A new perspective

Just realised how out of date this is (events that inspired te post occured on 21st March this year) but I still think it's worth showing. Let's see how it goes...

This blog hasn't gone the way I planned. I thought I'd enjoy reviewing stuff that people may not usually notice but they haven''t come out as I intended - they're either too harsh, too positive or precisely balanced. What I don't think comes across is how I actually feel about them so I'm just going to write anything that may or not be of interest just so I can commit thoughts that I can't say to other people because they'll get bored or they just won't care (yeah i need to sort that out...) Who knows if anyone's reading this but maybe there's something interesting about reading the word of a young guy who just doesn't really know anything...

Two things have happened lately that have made me consider things differently: I am reading 'The Bloody Chamber (and other stories)' by Angela Carter and experienced a seminar at a university with an unconvential lecturer.
This year, I have been studying Gothic literature and so have felt the need to read every book on the list of suggested texts outside of the three I am studying, which includes 'The Bloody Chamber'

As much as I am enjoying the stories, having studied the Gothic for a while now I can't help spotting the numerous motifs and references which are part of the genre. It made me think how easy it would be if I was studying it for the exam, as they are very blatant - the use of mirrors allow for doppelgangers to be created, the heroines are usually set free from their repressed social circumstances by male dominance, the bloody chamber of the title is used as a reference to the sexual awakenings of virgins and so on. There is stuff of interest but there does seem to me a sense that this is a checklist approach, particularly as Carter applies these to classic fairy tales which are either generally impressive (such as the titular story or eponymous if you want to be technical) or baffling like 'The Tiger's Wife'. The blatant references to other literature also become wearying after constant usage, and this is what worries me.
I cannot say I dislike it, but reading this has made me weary about Gothic literature and just, well, tired - which is a shame because I generally like Gothic literature even if I haven't read 'Frankenstein' yet. Speaking of which...

I recently had a very bizarre day - I found out I had been rejected by a university the day I returned from visiting another.
[I won't name names because anyone who cares about my feelings about them will probably know them already]
Dissapointment was the automatic response but I had enjoyed the open day, even though I was irritated that the sample lecture was on 'Frankenstein' so couldn't contribute as much as I'd liked. No such issues with the seminar as the professor quizzed us on our dedication to literature. I think I passed but frankly he was so entertaining it became irrelevant. The best English teachers I've had are those that I know that I could just talk to for ages about literature and when their passion comes across in their teaching. The most striking thing he said, for me, was when he criticised the use of literary theory - he claimed it made the department a laughing stock and subject to criticisms along the lines of "You're still using Freud? Hey, have you heard? Freud, I know!" It had produced siginificant observations but now he was more interested in hearing students talk about the meaning of the text - what we think the text is about. And that's what we can't do so much.

Now it's true it's still a key part for passing exams but that's all it's really needed for. Rather than just writing about what we think the text is about and how by reflecting the Gothic it is worthy of attention, we have to hit certain notes - there must be a debate (obviously, without debate you can't have progess - how do you know what's right without knowing what's wrong?), we have to talk about language, form and structure (i.e. the book) and we have to adress context (what was important about the period it was written, what's the difference between recepetion at the time and now). Now these are basic things for a literature essay but it doesn't seem like that - it feels like unnecessary information that I need to know to pass the exam. It feels like jumping through hoops, it doesn't feel like I'm enjoying studying the book which I do and I really appreciate the moments when I feel that way.
This is what progression in life is starting to feel like - you can't do what you want to do without going through the beauraucracy, wothout crossing the is and dotting the ts in the way expected from us - how ironic that we study the Gothic with a rational mind.


Phew far too serious, but helpful for me. I'm going to press publish and I'm going to put this out there

The most honest thing I've ever written. Man that makes it sound important.

Reading 'Our Country's Good' by Timberlake Wertenbaker (The Importance of Appearances)

The most remarkable thing about the play is not just that it was purely created from a workshop of actors, using research and their talents to form a brilliant play. It is how this doesn't matter; if you did not know it's origins, you would assume this was just a standard play. Because of it's origins, it gains a unique style. While multi-roling is not uncommon in theatre, the play is about theatre and uses multi-roling in a very specific way. If you look at the original cast list, it is worth noting which actor played each role. For example, concited Wisehammer and  Governor Arthur Phillip, both played by Ron Cook, are arguably the most thoughtful characters in the play even though one is a convict and the other in charge of the colony. Lesley Sharp as , Reverend Johnson, and convicts Meg Long and Mary Brenham is able to explore three different views of sex and, in the case of Mary, how love can change someone. With this technique, the similarites and contrasts provoke interesting viewing

When reading the play though, it is not necessary to imagine multi-roling actors; having them as indivdual characters does not lessen the message that theatre can be a form of redemption. Neither does it remove the shock of the opening scene of convicts being flogged and missing home. It is clear from the start then, who we are meant to feel sympathetic for. The play continues in this blatant way, with simplistic plot and characterisation -  set in the 1780s, a group of convicts sent to Australia try to stage a play, despite some reluctance from officers and themselves. The class differences between the officers and the convicts is so clear, that it easily allows the reader to see the different attitudes towards the treatment of criminals; re-education or punishment? This is not as clear cut an argument as you might suppose, even if Wertenbaker is clearly in favour of the former. Neither argument is completely disproved, but the bias is obvious and so we are inclined to agree with the author, and rightly so.

 The officers may be mainly caricatures, of which many are present in Act One, Scene 6 (The Authorities Discuss the Merits of Theatre) but as such work brilliantly as a contrast to the more developed prisoners. By

The Methuen Drama: Student Edition
that contains
eyeopening revelations
about the origins of the play

having the officers sound so similar, all speaking with formal and complex vocabulary, allows the numerous and different voices of the convicts to become more distinctive especially when they talk to each other:

Phillip: Why wouldn't you say any of this before?
....
Liz: Because it wouldn't have mattered.
Phillip: Speaking the truth?
Liz: Speaking

This is a crucial moment on many levels, most notably because we realise that what Liz says is true. When we see the convicts at their best i.e. as decent human beings, it is when they are interacting with each other and rehearsing 'The Recruiting Officer' The fact that they are willing to perform in the play shows that they clearly have some confidence. Yet as Berkoff said "Naturalism is what you do when you don't know anything else" So perhaps it is not surprising that they soon improve their acting ability as they continue to rehearse. They also act as great moments to see character arcs and developments. As they spend more time on the play their true self comes out, as they realise how pretending to be someone else shows you who you really are - Liz is less judgemental, Wisehammer becomes more impressed by the power of words and Mary is more willing to embrace her love for Ralph.

Ralph, a lowly officer, is the protagonist of the play and so is by far the most believable and complex character. His first scene is dully observing the flogging of a convict but by the end of the play is passionately encouraging his new-found actors to give it their all on opening night. This intially sounds like a positive change in character, and yet in the period this would be seen as a lowly official sinking even lower in social status, hence the comment from the bigoted Major Ross of the second lieutenant: "He wants to be promoted to convict." This is a peculiar juxtaposition, but considering the prejudiced attitude of the officers and the more liberal convicts, this statement is not as fatuous as it first appears.

"And we, this colony of a few hundred will be watching this together, for a few hours we will no longer be despised prisoners and hated gaolers" (p. 20)

We, the audience, meet the demands expected from the officers when they become the audience for the convicts' play - we forget that they are criminals and become interested in their character and personality. Their actions and reasons for being at the colony is not important to us (only in terms of the plot) it is what they do with the time given to them. As we witness the prejudicial and arrogant attitudes of the officers, and the brutality this brings, we support their attempts at rebellion and suffer with them as they are duly punished, especially at the dramatic ending to Act 2 Scene 5. It is not unlikely that Wertenbaker herself shared this emotion when she went to see a play run by prisoners within their environment, an experience that has a clear impact upon the themes and general plot of the play, which are also referenced from the various letters she received from some of the performing prisoners.

A simple play which is very easy to read and well worth trying to see a performance of. I saw a college production of it and was very impressed by the complex issues discussed within this straightforward story. As a drama student, I perhaps appreciated the message about the benefits of theatre more than most. Nevertheless the historical context and the fact that it is based on a true event and real people is more than enough to keep the reader engaged.