To be honest I am one of the students in the class that are totally missing a lot of meaning in and behind these plays. But I have tried to do my best and I think it just might get better. Why? Well, there was a play titled “The Rover; or, The Banished Cavaliers”. I was very surprised that I enjoyed the play because when I read the introduction it really did not sound too different from the others. The contemporary issues that were presented are indeed forceful and because of this I thought especially I would not appreciate the play but I found that because of the attention towards women having more freedom and expression in the play made it more appealing to me. Especially the character Hellana, who I assumed would be a quite typical nun, but there was “nunthing” nun about her and I liked that and I began to see how the theatre would have played a role in establishing the progress of women’s rights and towards a better equality between men and women.
Although the characters behavior, again, was predictable, there was more substance I found because all had an important part in the play. It did appear that there was an equal stage time for the genders, which both shared similar, if not, the same problems and situations.
Another surprising theme for me was the actual violence including the ‘rapes’ in the play. When the introduction mentioned these I was not impressed at all, but I did state in other posts that the lack of action was basically annoying. So it was fun reading about the fights. The rapes I am still not too sure of, especially the last one, I think I should read it over again. I am missing something. But I think the action in the play was needed, and possibly a better play because the other plays did not have action.
In the beginning I found the play to be very “play like” in respect to its form of speaking to each other as characters and to the audience; however, I noticed, or maybe just my imagination, that later in the play it looked as if the play and characters were developing at the same time. I picked this notion up particularly on page 257, I noted that there was a sudden shift from a speaking form to a more speech like formation in the play. The style seemed more refined and elegant almost because I imagined the characters as being serous and I liked this. I am not a fan of the nonsense that occurs in the play, this one nor the one pervious, but I felt that maybe because the play was complete that possibly the characters themselves were complete.
But again, I am not good at interrupting plays from the eighteenth century. Just a few thoughts.
Mmm, I also thought this play had more substance, even than those tragicomedies which boast two plotlines. This is indeed probably because it was written by a woman… I am a fan, however, of the nonsense =P.
As I said in class, learning to read these texts — like many others — is a process. The fact that you enjoyed this, the third play we have read, implies that you are getting acclimatized.
I like what you say about the importance of women’s roles in the play. You also mention violence: the two themes, in tandom, present some difficulties for us. Just what is Behn saying about women?