At This Stage: For hundreds of years Shakespeare’s plays have dominated the theater industry. Scholars, conspiracy theorists, and flat out fanatics have speculated on the playwrights identity for quite some time now. But was Shakespeare really queer? And does it even matter? It is nearly impossible to say for sure. Given how little historians have been able to document on the life of William Shakespeare, we are not even sure of his exact date of birth. But what we have for sure are countless dirty jokes, a fury of queer desire, and gender-fluid romance strung between 37 plays and 154 sonnets, half of which are explicitly addressed to men (Arden Shakespeare Complete Works). It’s all things lude, crude, and lascivious. This article will provide a queer reading of Shakespeare’s most popular plays and fan favorite characters. Who is the gayest in the canon? And what does this say about the man himself?
4 comments:
I have always been a huge fan of Shakespeare, and regarding the question of his sexuality and queer identity, I have to say… Well DUH!! It is absolutely no secret that Shakespeare, while married to a women, has been claimed to have a love affair with another man who inspired the majority of his sonnets. I find it very interesting that through this article, the author studies the impact that Shakespeares sexuality has on his characters. The first character that is called on, is Romeo, and the influence that other male characters have on his choices throughout the show. Shakespeare also has a reputation for creating characters that dress up as the opposite gender in order to create comedy. I think that it is also important to note that during Elizabethan times, gender and sexuality were not as defined as they are in modern times, and understanding the difference in the period is important.
This is such a cool article. I love Shakespeare and, while I don't think it's shocking that he was bisexual, I think a lot of people know that, but I think this kind of analysis of his work is really beneficial. Analysis of Shakespeare's folio is common and this is just another lens to view it through. I think we sometimes forget how radical Twelfth Night and As You Like It must have been at the time. I mean, Rosalind and Viola are super cool characters that take their fates into their own hands, and that wasn't super common at the time. It's also important to note the lack of female actors allowed in Elizabethan times. I mean, that kinda hands-down makes Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare's gayest play as it was written. If all the actors onstage were men anyways, what makes Hamlet's relationship with Ophelia so different than that with Horatio. I think in modern times, this is something that's super important to ask ourselves. But even more important may be: how truly important is author's intention here? Yes, I think it's important to note that Shakespeare was not straight, that's significant. But, truly, as readers, do we care what Shakespeare wanted to get across? I would argue the only important thing is what we gather from the play.
The notion of taking Shakespeare's texts and characters and converting them into a queer and female friendly story isn't anything that it too new. It's something that happened a little too late and I'm glad that this is the direction that theatre is going in. Seeing from this article, its a more interesting take than what is usually thought of when talking about gender bending and Shakespeare. My opinion is that Hamlet is probably gay because he doesn't really talk to Ophelia, probably because he's thinking about boys instead. This is a cool opportunity to give some of these characters more depth and really tell a more personal story about many of these characters. Also, something that this new edition will do for the shows is that they will be able to explore shakespearian characters in the closet and show different layer of what it means to be gay and be Elizabethan.
The constructs of gender and sexuality are very interesting when looking at classical works, particularly when looking at the gender politics of the time. It is similarly interesting to see how this fluidity transfers over to today’s society. The idea that Shakespeare was queer is not unheard of, because queer people have always existed, but just been erased (or at least had that part of their identity erased), so it is great that we are choosing to outwardly acknowledge the idea that powerful and influential people in history could have been queer. I think the topics of gender bending and gender reconstructing in the way spoken about in this article is really interesting since it is not in the stereotypical action of genderbending classical works, but it is equally, if not more, powerful. The gender binary was so enforced in Elizabethan times, and in some ways, it still is today, but we have learned to combat it more outwardly. “When we read Shakespeare we’re offered something similar to that of what people of queer experience are able to offer today… a critical point of view of the world in which we inhabit.
Post a Comment