Reply to comment

In keeping with the spirit of this class, I respectfully beg to complicate the idea of whether or not this play is feminist. Look at it in the context of the play. If Rhoda had married him, she would have betrayed what she stood for up until then. At that particular historical time period, I’m not sure it was possible for a woman to have it all, career, family, etc. Her decision was also true to the character, which was probably the playwright's first priority. I think that by making Everard, the only male character a sympathetic one, Linda Griffiths was making the choice deliberately painful. Even though it was hard to watch a character I’d grown to like forced to choose between her personal, immediate happiness and her beliefs, I’d like to think she becomes happier in the long-run. In the beginning of the play, she wasn’t sure if she would have the courage Mary showed as a suffragette, and now she knows she does. And she didn't let a man get in the way of her woman friend relationships? Griffiths probably wasn't trying to be a mouthpiece for what feminism means today anyways, or sending any particular message, unless it's that the Victorian feminists were forced to make big sacrifices for future generations. We've come pretty far from type writing school. I was with the dramaturg when he said theory isn't central to the production of a play, and it shouldn't be, because it detracts from the artistic worth in my opinion. Life is complicated, art should be too. Too bad we don't have class anymore to talk about this!