One normally does not expect to see Shakespeare name-dropped next to preggo Nickelodeon starlet Jamie Lynn Spears, yet a recent blog did exactly that. The author imagines the cultural backlash that would occur if Brit’s little sis were to drop her Lifetime-movie spin session about tough teen choices and pursue terminating her pregnancy. In this comparison, the imaginary ballyhoo is likened to the scandal that would have erupted if Shakespeare had been a woman (an idea lifted from Virginia Woolf). While I have nothing further to add to the endless ink and internet space devoted to the ongoing saga of the star of Birth Control 101 - excuse me, Zoey 101 - nor to the socio-political debate that is the blog’s focus, the whole Shakespeare-as-a-woman thing has me buzzing.

What if he were? Woolf’s forecast is fairly bleak, focusing on the cultural impact of a woman writing for the stage. Yet, from a feminist standpoint, it is curious to consider how some of his plays might have differed had they been penned by a woman. Would Katerina tell Petrucchio to step on his own hand? Would Juliet say that no man is worth killing herself over? Would Desdemona have told Othello to go stuff his handkerchief? Oh, how I wish, but unfortunately that would not have been the case. Consider Aphra Behn, a female playwright who emerged roughly half a century after Shakespeare’s death. Despite the current desire to interpret them differently, her plays are every bit as ribaldly sexist as her contemporaries. For example, Behn frequently played rape for laughs….not exactly a poster for Girl Power. What would really alter Shakespeare’s plays is if they were written by a twenty-first-century woman, not an Elizabethan one. Like Behn, a female Shakespeare would have sound like, well, a man.

Posted Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:13:25 and filed under Pop Culture, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, History, Romeo & Juliet. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.