Kynren Review

It seems that Kynren was trying to be everyone’s cup of tea.
On paper, it sounds brilliant: a fantastic open air theatre, 2000 years of history, special effects like you’ve never seen on the stage before, and all sugar coated in loud dramatic music and the obligatory dancing. Not to mention, it has been brought to Britain by Puy de Fou, which has run its remarkably similar Cinéscénie for over 40 years. Incidentally, this tale of French history has been such a success that an adjoining theme park has been based upon it.

It began with a small boy, dreaming of being a footballer, accidentally kicking a ball through the window of the Bishop of Durham’s home on the estate of Bishop Auckland Castle. The pair strike up a sort of friendship, and persuading the boy to learn about his local history, asks him to walk through the castle’s magical doorway which will take him back in time; the rest was, as you might say, history.

In reality, it seemed to be trying a bit too hard. A lack of intellectual dialogue made it accessible to children, though distanced adults. The dancing, though fun initially, got rather tedious after 2 hours. ‘Can’t they run?’, someone near to me to had whispered as the dancers slowly jived their way off the set. The story line was basically non-existent; Kynren, though it advertises itself as a journey through history, was really just an abrupt pit stop at a few moments of history that popular culture has already swallowed up for its own.

The ideals behind the script were somewhat on the nose, and rather odd for what was sold as a historical, almost educational piece. It was colonialist in the kind of way that Grandparents are: well-meaning, but by no means accidental. A scene depicting one of Queen Victoria’s Jubilees opened with a cry of ‘the whole world is here!’, while a few hundred volunteers dressed in a variety of stereotypical English work clothes and others in traditionally Indian clothing began to dance in a culturally appropriate fashion. Though this was quite a spectacle – the dancers all stayed in the centre of the open stage, while a veiled Queen Victoria circled the perimeter in her carriage – there was no mention or even implication of the damage caused by Britain’s colonialist past. As all different races danced together in unity, it was easy to forget that India was simply thought of as the ‘jewel’ of Britain’s empire; though attitudes have greatly changed now, at the time, India was thought of as something lesser to Britain. All that Kynren seemed to do was look back through rose tinted glasses, leading the audience, with a subtle sense of nostalgia, think ‘wasn’t that a better time?’.

Unexpectedly, Christianity references were also pertinent. In such a diverse society as we live in today, our media tends to reflect our acceptance of multiculturalism; perhaps this is why it was so strange to see a piece that was so one-dimensionally Christian. Though there is nothing wrong with Religious affiliations, it came off as distasteful to be only skin-deep. By the end of the second world war, the audience had been told that the North East had been protected by ‘St Cuthbert’s magical fog’, though there was no mention of the men and women who had lost their lives trying to protect the UK and its allies. This can, however, be explained by the fact that it has been funded by devout Christian Jonathan Ruffer, a Barrister turned investor and art collector who has invested his millions into Auckland Castle, and the adjoining Kynren show.

It did, however, give light to the technology that can be used in theatre today (most memorably, ships that came out of the water with the actors already on them), alongside the dynamic stages that can be used to revolutionise theatre. Though the story line was poor, the staging certainly was not, with each scene involving at least some sort of fire, live animals, walking on water, and the obligatory dancing. Though there was certainly something missing from Kynren, it is easy to imagine the likes of the RSC using this form of staging – perfect for dramatic battle scenes or for lively comedy.

I would recommend this to any who has the money to pay for tickets - if only to see the bring lights and the showmanship of the piece. I look forward to seeing more theatre of this sort in the future; though there was something missing from Kynren, and though many seemed to come away wishing there had been just a tad more substance to it, it was still an enjoyable night out. Bravo to Puy de Fou for bringing such such out of the box theatre to such a little known place in the North East.

I, too - Langston Hughes - Poetry Analysis

I, too, sing America. 

I am the darker brother. 

They send me to eat in the kitchen 

When company comes, 

But I laugh, 

And eat well, 

And grow strong. 

Tomorrow, 

I’ll be at the table 

When company comes. 

Nobody’ll dare 

Say to me, 

“Eat in the kitchen,” 

Then. 

Besides, 

They’ll see how beautiful I am 

And be ashamed— 

I, too, am America.

Langston Hughes


An absolutely beautiful poem by Langston Hughes, very powerful.

About Langston Hughes – Contextual Knowledge
-Born 1902, Missouri.
-Parents divorced when he was still young, and was instead raised by his Grandmother. However, he did later move to Lincoln with his mother and her new husband, and it was here that he began to write poetry.
-Held various jobs, such as a cook and a waiter, and worked at a launderette.
-Later travelled England and Africa as a seaman.
-His first book of poetry, ‘The Weary Blues’, was published by Knopf in 1926.
-His first novel, ‘Not without laughter’, was published 1930. It won the Harmon Gold Medal for literature.
-Most famous for his rich portrayals of life for African Americans from the 20’s through to the 60’s.
-He was a great influence towards the Harlem Renaissance in the 1920’s.
-Died in 1967 in New York, after complications with regard to his prostate cancer.

Poetry Notes
-References to 'brother' instills ideas of camaraderie, and of a shared interest.
-'I laugh/I eat well/and I grow strong' - shows that the racial equality movement is growing in strength, fed from positive sources, and joining together with confidence.
-'Tomorrow' could be thought of as a reference to revolution; as a noun, it is typically used in speeches to inspire and appeals to the reader/listener's imagination. However, this means that the narrator's dreams of equality may be just that - dreams.
-'I'll be at the table/when the company comes' - this again seems to be a revolutionary reference, hearkening to the protests against racial segregation in the USA. By following this line with 'nobody'll dare/say to me/"Eat in the Kitchen"/then', the reader has the understanding that the narrator has not been invited to the table.
-Use of the word 'dare' shows that the narrator's presence is a threat - though in what sense? Is he a threat to the power of the presumably white family? Is it a personal threat, local only to the white family, or is it a threat because the narrator's actions speak for all racially oppressed peoples in the USA?
-'I'll' - Langston Hughes focusses here on personal grievance and bitterness, and then returns to a voice for the many in the last stanza.
-The sharp, unstressed ending of this stanza - 'then' - gives the narrator a nature of superiority by again insinuating threats. The use of 'then' implies that something has happened, or something has been done, to achieve this new outcome.
-With a view of only the second stanza, the narrator's dreams seem to feature a reversal of racial superiority, rather than equality.
-'I, too, sing America', 'I, too, am America' - the mere mention of singing shows that the people, though oppressed have a voice, and are capable of using it. 'I, too, am America' shows the importance of singing the praise of all people, and of putting common unity against our differences, whatever they may be.
-'Besides,/They’ll see how beautiful I am/And be ashamed' - This stanza is hopeful, ending the poem on a positive note - what makes us different makes us beautiful.
-Continually asserts the wrongdoing of white oppressors. Use of the word 'ashamed' shows not only understanding of their wrongdoing, but also implies that they have come to this conclusion personally. 

From Chick Flicks to Classics: Can you measure gender equality?

Few novels manage to pass the test: Homer’s Odyssey fails miserably, War and Peace (despite its 1300 pages) barely passes the test, and even Romeo and Juliet missed the mark.
But what could these well-thumbed classics all have failed? They failed the Bechdel test.
The Bechdel test, the invention of Alison Bechdel in her comic ‘Dykes to Watch Out For’ in 1985, is rather simple. For it to pass the test of equal gender representation, all that the piece requires is this: two named female characters having at least one discussion on a subject that isn’t men.

More surprisingly, though, there is still a large proportion of modern fiction that fails Bechdel’s infamous test. Action based movies and franchises are possibly the worst, with ‘Lord of the Rings’, ‘Star Wars’, and ‘Avatar’ all failing.
However, this is understandable when we see that across the board, writing, reviewing, and other media roles is statistically dominated by men. See stats.

But, can we really trust the Bechdel test? Many would be surprised to know that ‘Twilight’ passes the notorious Bechdel test. How, you may ask? Bella has a brief conversation with her mother about moving to a new town – weak, but it still means that it just about passes the Bechdel test.
Bella Swan: the infamously one-dimensional character whose self-professed main reason to continue living is her boyfriend, and whose obsession with being able to sleep with her boyfriend took up nearly two novels, is, according to the Bechdel test, a prime example of gender-equal representation.

So, it seems that there’s more than a couple things wrong with the Bechdel test then. For example, what if the piece is from the seen from the eyes of a man? As feminist as the piece may be, it is highly likely that the character would never witness two female characters ever discussing something alone, and thus less likely that they would be seen to be discussing something non-male-related.
Not to mention, not all conversations about men are necessarily patriarchal. It’s somewhat condescending to think that women couldn’t have a conversation with regard to men and give up their feminist rights.

Let’s assume then that the Bechdel test is utter crap then – what criteria does a piece of media need to be gender equal?
1. Is there a major female character in the story? In films such as ‘The Social Network’, women served only as dramatic subplots – like, where they’d get banged in the bathroom and never seen again.
2. Are the women in the story active or reactive? Do the women in the story take initiative, or do they only act when told to do so?

So really, it does not matter then if a piece passes the Bechdel test. After all, movies such as Interstellar and the last Harry Potter movie (the Deathly Hallows part 2) failed the test, despite it featuring strong and dimensional heroines. What seems to matter more is if it falls victim to something colloquially known as ‘The Smurfette principle’, a term coined by Katha Pollitt in 1991 in an article for The New York Times. The Smurfette principle relates to the fact that there is only one female token character in an all-male ensemble. This is still a common phenomenon in media today; the initial pilot series of the Big Bang theory made use of this, and the Muppets continue to do so with Miss Piggy.

This is certainly the more damaging phenomenon of the two. The poignant US documentary by Jennifer Siebel Newsom preaches this message well, with the motto ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’. In all practicality, this seems to be true; how can young women grow up to be strong and independent without having media role models to follow? And though the focus here has been on women, this really is a universal message – for the men who think they can’t be sentimental, for any LGBT people who have so little representation in films and books, or for everyone out there who has can only look to size supermodels for a show of beauty, we need to change the way we represent people in the media.
Granted, not every character always has to be the pinnacle of strength. What matters is that each character is individual – so no more token characters pulled out of the bag time and time again for at least a good proportion of the DVDs and films on your bedroom shelves. A good writer can continue to promote positive ideals while still creating a variety of characters along the spectrum.

Think of the last time you could relate to a character in a film or a book. For many this will be recently, though for many in the minority, it may be longer. Equal representation in our culture and media is so important: the arts are something that we need to inspire us; we need them to communicate, and they are a vital part of who we are as people. One day, hopefully, gender equality will be so ingrained into our society that we won't have to use tests like Bechdel's, or see cases of the Smurfette principle time and time again. 

The Flea (John Donne) - Poetry Analysis

The Flea - John Donne
Mark but this flea, and mark in this,  

How little that which thou deniest me is;  

It sucked me first, and now sucks thee,

And in this flea our two bloods mingled be;  

Thou know’st that this cannot be said

A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead,

    Yet this enjoys before it woo,

    And pampered swells with one blood made of two,

    And this, alas, is more than we would do.

Oh stay, three lives in one flea spare,

Where we almost, nay more than married are.  

This flea is you and I, and this

Our mariage bed, and marriage temple is;  

Though parents grudge, and you, w'are met,  

And cloistered in these living walls of jet.

    Though use make you apt to kill me,

    Let not to that, self-murder added be,

    And sacrilege, three sins in killing three.

Cruel and sudden, hast thou since

Purpled thy nail, in blood of innocence?  

Wherein could this flea guilty be,

Except in that drop which it sucked from thee?  

Yet thou triumph’st, and say'st that thou  

Find’st not thy self, nor me the weaker now;

    ’Tis true; then learn how false, fears be:

    Just so much honor, when thou yield’st to me,

    Will waste, as this flea’s death took life from thee.

Analysis

Context

-Written by John Donne, published in 1633 (posthumously)

-Donne was a metaphysical poet , focussing on inventive use of conceits, and speculation on topics such as love or religion.

Form

-The poem is a conceit, meaning an ingenious or fanciful comparison or metaphor.

-Structure: 4 iambic feet, then 5 iambic feet.

Narrative Analysis

-The poem contrasts the insignificance of the flea to the woman’s contextually valuable ‘maidenhead’, creating bathos.

-‘Thou knowst that this cannot be said/ a sin, nor shame, nor maidenhead’ – she knows that being bitten by a flea is not a sin, so Donne compares this to ‘loss of maidenhead’, claiming it is just as insignificant.

-Strong links to religion – ‘three lives in one flea’ possibly reflects father, son, and holy spirit – the trinity ‘one god in three persons’ could also mean that it is inversion. ‘Marriage temple’ –odd choice of words - A temple is a structure reserved for religious or spiritual rituals and activities such as prayer and sacrifice. Juxtaposition of what is at its heart pure, with something that, in the church’s eyes, is indecent – sex out of wedlock. Bathos. May link to corruption within the church, takes on the same purpose as a comedy of manner, ridiculing society.

Satirical Elegy (Jonathan Swift) - Poetry Analysis

His Grace! impossible! what, dead!

Of old age too, and in his bed!

And could that mighty warrior fall,

And so inglorious, after all?

Well, since he's gone, no matter how,

The last loud trump must wake him now;

And, trust me, as the noise grows stronger,

He'd wish to sleep a little longer.

And could he be indeed so old

As by the newspapers we're told?

Threescore, I think, is pretty high;

'Twas time in conscience he should die!

This world he cumber'd long enough;

He burnt his candle to the snuff;

And that's the reason, some folks think,

He left behind so great a s----k.

Behold his funeral appears.

Nor widow's sighs, nor orphan's tears,

Wont at such times each heart to pierce,

Attend the progress of his hearse.

But what of that? his friends may say,

He had those honours in his day.

True to his profit and his pride,

He made them weep before he died

Come hither, all ye empty things,

Ye bubbles rais'd by breath of kings;

Who float upon the tide of state;

Come hither, and behold your fate.

Let pride be taught by this rebuke,

How very mean a thing's a duke;

From all his ill-got honours flung,

Turn'd to that dirt from whence he sprung.

Analysis

Context

-Written by Johnathan Swift

-The ‘late famous general’ was said to be fictional, so that Swift would not be prosecuted for his slander, though it was most likely based upon John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough.

Form

-Structure: 12 lines of rhyming couplets that do not repeat a rhyme once. Fist stanza is open couplets apart from the last couplet, which is closed. This is followed by a shorter stanza of 4 lines of rhyming couplets.

-Meter: 4 iambic feet – iambic tetrameter. These are mock heroic couplets. 5 iambic feet would be heroic couplets (what Shakespeare writes in). Therefore, the general falls one short.

-An elegy, written after a funeral, would usually repent the deceased.

Narrative Analysis

-‘His Grace! Impossible! What Dead!’ – asyndeton. The repeated exclamatives are hyperbolic, suggesting indiscretion, and a sort of gossipy tone.

-‘Of old age too and in his bed!’ – seething with sarcasm. Mocks the ideas that a great general would not be out on the field fighting, but would rather die of old age in his bed.

-Anaphora on ‘and’ at the beginning of lines.

-‘The last loud trump must wake him now’ – pun on the word trump, while referencing the Christian idea of judgement after death.

-‘And trust me, as the noise grows stronger,/he’s wish to sleep a little longer.’ – alliteration for emphasis. Open couplet for emphasis.

-‘Could he be indeed so old’ – assonance on the ‘e’ sound.

-‘Threescore, I think, is pretty high’ – 60. The average life expectancy is 70, so he again falls 10 short.

-‘He left behind so great a stink’ – Might have been better for him to die in battle rather than gain a bad reputation. The stink may be his past deeds, or perhaps the literal remains he has left behind.

-‘Come hither, all ye empty things,

Ye bybbles rais’d by breath of Kings;

Who float upon the tide of state,

Come hither, and behold your fate.

Let pride be taught by this rebuke,

How very mean a thing’s a Duke;

From all his ill got honours flung,

Turn’d to that dirt from whence he sprung’

-References to the children of monarchs, who live off the state rather than their own careers

-‘Tide of state’ – new governments?

-‘Bubbles rais’d by breath of kings’ – metaphor. Puffed up, and pretty, but with little substance.

-Patronising – takes advantage of the General while he is dead, so the ridicule is brutal.

-It warns about privilege – use it for good, and change people’s lives.

Sunny Prestatyn (Philip Larkin) - Poetry Analysis

Come to Sunny Prestatyn

Laughed the girl on the poster,

Kneeling up on the sand

In tautened white satin.

Behind her, a hunk of coast, a

Hotel with palms

Seemed to expand from her thighs and

Spread breast-lifting arms.

She was slapped up one day in March.

A couple of weeks, and her face

Was snaggle-toothed and boss-eyed;

Huge tits and a fissured crotch

Were scored well in, and the space

Between her legs held scrawls

That set her fairly astride

A tuberous cock and balls

Autographed Titch Thomas, while

Someone had used a knife

Or something to stab right through

The moustached lips of her smile.

She was too good for this life.

Very soon, a great transverse tear

Left only a hand and some blue.

Now Fight Cancer is there.

Analysis

Context

-Written by Philip Larkin in 1962

-The poem was written in an era of sexism, so in the context in which it was published the poem is not necessarily sexist – or it may be trying to portray the sexualisation of women.

Form and Narrative

-It frequently uses a clash of formal/informal language, creating bathos.

-This may be representative of the contrasts between the upper class and the lower class – it presents the upper classes as educated, with a strong sense of morality, while the lower classes are uneducated, using crude language (huge tits), and bring destruction. The reader may find this uncomfortable to read unless they align with Larkin’s views – while the Satirical elegy promotes change through the ridicule of the idle rich, Larkin is simply criticising the lower classes.

-The poster symbolises corruption – fight the cancer.

-Generally iambic meter, though anapaestic feet are used.

-The poem drifts somewhere between formal meter and free verse.

-It may explore the illusory nature of desire and of making the world a perfect/beautiful place. Rapid deterioration shows reality – humans destroy the earth.

-It may be a satire to ridicule the modern culture of consumption – advertise – consume – ruin it.

-Society has degraded the perfect woman.

-‘Spread breast-lifting arms.’ – the last line of the first stanza shows cadence because it does not belong to any meter, so makes it uncomfortable to read, particularly because the last word is stretched (this adds to the bathos)

-Anapaest on ‘space’ and ‘stride’ makes it difficult and uncomfortable to read, stressing the end of the lines for extra emphasis.

-In the last stanza, there are 4 consecutive unstressed end lines, creating a tone of change. The movement is from dark humour to sadness.

Not My Best Side (UA Fanthorpe) - Poetry Analysis

Not my Best Side  - UA Fanthorpe

I

Not my best side, I'm afraid.

The artist didn't give me a chance to

Pose properly, and as you can see,

Poor chap, he had this obsession with

Triangles, so he left off two of my

Feet. I didn't comment at the time

(What, after all, are two feet

To a monster?) but afterwards

I was sorry for the bad publicity.

Why, I said to myself, should my conqueror

Be so ostentatiously beardless, and ride

A horse with a deformed neck and square hoofs?

Why should my victim be so

Unattractive as to be inedible,

And why should she have me literally

On a string? I don't mind dying

Ritually, since I always rise again,

But I should have liked a little more blood

To show they were taking me seriously.

II

It's hard for a girl to be sure if

She wants to be rescued. I mean, I quite

Took to the dragon. It's nice to be

Liked, if you know what I mean. He was

So nicely physical, with his claws

And lovely green skin, and that sexy tail,

And the way he looked at me,

He made me feel he was all ready to

Eat me. And any girl enjoys that.

So when this boy turned up, wearing machinery,

On a really dangerous horse, to be honest

I didn't much fancy him. I mean,

What was he like underneath the hardware?

He might have acne, blackheads or even

Bad breath for all I could tell, but the dragon--

Well, you could see all his equipment

At a glance. Still, what could I do?

The dragon got himself beaten by the boy,

And a girl's got to think of her future.

III

I have diplomas in Dragon

Management and Virgin Reclamation.

My horse is the latest model, with

Automatic transmission and built-in

Obsolescence. My spear is custom-built,

And my prototype armour

Still on the secret list. You can't

Do better than me at the moment.

I'm qualified and equipped to the

Eyebrow. So why be difficult?

Don't you want to be killed and/or rescued

In the most contemporary way? Don't

You want to carry out the roles

That sociology and myth have designed for you?

Don't you realize that, by being choosy,

You are endangering job prospects

In the spear- and horse-building industries?

What, in any case, does it matter what

You want? You're in my way.

Analysis

Context

-Written by U.A Fanthorpe, and published in

-Based on an 1870 painting by Paolo Uccelo. The painter obsessively used triangles throughout the piece, indicating that he was a perfectionist rather than a realist, and perhaps had OCD. He created spear lines with the storm clouds, giving the idea that it was ordained by God.

-The original myth is from a popular collection of Saint’s lives, written in the 13th Century called ‘The Golden Legend’.

-The character’s from the poem mutiny against their painter – their creator.

-The contrast of the context behind the painting and the themes in the poem creates bathos, and shows that in a way these characters are still alive, wittily pointed out by the dragon – ‘I don’t mind dying ritually, since I always rise again’. These characters, as part of an English aetiological myth, still impact people today in the roles they have created within society. It shows that at its core, society has not changed between the time the painting was created and the time the poem was written. -Enjambment throughout the poem makes it conversational.

-Stanza voices: Stanza 1 – the dragon, stanza 2 – the woman/princess, stanza 3 – the man/rescuer

Stanza 1: The dragon.

-The voice of the dragon is intelligent, though somewhat vain – to use the colloquial term, ‘camp’.

-Intelligence – sophisticated vocabulary.

-The dragon actually has a voice, which is humorous and ridiculous in itself.

-Is mocking towards the knight, the woman, and the painter and through that ridicules a central myth to our society.

-Condescending towards the artist – ‘poor chap’. Jokes about the obsession with triangles, and the fact he is missing 2 feet.

-Buys into common stereotypes – mocks the man being ‘ostentatiously beardless’ (not manly), the woman being ‘unattractive as to be inedible’ (lacking in beauty), and questions why he himself is not a fearsome dragon (‘why should she have me literally on a string?’). He continues to mock his own divergence from the dragon stereotype by saying ‘what, after all, are two feet to a monster?’.

-Rhetorical questions matched with the satirically posed stereotypes make the reader question the roles that society sets out for us.

-Satire on vanity: it is odd that the vanity is not shown in the woman’s character, but rather in the dragon’s.

-He treats himself as a modern day celebrity – ‘I was sorry for the bad publicity’ – creating bathos. However, the fact is that The dragon shouldn’t care about publicity – in popular culture, he is the antagonist, a renowned figure symbolising evil. This shows that society can blindly use stereotypes to create scapegoats, without thinking about individuality.

-The dragon talks about death light-heartedly, preventing the poem from losing its comedic element. However, since it is not common to talk about the subject so easily – ‘I don’t mind dying/Ritually, since I always rise again’ – it retains the same impact.

-But, the dragon goes from talking about the woman in ‘And why should she have me literally/On a string? I don’t mind dying/ritually, since I always rise again’ straight to death, reflecting the societal view that the two are adjoined. In the painting, she is offering the string to the man, who is saving her from temptation.

-‘But I should have liked a little more blood/to show they were taking me seriously’ – the dragon has been easily overpowered, belittling him.

Stanza 2, Woman:

-Typical stereotyped modern day woman, though this clashes with the idea of a modest, virginal princess, creating bathos through the subversion of the legend.

-The voice of the woman is neither intelligent nor ladylike, though she is humorous in her lack of propriety.

-A typical reader will not like the character of the woman, as she is crass – ‘What was he like underneath the hardware?’ – though this should make them uncomfortable as they realise that they would otherwise be forcing her to fit into a specified gender role.

-Subverts the legend and social norms through being over sexualised, and wanting to stay with the dragon, rather than go with the rescuer.

-Though it is ironic and light hearted, the woman is self-obsessed. She is particularly shallow, even more so than the dragon, focussing on physical appearance with materialistic ideals – ‘lovely green skin’ and ‘sexy tail’.

-There are 3 levels of irony in this

a. She wants to stay with the dragon, which is given humanoid qualities

b. Innuendo surrounding the dragon (bathos)

c. The dragon doesn’t like her back

-She buys into typical gender roles too, calling her rescuer ‘boy’ – links to ‘ostentatiously bearded’, wanting the rescuer to have stereotypical masculinity.

-Unintelligent – most of the humour is crude or sarcasm – ‘On a really dangerous horse’

-As a reader, we have a dislike for the woman, as she is out of place (she is vulgar, unintelligent, and shallow). Though she is brought up to be a princess, the reality is that this is not possible – this is an issue that affects us even today. Line ‘A girl’s got to think of her future’ links to a feminist perspective.

-It is unclear as to whether we laugh at her for being this way, or do we laugh because she has not lived up to our expectations – do we want the princess to be entirely pure or a modern day female idol?

Voice 3: The Man/Rescuer

-The man can basically be thought of as a representation of the patriarchy.

-The stanza begins in the first person singular pronoun, showing that the man has little care for anyone outside of himself.

-His horse becomes a machine, rather than being a conscious being. Adds to the sense that the man is entirely unfeeling.

-Immediately a sense of male superiority – ‘Virgin reclamation’ alludes to the idea that he alone can save the woman, and bring her back to her original value – objectification of women.

-‘So why be difficult?’ – the other 2 characters do not fit into his narrative. This breaks the 4th wall.

-Bathos with the juxtaposition of ‘diplomas’ to the classic tale and painting.

-‘Don’t you realise that, by being choosy,/you are endangering job prospects/in the spear- and horse-building industries?’ – this clearly says that by going against the grain, the woman is ruining society. Common argument feminists face today.

-The man is happy with his role, while nobody else is. This is because: he has the most power; society favours men; the woman and the dragon are objectified; his mere role makes him powerful, while he is not powerful himself – if he loses his position and masculine role, he has nothing.