Despite the fact that violation of chastity requires male participation, chastity is a burden borne almost exclusively by the female. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal moral code (an exhaustive set of standards originally intended to segregate the Jewish community from the Goddess-worshippers who surrounded them on all sides (Stone) defines chastity as sexual purity – to be chaste is to only have sex with one’s lawful partner for the purpose of procreation. The male is conspicuously absent from stories of sexual misconduct, both as character and as storyteller. This may be due to a common belief that women are beneath the notice of men unless they have in some way violated the Judeo-Christian Patriarchal moral code and must be punished. This is also linked to the practical concern of identifying the trespassing male.
Females bear the physical consequences of the chastity violation on and in their bodies, from bruises to babies. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal system’s moral code shifts the responsibility of chastity solely on the female’s shoulders by identifying her carnal desire as the source of sexual temptation. Thus, she is charged by God Himself to submit to the male and desire only him. Women teach girls, through story and living examples, the dangers of chastity violation and how to avoid it. This reinforces the belief that females are responsible for maintaining chastity and excuses males from accountability for sexual transgressions (although, if identified, they can be held accountable for theft of or damage to another man’s property).
Judeo-Christian Patriarchy is founded on the idea that woman exists to serve man. Man must be the source of life and woman merely the receptacle. According to this rationale, the male God created Adam in His own image to have dominion over all other creations, and then created Eve as a helper/companion/pet. Eve was not deemed worthy of God’s companionship; when God and Adam walked off together, she was left with only the snake as company. Eve was merely an afterthought, as women often are in patriarchal systems, until she is out of her proper place (modestly waiting for Adam, right where he left her).
Before Judeo-Christian Patriarchy took root, woman was considered the source of life. Women had babies; men did not. Prior to the agricultural megarevolution, the link between sex and procreation was hazy; men were needed to ‘open’ women, prepare them to bring forth life, but generation of life was exclusive to females. Female deities were the norm, as were fertility rituals (Stone). Family lines were matrilineal and matrilocal, although males were still dominant. Men and women had separate but equal spheres when men hunted and women foraged. Once agriculture became the primary means of food production and men had to work the fields, they noticed that seeds planted in the earth grew into plants. This lead to the theory that was only disproved within the past century; the male seed contained the new life and the female womb was merely the soil that housed it.
When farmers find weeds among the wheat, they do not blame the soil. This is where the analogy breaks down. The Garden of Eden story illustrates the rationale that Eve (woman) is responsible for sexual awareness and the temptations that arise from that awareness. The Eden story is also the first story that features the absent male. Adam is off communing with God (Eve is not invited) when Eve starts talking to the snake, we must assume. Nowhere in the conversation between Eve and the snake is Adam even mentioned in any way; the snake points out that eating the fruit will make Eve like God and convinces her to take a bite. After she does, Eve calls Adam and offers him a bite. Despite his close relationship with God and his inherent superiority over every other creature, apparently Adam is easily influenced. The shame of nakedness emerges only after Adam takes his bite (there is no way of knowing how much time passed between her bite and his but it cannot have been too long if the shame came to them at the same time). Adam now has to work for his food, the snake has to slither and be trampled by feet, and Eve must suffer the pain of childbirth while she submits to Adam and desires only him.
This link between desire and temptation doesn’t make a lot of sense under close scrutiny. Although it is never stated outright, the implication is that males desire females because females desire males. This is probably based on another set of observations by men learning to grow and raise their food. Female herd animals have periods during which they are ‘in heat’, causing them to excrete pheromones that lure every male of their species to mate with them. No male is turned away by a female in heat. So if a human male wants to mate with a human female, then it must be because she is luring him. The system of Judeo-Christian Patriarchy is designed in part to contain human females ‘in heat’ in order to breed her with the designated male.
Of course the males in question cannot be presumed to control themselves any more than the farm animals. Males, supposedly closest to divinity, are still excused when they violate chastity because the codes are formed by men, who understand that sometimes the penis has a will of its own. This understanding and compassion is denied to women. The unstated implication is that women, being higher life forms than bitches, have some way of controlling when they are in heat. The narrator of Kinkaid’s “Girl” frequently inserts this refrain – “like the slut you are so bent on becoming” – into her pragmatic instructions, implying that the girl is making an effort to lure the sexual attention of males. Women’s desires can be concealed, which makes them easier for men to ignore and/or believe in their nonexistence. It also makes men feel better if they have someone else to blame for their transgressions.
This leaves the female in an untenable position. She must protect herself from the lusts of men because she will bear the burden of the physical consequences, from bruises to babies, if she is unsuccessful. If she is damaged by the chastity violation, then she is less valuable to the man who owns her. Prior to the 18th century, it was perfectly legal for a man to beat a woman to death if she belonged to him. So it didn’t matter if she was raped or consented – she was the one who was punished. She might be killed or banished or shunned. What could she do?
Her mother and other women of the earlier generations instruct young girls, through story and example, how to live within this strict hypocritical code. The narrator of “Girl” warns “you mustn’t speak to the wharf-rat boys, not even to give directions” (2335). The young girl is taught how to make sure to go nowhere alone, how to smile at different people, how to avoid men who look too long, and how to blame herself when they do (2335). The shame code is instilled in the young girls by the older women to protect them. Young girls learn to fear strange men. They develop conflicting feelings about their desires and desirability.
Young girls are charged to be attractive, but only to certain specific males. The code mothers teach young girls is any desire they feel is that of a bitch in heat. This desire is wrong and must be kept contained. If any of it is loosed, it is an invitation to violate chastity. Her desire is powerful and dangerous. In the stories men tell, males are overwhelmed by the allure of females. In the stories women tell, men are animals, ruled by their appetites.
Stories like the Hebrew Bible’s “Garden of Eden” and Jamaica Kinkaid’s “Girl” reinforce the belief that females are responsible for maintaining chastity and excuse male from any accountability for sexual transgressions. Women teach girls, through story and modeling, how to navigate the murky waters of this double standard. The Judeo-Christian Patriarchal system’s moral code shifts the responsibility of chastity solely on the female’s shoulders by subliminally identifying her as a bitch in heat, her carnal desire as the fuel of male sex drives. Thus, she is charged by God Himself to desire only the male who owns her, in order to contain the power of her allure. Females bear the physical consequences of the chastity violation on and in their bodies, from bruises to babies to torture and death. Males have no part in stories of chastity violation until it is time for the woman to be punished, as it is difficult to identify the male if they are not caught in the act. Despite the fact that such a violation cannot occur without male participation, chastity is a burden borne almost exclusively by the female.
Works Consulted
Kinkaid, Jamaica. "Girl." The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Stone, Merlin. When God Was a Woman. 1st. Unknown: Packet, 2006
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
The more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn
Although the majority of my education was based upon current-traditional writing strategies, my experiences as a student, tutee and observer in the Writing Center have convinced me that strategies based on expressivist writing theory are more effective. I learned writing theory this semester. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference. Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics. I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking. Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills and focus on the importance of revision. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading.
Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics. When John Q. Public is exposed to a new set of ideas, he tends to pay attention to the details of interest to him. Next, he forms an opinion based on his new knowledge. Then, as he writes about his opinion or shares it with his friends, his opinion develops into a set of claims. The more he talks about or writes about these claims, the more structured they become, as he adds new evidence to support his claims and defends them against the objections of his audience. Given enough rewrites and/or debates, his final claim may bear little resemblance to his early opinion. This natural progression is mirrored in expressivist strategies like brainstorming, freewriting, and mind maps. If John is forced to structure a paper around the original opinion, to use an outline, gather quotes from source material and compose a rough draft to support this opinion, he will be miserable. By the time he has finished reading the source material, his opinion would have changed. Current-traditional writing strategies force the writer to follow a specific course from start to finish, in order for the powers that be to ensure that the student knows how to form opinions based on research and cite sources correctly. Unfortunately, John may know how to use MLA format, but he is now resistant to the idea of writing research papers, though he may not understand why.
Most of what I learned in public school falls under the current-traditional writing theory. My first three years of school, I was given workbooks for each subject. The teacher would give a lesson, and then assign a workbook page or pages as practice. If a student finished early, he or she was encouraged to work ahead. I finished my first grade workbooks halfway through the school year and was passed to the second grade after winter break. My teachers focused on five part assignments: (1) Ask a question, (2) Answer the question, (3) Cite five sources (three supporting and two opposing the answer), (4) Write a rough draft, and (5) Edit the rough draft before turning in a technically perfect final draft. When asked why we must follow this procedure without deviation, we were told that this was what would be expected of us in college. I learned how to categorize parts of speech, memorized rules of spelling and grammar, and practiced identifying mechanical errors. Content was a separate grade, with little or no guidelines as to what the teacher expected.
Expressivist theory values content over mechanics. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference. As a young fiction writer, I was quite frustrated. Once I learned how to form letters, I wrote at least four stories a week. I gave each one to my teacher, who would smile at me and tell me it was good. Four stories a week for two and a half years and not one single piece of constructive criticism. In third grade, I won a national writing contest under the category of best description in short fiction. From then until my first creative writing class, my fiction was mostly description, as I sharpened my skills in this one area. When I would tell a story aloud, I still focused on my characters and what changed them, but my writing suffered. I am still learning how to write dialogue and action sequences because the two bits of feedback I received were: my stories were good, and the descriptions were what made my stories better than others.
I had a knack for knowing what made a good story. I could hear someone else tell a story that flopped and figure out how to make it better. I could read someone else’s fiction and render first aid. People who took classes with me asked for my help and I gave it. I looked at the writing, told them what I liked (because that’s what I wanted people to tell me), and identified what seemed off, and told them what they could do to fix it. It never occurred to me to teach them how to identify future errors and correct them; I wasn’t completely sure how I was doing it. It is ironic that I made use of Peter Elbow’s theories before I ever read them, let alone understood their basis. I wish I had read Peter Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers in high school. The idea that “a goal for any writer is to control his or her own process and to develop flexibility for approaching any writing task” (Gillespie and Lerner, 13) did not come to me in a flash of insight. The students I worked with asked me how I wrote term papers and I showed them my system, which only worked for me. Most of what I did was intuitive. I was like a singer with perfect pitch, a love of music, and no formal training.
I picked up skill sets from reading every day, writing techniques from my favorite writers, and critical thinking skills from arguing with amateur historians who were too stubborn to let a debate die. I could write journalistic academic papers, write short fiction that read like a travelogue of imaginary places, tell stories like a back-country folklorist, and detect sour notes in other people’s work. I never merged those skills until I took my first writing workshop course. Finally, I learned how to take a piece of writing apart and understand how it was crafted.
Tutors who make use of expressivist theory can help the writer “to focus on the higher-order concerns and put aside editing/proofreading until the very end; and at that very end so that you can help the writer become a more detailed reader of his or her own work” (Gillespie and Lerner, 7). I didn’t learn writing theory until this semester. I was happy learning craftsmanship, something which produced tangible results and honed specific skills. Looking back, I now know that finding the theme in a work of fiction is synonymous to finding the thesis of a term paper and balancing character, plot, setting, and exposition is akin to balancing claims, reasons, evidence, and opinions in a term paper. Discovering variations in writing theory and strategies proved frustrating to me. Why must it be so difficult? Why not find a method or combination of methods and practice them? After all, the point is to teach people how to communicate their thoughts in writing; if current-traditional strategies were unsuccessful, why continue to use them? I needed a teacher’s perspective.
My mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, and two cousins are in the teaching profession. The younger generation gave me essentially the same answer I learned in class. They were required to “teach the tests” if they wanted to keep their jobs. A school’s accreditation rests on those test results; the priority has shifted from teaching the skill to meeting the standard. They have so much they must teach by a certain point; they can’t afford to try anything that deviates from the curriculum guide. My mother-in-law taught current-traditional strategies to second graders for four years. Then, she taught special education grade school classes and used expressivist strategies. They worked. She still uses them with the children who come to her in her role as educational consultant. When I asked her for advice about writing consultation, she said that what worked for her clients was: freewriting the topic, followed by mind mapping based on the freewrite, then research, outline and rough draft. She showed me examples as she told me and this combination made a lot of sense. I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking. Expressivist strategies, like those demonstrated by my mother-in-law, are closely linked to critical thinking skills. I have learned to adjust my priorities when examining other people’s writing, starting with the central idea and working through the organization before looking at style and grammar.
Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills and focus on the importance of revision. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. I was a writing center client before and during this semester. On my first visit, I was a very nervous recent transfer student trying to find out if the paper I wrote was the paper my professor assigned. Something about the way he worded his assignments confused me, and his verbal answers were not much clearer to me. I expressed my anxiety and showed the assignment and my rough draft to the consultant. He was patient and reassuring throughout my nervous speech. He looked through it and told me it looked good to him. My professor found my thesis unclear throughout my eleven page paper. I took the assignment and the paper to a friend, who told me point by point which parts of the paper were disorganized. Looking back, I can understand that the consultant saw a neatly typed, well-worded paper, based on the first two and last two pages. The underlying problem was that the consultant and I had not developed a rapport (Gillespie and Lerner, chapter seven, 91-97), so he missed what my friend (who had the rapport, if not the technical skill) did not.
This semester, my consultants read the papers I showed them. Each of the consultants I visited greeted me, made eye contact, and gave the impression that helping me was important to them. My first consultant, “C”, seemed a lot more relaxed and experienced, but there are many factors I did not know about. She was a teaching assistant for the professor who would grade the paper I brought in for revision. We were approaching the consultation from similar subject positions, as we shared many common goals and perspectives on the topics we reviewed. She and I moved through our time quickly, going from thesis to outline to style in minutes. She gave me a solid piece of advice to carry with me: don’t forget to loop back to the thesis at least every other paragraph.
My second consultant, “M”, was a bit more nervous; I could almost see her reviewing a mental checklist to see if she was leaving anything out. I admire her insight; her first question after names were exchanged was if I was sent by Ms. Strong. Still, we worked just as fast and as well together. Their style difference showed in how each of them pointed out errors in my rough draft. “M” was hands-on, marking the paper with a fine blue line as she spoke to me. She showed me alternatives and we brainstormed, looking closely at specific areas of the text. I felt good about both of my consultations and left each time feeling as though I had accomplished something with my time. My consultants knew how to put writing theory into practice.
Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. When it was time to practice writing consultation, I learned another lesson. Observation and rehearsal is necessary in order to learn how to put theory into practice and it does wonders for one’s confidence. Unfortunately, we are all on the same page, speaking the same language, and it means that the practice is not representative of what we will encounter in the Writing Center as consultants. Practicing peer tutoring with people who were working from the same notes was easy. As much as I enjoyed our exercises in class, I know that the client who walks into the Writing Center with a term paper due in three days may not have a clue why I am harping on the central theme. I worry that I will not be able to reassure them as well as I have reassured people who shared my subject position. It is just as important to establish rapport with clients as it is to make sure they leave with sure knowledge of their next steps. Otherwise, they may leave grounded in style and mechanics, with no other values or guidelines to help them in future writing endeavors.
Although the majority of my education was based upon current-traditional writing strategies, my experiences as a student, tutee and observer in the Writing Center have convinced me that strategies based on expressivist writing theory are more effective. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. Expressivist strategies focus on the importance of revision. If I remember my priorities and concentrate on the central theme and work my way out, then my consultations will be successes for me and my clients I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills. In grade school, I learned mechanics. My techniques in fiction were largely self-taught. Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics I learned writing theory and the underlying values this semester. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference Putting together what I have learned through formal and informal education, personal experience, and professional observation has changed my perspective regarding writing consultation. The overall experience has changed my perspective, but I still believe that working in the Writing Center will be a series of surprises. The more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn.
Work Cited
Gillespie, Paula and Lerner, Neal. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring, Second Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, 2004.
Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics. When John Q. Public is exposed to a new set of ideas, he tends to pay attention to the details of interest to him. Next, he forms an opinion based on his new knowledge. Then, as he writes about his opinion or shares it with his friends, his opinion develops into a set of claims. The more he talks about or writes about these claims, the more structured they become, as he adds new evidence to support his claims and defends them against the objections of his audience. Given enough rewrites and/or debates, his final claim may bear little resemblance to his early opinion. This natural progression is mirrored in expressivist strategies like brainstorming, freewriting, and mind maps. If John is forced to structure a paper around the original opinion, to use an outline, gather quotes from source material and compose a rough draft to support this opinion, he will be miserable. By the time he has finished reading the source material, his opinion would have changed. Current-traditional writing strategies force the writer to follow a specific course from start to finish, in order for the powers that be to ensure that the student knows how to form opinions based on research and cite sources correctly. Unfortunately, John may know how to use MLA format, but he is now resistant to the idea of writing research papers, though he may not understand why.
Most of what I learned in public school falls under the current-traditional writing theory. My first three years of school, I was given workbooks for each subject. The teacher would give a lesson, and then assign a workbook page or pages as practice. If a student finished early, he or she was encouraged to work ahead. I finished my first grade workbooks halfway through the school year and was passed to the second grade after winter break. My teachers focused on five part assignments: (1) Ask a question, (2) Answer the question, (3) Cite five sources (three supporting and two opposing the answer), (4) Write a rough draft, and (5) Edit the rough draft before turning in a technically perfect final draft. When asked why we must follow this procedure without deviation, we were told that this was what would be expected of us in college. I learned how to categorize parts of speech, memorized rules of spelling and grammar, and practiced identifying mechanical errors. Content was a separate grade, with little or no guidelines as to what the teacher expected.
Expressivist theory values content over mechanics. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference. As a young fiction writer, I was quite frustrated. Once I learned how to form letters, I wrote at least four stories a week. I gave each one to my teacher, who would smile at me and tell me it was good. Four stories a week for two and a half years and not one single piece of constructive criticism. In third grade, I won a national writing contest under the category of best description in short fiction. From then until my first creative writing class, my fiction was mostly description, as I sharpened my skills in this one area. When I would tell a story aloud, I still focused on my characters and what changed them, but my writing suffered. I am still learning how to write dialogue and action sequences because the two bits of feedback I received were: my stories were good, and the descriptions were what made my stories better than others.
I had a knack for knowing what made a good story. I could hear someone else tell a story that flopped and figure out how to make it better. I could read someone else’s fiction and render first aid. People who took classes with me asked for my help and I gave it. I looked at the writing, told them what I liked (because that’s what I wanted people to tell me), and identified what seemed off, and told them what they could do to fix it. It never occurred to me to teach them how to identify future errors and correct them; I wasn’t completely sure how I was doing it. It is ironic that I made use of Peter Elbow’s theories before I ever read them, let alone understood their basis. I wish I had read Peter Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers in high school. The idea that “a goal for any writer is to control his or her own process and to develop flexibility for approaching any writing task” (Gillespie and Lerner, 13) did not come to me in a flash of insight. The students I worked with asked me how I wrote term papers and I showed them my system, which only worked for me. Most of what I did was intuitive. I was like a singer with perfect pitch, a love of music, and no formal training.
I picked up skill sets from reading every day, writing techniques from my favorite writers, and critical thinking skills from arguing with amateur historians who were too stubborn to let a debate die. I could write journalistic academic papers, write short fiction that read like a travelogue of imaginary places, tell stories like a back-country folklorist, and detect sour notes in other people’s work. I never merged those skills until I took my first writing workshop course. Finally, I learned how to take a piece of writing apart and understand how it was crafted.
Tutors who make use of expressivist theory can help the writer “to focus on the higher-order concerns and put aside editing/proofreading until the very end; and at that very end so that you can help the writer become a more detailed reader of his or her own work” (Gillespie and Lerner, 7). I didn’t learn writing theory until this semester. I was happy learning craftsmanship, something which produced tangible results and honed specific skills. Looking back, I now know that finding the theme in a work of fiction is synonymous to finding the thesis of a term paper and balancing character, plot, setting, and exposition is akin to balancing claims, reasons, evidence, and opinions in a term paper. Discovering variations in writing theory and strategies proved frustrating to me. Why must it be so difficult? Why not find a method or combination of methods and practice them? After all, the point is to teach people how to communicate their thoughts in writing; if current-traditional strategies were unsuccessful, why continue to use them? I needed a teacher’s perspective.
My mother-in-law, my sister-in-law, and two cousins are in the teaching profession. The younger generation gave me essentially the same answer I learned in class. They were required to “teach the tests” if they wanted to keep their jobs. A school’s accreditation rests on those test results; the priority has shifted from teaching the skill to meeting the standard. They have so much they must teach by a certain point; they can’t afford to try anything that deviates from the curriculum guide. My mother-in-law taught current-traditional strategies to second graders for four years. Then, she taught special education grade school classes and used expressivist strategies. They worked. She still uses them with the children who come to her in her role as educational consultant. When I asked her for advice about writing consultation, she said that what worked for her clients was: freewriting the topic, followed by mind mapping based on the freewrite, then research, outline and rough draft. She showed me examples as she told me and this combination made a lot of sense. I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking. Expressivist strategies, like those demonstrated by my mother-in-law, are closely linked to critical thinking skills. I have learned to adjust my priorities when examining other people’s writing, starting with the central idea and working through the organization before looking at style and grammar.
Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills and focus on the importance of revision. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. I was a writing center client before and during this semester. On my first visit, I was a very nervous recent transfer student trying to find out if the paper I wrote was the paper my professor assigned. Something about the way he worded his assignments confused me, and his verbal answers were not much clearer to me. I expressed my anxiety and showed the assignment and my rough draft to the consultant. He was patient and reassuring throughout my nervous speech. He looked through it and told me it looked good to him. My professor found my thesis unclear throughout my eleven page paper. I took the assignment and the paper to a friend, who told me point by point which parts of the paper were disorganized. Looking back, I can understand that the consultant saw a neatly typed, well-worded paper, based on the first two and last two pages. The underlying problem was that the consultant and I had not developed a rapport (Gillespie and Lerner, chapter seven, 91-97), so he missed what my friend (who had the rapport, if not the technical skill) did not.
This semester, my consultants read the papers I showed them. Each of the consultants I visited greeted me, made eye contact, and gave the impression that helping me was important to them. My first consultant, “C”, seemed a lot more relaxed and experienced, but there are many factors I did not know about. She was a teaching assistant for the professor who would grade the paper I brought in for revision. We were approaching the consultation from similar subject positions, as we shared many common goals and perspectives on the topics we reviewed. She and I moved through our time quickly, going from thesis to outline to style in minutes. She gave me a solid piece of advice to carry with me: don’t forget to loop back to the thesis at least every other paragraph.
My second consultant, “M”, was a bit more nervous; I could almost see her reviewing a mental checklist to see if she was leaving anything out. I admire her insight; her first question after names were exchanged was if I was sent by Ms. Strong. Still, we worked just as fast and as well together. Their style difference showed in how each of them pointed out errors in my rough draft. “M” was hands-on, marking the paper with a fine blue line as she spoke to me. She showed me alternatives and we brainstormed, looking closely at specific areas of the text. I felt good about both of my consultations and left each time feeling as though I had accomplished something with my time. My consultants knew how to put writing theory into practice.
Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. When it was time to practice writing consultation, I learned another lesson. Observation and rehearsal is necessary in order to learn how to put theory into practice and it does wonders for one’s confidence. Unfortunately, we are all on the same page, speaking the same language, and it means that the practice is not representative of what we will encounter in the Writing Center as consultants. Practicing peer tutoring with people who were working from the same notes was easy. As much as I enjoyed our exercises in class, I know that the client who walks into the Writing Center with a term paper due in three days may not have a clue why I am harping on the central theme. I worry that I will not be able to reassure them as well as I have reassured people who shared my subject position. It is just as important to establish rapport with clients as it is to make sure they leave with sure knowledge of their next steps. Otherwise, they may leave grounded in style and mechanics, with no other values or guidelines to help them in future writing endeavors.
Although the majority of my education was based upon current-traditional writing strategies, my experiences as a student, tutee and observer in the Writing Center have convinced me that strategies based on expressivist writing theory are more effective. I want my clients to know that they do have something to write that is worth reading. Expressivist critical processes are designed to enhance confidence and boost self-esteem. I want my clients to leave with the memory of a positive encounter and a paper covered in written reminders of what they can do to refine their claims during the revision process. Expressivist strategies focus on the importance of revision. If I remember my priorities and concentrate on the central theme and work my way out, then my consultations will be successes for me and my clients I learned the craft of writing in workshops that emphasized critical thinking Expressivist strategies are closely linked to critical thinking skills. In grade school, I learned mechanics. My techniques in fiction were largely self-taught. Expressivist strategies mirror how people think, in part because expressivist theory values content over mechanics I learned writing theory and the underlying values this semester. I want to pass on a set of values to writers, guidelines that they can keep for future reference Putting together what I have learned through formal and informal education, personal experience, and professional observation has changed my perspective regarding writing consultation. The overall experience has changed my perspective, but I still believe that working in the Writing Center will be a series of surprises. The more I learn, the more I realize I have yet to learn.
Work Cited
Gillespie, Paula and Lerner, Neal. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring, Second Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, 2004.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Dead White Chickens and Other Examples of Cognitive Dissonance in Kayla Williams’ Biography Love My Rifle More Than You
“We go on. Suddenly they’re waving dead white chickens. None of us have ever encountered anyone waving a dead white chicken. None of us knows what it means. Are they offering us something to eat? Are they making an obscure reference to something about Americans, the United States, our invasion? Is it a gesture of resistance or of mockery? What the hell is going on?”(95). Kayla Williams had a more difficult job than she understood. She was trained as a linguistic specialist and sent to Iraq, ostensibly to listen to broadcasts and pass along anything relevant and translate when the Army needed to talk to the locals. Cognitive dissonance is present when two cognitions (pieces of knowledge, such as ‘apples are fruit’ or ‘my favorite color is blue’ or ‘the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776’) are in conflict. Translation is an example of cognitive dissonance – one has to think in two languages at once. But how do you translate dead white chickens? Williams described the incident in terms of cognitive dissonance; these smiling people waved dead white chickens to show support, to mock the troops, to show evidence of chemical warfare, to invite them for dinner…believing all of that at once prompted half of the convoy to laugh hysterically. Although Williams recognized this example of cognitive dissonance, her biography is full of examples whose proximate cause is the very structure and protocol of the Untied States Military.
My favorite example concerns the deployment orders. Williams was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Campbell, waiting for orders to deploy to Iraq. As Williams recounted:” “Quit lying to us! A duffel bag with all our extra gear has already gone to the Middle East. We’ve been told to pack personal hygiene equipment for six months! We went to Wal-Mart and spent three hundred dollars on binoculars, batteries, cameras, books, and a solar shower! Extra fucking everything! And you’re trying to tell us we’re not going anywhere?” “Roger that. There is no deployment order for the division.” Then the deployment order for the division was announced on CNN” (62). When my ex-husband was in the Army, he was supply personnel stationed at Fort Bragg, one of the rapid-deployment stations. I knew he was on his way to Haiti for Operation: Restore Hope seven hours before he did (officially). So, in direct opposition to the lesson in critical thinking Williams and her fellow soldiers received in college, they are told to disbelieve the evidence of their own senses and experience in favor of what those with higher rank tell them.
According to the cognition of Chain of Command, those of higher rank are supposed to protect and defend those under their command with their superior self-discipline (read – never show emotion), training and experience. This cognition pairs with the cognition that one must always respect rank. Williams encountered dissonance when she served under a series of ranking officers who were incompetent, insensitive and too sensitive, and did not care about the soldiers they were theoretically supposed to protect. The military had a built-in way of insulting those of higher rank – “retreat into my shell of protocol” (91). Williams, a woman who has shown herself to be a caring and sensitive individual, resolved her cognitive dissonance in this regard by accepting the cognition that ranking officers should have the described traits in order to protect ‘their soldiers’ and rejecting the idea that all officers deserve their rank. When she retreated to protocol with SSG Moss and Moss cried, Williams’ account reveals the change in attitude forced by the necessary resolution: “The Bitch. She’s crying in front of a subordinate, and I have even less respect for her now, if that’s possible. You never cry in front of a subordinate” (91). In other instances, Williams had a friend, Zoe, whose commanding officer fled to safety before ordering his soldiers to safety, an act which resulted in a letter of reprimand for the officer (245). SSG Moss continued to be incompetent in ways that could get Williams and her team killed. A later ranking officer accused Williams of being angry with her because she did not care about learning about the technical aspects and equipment of the job, most of which relied on those aspects and equipment (267). This was acceptable to the military, which had stationed this officer in Iraq when she did not even know where Iraq was located on a world map.
When she wasn’t dealing with officers whose ignorance was potentially lethal to her and her team, Williams experienced cognitive dissonance in her role as translator. She accompanied soldiers on hunts for weapons and had to simultaneously reassure the terrified locals and the twitchy soldiers that everything was okay. She told the locals that the scary soldiers with rifles pointed at them were, in fact, here to protect them but must also hunt for hidden weapons. She told the soldiers that the locals were peaceful people and the shouting and stepping close were part of Arabic culture. When traveling, people were potentially allies and enemies at once. Common trash could be a cover for explosive devices. Prisoners might be harmless natives or terrorists – the Geneva Conventions need not apply.
At least Williams could count on her fellow soldiers for support and mutual respect, right? “Bros before hos” is the rule, indicating loyalty to the team ahead of loyalty to outsiders. The problem is that it only works if the team one relies upon ignores your gender. Williams spent time with other units in her capacity as translator. They showed her the same respect they showed their own team because she demonstrated skills that helped them to do their job, she did not complain, and she treated them as though they were all boys together. Oddly, this changed when she wore mascara to a concert. Suddenly, the others realized she was female. They started to refer to her breasts and stopped using her name. These same people she was so comfortable with started to make rape jokes. She felt vulnerable for the first time because the cognition that female equals slut, bitch, or ho shattered the cognitions that she was a friend and had worth as a Specialist. The worst part for me when reading this text was when Williams recounted the incident wherein a fellow soldier attempts to molest her. “The next morning I’m writing in my journal about the incident with Rivers when he appears. “Listen, Kayla,” he says, all sheepish. Looking anywhere but at me. “I apologize. I was completely out of line back there. I hope there are no hard feelings. It was dumb, and it was wrong. So I hope you can, you know, accept my apology on this.” And just like that, he’s gone again. This throws me even more. I have all this righteous anger built up. And – wham! An apology? It feels like cheating. Like: This guy steps way over the line, and now he gets to be able to have it all just go away. Because now he’s sorry? (208). Williams unofficially reported the incident and Rivers was reassigned, but he told others that she begged him to let her suck his cock and when he refused (on the grounds that he was engaged), she was terribly disappointed.
She kept her distance from everyone after that. How can you argue with that position? It is one of the biggest, clearest examples of cognitive dissonance. A soldier stationed in a war zone does not turn down an offer of any kind of sex with a willing female – period. A guy who turns down sex due to a girlfriend back home is probably gay or impotent, according to military culture. A female who wanted to have sex of any kind does not have to rely on one person to give her sex – she has hundreds to choose from. So, how does this rumor of rejection gain general acceptance? How does someone who is free and easy with the sex elude a ‘bad reputation’ while someone who behaves becomes the pariah?
By the time Kayla Williams returned home, she had built up so much cognitive dissonance, she could not relate to anyone who did not share her subject position (military stationed in Iraq). Civilian life no longer made sense. Other veterans did not share her specific experience, so she was sure they had suffered worse. At the close of her narrative, she shared housing with two other soldiers who had been stationed in Iraq. She wrote her story to gain perspective. I hope it worked.
Work Cited
2005. Williams, Kayla. Love My Rifle More than You. Norton.
My favorite example concerns the deployment orders. Williams was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, stationed at Fort Campbell, waiting for orders to deploy to Iraq. As Williams recounted:” “Quit lying to us! A duffel bag with all our extra gear has already gone to the Middle East. We’ve been told to pack personal hygiene equipment for six months! We went to Wal-Mart and spent three hundred dollars on binoculars, batteries, cameras, books, and a solar shower! Extra fucking everything! And you’re trying to tell us we’re not going anywhere?” “Roger that. There is no deployment order for the division.” Then the deployment order for the division was announced on CNN” (62). When my ex-husband was in the Army, he was supply personnel stationed at Fort Bragg, one of the rapid-deployment stations. I knew he was on his way to Haiti for Operation: Restore Hope seven hours before he did (officially). So, in direct opposition to the lesson in critical thinking Williams and her fellow soldiers received in college, they are told to disbelieve the evidence of their own senses and experience in favor of what those with higher rank tell them.
According to the cognition of Chain of Command, those of higher rank are supposed to protect and defend those under their command with their superior self-discipline (read – never show emotion), training and experience. This cognition pairs with the cognition that one must always respect rank. Williams encountered dissonance when she served under a series of ranking officers who were incompetent, insensitive and too sensitive, and did not care about the soldiers they were theoretically supposed to protect. The military had a built-in way of insulting those of higher rank – “retreat into my shell of protocol” (91). Williams, a woman who has shown herself to be a caring and sensitive individual, resolved her cognitive dissonance in this regard by accepting the cognition that ranking officers should have the described traits in order to protect ‘their soldiers’ and rejecting the idea that all officers deserve their rank. When she retreated to protocol with SSG Moss and Moss cried, Williams’ account reveals the change in attitude forced by the necessary resolution: “The Bitch. She’s crying in front of a subordinate, and I have even less respect for her now, if that’s possible. You never cry in front of a subordinate” (91). In other instances, Williams had a friend, Zoe, whose commanding officer fled to safety before ordering his soldiers to safety, an act which resulted in a letter of reprimand for the officer (245). SSG Moss continued to be incompetent in ways that could get Williams and her team killed. A later ranking officer accused Williams of being angry with her because she did not care about learning about the technical aspects and equipment of the job, most of which relied on those aspects and equipment (267). This was acceptable to the military, which had stationed this officer in Iraq when she did not even know where Iraq was located on a world map.
When she wasn’t dealing with officers whose ignorance was potentially lethal to her and her team, Williams experienced cognitive dissonance in her role as translator. She accompanied soldiers on hunts for weapons and had to simultaneously reassure the terrified locals and the twitchy soldiers that everything was okay. She told the locals that the scary soldiers with rifles pointed at them were, in fact, here to protect them but must also hunt for hidden weapons. She told the soldiers that the locals were peaceful people and the shouting and stepping close were part of Arabic culture. When traveling, people were potentially allies and enemies at once. Common trash could be a cover for explosive devices. Prisoners might be harmless natives or terrorists – the Geneva Conventions need not apply.
At least Williams could count on her fellow soldiers for support and mutual respect, right? “Bros before hos” is the rule, indicating loyalty to the team ahead of loyalty to outsiders. The problem is that it only works if the team one relies upon ignores your gender. Williams spent time with other units in her capacity as translator. They showed her the same respect they showed their own team because she demonstrated skills that helped them to do their job, she did not complain, and she treated them as though they were all boys together. Oddly, this changed when she wore mascara to a concert. Suddenly, the others realized she was female. They started to refer to her breasts and stopped using her name. These same people she was so comfortable with started to make rape jokes. She felt vulnerable for the first time because the cognition that female equals slut, bitch, or ho shattered the cognitions that she was a friend and had worth as a Specialist. The worst part for me when reading this text was when Williams recounted the incident wherein a fellow soldier attempts to molest her. “The next morning I’m writing in my journal about the incident with Rivers when he appears. “Listen, Kayla,” he says, all sheepish. Looking anywhere but at me. “I apologize. I was completely out of line back there. I hope there are no hard feelings. It was dumb, and it was wrong. So I hope you can, you know, accept my apology on this.” And just like that, he’s gone again. This throws me even more. I have all this righteous anger built up. And – wham! An apology? It feels like cheating. Like: This guy steps way over the line, and now he gets to be able to have it all just go away. Because now he’s sorry? (208). Williams unofficially reported the incident and Rivers was reassigned, but he told others that she begged him to let her suck his cock and when he refused (on the grounds that he was engaged), she was terribly disappointed.
She kept her distance from everyone after that. How can you argue with that position? It is one of the biggest, clearest examples of cognitive dissonance. A soldier stationed in a war zone does not turn down an offer of any kind of sex with a willing female – period. A guy who turns down sex due to a girlfriend back home is probably gay or impotent, according to military culture. A female who wanted to have sex of any kind does not have to rely on one person to give her sex – she has hundreds to choose from. So, how does this rumor of rejection gain general acceptance? How does someone who is free and easy with the sex elude a ‘bad reputation’ while someone who behaves becomes the pariah?
By the time Kayla Williams returned home, she had built up so much cognitive dissonance, she could not relate to anyone who did not share her subject position (military stationed in Iraq). Civilian life no longer made sense. Other veterans did not share her specific experience, so she was sure they had suffered worse. At the close of her narrative, she shared housing with two other soldiers who had been stationed in Iraq. She wrote her story to gain perspective. I hope it worked.
Work Cited
2005. Williams, Kayla. Love My Rifle More than You. Norton.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Shylock, In His Own Words
William Shakespeare wrote a play with a Jewish moneylender as its nominal villain. It is unknown as to whether Shakespeare had any access to Jewish people, Jewish history, or the laws as pertained to Jewish people. This moneylender, Shylock, has only three hundred sixty lines in The Merchant of Venice. He only appears in five of the play’s twenty scenes. Yet, Shylock remains one of Shakespeare’s most compelling characters. He falls short of the satiric comic villain and also fails to win complete sympathy. He is the quintessential outsider, an easy target for bullies; his attitude of contempt makes it unlikely that other Venetian citizens would stand up for him. Shylock would rather see Antonio dead at his hand than gain three times the money he was owed, which further alienates him from the other characters. Pain motivates his need for revenge. Shylock openly hates Christians in general, and Antonio in particular; he feels far more sinned against than sinning. In his own words, Shylock shares the pain and grief and fear that fuel his hatred toward Antonio. Antonio’s anti-Semitism and hypocrisy is balanced by Shylock’s honest forthright contempt; Shylock’s alien status allows him to see the contradictions between Christian values and practices.
Modern scholars must speculate as to what Shakespeare knew about Jews, what sources he drew upon to create the usurer who dared demand a pound of flesh as payment on a debt. The expulsion of Jews from England occurred three hundred years before Shakespeare’s time. Christopher Marlowe, his main rival, wrote The Jew of Malta, the story of an evil Jew who actively plots against his Christian neighbors. Marlowe and Shakespeare may have witnessed (or at least heard about) the trial and execution of Lopez, a Jewish physician accused of poisoning Queen Elizabeth. According to eyewitness accounts, the crowd treated the execution of Lopez as a comedy, laughing at his last words. Gratiano, a character who serves as comedy relief in The Merchant of Venice, delivers a cruel punchline to the judge’s verdict: “In christening shalt thou have two godfathers:/ Had I been judge, thou shouldst have had ten more,/ To bring him to the gallows, not the font “(4.1. ll.414-416). Was the character of Gratiano based on Shakespeare’s (firsthand or secondhand) impression of the crowd at the gallows, many of whom were groundlings at the Globe Theatre? The animosity shown by Gratiano does not seem to surprise any of the characters, including Shylock.
This is understandable, as there seems to be no character in The Merchant of Venice who does not harbor prejudice. The belief that others were inferior due to circumstances of their birth was widely accepted regardless of creed or class.
Modern scholars must speculate as to what Shakespeare knew about Jews, what sources he drew upon to create the usurer who dared demand a pound of flesh as payment on a debt. The expulsion of Jews from England occurred three hundred years before Shakespeare’s time. Christopher Marlowe, his main rival, wrote The Jew of Malta, the story of an evil Jew who actively plots against his Christian neighbors. Marlowe and Shakespeare may have witnessed (or at least heard about) the trial and execution of Lopez, a Jewish physician accused of poisoning Queen Elizabeth. According to eyewitness accounts, the crowd treated the execution of Lopez as a comedy, laughing at his last words. Gratiano, a character who serves as comedy relief in The Merchant of Venice, delivers a cruel punchline to the judge’s verdict: “In christening shalt thou have two godfathers:/ Had I been judge, thou shouldst have had ten more,/ To bring him to the gallows, not the font “(4.1. ll.414-416). Was the character of Gratiano based on Shakespeare’s (firsthand or secondhand) impression of the crowd at the gallows, many of whom were groundlings at the Globe Theatre? The animosity shown by Gratiano does not seem to surprise any of the characters, including Shylock.
This is understandable, as there seems to be no character in The Merchant of Venice who does not harbor prejudice. The belief that others were inferior due to circumstances of their birth was widely accepted regardless of creed or class.
- Shylock is a professional moneylender.
- Shylock is an active parent.
- Shylock has strong ties to the Jewish community.
- Shylock is beaten, insulted and spat upon on a regular basis by Antonio and people who follow him.
- Shylock loses his business to Antonio.
- Shylock loses his daughter to Lorenzo, a Christian and known companion of Antonio.
- Shylock loses his personal savings because Christians incite his daughter to steal from him as she leaves.
- Shylock has one opportunity to have his revenge without repercussions.
- His need for revenge cost him half of his material possessions, his livelihood, and his ties to the Jewish community.
Friday, January 7, 2011
“So Musical a Discord” – Anachronisms in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream
A Midsummer Night’s Dream must contain the most culturally and chronologically diverse characters in fiction. “The musical discord holds together four different modes of representation: Theseus and Hippolyta, from classical legend; the four young lovers, from every place and every time; Bottom and his fellow English rustics; the fairies, who in themselves are madly eclectic. Titania is Ovid’s alternate name for Diana, while Oberon comes out of Celtic romance, and Puck or Robin Goodfellow is English folklore” (Bloom 166). These characters are unaware of one another at the opening of the play, but soon become involved in the plots of others. Shakespeare could not possibly write a play interweaving such diverse characters and not have anachronisms throughout the work. What makes Dream one of the greatest plays ever written is Shakespeare’s ability to make these anachronisms seem unimportant. How did he manage this theatrical feat? What inspired him to write Dream, one of the three plays out of thirty-nine (the other two are The Tempest and Love’s Labor Lost) in which Shakespeare does not use a primary source?
According to Bullfinch’s Age of Fable, Theseus quietly wed Hippolyta and left her after the birth of their son Hippolytus. Theseus later had a public wedding in Athens, to Phaedra. Hippolyta and her Amazons crashed the wedding to kill the entire wedding party, but Hippolyta was killed in that battle. That might help explain why Hippolyta’s lines can be read to imply hostility or eagerness: “Four days will quickly steep themselves in night;/Four nights will quickly dream away the time”(1.1:7-9). To further complicate matters, Titania is a synonym for Diana, the Roman name for Artemis, goddess of the Moon, the Hunt, and patron goddess of the Amazons. As Queen of the Amazons, Hippolyta would have also been her High Priestess. If Titania had grounds for jealousy, it would mean that the Amazon Queen had dared to touch the consort of her patron goddess. Any affair Titania had with Theseus would have had to happen before Oberon was born, as he is the offspring of Julius Caesar and Morgan le Fay. Would they care, these theatergoers, that most of the histories of the characters contradicted each other?
Part of his success is no doubt due to the obscurity of some of the details. Theseus tells Hermia “”if you yield not to your father’s choice,/You can endure the livery of a nun,/For aye to be in shady cloister mewed”(1.1:71-73).Who would know that cloisters were unheard of in an Athens that predated Roman rule and Christianity? Shakespeare concentrated on universal constants to hold the loyalty of his audience. Theatergoers knew (or could imagine) the pain of unrequited love, as well as the thrill of forbidden love. They could also relate to the fear and confusion felt by the rude mechanicals, even as they laughed at Bottom’s predicament. Shakespeare also took care to craft short, fast-paced scenes, shifting from one pair or set of character to another pair of set before the audience would have time to notice any contradictions.
Shakespeare spent a lifetime honing his craft by watching audiences and giving them what they craved. Scholars must speculate as to his motives and interior landscape; he did not leave behind written records of his thoughts. The timing of certain events and successive plays can certainly invite speculation as to the origin and inspiration of William Shakespeare’s works. In the first chapter of the Pulitzer Prize finalist text Will in the World, Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt notes the similarities between elements a series of performances commissioned by Leicester for Queen Elizabeth and elements in Dream. The obvious connection is the description of a platform Leicester built for Queen Elizabeth to view the leap of a mechanical dolphin, later referenced in Dream: “Thou rememb’rest/Since once I sat upon a promontory,/And heard a mermaid on a dolphin’s back”(2.1:148-150). Shakespeare watched the queen watching the performances, a mixture of classical poetry and rustic folktales, with slapstick comedies and dancing. It was a mass confusion, not allowing complete concentration on any one part; at one point, several acts physically collided. Everyone was surprised when Elizabeth requested a repeat performance. The second performance was smoother, well received by the audience, which included representatives from most walks of life. Shakespeare learned that a successful performance must include something for everyone.
Philip Henslowe, a theatrical agent/owner and contemporary of Shakespeare, kept meticulous records of theatrical performances. In his diary, he notes the performance of a play, Huon of Burdocize, on December 28, 1593. This play was based on the story of Huon of Bordeaux, recounted in the Legends of Charlemagne collected by Thomas Bullfinch. Huon, a knight who inadvertently killed the eldest son of Charlemange, meets the Faerie King Oberon while riding through the woods on a quest. Oberon, the first fairy godfather, takes an interest in Huon, gives him gifts and valuable advice. (In this tale, Oberon is portrayed as the son of Julius Caesar and Morgan le Fay.) Oberon even brings Huon to Avalon and abdicates in his favor, declaring him ruler over the ‘faerie folk’. Faeries rarely give birth, so the issue of succession is often settled by adoption. King Arthur objects, as he believes that if any human should rule Avalon, it should be Arthur; Huon offers to be co-ruler, thus restoring the peace. Oberon retracts his threats to turn Arthur into a werewolf and allows the co-rulership to stand. Shakespeare wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream within three years of the opening of Huon.
Shakespeare knew classical gods and heroes held a timeless appeal. In his day, classical and medieval morality plays were often recycled. He understood the power of folk tales, something he would have seen at least four times per year in Stratford, never diminished by repetition. Puck, a figure straight out of English folklore, would be an alluring character to English audiences. He understood the widespread appeal of physical comedy. The rude mechanicals and their play-within-a-play would hold the attention of the groundlings. He knew that there must be at least one character who speaks for the audience, in plain language; Bottom serves that purpose in Dream. He may well have learned from the performance of Huon that an audience would ignore or forgive anachronistic flaws if the story was sufficiently entertaining. Shakespeare succeeded in crafting a plot so compelling that it not only made the flaws irrelevant, it inspired poets and writers for more than four hundred years.
Works Consulted
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare – The Invention of the Human. Berkley Publishing Group, New York, 1998.
Bullfinch, Thomas. Age of Fable. World Publishing Company, 1965.
Bullfinch, Thomas. Age of Chivalry and Legends of Charlemagne. World Publishing Company, 1965.
Greenblatt, Stephen, et. al. The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: Norton, 1997.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2004.
According to Bullfinch’s Age of Fable, Theseus quietly wed Hippolyta and left her after the birth of their son Hippolytus. Theseus later had a public wedding in Athens, to Phaedra. Hippolyta and her Amazons crashed the wedding to kill the entire wedding party, but Hippolyta was killed in that battle. That might help explain why Hippolyta’s lines can be read to imply hostility or eagerness: “Four days will quickly steep themselves in night;/Four nights will quickly dream away the time”(1.1:7-9). To further complicate matters, Titania is a synonym for Diana, the Roman name for Artemis, goddess of the Moon, the Hunt, and patron goddess of the Amazons. As Queen of the Amazons, Hippolyta would have also been her High Priestess. If Titania had grounds for jealousy, it would mean that the Amazon Queen had dared to touch the consort of her patron goddess. Any affair Titania had with Theseus would have had to happen before Oberon was born, as he is the offspring of Julius Caesar and Morgan le Fay. Would they care, these theatergoers, that most of the histories of the characters contradicted each other?
Part of his success is no doubt due to the obscurity of some of the details. Theseus tells Hermia “”if you yield not to your father’s choice,/You can endure the livery of a nun,/For aye to be in shady cloister mewed”(1.1:71-73).Who would know that cloisters were unheard of in an Athens that predated Roman rule and Christianity? Shakespeare concentrated on universal constants to hold the loyalty of his audience. Theatergoers knew (or could imagine) the pain of unrequited love, as well as the thrill of forbidden love. They could also relate to the fear and confusion felt by the rude mechanicals, even as they laughed at Bottom’s predicament. Shakespeare also took care to craft short, fast-paced scenes, shifting from one pair or set of character to another pair of set before the audience would have time to notice any contradictions.
Shakespeare spent a lifetime honing his craft by watching audiences and giving them what they craved. Scholars must speculate as to his motives and interior landscape; he did not leave behind written records of his thoughts. The timing of certain events and successive plays can certainly invite speculation as to the origin and inspiration of William Shakespeare’s works. In the first chapter of the Pulitzer Prize finalist text Will in the World, Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt notes the similarities between elements a series of performances commissioned by Leicester for Queen Elizabeth and elements in Dream. The obvious connection is the description of a platform Leicester built for Queen Elizabeth to view the leap of a mechanical dolphin, later referenced in Dream: “Thou rememb’rest/Since once I sat upon a promontory,/And heard a mermaid on a dolphin’s back”(2.1:148-150). Shakespeare watched the queen watching the performances, a mixture of classical poetry and rustic folktales, with slapstick comedies and dancing. It was a mass confusion, not allowing complete concentration on any one part; at one point, several acts physically collided. Everyone was surprised when Elizabeth requested a repeat performance. The second performance was smoother, well received by the audience, which included representatives from most walks of life. Shakespeare learned that a successful performance must include something for everyone.
Philip Henslowe, a theatrical agent/owner and contemporary of Shakespeare, kept meticulous records of theatrical performances. In his diary, he notes the performance of a play, Huon of Burdocize, on December 28, 1593. This play was based on the story of Huon of Bordeaux, recounted in the Legends of Charlemagne collected by Thomas Bullfinch. Huon, a knight who inadvertently killed the eldest son of Charlemange, meets the Faerie King Oberon while riding through the woods on a quest. Oberon, the first fairy godfather, takes an interest in Huon, gives him gifts and valuable advice. (In this tale, Oberon is portrayed as the son of Julius Caesar and Morgan le Fay.) Oberon even brings Huon to Avalon and abdicates in his favor, declaring him ruler over the ‘faerie folk’. Faeries rarely give birth, so the issue of succession is often settled by adoption. King Arthur objects, as he believes that if any human should rule Avalon, it should be Arthur; Huon offers to be co-ruler, thus restoring the peace. Oberon retracts his threats to turn Arthur into a werewolf and allows the co-rulership to stand. Shakespeare wrote A Midsummer Night’s Dream within three years of the opening of Huon.
Shakespeare knew classical gods and heroes held a timeless appeal. In his day, classical and medieval morality plays were often recycled. He understood the power of folk tales, something he would have seen at least four times per year in Stratford, never diminished by repetition. Puck, a figure straight out of English folklore, would be an alluring character to English audiences. He understood the widespread appeal of physical comedy. The rude mechanicals and their play-within-a-play would hold the attention of the groundlings. He knew that there must be at least one character who speaks for the audience, in plain language; Bottom serves that purpose in Dream. He may well have learned from the performance of Huon that an audience would ignore or forgive anachronistic flaws if the story was sufficiently entertaining. Shakespeare succeeded in crafting a plot so compelling that it not only made the flaws irrelevant, it inspired poets and writers for more than four hundred years.
Works Consulted
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare – The Invention of the Human. Berkley Publishing Group, New York, 1998.
Bullfinch, Thomas. Age of Fable. World Publishing Company, 1965.
Bullfinch, Thomas. Age of Chivalry and Legends of Charlemagne. World Publishing Company, 1965.
Greenblatt, Stephen, et. al. The Norton Shakespeare Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: Norton, 1997.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)