The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0743 Thursday, 1 November 2007
[1] From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 18:31:26 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews
[2] From: Anna Kamaralli <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 21:46:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 30 Oct 2007 18:31:26 -0400
Subject: 18.0731 Problem Shrews
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews
I can't think of a single instance of Shakespearean reinforcement of an
obnoxious status quo--particularly when that status quo denigrates women
(I'm sure that most readers will have as little difficulty as I in
coming up with comedies as well as tragedies that illustrate this point,
so I will not enumerate the many examples here). I never said or implied
that (either) Kate or Petruchio lived happily ever after because she
learned to accept her place (with her hand beneath her husband's foot).
On the contrary: I don't believe she *ever* accepts that as her place,
and neither do I think that her final speech has any credibility for her
*or* for Petruchio--any more than either of them believes that the sun
is the moon (and vice versa). The point is that, no matter what they
profess, *neither do any of the others*: those who married "docile"
women have learned that their wives are anything but, as the last scene
demonstrates, and though Petruchio has seemingly made the worst bargain
of the lot, he has made the best match. They have come to the dinner
expecting to ridicule him for his imprudence, but it is he who has the
last laugh. As he himself has learned in private, the "shrew" makes a
far better friend than she does an enemy, and once she decides to ally
her strengths with his as his equal, they are an indomitable pair. The
hyperbole of her "submissive female" pose mocks the foolishness of the
men who believe (as Petruchio did) that they can dominate their
wives--and the duplicity of the passive-aggressive females who are no
less strong-willed than Kate, but conceal their autonomy until after the
wedding.
I agree with Larry Weiss that the Sly frame is integrally tied to the
outcome of the main plot, and believe that to read the play as an
exercise in abuse (a la _The Winter's Tale_) is misguided. Comedies have
happy endings--and an ending that sees Kate--the heroine, if the play
has any at all--as beaten and abused into abject submission fails to
resolve its central conflict in a positive way.
The implicit question is "how do you tame a shrew?" The answer--as
ladies of literature going back to Dame Alisoun know only too well--is
"you love her, and accept her as your peer."
Best to all,
Carol Barton
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anna Kamaralli <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007 21:46:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 18.0731 Problem Shrews
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0731 Problem Shrews
I think Donald Bloom's analysis has got us all the way back to square
one. People who think it's the height of comedy to watch an "obnoxious
bitch" get "what she deserves" have never had a problem with the play in
the first place. The problem arises for those who hope that the play
might have more to offer than castration anxiety-propelled
wish-fulfilment. Shakespeare's plays are almost always sympathetic to
being read in a way that supports the status quo, or in a way that
subverts it. If _Shrew_ can only make sense when read as supporting the
status quo, then it is well below par as an example of this writer's work.
All that playing Petruchio as an awfully nice chap does is tell us how
the guys who have all the power like to see themselves. The audience
members having a good time watching this version are only those who are
comfortable with the idea of a man controlling how much a woman sleeps,
what she eats, wears and says. It is an ancient strategy for a person
from the group holding the power to comfort any niggling guilt by
assuring themselves that the person who has no rights is happier when
they know their place, and a better person for it; that the oppression
is "of great benefit" to the oppressed. On the evidence of his other
plays, Shakespeare seems considerably more sophisticated than this.
Regards,
Anna
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
