Othello
discussion
Homoerotic subtext in Shakespeare
date
newest »
newest »
Brooke wrote: "Othello
-I'm unsure whether or not Iago was gay for Othello, or even gay at all, but I'm almost 100% sure Emilia was gay for Desdemona.
Romeo and Juliet
-Mercutio sure likes teasing Romeo ..."
Platonic love was considered entirely acceptable in Shakespeare's time. In fact, the act of one man saying he loved another was considered an expression of respect and admiration, not a declaration of homoerotic content. It's one thing to look for hidden meanings in past literature, its another thing entirely to project our perceptions onto past literature and assume it means something.
I don't even know what the word "platonic" means.
Brooke wrote: "I don't even know what the word "platonic" means."
Then perhaps you should find out before making assumptions.
Then perhaps you should find out before making assumptions.
Brooke wrote: "I don't even know what the word "platonic" means."It means non-romantic love, the kind that involves a deep emotional connection but doesn't involve sex. And while I wouldn't express it quite as bluntly as Natalie (no offense, Natalie), I think she's right when she says you should learn what this is you're going to be delving into Shakespearean literature. Platonic love is a very important theme in his works, and he explored it at length.
As for your case studies, I do hope you're being sarcastic here. Iago is gay for Othello, the man he openly declares he hates and is trying to destroy? Romeo's gay for his sworn enemy, the brother of the woman he's married, and then murders out of rage? Anthony is gay for his comrade Caesar, the man he conspires against and then kills? I mean, this is a joke, right?
Brynn wrote: "It is entirely possible. Some people think that his sonnets were about guys and all the actors in the plays were men."Actually, its a well known fact that several of his sonnets were written to men, but again, the love being expressed was intended to be platonic, not romantic. And how does all the actors in his plays being men, which was customary for the time, prove that his plays had intended instances of homoerotic content?
Brooke wrote: "Othello
-I'm unsure whether or not Iago was gay for Othello, or even gay at all, but I'm almost 100% sure Emilia was gay for Desdemona.
Romeo and Juliet
-Mercutio sure likes teasing Romeo ..."
This is the most absurd post/interpretation ever, I don't know whether to laugh or what. Completely agree with Matthew.
@Matthew: You mixed up Brutus and Antony!
I was only joking for one-third of it, the R&J part.
I was only joking for one-third of it, the R&J part.
Brooke wrote: "@Matthew: You mixed up Brutus and Antony!I was only joking for one-third of it, the R&J part."
Oh yeah... Whoops. Nevertheless, no disrespect intended to your personally, but the premise remains absurd. You're taking friendships and loyalty in these plays and assuming they are indications of sexual relations. This is not a basis of proof, and it's actually quite insulting to gay people.
At best, it's taking something that seems fashionable to people today and projecting it onto past works of literature. At worst, people like to do this because "outing" fictional characters seems scandalous and intriguing to them. That's not only insulting, its borderline homophobic.
Khaoula wrote: "i think iago has feelings for Othello . it is obvious in scene 3 act 3 when Iago says : "I am your own forever.""You mean the guy who says "I hate the Moore" and is actively conspiring for the entire play to destroy him by getting him to murder his wife? That guy has feelings for him?? And you do know that the word love was used freely during Shakespeare's time to convey feelings of platonic love between men right?
Oh my god. What even is this discussion? I didn't see any gay subtext in any of his plays.The sonnets are a different kettle of fish, but really? Iago & Othello?
I didn't invent the Iago/Othello theory!
Since homosexuality was a very serious crime in Shakespeare's time - punishable by death - we will have to look very carefully beneath the surface of any text where we think references to it may be hidden. The problem we then face is the way the language has evolved and changed over the past four hundred years. As Matthew points out, the word "love" was used with some different meanings back then, and for Iago to have claimed he loved his general would have been a normal way to show his fealty.On the whole, I'd say Shakespeare himself was a rather cautious writer, unlike his friend and contemporary Kit Marlowe. When dealing with the overthrow of kings, whereas Shakespeare merely hints at effiminacy in his Richard II, Marlowe's portrayal of Edward II was itself a provocation. Rumours of Edward's bisexuality were still being repeated in the Tudor period (nearly three hundred years after his death). Marlowe's murder in unexplained circumstances took place before the play could be put on. He, in turn, was reported to have said, "All they that love not Tobacco and Boys are fools". This, though, may have been a postumous slur and part of a cover-up for his murderers (who may have been political assassins).
Julius Caesar throughout his adult life suffered from persistent rumours that as a youth he had been the favourite of the king of Bythinia. I think Shakespeare would have been aware of this as it is mentioned by the chroniclers he read. If you want to present the idea, for example, that Shakespeare wished to imply a sexual bond between Julius and Mark Anthony, you should do so by finding evidence in the text and presenting it in an objective way.
Philip wrote: "Since homosexuality was a very serious crime in Shakespeare's time - punishable by death - we will have to look very carefully beneath the surface of any text where we think references to it may be..."Beautifully said Philip! And Brooke, though you may not have invented the Iago/Othello discussion, the person who did clearly did not know what they were talking about. The relationship between these two men is one of hatred and betrayal, where the former seeks to destroy the latter because of jealousy and personal bigotry. If whoever suggested this homoerotic angle thinks this is somehow latent attraction, I would say they desperately need to reread the text.
Matthew wrote: Brooke, though you may not have invented the Iago/Othello discussion, the person who did clearly did not know what they were talking about."I recall at some point Iago claims it is "rumoured abroad" that Othello has "done [his] office" ie: has slept with his wife (apologies for any misquotes). Which has always seemed to me rather slim motivation for the outrages Iago commits against his general. I suppose some critic, casting about for a hidden motive, has posited the idea that Iago has erotic feelings for the Moor, which he is disgusted by, and therefore seeks to destroy him in revenge.
Such psychoanalysing of Shakespeare's characters became very much the vogue during the mid to late twentieth century. Even the actor Laurence Olivier used psychoanalysis to get under the skin of Hamlet (in that particular case, by applying the Oedipus complex to Hamlet's predicament and prevarication). I think psychoanalysis can throw up some interesting perspectives on characters in drama, but I go back to my earlier point... any theories have to be based on the text. The text, stuck forever in its historical context, is all we have.
The same would be the case if someone tried to argue that Othello were an anti-racist tract. Of course, a performance group or a critic could use the play to put across such a message if they chose. But that would be within the modern, post-colonial context we find ourselves in today.
I really don't think Iago was gay.
Ah, let's get Mark in here and we'll have the old gang back together again...Now, I know Matthew may have a stroke when I agree with him, but much of what this thread posits at the beginning is fairly absurd.
However, the case can be made (and many a reader/critic has made it already) for Mercutio having a homoerotic attraction for Romeo. This argument isn't much of a stretch and can be well supported with textual evidence. In fact, I'd suggest the text will make the argument for itself upon close reading, but I'll be happy to do some of the heavy lifting here after the dust settles from Matthew denying there's any possibility for this to be remotely the case.
But for starters, Romeo and Juliet doesn't take place in England and so any concerns about the taint or illegality of homosexuality there doesn't really factor into a discussion of a play set in Italy. And would Shakespeare's audience be drawn toward a flamboyant "gay" character like Mercutio based on cultural stereotypes of the time? Yeah, I think it works here.
However, having just put that word "gay" into quote marks, let's not make the mistake of conflating a homoerotic crush on Mercutio's part with the contemporary understanding of what it means to be gay in the year 2014. But yeah, does Mercutio "like" Romeo more than Benvolio does or in a very different way than Benvolio does? Oh yes he does...
Yep, here we go again!I always think Iago's involvement with Roderigo is very telling. The man is putty in his hands; "Put money in thy purse" he repeats about seventeen times when urging him to join the armada to Cyprus and, thereby, fund his evil project.
Decades ago, I saw Edward Fox play the part on stage and I was really struck by the physical slagginess of his pawing at Roderigo (I don't know who played the mark). You could almost argue that the relationship between men-at-arms is always deeper and darker than, say, carpenters or stockbrokers. But, of course, to extrapolate homoeroticism from the such is flimsy and... er... salacious.
Petergiaquinta wrote: But for starters, Romeo and Juliet doesn't take place in England and so any concerns about the taint or illegality of homosexuality there doesn't really factor into a discussion of a play set in Italy.The setting of plays in Elizabethan Italy or ancient Rome is peripheral to their content. Their performance in a large open-air auditorium on the south bank of the Thames is what would have counted in terms of acceptable subject matter and inference in the verse.
Philip wrote: "The setting of plays in Elizabethan Italy or ancient Rome is peripheral to their content."The English perception of Italians, though, plays a large part in how Shakespeare has written the play, and the perceived stereotype of Italians being emotional, passionate people (far moreso than the English) plays into the portrayal of these two feuding families blinded by their hatred of each other, not to mention the lovesick Romeo slave to his raging hormones...
The plays set in Italy allow Shakespeare to explore ideas that would be otherwise impossible to examine in his "English" plays (Othello and Merchant of Venice come to mind). I'm not sure he's as "cautious" a writer as you say. He's certainly cautious not to offend the political powers of his age, but the social/cultural issues he raises in his plays aren't exactly "cautious." Think, for example, how interesting (and strong) his female characters are in contrast to other playwrights or poets of the time.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Ah, let's get Mark in here and we'll have the old gang back together again...Now, I know Matthew may have a stroke when I agree with him, but much of what this thread posits at the beginning is f..."
Peter, stop dropping my name! I kids of course, and if I may return that same sense of shock your way, I would like to go on record as saying that I don't entirely disagree with you on the whole Mercutio-Romeo angle. While Romeo could hardly be said to share any such feelings, it's not so far fetched to think Mercutio has a thing for him.
As for the choice of setting, this remains a bone of contention with Shakespeare so many centuries later. While some think he liked exploring the cultural norms and history of different cultures, other people would emphasize that he never visited these places and was not above using both anachronisms and cultural references that were particular to the English.
As for me, I could go either way. Whoops! I mean both arguments sound fine to me (couldn't resist, sorry!)
Matthew wrote: "While Romeo could hardly be said to share any such feelings, it's not so far fetched to think Mercutio has a thing for him."I agree entirely...this is a one-sided crush on the part of Mercutio with only heart-felt friendship in return from Romeo. And Mercutio's character doesn't have to be read this way at all. I certainly wasn't taught the play back in ninth grade with a homo-erotic reading for Mercutio, but over the years I've decided that Shakespeare is having some real fun with his character. He just says way too many things to/about Romeo with too many double entendres to ignore the possibility.
For example, the entire exchange between Mercutio and Tybalt can be read in two very different ways, but Mercutio's comments about "a word and a blow" ahd his asking Tybalt, "Can you not take some occasion without giving?" point us toward a more sexually charged understanding of the conversation that is only reinforced when Tybalt responds using the word "consort" referring to Mercutio's relationship with Romeo and the offense that Mercutio takes at its use. Finally Mercutio's humorous reference to his "fiddlestick" is best read with a sexual understanding beneath the obvious musical one.
And if you think about the series of foils, parallels and counterparts that occur throughout this play which begins by introducing the "two households both alike in dignity," well, both of these households have an intimate connection to Prince Escalus: his kinsman Paris takes a romantic interest in marrying Juliet and the Prince's other kinsman Mercutio just might have a similar interest in Romeo...
And the "blind bow-boy's butt shaft"? Mercutio gets all the good lines in the play, doesn't he?
Petergiaquinta wrote: He's certainly cautious not to offend the political powers of his age, but the social/cultural issues he raises in his plays aren't exactly "cautious."By using the word "cautious" I'm not saying that Shakespeare was uncourageous. He was, after all, part of the consortium that took the financial risk of moving their theatre across the river onto farmland. I mentioned his "Richard the Second", which was performed on the eve of the Essex rebellion. Its theme, the overthrow of a king, could have got him and the rest of the company hung, drawn and quartered for their pains. But they were known as The Lord Chamberlain's Men and their loyalty to the crown was never really in doubt.
Generally, Shakespeare was a conservative sort of chap who wouldn't touch religion - for example - with a barge-pole. Except to make fun of Italian papism.
Yes, he did put strong, engaging women into his plays: for example, Isabella in "Measure for Measure", Portia in "The Merchant of Venice", and the Mistresses Ford & Page in "The Merry Wives of Windsor". But I think the greater number of female charatcers to be found in Shakespeare is as much to do with his prolific output as anything else.
^Dude, you left out Emilia. She was 1/2 of what, for me, made reading Othello bearable.
Brooke wrote: "^Dude, you left out Emilia. She was 1/2 of what, for me, made reading Othello bearable."Emilia is a great character, great supporting role, tops Desdemona any day of the week. How on earth she comes to be married to Iago is as big a mystery as Lois and Peter Griffin.
There are certainly homosexual nods in some Shakespeare, but I'm not so sure about in the plays mentioned. I feel like you could probably find it anywhere when you over analyse, but if you want a particularly obvious example, just look to Orsino and Viola in Twelfth Night. If you look at the plays in the context of when they were written, it was quite normal for men in power to take advantage of boys in service. Boys were considered quite feminine, and more so when they were in a position of service. Their subservient/submissive position usually meant the men in power felt they could take advantage of them however they saw fit, and usually with little consequence. There are recorded accounts of boys of service being taken to bed by the men of the house they are attending, so when you think of this in direct relation to the relationship between Orsino and Viola as Cesario... Remember, Orsino was falling in love well before he knew Cesario was actually a woman. How convenient that the person Orsino falls in love with happens to be female! Everything is wrapped up nicely, as it should according to comedic convention. Let's keep the audience happy, now!
And regarding the argument of the men dressed as women thing. Yes, women were not allowed to act but Shakespeare was very cheeky in blurring the lines of gender even more, particularly when it came to characters that were cross dressing ie. Men dressed as women dressed as men (such as Viola/Cesario). It was also a belief of the time that gender was fluid, and that male actors dressing as females risked becoming women and the theatre came under quite a bit of scrutiny for this, so it's highly likely Shakespeare was directly addressing this as well as the issues surrounding social views on homosexuality with a lot of his cross dressing characters.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
-I'm unsure whether or not Iago was gay for Othello, or even gay at all, but I'm almost 100% sure Emilia was gay for Desdemona.
Romeo and Juliet
-Mercutio sure likes teasing Romeo about his crushes. Could there be an ulterior motive?
-Romeo seems to use the word "love" a lot in connection to Tybalt. Might be in more than just a cousin-in-law way, you know what I mean?
Julius Caesar
-Oh, come ON. Shakespeare all but flat-out tells you that Antony was in love with Caesar.
-Brutus and Cassius: Best friendship heavily hinting at something more. (The only "couple" on this whole list where the affection might have been mutual, ha ha.)
Over and out.