AMBIGUOUS SHAKESPEARE

If Shakespeare has outlived immortality, there is also this question of authority that haunts the Critics. On the other hand, we find it easy to take the fact for granted,that in case of this particular guy, who is nothing but an honorable legend to the field of literature, it's of no use questioning, and there are things we actually need to accept in a blind manner- the clash between reason and belief, and the winner is belief, for there is no reason enough that can prove the rumors true. And of course the "Ambiguity" that the lectures and books talk of is a matter of fact : The sonnets, first published in 1609 are example enough; the ambiguity prevails through the entire sequence right from the "Dedication of the Sonnets"- dedicated by T.T. i.e., Thomas Thorpe, (The printer/publisher) to the mysterious W.H. who could be the Earl of Pembroke or the Earl of Southampton or any other anonymous fellow. The question is- if it really could be any of the Earls, had it not been deeply disrespectful for the Earl, whosoever, that he, who is meant to be referred to as "his highness" and the like, is referred to simply as W.H.? (Mind you, it was no light issue at all for the Earl is supposed to be at the top level of Aristocracy). Was it done to save the Earl from infamy of homosexuality?

There was also every possibility that the arrangements of the Sonnets were not done by Shakespeare himself, or perhaps they were even published without his knowledge when he was away, as doubted by the scholarships. These Sonnets are disorganized and do not tell us a consistent story. moreover, newer scholarships argue that these sonnets are so deeply embedded in personal meaning and are so highly double-edged that some of his sonnets will seldom be understood. Many say that the Dark Lady and the Fair Youth are simply unproven assertions. The relationships hence pointed out can be absolutely fictitious too. 

Whatsoever it is, but if Shakespeare had intentionally meant to have this air of ambiguity in his sonnets, and if he really aimed at not having people to understand them, then there could be no doubt about the achievement in his motive. There is so much to say and hear about Shakespeare that anything said or heard and written or read is incomplete, and hence there could be no end to it. One may not have heard of many other great literary personas, but rarely will we find anybody that denies having heard of Shakespeare : hence, the point of his outliving immortality.

Feminism and Literature

             

Haven't we, as girls, always defended ourselves whenever we were told that women were weaker? Then, perhaps we didn't even know the meaning of the word 'feminism' in it's true sense. It occurred to me during my Handique Girl's college days that feminism is not sexism at all, for all that the feminists seek for is acknowledgement of the right of choice for all women, and the acceptance that they are as human as men are. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Mary Wollstonecraft wrote that she "does not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves". Then comes the question of equality which would not just imply a green signal from the society, but also would most importantly mean the acceptance of duties by women.  Rebecca West, in The Clarion (14't November 1913) said " I myself have never been able to find find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."

"Women and Men have different approaches to the same situation", one of my teachers explained in the class, "she feels what her child feels but a man would make his child feel what he feels". We were doing To the Lighthouse. In the beginning of human life, humans had to hunt for food, and men, who still had a one track mind ran after the hunt, and he could see only the hunt because he had a family to feed and that was the sole aim of the particular moment, he ran with the spear in one hand. Behind him ran the woman carrying her child, but she had a multi-track mind: she collected whatever fruits and eatables she could find on her way, because the hunt might not be successful after all. And so here we ladies are, having all sorts of back up plans in case the master plan doesn't work out. In general, females chose the heart and the males chose the mind. In other words, the female needed the male and vice-versa because there needed to be a balance between the heart and the mind for stuff to be successful. In such circumstances, why is it that the male turned out to be considered the superior sex? Is it for real or was there a plan? After all the research conducted by the feminists, we are now at a conclusion that there obviously was a plan.

Men got themselves educated before all women, and the women were trapped inside the four walls doing the chores of the household. This gives us a proof that the messengers of god who wrote all the religious books were all men, else why would a woman write, or even accept that the reason for man's mortality was a woman, (Paradise Lost) and why would a woman make all things so difficult for herself and her daughters! These books prescribe a lot many codes for women, and reasons are almost forbidden. Sojourner Truth in a speech at a women's rights convention said "that little man...he says women can't have as much rights as men, cause Christ wasn't a woman. Where did your Christ come from? from God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with him", and I strongly support her anger. If we talk about wars that had happened, we can see that the blame is put on a particular woman starting from the War of Troy to the Mahabharata. Ravana, the great king was doomed because of a single Sita, and the same happened to the city of Troy because of Helen. Are these myths mere agencies of patriarchy? Back to the classroom, these words- "If women were to rule the world, there would be no wars as no mother would send her son to the battlefield", strike me like a hammer striking a metal on an anvil, and makes me look back at these myths that blame everything bad on women.

I can recall a friend telling me that suppose there existed nothing called patriarchy: that is feminism, after I told him that I am too much into feminism these days. Beauvoir  quoted "one is not born a woman: one becomes one", which is for sure because everything points itself at social conditioning in the end. We women talk a great deal about the freedom we need, but when we get a chance, we generally prefer to take the help of a man, because it is easier, and if we want feminism to work out at all, we must take trouble, we must say no to a lift and we must save money and buy wheels and learn how to drive. Women must learn how to hit back at pests and how not to shout for help all the time. It is mostly the women who shout for help in the movies, and that trend must cease. Most of all, women must learn how to reason at its best and not always be right (Women would rather be right than be reasonable- Ogden Nash). In short, we need to reject the dogmas. No, Feminism does not force us to hate men, nor does it tell us to overpower them, but it does ask us empower ourselves and to question men who said that women are "frail", ("Frailty, thy name is woman"- Hamlet, Shakespeare) and even before that, make themselves eligible for putting up that question. Indian women, especially, need to stop having their lives dependent on a good or a bad marriage as having financial independence will bring them peace of mind, and then a happy marriage for sure.

Furthermore in the classroom, we realised, since men got educated first, and since men coined words and created the dictionary, thus we suffer from inadequacy in language. "Childbirth, something to which a woman is so much emotionally attached and in which she goes through so huge a pain, something which is almost a miracle is derogated to the word 'labour' which only implies productive physical work done for wages". Woman has a 'man' in it and female has a 'male', which leaves woman with a shattered identity. To make it all work, the most desirable step would be to grab all the opportunities that await and make a move, the sooner- the better. Let us not take things for granted anymore and let us not put the entire blame on men, for exploiting is surely immoral, but then, bearing the bad is equally an offence.