and plans on spending the next three years eating the 16th century equivalent of buffalo wings and watching the 16th century equivalent of Anchorman (Turkey legs and bear baiting?). Who can say?
 |
| From Left To Right: Biron, Ferdinand, Longaville, Dumain |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)