Based on the discussion we had in class on Wednesday last week, where we talked about the censorship and the history of that time period etc, I had a certain expectation for the play. I thought that by including certain taboo subjects in the play, Wedekind was trying to maybe not normalize, but perhaps publicize and expose certain issues that our world faces today. I thought that he would accomplish this my making all the characters be overly-accepting of such taboo topics like rape, suicide, and abortion, to name of few. But while reading the play I found that the parents took on the more “reserved” and “traditional” ways of thought. I felt that Wedekind created a discord between the parental figures and the child figures. The parents approach these controversial (at the time) topics by “putting them under the rug” or avoiding the conversation altogether, while the children are inquisitive and speak openly about those same topics.
We get a glimpse of this discord from the very beginning of the play, in Act 1, scene 1! When Wendla speaks of having thoughts about death, the mother, Frau Bergmann, immediately changes the topic by saying “Go hang the long dress up in the closet. Put on your short dress again, in God’s name!— I will put another depth of ruffles on it”. The parental figure dodges the topic, and speaks of other trivial things!
And again in Act 2, scene 1, the scene starts with Melchior, his mother, and Moritz hanging out by Melchior’s house. Frau Gabor, Melchior’s mother, who is one of the more “liberal” parents, makes a distinction between whats appropriate for children and what is not. She herself said that she prefers that children not read/be exposed to the topics in Faust (which includes selling one’s soul to the devil), when she said “I only want to warn you that even the best can do one harm when one isn’t ripe enough in years to receive it properly”. She isn’t against the children EVENTUALLY reading such a text, but she is sure to outline the distinction between child and adult.
In a third example, in Act 2 scene 2, Wendla talks to her mother, Frau Bergmann, and asks, essentially, about how children are produced. She pleads with her mom saying “Whom in the world should I ask but you!… How does it happen?— How does it all come about?” And when her mother finally agrees to explain, she says that “In order to have a child—one must love—the man—to whom one is married”, which is clearly not the correct answer. Her mother is unable to expose this “gap of knowledge” that separates child from parent (or child from adult).
In all three clarity, the disparity is clear. The parents try to “hush” away the controversial topics, while the children try to understand it!
Also while reading the play, I couldn’t help but think about the play being an analogy. The children are to the play, as the parental figures are to that time period. Meaning that when I look at the play from within, I feel that the children’s “voice” in the story is against the parental “voices”, just as the overall play’s “voice” (of being so controversial) were against the conservative “voice” of the time period. Its a bit confusing to explain, but its sort of the idea I got while I read the play.
The play was very interesting to read, and I am looking forward to seeing the play on stage on Thursday evening! 🙂
I agree with the point you made about the children being against the parents (or combatting their ideals) the same way the play was against society’s views on controversial ideas. I also agree that he was trying to publicize his ideas and make them seem more normal to his audience. I don’t think he was trying to shock his audience in any way. I think he wanted to open their minds to actually being more open about these controversial topics.
I agree with you in that I was also shocked by how Wedekind structured the play. I was expecting, as well, a portrayal of acceptance for those who are involved in what was perceived as “shameful” acts, thus evoking a feeling of acceptance in the reader. However, I found it interesting how, instead, he depicted the negativity surrounded those that were victims to society’s standards, and left the reader feeling the same frustration and confusion that, for example, Welma must have been feeling. Although this was contrary to my expectations, I feel as though the Wedekind’s method of writing the play was much more effective. Not only did he portray acceptance, but also criticism for those who put such subject matter “under the rug”, as you would call it. I was left with a similar impression after reading the play.