By Arcanix

“It’s a man’s world”.  James Brown’s “biblically chauvinistic” lyrics in his 1966 hit record have always seemed comically ironic.  Consider, for example, that 1966 was also the year that Jean Rhys’s feminist masterpiece, “Wide Sargasso Sea” was first published.  It is a piece of writing that emphatically subverts the concept of male superiority.  Moreover, it achieves this ambition in a style that is distinctly feminine.

The novel is, ostensibly, a meditation on the post-colonial racial dilemma.  The setting is 1834 British-owned Jamaica in the wake of the abolition of slavery.  The protagonist is Antoinette Cosway, a white Creole woman.  As an heiress to her family estate she is obliged to marry an Englishman, Mr Rochester, who legally assumes full ownership of her possessions and inheritance.  In this farcically unfair relationship, Rochester slowly deprives Antoinette of her selfhood.  Conflicted and stricken by rejection, Antoinette is driven to madness.

Rhys is skilled in the art of narrative mode.  She cleverly projects the opposing points of view of Antoinette and Mr Rochester.  Both characters feel trapped in different ways.  Rochester is presented with the prospect of marriage to Antoinette as a consolation prize. (His elder brother is to inherit the entirety of his father’s estate.)  On the other hand Antoinette has no sanctuary from her husband’s derision.  Poignantly, she has no materialistic ambition.  While she is content for Rochester to take ownership of her estate she instead becomes stricken by fear of rejection and the absence of love.

So, from Mr Rochester’s point of view, from the male point of view, we see Antoinette as unreasonable, hysterical and weak.  Mr Rochester is warned (maliciously) that Antoinette’s family has a history of madness.  Ironically, his resultant distrust causes her to descend into the very insanity he is so concerned about.  Her ensuing wretchedness is viewed with contempt by Rochester and he curses having been “forced” to marry her.  We, the readers, know who the true victim is.

Rhys wrote the book as a response to the influential 1847 novel, Jane Eyre.  Contained in that book is an unflattering portrayal of a violent madwoman, Bertha Mason, the first wife of Mr Rochester.  Rhys chooses to give that madwoman a voice of her own.  She paints a heartbreaking portrait of a delicate young woman who is stripped of her identity.  Antoinette’s fear and despair become apparent as her very name is slowly taken away from her.  Her maiden name, Cosway, is changed to Mason when her mother remarries.  Then she takes the name of her husband, Rochester.  Finally Rochester symbolically deprives her of her first name (He renames her Bertha).  Psychologically she is an empty husk.  We begin to understand the sad circumstances that underlie the miserable figure in Jane Eyre.

Hamlet famously lamented: “Frailty, thy name is woman!”  Rhys responds to this misogynistic view by subtly revealing the influence of patriarchal tyranny.  She does this while endowing her heroine with a distinctly feminine tenderness; Antoinette balks at the thought of leaving her poisonous husband.   This is important because it shows male and female readers alike that a shift in expectation is necessary when considering the opposing point of view.  Rhys’s landmark novel is an invaluable asset to the feminist movement.  Thanks to her we can better understand how and why the world belongs to men and women equally.

by Arcanix

Image is everything.  Our nature compels us to associate a meaningful image or perhaps some discreet symbol to a concept for the sake of summary or categorization.  Human nature is also the central theme of William Shakespeare’s play, “King Lear”.  Of his many great literary works, Lear is arguably most deserving of the label, magnum opus, and therefore should be the image or symbol that best encapsulates the work of the “Bard of Avon”.

The notion of choosing one Shakespearian play as a defining image of The Bard is technically absurd.  However, in the case of the literary layman, the quintessential Shakespearian play is typically selected from one of two popular options, either ‘Hamlet’ or ‘Romeo and Juliet’.  Indeed the humble layman may be hard pressed to name any works outside of this esteemed pair.

Far be it for me to denounce the qualities of these two unique and powerful tragedies.  The conjecture remains that they have outstayed their welcome in the realm of public consciousness as the flag bearers of Shakespeare’s worth.  King Lear tends to be nominated as the logical successor to Hamlet among Shakespearian enthusiasts and scholars.  The reason lies in the concept of a transcendental work; the idea that a work of art can speak to us from across the ages.

Lear is both Shakespeare’s bleakest play and also, perhaps, his most insightful.  The titular King Lear is driven to madness by the betrayal of his two, ambitious, elder daughters.  Despite opportunities for redemption, his foolishness tragically renders him unable to tell friend from foe.  The antagonists, meanwhile, achieve their goals through mental and physical brutality, devoid of remorse.  Shakespeare explicitly questions the true meaning of human nature. The relative lack of hope in the play suggests he had a very dark interpretation of that question indeed.  Shakespeare’s despairing thesis is alluded to in the line: “Humanity must perforce prey on itself / Like monsters of the deep.” (IV,ii,54-55)

For centuries Lear was either politically suppressed or performed in modified form.  As with many great works, the value of Lear was not fully appreciated until many years after its composition.  In particular, the 20^th century provided bountiful evidence of the true alignment of man’s nature.  King Lear stands as a testament to Shakespeare’s ability to uncomfortably expose man’s subtle but very real weaknesses.

The greatness of King Lear cannot be denied and yet Hamlet ostensibly remains the centrepiece of Shakespearian canon.  It has been the case for centuries and perhaps deservedly so.  Hamlet is grand in scope and complexity.  It is a work of legendary intrigue and populated by many memorable and tragically realised characters.  Its prestige will not wane but can it match the sobering, personal introspection that Lear does?

Hamlet is the incumbent symbol of Shakespeare’s genius.  It is an image that does not do him justice.  People remain largely unaware of the uncanny achievement that is King Lear.  If we are to evolve as a thoughtful species we need to evolve our sensibilities.  King Lear, in all its doom and gloom, deserves to be the defining image of English writing’s finest exponent.

echo.. echo…. echo……

I hate case differentiation

This is a test post with a normal username. Next I will work on poster identities.

This is a test.  Up the Proteas!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!