Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Lear's Daughters
I enjoyed the production of Lear’s Daughters. I didn’t think it was trying to be controversial simply for the sake of being controversial. I thought it was trying to respond to a play that has a lot of influence over all of Western literature, yet which has some questionable depictions/ characterizations of women. I didn’t really find anything shocking about the play. This might be because I recently finished a project about rape in the Congo, where women are getting gang raped and getting AK 47s shot into their vaginas and have to walk around with feces and urine pouring down their legs and are then shunned by their husbands and other villagers, but in comparison a character having an abortion in a play just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. How do you respond to a play that has some misogynist tendencies when you live in a world where women are so undervalued that this kind of treatment is acceptable? It could be argued that “Shakespeare” has nothing to do with anything I’ve just said, but I think that “Shakespeare” is more than just a great writer. “Shakespeare” is an institution that can be used for homogenization, for legitimating the views of whoever (and by whoever I mean people who have traditionally been in power) it is that has decided that he is unquestionably the best. (After the play some people were saying that King Lear is not only the greatest literary production of the West, but of all humanity; does this not bother anybody else?) After all, “Shakespeare,” however great he is, is nonetheless from the point of view of an English male living in the 16th century, and therefore, no matter how “ahead of his time” he was, runs the risk of being both patriarchal and imperialist. I think Lear’s daughters, with all its screaming women and barely there Kings, is a good thing for “Shakespeare” in general because it keeps it from “weigh[ing] like a nightmare on the brains of the living” – it keeps it from being oppressive and from being irrelevant. I mean, if you are not an English major or interested in storytelling in any way, why would you read Shakespeare? And how is someone in South Africa supposed to view Henry V? Would they feel patriotic after listening to his heroic speeches? I think Lear’s Daughters and other plays of the same vein (like Paula Vogel’s Desdemona) make Shakespeare matter: they breathe life into material that can sometimes seem (to me, anyway) dated and wholly unconnected to my life. I also think that academics have a tendency to turn “Shakespeare” into some kind of metanarrative on par with Christianity, and I like that the play challenges that authority.
Labels:
feminism,
Lear's Daughters,
review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a good apology for "Lear's Daughters," and it's important to remember the intense literary, cultural, and even political force Shakespeare is and has been for many hundreds of years. And the critiques of Lear are not unfair, I would say, as it is a play that has many layers of misogyny on it. That's not to say that the play as a whole is misogynistic (though one could make that argument) but that we can understand a response like "Lear's Daughters."
Perhaps we put Shakespeare on a pedestal. He was a brilliant writer, but it isn't as if he isn't guilty of misogyny, racism, and other forms of prejudice, as we've seen in so many of his other plays.
It is in our first instinct to reject such critiques of our great writers, but perhaps this is how we develop a better understanding of them.
Post a Comment