All's Two Faced that Ends Two Faced: Is this play a Comedy or a Tragedy?

Perhaps the most interesting component of the “comedy or tragedy” debate between critics in All’s Well that Ends Well is its placement within the Shakespeare literary cannon.  In this era of Shakespeare’s writing, he was still developing the way he wrote plays.  Styles, genres, dialogue, and characters were experimented with in a way that did not occur later in his career.  In fact, this experimental phase of Shakespeare’s career included a play we have already read: Titus Andronicus.  Unlike Titus Andronicus however, All’s Well that Ends Well does not limit itself to flirting the line with gender roles (or at least, an argument for gender subversion) but includes bending the line between comedy and tragedy as well.

From one perspective, labeling the play as a comedy would make perfect sense.  Several elements one would normally see in a Shakespearian comedy are present in All’s Well that Ends Well.  Helen is in deep unrequited love with Bertram, and must implement a complex scheme to win the others heart.  Little real violence is present in the play, although a war is hinted at in the by the king of France.  There are supporting characters that aid the comedic elements of the play, such as Diana, whose only real motivation other than money appears to be the joy of messing with Bertram.  The play even contains a clown!

However, All’s Well that Ends Well also contains a few very dark elements that contrast its identity as a comedy.  A clown may seem harmless, but he uses coarse sexual humor throughout the play.  Helen is not simply in love with Bertram, but obsessed.  Bertram repeatedly refuses her advances, but she keeps attempting to court him in a way that feels strange and creepy.  Diana, whose presence in a modern romantic comedy might have been the supporting sidekick, is oddly completely fine allowing her new friend to pretend to be her and trick Bertram into sleeping with Helen.  These elements appear much darker when examined more closely.

            I would be interested to see this play in film form, if only as a lesson in directing.  With different filmmakers, I could see this play being presented in two entirely different ways!

That Weird Medieval Switcheroo Pregnancy Trope

Shakespeare’s play “All’s Well That Ends Well” is resolved happily when Helena reveals that not only is she alive, but in fact, it was she that Bertram slept with, not Diana, and she’s even pregnant with their child! Everything settles into place: chaste Diana will earn herself a hefty dowry from the King, Helen consummates her marriage to Bertram, and… Well, you know. It’s in the title.

We don’t often see narratives like this anymore, or at least, not positive ones. Helena’s trick, presenting herself as someone else in order to fool Bertram into having sex with her, would never turn out “for the best” in the modern day. Rather than a story of comedy, bringing things to a cheery close, that sort of plot would be found in a horror story about a rape – especially in this era of technological concerns such as identity theft and other forms of internet based identity deception. (By the way, has anybody written the futuristic barcode-identity dystopia version of this story yet?)

A credit card stealer... claiming to find out if your card has been stolen.
Just another day of  liars lying on the internet, right?

But by early modern standards it’s just fine. Maybe even funny! Helena’s cleverness gives her the life and the love she’s dreamed of. How is that possible?

There’s some weird precedent for this kind of thing. Shakespeare isn’t just pulling this out of his elaborate joking sexual metaphor for a butt. One that comes to mind is the story of Uther and Igraine, the parents of Arthur Pendragon, or King Arthur. Yeah, the one who pulls the sword out of the stone and all that.

There are many different versions of the story, but here’s a short version of a popular one: Igraine’s husband, the Duke, rides off to battle while Uther has Merlin bewitch him to make him look like the Duke. Then, so disguised, he has sex with Igraine. Igraine gets pregnant, the Duke conveniently dies in battle, and afterward Igraine and Uther marry so that Arthur, future King of England, is a legitimate child.

Ringing a few bells? Okay, let me reword a few things.

Uther wants to bed/wed Igraine, so he pretends to be somebody else. She gets pregnant, he marries her, and they live happily ever after with their legitimately born elite-class child. Helena’s actions are basically a gender reversal of Uther’s. In “All’s Well” the main differences are that they’re already married (though not consummated, kind of important back then) and she wants to get pregnant.

If you ask me, Shakespeare’s doing something interesting here. Sure, Uther and Igraine aren’t the only story of mistaken-identity-cheating in old stories, but they’re unique in that it turns out alright. The fact that it turns out alright is made possible by the fact that Uther is a powerful high-born man, and Igraine – often by as little as 3 hours! – becomes an unmarried widow, so he has every right to “claim” her, in a sense.

Helena looking at Bertram, Bertram looking away...
Shakespeare sets up nicely for Helena to get what she wants.

And in a similar sense, Shakespeare’s decision to begin the play with that half-complete marriage legitimizes this trickery as something that can work from a female standpoint. What if she and Bertram hadn’t been married? Why, she’d be a seductress of some sort. But because the King married them, she’s only getting the sex he’s legally required to give her – by early modern standards of course, since this is all rape by ours, but marital rape and informed consent weren’t concepts back then.

Helena gets pregnant, Bertram’s in love with her after all, the end. Ta-da! Shakespeare takes a plot that previously required patriarchal ownership to make it work, makes it about a woman, and succeeds by using the marriage standards of the time to put her in power instead.

Not half bad.

"All's Well That Ends Well & Gender Constraints in the Workplace"

 Helen in Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well is a strong, intelligent, and goal-oriented woman. In order to get the man that she loves and move up the ranks in society, she is willing to do whatever it takes. In the beginning of the play we get the King of France that is dying of a fistula, and all the male physicians can’t seem to find a cure for him. Helen, the late daughter of a doctor, and taken in by Bertram’s mother, is able to gain an audience with the king to deliver a cure in exchange for the means to marry whomever she wishes. What is hard core about Helen is that she is willing to sacrifice her life, if the cure does not work, and that she is unapologetic in her abilities to obtain her goals. This of course, our “dear” Bertram has a serious problem with. What I found interesting is the exchange between Helen and the King when she is trying to convince him to accept her father’s cure. One would think that the King would be up for anything in order to live, but this is not the case. The King blatantly admits that her credibility as a physician is considerably less to non-existent due to her gender. When Lafeu enters and addresses the King, he notifies him that there is someone there that can cure him, it is the king that automatically assumes that the physician is male.

            This kind of sentiment is nothing new. Since the nineteenth century women have been fighting for the rights of women, and the destruction of female gender constraints.  Gender inequality in the workplace has been a long struggle for women trying to break into a male dominated arena. This is especially true in the field of medicine. “The entrance of women into American medical practice during the mid-nineteenth century was a direct outgrowth of the social reform movements that characterized the period.” – http://www.hws.edu  the early female physicians faced many struggles in order to achieve success and acceptance. This is still a problem for women and the LGBTQA in the workplace. Females in male dominated professions still make less money on the dollar to their male counterparts, and members of the LGBTQA are harassed in the workplace, and denied jobs based on their sexuality. This is evident in All’s Well That Ends Well. In 2.1 of the play Lafeu has to remark on Helen’s qualifications and credibility, and makes it seem like a major accomplishment considering that she is female. “With one that in her sex, her years, profession.” (2215) Even though Helen is not a physician herself, she is obviously intelligent enough to interpret her father’s work, and deliver a cure to the king. The king tells Helen that he is not going to put his trust in her ability when all the male doctors before her that are among the Assembled College of Physicians (2215) have declared that medicine cannot beat nature, and that he fully expects her to fail (2216). Helen hearing this tells the King that she is willing to put her life on the line, and offers up her price for healing him.  If it had been another male who had offered a cure to the King and the price would have been a wife, and not a husband, it is Bertram that would have received no resistance, and Helen would have submitted to being a prize against her wishes.

My Identity Does NOT Rely on Men

No person is consumed in worry when addressing a letter to a male, but when they are writing a female, issues arise concerning if she is claiming a Ms. or Mrs. status. In our society, we find it worthy of noting the relationship status of females. This indicates that a large part of a woman’s identity relies on her male counterpart. As far as men’s relationship status goes, we really don’t pay attention to that unnecessary information. After all, wives and children exist only to make men appear “responsible” and “stable” in the work environment.

Shakespeare was well aware of this in his play All’s Well That Ends Well with the creation of the character Helen. Helen’s life successes depend on changing her status from single to married. She originally decides it would be of benefit to bring the special remedy from her father to heal the King. Upon notifying the Countess of this choice, the Countess replies, “This was your motive/For Paris, was it? Speak.” (1.3.217-18). Helen responds, “My lord your son made me to think of this, / Else Paris and the medicine and the King/ Had from the conversation of my thoughts/ Haply been absent then” (1.3.219-21). This dialogue shows Helen cannot even take credit for her own thoughts but places them upon Bertram as her source and motivation.

As the play continues, Helen disguises herself as a pilgrim to win Bertram back. Without him, she feels like a worthless being. He of course lies to her that he is leaving for “appointments,” and she responds willingly to his parting as his “most obedient servant”—not as his wife who mutually agrees but a wife who is a servant to him. (2.5.67).

 Sadly, Helen and Bertram’s relationship isn’t a rarity. Today many women still feel the pressure to have a man as a means to their successes. Helen’s inclination to lie and to manipulate others was the only way she could keep her relationship with Bertram. So while men like Bertram can quite easily flee town, women like Helen are stuck destroying other women and things all to achieve love from their “needed” man.

A prime example of this is It Takes Two with Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen plotting together to rid their dad’s fiancé and hook him up with Diane (Kirstie Alley): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5i6ve_it-takes-two-1995_shortfilms

The Olsen twins go through extensive measures to help Diane chase after the man she “needs.” So today when I hear girls on campus joke about going to college to get their “Mrs. Degree,” I realize women are still placing their identity in their man or lack thereof. I mean, after all what I am here for myself? I couldn’t possibly have my own dreams and goals unless I have a man to support my needs and desires. I have yet to hear any guy say he is going to get his “Mr. Degree.” It’s absurd because he already has it and has since he was identified as a male at birth.

Queering Shakespeare

Any interpretation of Shakespeare's canon will inevitably be, at least in some small way, unique. And with plays that have been in circulation as long as Shakespeare's have, interpretations will evolve and transform in relation to the circumstances of their staging; staging choices that would seem natural to an Elizabethan audience will change utterly for a 21st century production, and sociopolitical phenomena at the time of the performance will influence the symbology on the stage. The choices made by directors and actors speak both to their personal opinions about the play and to the nature of the society contextualizing the production.

One of the most recent large-scale productions of Coriolanus had its run in London, headed by director Josie Rourke and the Donmar Warehouse. The play starred Tom Hiddleston in the titular role, with an equally strong cast to back up his fantastic performance. The production, which aired a filmed live performance in cinemas around the world, does an incredible job of melding the world of the play with the political and aesthetic context of modern London, and makes a number of choices that feel simultaneously congruent with the source material and the world outside the theater.

A good example of this melding of influences is the dynamic between Coriolanus and Aufidius, particularly the scene depicting Coriolanus' arrival at Aufidius' home and the ensuing formation of an alliance. Even to the play's original audience, the homoerotic undertones (arguably overtones) between the two characters would have been hard to miss; their conversations are littered with innuendo and passionate declarations of a hybrid of love and hate. Their relationship is integral to the story, and Shakespeare, apart from a few wry nods to sexuality, treats their feelings for one another with earnest attention.

Rourke's production embraces this textual dynamic and runs with it, emphasizing the two men's simultaneous loathing and admiration of one another with impassioned delivery and overlong stares across the stage. Two moments typify the production's treatment of the relationship, and both are markedly physical; the first is a long moment of eroticized asphyxiation during a battle early in the play, and the second is a kiss in the middle of Aufidius' monologue accepting Coriolanus as an ally.

It's unlikely that earlier productions of Coriolanus would have added such a blatant physical dimension to this already homoerotic relationship, particularly one where the interactions have clear sexual connotations. However, nothing in the text precludes the possibility of physicality between the two characters, even the kind of sensual intimacy evident in their kiss; this production simply happens to have been directed in a cultural moment where the exploration of a queered dynamic is not just acceptable, but topical.

Much of the enduring magic of Shakespeare's body of work comes in the plays' ability to morph to suit the social atmosphere in which they are performed. The text is malleable; Coriolanus and Aufidius can exist both in ancient Rome and in the 21st century, and the latter can permit them a little more freedom to outdo Aufidius' memories of his bedchamber.

The Cinderella Twist

All’s Well That Ends Well  reminded me so much of Ella Enchanted because the focus was on Helena, the orphan daughter who falls madly in love with Count Bertram but feels like she has no chance because he is a nobleman while she is part of the lower class. As well as the rejection Count Bertram gives her because she has no higher statues. 

The same issue can be seen when viewing the movie Ella Enchanted because the plot starts off showing how Ella’s mother passes away and is cared for by her thoughtless and greedy father who remarries but eventually passes away as well and she ends up getting mistreated by her step mother and step sisters who make her clean and do chores all day. 

            In Ella Enchanted, Ella relates to Helena in the sense that she starts growing feelings towards prince Charmont who all the girls think of as dreamy but they know he is out of their reach. The scene of the movie that most relates to the play is the scene where Ella and prince Charmont are standing in in the mirror garden and she loves him so much that she is trying to find the will power not to stab him, but when she finally succeeds he ends up rejecting her and she is taken away. After being taken away she does everything in her power to see him again and try to talk to him in order to explain her actions. When finally doing so they work things out and end up together and happily married.

            The movie is different in many ways but I felt like it was a modern-day, fantasy Cinderella story which included lots of twists and turns but overall covered the basics of what Shakespeare’s play All’s Well That Ends Well tried to cover. We even got to see how Count Bertram who was a player related so much to prince Charmont in the movie of Ella Enchanted.. Both the play and the film focused on love, betrayal, and rejection.

Helen: Prude or Slut?

While reading All's Well That Ends Well, I was struck with just how familiar Paroles's arguments about virginity sounded. And, in fact, despite his less-than-upright character, I have to admit that I liked (parts) of what he was saying, if only for the humor he presents.

Let's start with Helen's question: "Man is enemy to virginity: how may we barricade it against him?" (107-108). Instead of a consensual act between two parties, sex here is clearly depicted as an assault upon a woman's honor by a lustful man. Problem number one. Virginity is put upon a pedestal; a woman who has her virginity intact is pure, clean, and desirable, and as soon as she loses it, she is ruined. We've all heard it before.

With that in mind, I found Paroles's answer to be particularly hilarious. He says "there was never a virgin got till virginity was first lost" (121-122), and that "To speak on the part of virginity is to accuse your mothers, which is most infallible disobedience" (128-129).

Paroles makes me laugh here, because what he says is so true. Virginity in Shakespeare's day was idolized; a woman's entire worth depended upon her chastity (remember Lavinia?). Today, while a woman isn't completely valued based on the status of her virginity, it is still of the utmost importance. I like what Paroles says because his tongue-in-cheek comments ring true. The concept of virginity as a means to value and devalue women is ridiculous. On the most visible level, if all women strove to preserve their virginity, humanity would cease to exist. Sex, as Paroles points out, is not only natural; it's common. Every mother was once a virgin, yet we don't denounce our own parents as whores.

Though I don't agree with Paroles's main point, that women should have sex solely to procreate, I do appreciate a Shakespearean voice denouncing the value of the protected virginal status. Somewhere hidden in his snarky humor and off-the-cuff remarks lies a real argument against the practicality of coveting a woman's virginity, and that is something I can agree with.

Shout Out to the Girls Next Door

In Shakespeare's play, All's Well That Ends Well, Helena is the perfect example of the girl next door. She has a good old fashioned crush on Bertram who quite frankly, does not give her the time of day. The fact that Bertram basically refuses to be with her, although he agrees to marry her seems somewhat fishy. Sure, he has his the nobility, and why would he want to taint his bloodline, but the fact that he blatantly hurts Helena’s feelings is the typical, high school story of today.

Nowadays, there is the typical, average girl who wants the popular, good looking guy. The boy who is probably the quarterback of the football team and is probably the Prince Charming of the school. This example would be the prime example of Bertram, the Count of Rousillon. However, this leaves Helena as the totally average, plain boring, girl next door character in today’s world. It is a very typical story played by plenty of actresses in plenty of teenage movies. For example, Hilary Duff in ‘Cinderella Story,’ Selena Gomez in ‘Another Cinderella Story,’ Lindsey Lohan in ‘Mean Girls’, Anne Hathaway in “The Princess Diaries”, and even Vanessa Hudgens in ‘High School Musical.’ It is the same story over and over, the average, boring, (maybe peasant) girl is dreaming and wishing she could be with the prince charming, or the ‘Count of Rousillon.’

Helena is basically the girl next door. She is the girl who wants the noble attractive guy, aka Bertram. She wants him, and he does not want her, just another high school love story. Naturally, all of these stories have something in common. The Prince Charming always wants the pretty, beautiful girl and quite frankly, this story line is reflected in Shakespeare’s play with ‘Diana.’

Essentially, this play boils down to the modern day story of average girl likes hot boy who likes hot girl and that’s that. However, have no fear, the movie always ends the same way…

Helen's New Groove: Suitors in Shakespeare and Disney

            An interesting comparison can be found between the presenting of suitors to Helen in All’s Well That Ends Well (Act II, Scene III) and a similar presentation of potential spouses to the emperor Kuzco in the animated Disney film The Emperor’s New Groove. The drastically different origins/structures these two characters conform to (Kuzco being an upper-class/noble man, and Helen being a low-born/common woman) present a commentary on the treatment of gender/social class in regard to the suitor process. Not only this, but one can also find an interesting view into some of the changes/consistencies found in the depiction of finding a suitor in Shakespeare’s work as compared to a modern work.

First to consider is the role of each character’s social standing/class in regard to their approach of being presented with suitors. In this comparison, Kuzco appears on a surface level as a clearly more desirable spouse; as emperor of his kingdom, the wealth and social influence accompanied in becoming his wife are obvious. Alternatively, Helen appears/is viewed as a relatively undesirable bride, being of low birth and therefore lacking the dowry/familial connections/status a potential husband might be looking for. This can be seen as a potential reason for Kuzco’s suitor’s anger at his rejection (ignoring for the moment his disrespectful treatment of them), as well as Helen’s suitor’s (possible) relief at her dismissal of their advances in favor of Bertram. However, while Helen’s standing may not have been on par with nobility, she still had earned herself a close relationship with the king, and would’ve held a respectable degree of clout/significance through this relationship (evidenced by the king’s agreeing to allow her to pick her future husband). Not only this, but the king even states to Bertram his intention/willingness to more formally heighten Helen’s social standing, more or less alleviating the issue (although not to a satisfactory degree in Bertram’s opinion). Thus each character is presented as holding some degree of social significance (although the difference between their social standings is admittedly quite large), which pushes one to strive further outward in regard to the reasoning behind the suitors’ responses to their rejection.

Gender appears as potentially the most major difference existing between the reactions of the suitors to Helen as compared to Kuzco (possible relief/happiness and anger/sorrow respectively). With societal/cultural traditions usually stressing the male’s courtship of the woman, the interactions between Helen and her initial suitors can be viewed as potentially emasculating. In this situation, the classic gender roles have been reversed, and the group of young lords is presented to Helen in much the same way the maidens are presented to Kuzco. Thus Helen’s suitors would’ve viewed her rejection as less emasculating as compared to the removal of what they would’ve perceived as their right as men. This prebuilt gender norm also helps explain the modern interpretation of the suitor process as seen in Kuzco, the woman reacting more to him personally (and specifically his callous/rude behavior towards them) as compared to reacting to the situation itself (as is the case All’s Well that Ends Well, Helen herself being a wonderful individual often lauded by the other characters.

Keeping Up With Volumnia

For some odd reason, us, as humans, are either obsessed with out mothers, or we hate them. More specifically, mother’s in fiction/pop culture. Psycho, Medea, Mommy Dearest, Gypsy; the list goes on and on. In Shakespeare’s ‘Coriolanus’, Volumnia is the mother of the war hero, Caius Marcius. She is constantly pushing her son to be better, to do the things she only wishes she could do. Volumnia revels in her son’s victories and his scars. She’s the ultimate mom-ager. 

Sound familiar?

In our modern-day society, Kris Jenner would be Volumnia. Kris tried (and failed) to create a music career in the early eighties (cue the not-hit song ‘I Love My Friends’, which Jenner claims was just a ‘joke amongst friends’), and when she failed, she projected her dreams and desires onto her children. 

There are a lot of differences between Volumnia and Kris. For example, Volumnia was blocked from her dreams of power by her gender and the era she lived in, whereas Kris’s gender is not prohibiting her from acting out her desires. Volumnia’s relationship with her daughter-in-law is turbulent, whereas Kris is head-over-heels in love with Kanye. Kris is infamous for causing fights between Kim and other celebrities, most of them old friends, while Volumnia begs her son not to fight the city he once called home.

This is super interesting to me for many reasons. On one hand, it goes to show you that Shakespeare is the father of every plot device known to man, real or not real. (You can thank him for Lion King) Practically every movie deals with plot devices ‘fathered’ by Good Ol’ Willy. On another hand, it’s pretty freakin’ cool how people never change. Mother’s like Volumnia still exist to this day. We see it in Kris Jenner, we see it in Dance Moms, we see it everywhere!

Did all really end well?

While reading All's Well That Ends Well, I was initially pleasantly surprised by the amount of agency that Helena had. There have been some fairly strong female characters (like Tamora) in the plays we've read so far, but I don't think any one of them stood out to me as much as Helena did. This woman knew what she wanted, and she made sure she got it. But, considering the way in which she got it (all puns intended), should we really hail her as an ideal heroine?

Think about it. Helena came up with a plan to save the King's life so she could ask for Bertram's hand in marriage (a woman asking for a man's hand - Shakespeare sure was more progressive than many people today).

Even when Bertram made it pretty clear that he didn't want to have anything to do with her...

When thou canst get the ring upon my finger which

never shall come off, and show me a child begotten

of thy body that I am father to, then call me

husband: but in such a 'then' I write a 'never.'

(Act III Scene 2)

...Helena kept pursuing him. I couldn't help but wonder: How would we (progressive people) be feeling about this situation if the tables were turned - if Bertram was a woman and Helena was a man? 

I'm pretty sure it would enrage a lot of us. I'd certainly be pissed off. It would be the classic narrative of a woman who makes it clear that she isn't interested, but the self-righteous man just has to keep forcing himself on her. There's even a meme about this.

And when all else fails, he resorts to manipulating her. I guess I could play devil's advocate here and say that All's Well That Ends Well is different -  Bertram was being snobby, or shallow, or whatever because he first rejected Helena due to her social ranking. But, doesn't he have the right to choose? 

Later on in the play, when Helena works out her scam (aka when Helena makes a deal with Diana to switch places so that she can have sex with her husband without him realizing), we see Bertram stripped of his agency even more. It's bad enough that he got stuck with a wife he didn't want and had to escape to war. Now, she's tricking him into sleeping with her so he has to be with her forever, too?

When gender roles are reversed, there's actually a name for this kind of deception that Helena pulls. It's called reproductive coercion. We usually see this term being applied to cases when:

1. A woman's sexual partner pressures her (sometimes with threats or acts of violence) into having unprotected sex to get her pregnant, or when the partner pressures her into continuing or terminating a pregnancy.

2. There is birth control sabotage. This includes verbal sabotage (which is verbal/emotional pressure not to use birth control or to become pregnant), and behavioral sabotage (which is the use of force to have unprotected sex/not to use birth control), and actual acts of sabotage such as poking holes in condoms or flushing birth control pills down the toilet.

Reproductive coercion is a form of domestic abuse. There are campaigns about it (see below).

I am in no way trying to diminish the experiences of women who endure this kind of abuse. I know quite a few that have dealt with it, and it pisses me off. But at the same time, aren't we kind of excusing Helena's behavior just because she's a woman? She, in a sense, rapes Bertram when she tricks him into impregnating her so she can force him to stay in the marriage.

This reminds me of the myth I sometimes hear floating around that women can't be perpetrators of sexual violence or abuse.

That's not true. Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

In this play, Helena has all of the qualities that would set off a red flag in my mind about someone. Helena, despite being a strong female character, is also obsessive and manipulative - quite like Tamora, actually.

All may have ended well for her, and that is just not sitting well with me.

Helena - The Best of Shakespeare's Women?

Helena – The best of Shakespeare’s Women?

I’ve have read Shakespeare many times. I have seen characters come and go, some die and some live, all for the good of the plot. And in almost every Shakespeare play, there is a woman. Scratch that, in every Shakespeare Play, there is a woman. There are some we have loved more than others, and some we could do without. But none of these plays could have been possible without the female characters. And one thing I have noticed since reading “All’s Well That Ends Well” is that Helena is the first actual strong character female I’ve seen in Shakespeare.

Let’s go down the list of some of Shakespeare’s more famous women. First, Juliet from “Romeo and Juliet.” We’ve all heard the tale before: boy meet girl. Boy and girl fall in love. Families want to keep boy and girl apart. Girl fakes death, but Boy thinks it’s real. Boy kills himself and girls dies soon after. Anyway, Juliet in my opinion is not that strong of a female character. Sure she’s in love with Romeo, and yes it is their deaths that eventually unite their families, but she’s so hung up about being apart from Romeo that she is willing to kill herself instead of not being with him. Now, in my opinion, a stronger character would figure out a way to be with Romeo in secret, like running away together behind their families back. Instead they leave fate up to this risky plan. Not very strong-willed in my book.

Next, there is Desdemona form Shakespeare’s Othello. Now, in this story Desdemona is very much in love with her husband, Othello. And when Othello thinks she is fooling around, she denies everything. But her husband goes as far as to beat her do get her to admit these lies he has been told. Now, getting hit is in no way Desdemona’s fault. But I think a stronger female character would have put her foot down and left Othello after his actions.

Then there is Lavinia, Titus’s daughter in Titus Andronicus. She herself is raped and attacked out of revenge by enemies of her father. Now, Lavinia is treated like how men saw women in the Roman period, less than nothing. And yet, despite everything, her father somehow makes it about him. Lavinia just gave up after her attack. Now, I wouldn’t blame her. I mean, what would you feel like doing after that happened to you? But still, she managed to write out the names of her rapists with a stick in her mouth, I feel like she could have done more too.

Helena is different. She is a girl determined to get what she wants. All of these obstacle and diversions are thrown at her, and yet she continues on her path. She does not give up hope, does not get all suicidal over her situation, and is willing to stand up for herself.

I don’t want to brag, but I think Shakespeare finally got one right.

Leave Her Virginity Alone

Being the only child of a well-known doctor, people can assume that Helena in All’s Well That Ends Well is a well-educated woman with some background in her late father’s profession. But even with this assumption, boys Helena’s age only value her on the basis of her sexuality:

Wow...A "withered pear"? Thanks.

“Your date is better in your porridge than in your cheek, and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it was formerly better, marry, yet ‘tis a withered pear (1.1.145-9).”

This metaphor towards her virginity has the same crudeness as a conversation in Arrested Development between Michael and his mother Lucille:

“Michael: It [the family cabin] is going to be up in Tahoe a couple more days. Maybe you could take a date.
Lucille: How am I supposed to find someone willing to go into that musty old claptrap?
Michael: [Long awkward stare] The cabin… Yes! That would be difficult, too.”

Both scenarios refer to the vagina as a horrid and vile part of the female anatomy. But no one expresses this unsavoriness when it’s associated with reproduction and furthering of a man’s name throughout generations:

“Out with’t [virginity]! Within t’one year it will make itself two, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse (1.1.136-8).”

Ohhhh, now I get it. When a baby is the end product the vagina is not so bad, but any other function that’s necessary for the good health of the woman, and for reproduction itself, then it’s condemned. Helena’s is horrid because she refuses to give it up. Lucille’s is vile because she’s an older woman and no longer fertile. Makes complete sense.

But here’s what kills me about this logic, it creates this idea that women should be ashamed to talk about any other biologically natural function of the female body. Female sexuality is only positively spoken of when in it’s toward something societally desirable. Any cramps, pain, itching, keep that stuff private. And no, it’s not the most pleasant topic, but why should I keep my own “victoria” a secret when men can openly make references to their “disco stick”? And, bringing it back to the literature, why must Helena’s virginity be condemned when she exercises full possession of her sexuality by deciding to save it for what she determines as the right time? Preferably, when Bertram and her consummate.

Helena is right to stand by her virginity. She has the right to hold onto to her virginity without it being called a “withered pear”.  And even though she receives harsh critiques, she creates a plan to use her intelligence and medical background knowledge in order to gain what she wants and uses her femininity with power and respect. She saves the King and she marries Bertram on her own terms. Helena shows true feminine power. She shows that a woman can use her intelligence and  doesn’t need to compromise her sexuality to get what she wants.

Tricky, Tricky Helen

“I cannot love her nor will strive to do’t.” (2222)

It isn’t very often that the “roles” switch like this.

Helen loves Bertram, Bertram doesn’t love Helen.

Helen is a commoner, Bertram is a nobleman.

Helen gets the guy; Bertram doesn’t want to consummate the marriage.

Helen TRICKS him into consummating the marriage.

WHAT?

While reading this play and finding out that Helen tricked Bertram into sleeping with her, I became curious as to whether or not this was happening in today’s society. So off to Google I went.

“How to make someone have sex with you….”

I hope this doesn’t save in my google search history.

I found some helpful tips and tricks in making someone fall in love with you- by using psychology. I’m not kidding; these are real articles and videos out there and I found some entire books as well.

First, from our friendly Today Show host, Kathie Lee Gifford.

She starts off her tips by asking if this is smart or manipulative. Yikes, you tell me.

Then her tips include:

·         Hang around a lot but then be unavailable. So sneaky.

·         Don’t do nice things for them; let them do nice things for you. Bring me lunch, you peasant. #luvya

·         Give them the eye. It literally means to stare at them. All the time.

·         Don’t look away. ^^^

·         Practice "pupillometrics" Which I think is bedroom eyes….?

So basically just stare at them. A lot. And be super unavailable after you’re totally available. And then make them buy you stuff. Sounds like a rock solid foundation to a relationship if you ask me!

http://www.today.com/klgandhoda/5-ways-make-anyone-fall-love-you-1D80244648

Next, a how to guy on Youtube!

He mentions a trial that was performed by a group of psychologists. The trial was completed by having men cross a “sketchy” bridge and meeting a woman in the middle who would ask them to complete a survey of questions. After they completed the survey she mentioned that they could call her if they had any questions. #canihaveyonumber 

Then they did the same thing with a group of men who were on a “normal-non sketchy” bridge.

Those men who were on the said sketchy bridge were 54% more likely to call the woman after and ask her out on a date because of the feelings of adrenaline and fear they were confusing with feelings of attraction for her. 

Then he goes on to tell YOU how to trick someone into falling in love with you by taking them on adventurous dates. This is real… Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsN9rVUeT68

So now that you know how to make someone fall in love with you, Tinder it up, and get what you deserve! 

Power Dynamics: Physical Strength and Political Strength the Same?

We see a lot of different power dynamics in Coriolanus, most notably the power dynamic between Coriolanus himself and his mother, Volumnia. Volumnia seems to have the most pull with Coriolanus out of anyone in the play, which makes sense. She raised him to be a formidable warrior and conditioned him to be politically appealing. There’s the rub though, Coriolanus seems only to be appealing politically, which brings me to the question… while Coriolanus has the physical strength to bear the scars of battle, does he have the psychological and emotional might and stability required to be a true ruler of the masses?

            My answer: no, he really doesn’t.

            So what’s happening here, if Volumnia has been able to raise such a physically strong warrior only to ultimately fall short in raising him to have the capacity to run a government swiftly and efficiently? I believe that it comes right down to the simple fact that Volumnia was so busy grooming her son to be a warrior and that strength is the ultimate ruler that when it came time for him to take a true political position, he depended so much on her that he couldn’t really do it. Instead, he failed and got stabbed. Who didn’t get stabbed though? Volumnia. The loss of her son gave her the chance to rise up to power and take care of things like should have been done in the first place.

            Is this saying something about the power dynamics of men and women in general? Is Shakespeare trying to advocate for women in power, setting forth the idea that while men might be physically stronger in some instances, that women have the capacity to pull the strings and actually run a government? It certainly does seem revolutionary, even in today’s society…

The Short End

Helen, like every other woman during Shakespeare’s time, always gets the short end of the stick.  She works hard for what she wants but, time and time again someone of higher rank, typically a man, puts her in her place.  Unlike most of her submissive counterparts, Hellen perseveres to achieve her goals, which for her is a marriage to a Count, thus quenching her love for him and raising her ranking in society.

Throughout the first half of the play, Helen’s intentions are made explicit to the reader.  She’s in love with a man she knows she can’t have because of her commoner social status.  In spite of that, Helen puts forth her best effort to get what she wants, but is met with constant obstacles, many of which are created by the character, Paroles who mocks her for her position as well as for believing she can marry Bertram.  

“Your date is better in your pie and your porridge than in your cheek, and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it looks ill, it eats drily, marry, ‘tis a withered pear—it was formerly better, marry, yet ‘tis a withered pear. (1.1)”  

This quote puts into perspective Helen’s position.  Although her father was a brilliant and well respected doctor and her being the ward of the Countess, she still isn’t completely respected as neither a woman nor a dignified person.  We can see here how much virginity is valued above every other aspect of a woman.  A woman of high ran’s virginity is her most prized possession besides her rank, but a woman commoner’s virginity is something to be lost immediately before it dries up like a “withered pear.”

However not ever man in the court thinks so little of Helen.  The King of France puts faith in Helen to heal him, which implies he respects her greatly, even more than Bertram.  A quote on page 2217 exemplifies this,

“More should I question thee, ad more I must, though more to know could not be more to trust: from whence thou cam’st, how tended on—but rested unquestioned welcome, and undoubted blessed. (2.1)”

Helen is confident in her abilities and is willing to put them to use but at the same time put her life in jeopardy all for what she most desires.  It is unfortunate that Bertram does not love her in return and resents their marriage because of her social standing.  And thus, by the end of Act three, Scene two, Helen feels the stab of rejection after Bertram leaves the kingdom vowing in a letter to never return so long as he remains married to Helen.  Helen makes the ultimate decision to leave because she knows that it is his marriage to a lowly commoner that is keeping him away from his home.  As the scene closes, in spite of Helen’s perseverance, it is her social status and strong will that denies her the man she loves.