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.

My Rival's House (Carol Ann Duffy) - Poetry Analysis

My Rival's House - Carol Ann Duffy

is peopled with many surfaces.

Ormolu and gilt, slipper satin,

lush velvet couches,

cushions so stiff you can't sink in.

Tables polished clear enough to see distortions in.

We take our shoes off at her door,

shuffle stocking-soled, tiptoe – the parquet floor

is beautiful and its surface must

be protected. Dust-

cover, drawn shade,

won’t let the surface colour fade.

Silver sugar-tongs and silver salver,

my rival serves us tea.

She glosses over him and me.

I am all edges, a surface, a shell

and yet my rival thinks she means me well.

But what squirms beneath her surface I can tell.

Soon, my rival

capped tooth, polished nail

will fight, fight foul for her survival.

Deferential, daughterly, I sip

and thank her nicely for each bitter cup.

And I have much to thank her for.

This son she bore –

first blood to her –

never, never can escape scot free

the sour potluck of family.

And oh how close

this family that furnishes my rival’s place.

Lady of the house.

Queen bee.

She is far more unconscious,

far more dangerous than me.

Listen, I was always my own worst enemy.

She has taken even this from me.

She dishes up her dreams for breakfast.

Dinner, and her salt tears pepper our soup.

She won’t

give up.

Context

-Written by Liz Lochhead

-Post-modern poem, which is ambiguous in its meanings and its social context.

-The rival: assumedly the speaker’s mother in law.

Form

-No obvious rhyme pattern, and no obvious meter. The stanzas follow no set pattern.

-Caesura is a common feature throughout the poem.

-Draws on stereotypical, domineering mother in law, but instead of using it as a humorous device, she creates a more malevolent tone.

Analysis

-Caesura on the first line is unusual, and gives the poem more individual identity and character.

-Personification of surfaces:

                -‘is peopled with many surfaces’

                 -The rival is lonely, and her life is merely caring for and protecting these surfaces –
 perhaps

                in the same way she used to do to her son, and still tries to do.

                -The rival treats her family like objects – they are surfaces to be protected. This shows that

                the mother in law is trying to present a family image.

                -‘Glosses’ links to magazine ideals

                -‘Tables polished clear enough to see distortions in’ – links to trying to project a family

                image, however the fact that it is false means that it is distorted. This may also link

                to the mother in law and the speaker having distorted views of one another.

-The rival protects her son:

                -‘shuffle stocking-soled, tiptoe – the parquet floor/is beautiful and its surface must/be

                protected. Dust/cover, drawn shade,/won’t let the surface colour fade.’

                -Sibilance here, and elsewhere in the poem (esp. in the 1st stanza) add to the sense of

                opulence.

                -This again links to the rival personifying surfaces and objects to represent the son.

                Note that it is only the surface that is being protected – It does not matter that its true

                beauty does not show

                beauty does not show, or that it is getting any use; it is being protected, and this is all that

                matters to the rival.

                -The Mother in law is trying to protect these surfaces from ageing, so perhaps she is doing

                the same to the son. This plays on the stereotype of mothers who still dote on their children

                even in adulthood, showing that the rival possibly still thinks of her son as her little boy.

-The Rival is lonely:

                -At the end of the 3rd stanza, Lochhead writes ‘this family that furnishes my rival’s place’.

                However, the reader will suddenly realise that the rival has no family – there is no mention

                of her own partner, or other children, so it could be assumed that the son is the only family

                member she has left.

                -Instead, her furniture is personified into her family.

                -It becomes sad to think about the rival’s only family member being taken away by the

                speaker.

-The speaker is delicate in comparison to the rival, and their subtle fighting:

                -‘I am all edges, a surface, a shell’ – ‘Edges’ gives the idea that she is trying is trying to

                protect herself from the rival – ironic, seeing as all the rival does herself is try to protect

                others. The use of the word ‘surface’ is interesting, as other ‘surfaces’ in the poem are often

                referred to as the rivals possessions. This indicates that the speaker really does belong to

                the family that the rival heads, despite her feeling like an outsider. A ‘shell’ again indicates

                beauty on the outside, but emptiness on the inside – she is brittle, and if pressured, she

                will break.

                -‘Yet my rival thinks she means me well’ – this makes it all the worse, as the rival thinks she

                is doing what is best.

                -‘But what squirms beneath her surface I can tell’ – Squirms gives the impression of

                something evil, perhaps a snake (stereotypically known for their cunning and lies in popular

                culture). The ‘I can tell’ gives the idea that the speaker thinks she knows what is best, but is

                potentially too suspicious.

                -Use of fricatives (s, ch, sh) links to this soft, serpent sound.

                -‘Soon, my rival/capped tooth, polished nail/will fight, fight foul for her survival’ – the talk

                of teeth and nails hints at animalistic fighting, though the fact the teeth are ‘capped’ and the

                nails are ‘polished’ creates irony. The juxtaposition of the animalistic to the refined also

                creates bathos. Epizeuxis is used to emphasise the word ‘fight’.

                -‘This son she bore/first blood to her’ – this has an almost timeless sense to it, perhaps

                showing that the problems the speaker faces are ones of human nature.

                -‘never, never can escape scot free/the sour potluck of family’ – this could either be a

                reference of the rival’s frustration of the son picking a woman who was not her choice,

                or the speaker’s frustration that her partner can’t choose his mother.

-The Rival’s power:

                -Formal tea makes the speaker awkward – ‘silver sugar tongs and silver salver’.

                -‘Lady of the house’, ‘Queen bee’ – pretty self-explanatory.

                -‘She dishes up her dreams for breakfast./Dinner, and her salt tears pepper our soup’ -

                This again links back to the ideal of the perfect family, to which meals together are a must.

                She has fed her son a lifetime of meals – meals representative of ideals or ‘dreams’.

                However, to bring the speaker into the equation, the rivals dreams are now being destroyed,

                or devoured.

-The speakers power:

                -‘deferential, daughterly’ – the speaker is playing at the same game as the rival. She

                is giving a false impression of her feelings toward the rival.

                -‘thank her nicely for each bitter cup’ -  either the rival is giving each cup grudgingly, or

                the fact that the speaker is bitter towards the mother’s power.

-Themes on class:

                -The rival projects an image of superiority, something which is thoroughly middle class.

                -The image she projects is a one of a traditional, perfect family, when in actuality there are

                cracks underneath – the rival is duplicitous.

                -The decadence is false as the rival is obsessed 

Mrs Sisyphus (Carol Ann Duffy) - Poetry Analysis

Mrs Sisyphus - Carol Ann Duffy

That's him pushing the stone up the hill, the jerk.

I call it a stone - it's nearer the size of a kirk.

When he first started out, it just used to irk,

but now it incenses me, and him, the absolute berk.

I could do something vicious to him with a dirk.

Think of the perks, he says.

What use is a perk, I shriek,

when you haven't time to pop open a cork

or go for so much as a walk in the park?

He's a dork.

Folk flock from miles around just to gawk.

They think it's a quirk,

a bit of a lark.

A load of old bollocks is nearer the mark.

He might as well bark

at the moon -

that's feckin' stone's no sooner up

then it's rolling back

all the way down.

And what does he say?

Mustn't shirk -

keen as a hawk,

lean as a shark

Mustn't shirk!

But I lie alone in the dark,

feeling like Noah's wife did

when he hammered away at the Ark;

like Frau Johann Sebastian Bach. 

My voice reduced to a squawk,

my smile to a twisted smirk;

while, up on the deepening murk of the hill,

he is giving one hundred per cent and more to his work.

Context
-By Carol Ann Duffy, a feminist poet
-First female poet Laureate, from 2009 to present day. She was apparently wary of the position, but took it up because no female poet had before.

-Part of collection ‘The world’s wife’ - The World's Wife is a collection of poems that discuss themes such as sexism, equality, bereavement and birth. The World's Wife look at important events in history from a female perspective and in a controversial way. Published 1999.

The Story Behind Sisyphus-Sisyphus, King of Ephyra (Corinth), worked out a way to cheat death. Before dying, he asked his wife to throw his naked corpse into the middle of a public square: a great dishonour to any high-status Greek, who would demand the proper burial rights. This was supposedly a test of his wife's love for him - ironic then that this poem features a nagging wife.

-Sisyphus ended up on the shores of the river Stix. Complaining to Persephone that his wife had disrespected him in death, we persuaded her to allow him to return to the living to ensure he was given his proper burial rights.

-As soon as he returns, he scolds his wife for not burying his body.

-Sisyphus refuses to return to the underworld, and for a while, it seems that he has cheated death.

-Eventually, Hermes forcibly drags Sisyphus back to the underworld , where he is sentenced to his never-ending challenge to push the stone up the hill.

Identity of Women

-Title of Mrs Sisyphus links to feminism – her name does not even feature, and instead takes the name of her husband, showing her insignificance. Broken down, the name ‘Mrs Sisyphus’ merely means wife of Sisyphus.

Interpretation: -Property of Sisyphus

-Being a wife is her primary role in life – she takes the identity of her husband. She doesn’t have an identity outside of this.

Power Struggles with regard to gender

-Power struggles within the poem – The poem has a focus upon Sisyphus, and the title indicates that she is lacking in power. However, the man speaks only through Mrs Sisyphus (who is the primary, and only voice within the poem), showing she has power over him.
-Humorous because the poem plays off anger in a laid back manner. Diverts anger with colloquial language (linking back Duffy’s Scottish heritage) – ‘kirk’, ‘irk’, ‘berk’, ‘dirk’. Use of plosives mean that it is not easy to read, making the style awkward and broken.

-‘I could do something vicious to him with a dirk’ – the vague nature of the statement shows that she is bluffing, so is again deflecting her anger. The exaggerated violence of it is humorous.

Stereotypes of the nuclear family

-‘Think of the perks, he says.

What use is a perk, I shriek,

when you haven’t the time to pop open a cork
or go for so much as a walk in the park?’-

Interpretations: -caesura creates free-flowing speaking style, giving the impression of conversation. This is helped by the alliteration of the ‘p’ sounds, linking the lines together and creating more coherence. However, matched with the short clauses of ‘think of the perks’, it retains a feeling of irritation.       

-‘pop open a cork’ or ‘walk in the park’ – shows that the husband is not there for special occasions, eg weddings or birthdays, or on an everyday basis – though each are as important as each other.                    

-Perks is a modern word, and contrasts with the classical tale, creating bathos. As we would normally use it in terms of employment, it gives the poem a relatable modern context.

-‘Folk flock from miles around’ – use of frigitives make the phrase sound harsh, adding to the sense of frustration. Narratively, it gives the idea that the wife has a focus on presentation, and how the world sees the family.
-‘Mustn’t shirk

Keen as a hawk,

lean as a shark,

Mustn’t shirk’ –

Interpretations: -mirror company slogans, and to the corporate theme of the poem. This extends the mockery of the husband to the mockery of capitalist society. -Use of Panalepsis and Ischolen. 

-‘Feeling like Noah’s wife did

when he hammered away at the ark’ – does this link to an affair? Bawdy humour? – especially since it is followed by ‘like Frau Johann Sebastian Bach’, whose husband had a series of affairs.

-‘He is giving one hundred per cent and more to his work’ – the poem ends on a cliché, perhaps showing that it is the wife in the wrong. This makes the reader perhaps doubt the woman’s intelligence, though there is little reason for them to judge her. Duffy makes the reader question their own views on women in doing so.