thisengland | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

'Nother intro post...

Hi, I'm Nora, a.k.a. After the Rain and Fretful Porpentine, and I'm a grad student at a Large State University in the U.S. (which will probably not remain very anonymous after I've made a few more posts, but let's pretend, OK?) I'm writing my dissertation on English commoners and communities in the history plays (using a rather expansive definition of "history plays" -- I think Merry Wives is going to end up in there, along with Arden of Feversham and The Shoemaker's Holiday, but I've hit most of the conventional ones too).

I'm also getting ready to teach Edward II to undergrads for the very first time, so any advice on how not to shock them over-much is most welcome.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hmm...Edward really isn't all *that* shocking, except for that little bit at the end involving hot pokers...

Honestly, depending on what level of undergrad you're looking at (if it's the 'He crazy!' crowd or not), you might just be able to teach it in a fairly straightforward way. They did have gay people in the sixteenth century. Sort of. Or possibly even just looking at it alongside a play about a 'good' king (by the play's standards, i.e. Henry V) and pointing out the contrasts.

Just throwing ideas about.

Hmm...Edward really isn't all *that* shocking, except for that little bit at the end involving hot pokers...

Keep in mind, this here is the Bible Belt. The last time I taught Intro to Drama, I had a kid who was shocked by Lysistrata (because it had, you know, bad words in it, and actors running around with enormous phalluses).

Or possibly even just looking at it alongside a play about a 'good' king (by the play's standards, i.e. Henry V)

Not an option -- I had the opportunity to teach HV (the person whose class I inherited was going to) but decided not to, since I couldn't see my way clear to teaching it without the rest of the tetralogy. (And given my general stance on Henry, I don't think I could teach it as a "good king" play with a straight face anyhow :)) :: looks around innocently and whistles, waits for the fighting to break out ::

waits for the fighting to break out

Oh, not likely. Unless I decide to be contrarian (mind you, my thing with Henry V is that whatever anybody says about it I feel compelled to take the opposite stance). ;)

Actually I had good luck teaching HV last year, but I did do my share of "here's what happened beforehand" (I gave them a lengthy handout and everything) which I'm not sure worked. As for Edward II, I don't know if I'm much help; when I teach that play (as, someday, I will), I suspect I'll be tempted not to warn them, and watch them squirm when we get to the class discussion. ;)

I will say that, given the extent to which gay rights have been a prominent issue these days, discussing how important homosexuality actually is in the play should be interesting. Since, you know, it's one of those issues where when it turns up the text is automatically about it (though of course that question assumes that sexuality and power are entirely separate issues, which of course they aren't)...

Ahh, the Bible Belt. I'd forgotten. I suppose a king giving half his kingdom to his male lover probably *won't* go over particularly well, then.

And I definitely see what you mean about HV, hence my comment about the play's standards. He's one of those who, if he'd lived long enough, probably would have messed things up. Then again, he managed to die young and *still* mess things up, so there you go.

angevin2 does make a good point about how much homosexuality is a prevailing theme in Edward II. Once Gaveston is out of the picture, it does fade the the background. Spencer isn't *nearly* as flamboyant, and the play really does seem to hinge on the idea of uses and abuses of power. You can't take the sexuality out of the picture--obviously--but you certainly don't need to use it as your central theme.

Spencer isn't *nearly* as flamboyant, and the play really does seem to hinge on the idea of uses and abuses of power. You can't take the sexuality out of the picture--obviously--but you certainly don't need to use it as your central theme.

*nods*

I'd agree with that.

I'd also add that if you are looking at sexuality as a theme in general, it's definitely work looking at the Isabella/Mortimer relationship as well. There's something highly troubling about all of the central sexual relationships in the play. Perhaps it's the power that a male lover of a royal expects to gain which is the issue, and Mortimer's gender is therefore just as problematic as Gaveston's.

That way you're making sexuality important rather than sexual orientation per se, which might be rather good for your students. ;-)

And more in keeping with the period, since they didn't have a concept of sexual orientation (which isn't to say that it didn't exist until we invented it, necessarily). Which would also be a fun and possibly confusing thing to teach... ;)

On an only tangentially-related note, it's quite interesting that in Elizabeth Cary's History of Edward II (written approximately 1627 but not printed until 1680) the more threatening of Edward's favorites isn't Gaveston but Spencer, because he's really with-it politically, whereas Gaveston (to whom Edward is far more passionately attached) is sort of insubstantial really and is dispatched approximately 30 pages into the narrative. So I think it's fairly clear what sort of issues she was interested in. ;)

Of course if you didn't want to avoid shocking your undergrads, you could always show them the Derek Jarman film. Hehehe. ;-)

Gah. That movie shocked me, and I'm not really that easy to shock.

Particularly the death of Kent, and I knew that was coming because I'd read about it. *shudder*

My trouble was that the time I watched it was that it was the time when Jerome Flynn (playing Kent) had a hit singing "Unchained Melody" with his Soldier Soldier co-star Robson Green. So it was both somehow amusing and also far more devastating because the actor was someone I associated with silliness. I've also always had a soft spot for Kent. I mean, who wouldn't?

I have to say though, I'm glad that Tilda Swinton's playing the White Witch in the Chronicles of Narnia...

Oh yeah, I remember watching that for a class when I was just around their age. Good times :)

Hee!

That film was actually my first introduction to Edward II. I was somewhere in the 13-15 range, and I had *no* idea what I was getting into.

Me too, actually. Really quite an eye-opener!

My Mum got it out from the local library for me. I don't think she knew quite what she was getting me into, but it's consistent with my parents' general attitude when I was in my teens, that basically if it was cultured I could watch it, so long as I didn't break the law (so, they wouldn't take me to see La Reine Margot when I was 17, but me watching Edward II at home when I was 13 was absolutely fine...). If it wasn't cultured I definitely *wasn't* allowed to watch anything overage. As a result, I believe that EII was either the first or the second [18] film I ever watched. The other being Bram Stoker's Dracula.

In amongst all the blood and the group sex though, what stood out to me was Edward and Gaveston's parting scene where you had the Annie Lennox song, and how beautifully Andrew Tiernan and Steven Mackingtosh delivered the lines. Didn't hurt that I fancied them both, of course.

Oh, Steven Mackintosh was entirely fanciable. :) I felt so awful for him throughout that entire film. And yes, the parting scene between Edward and Gaveston...even in the text, I just *like* it.

And I adore Margot as well, actually.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only