Description


A curio cabinet of my thoughts on Renaissance literature--in blog form! Huzzah technology!

Sunday, April 8, 2012

The Roaring Girl | Assorted Notes

Hi all. Brief post today. I've been thinking a bit more about The Roaring Girl, and I figured that I would use this time to simply compile my thoughts here. So without further ado, I present to you "The Assorted Musings of an English Major on The Roaring Girl":

Moll's cross-dressing enables her to have an agency that she wouldn't be able to have if she remained a woman, no? This presents the question, "Why does she dress like a woman at all, then?" After all, why would she want to give up this agency? And women in the early modern period did certainly have a lack of agency. Perhaps Moll dresses like a woman on occasion because it allows her to construct an identity for herself which she can also take advantage of. Look at her interaction with Laxton, for instance. Moll is said to be whore because she dresses as a man, yet in dressing like a woman she reminds all that she is, despite the male attire she wears sometimes, a woman. She is able to trick Laxton into thinking he is going to have sex, because she is a both a woman and a rogue, and even when she takes his money, she is acting like a rogue while her dialogue defending women presents herself as a woman, too.

I find it interesting to consider Moll as a central point in the play that bridges a variety of social constructions despite her being denounced by most of them. Moll is wealthy, though she is denounced by the aristocrats presented in the play, and she is a notorious cutpurse, though the other thieves all seem to fear her. Her existence in both spheres allows her to bridge the gap between them, yet she is not a true part of either. Similarly, Moll is "masculine" when she dresses like a man, yet the other "masculine" figures dislike her for being so. Yet when Moll presents herself as "feminine," not only do the other women of the play seem uneasy around her, but the men still denounce her. Moll assumes this awkward space in the play where she exists in all the spheres constructed therein, yet never completely so.

Also, Sebastian and Mary's marriage at the end of the play is thought by some to be an "ideal" wedding. But I have a problem with this thought. Why should we possibly think that their marriage will be ideal when it is surrounded (in the play) by other marriages in which deception and manipulation are commonplace? Further on this point, doesn't Sebastian and Mary's wedding embody this deception and manipulation already? In the opening of the play, Sebastian is only able to see Mary because she is disguised, and the only reason they are able to get married at the end is because of the marriage trick which is performed. I simply cannot think that their marriage will be ideal but rather think that it will continue to embody these ideas of deception and manipulation so that it eventually degrades into a similar state as the other marriages within the play.

Finally, I would like to turn to Moll as she is presented at the end of the play. It has been pointed out that Moll arguably embodies here the epitome of femininity; she is dressed as a bride, which is perhaps the most clearly feminine outfit and the most clearly feminine role a woman may have. Does this scene not undermine all that Moll has railed against throughout the play? She has railed against prostitution and the subjection of women, in particular, but can't both of these be seen at the end of the play? By playing along with Sebastian's plot, she is allowing herself--more specifically, her body, for she displays herself as a woman for all to see--to be prostituted for Sebastian's sake. Further, in playing the bride, she is stepping into a gender that was supposed to be very subordinate to the male sex. And even if it is just an act, only Sebastian, Mary, and Moll know this; the rest of society sees her as his bride, and thus his subordinate. And since there is no costume change (presumably) before the epilogue, this is the last way we see Moll. I must think, then, that in the end she allows herself, whether she realizes so or not, to be made into the very thing which she clearly does not want to become--a subordinate, objectified woman. And that, I think, makes the play a tragic one. Who cares about Sebastian and Mary? They are absent for most the play. Moll is not, and she becomes a very tragic figure in my eyes.

Just some things to think on. Night.

No comments:

Post a Comment