Customer Reviews

Novel Shakespeares: Twentieth-Century Women Novelists and Appropriation

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The female authors and the texts that Julie Sanders focuses on are repeated over and over on the cover of Novel Shakespeares, and the image of the Bard is shaded a different color, yet still using the women's names to create the image. Within the text, Sanders attempts (and succeeds) to bring to light the positive manner women have "appropriated" Shakespeare by "engaging in this parallel process of textual takeover and adaptation-the rendering of apposite or appropriate, as it were, of Shakespearean drama in a new context" (3). It isn't just the appropriation of Shakespeare that Sanders focuses on, but also the importance of intertextuality within any text which makes a meaningful and lasting impact upon its readers. Sanders chose to focus on eight central female authors who have appropriated Shakespeare in a similar positive manner, all the while intertwining those women's texts along with various other authors and texts, to communicate the important message offered in re-visioning and appropriating Shakespeare.

In her introduction Sanders chooses to address the many definitions of the word "appropriation" to show the evolving perspective in order to familiarize the reader with the varying degrees of appropriation. Rather than showing the purely negative connotation the idea of appropriation can invoke ("annex or arrogate"), Sanders focuses on the positive affiliation with the word that she gears her arguments towards: seeing appropriation as "a greater sense of setting something apart from its original purpose" (2). Using the female perspective in female texts, Sanders has a plethora to pull from to prove that "by opting for an alternative genre to that of their male-authored dramatic precursors, they assert the innovative and creative aspect of their work" (4). Rather than seeing these authors as borrowing from the master writer only to change his words slightly, Sanders encourages readers to see the subtle ways women authors have chosen to write their re-visions of Shakespeare. Sanders points out the positive outcome these women's texts have had, and will continue to have upon the literary community in re-viewing Shakespeare and giving voiceless characters a voice within their texts.

To join together a very different and diverse group of authors and texts Sanders focuses on the larger whole that appropriation represents. Instead of limiting her study to one particular genre or one particularly repeated appropriated text, Sanders uses a wide variety from across cultural borders to continue to emphasize the importance intertextuality plays in compelling re-workings of Shakespeare. Throughout the text the reader is shown the common ground: "a linking theme in all the chapters in this study is the refusal and positive deconstruction of moral and literary absolutes by these women writers" (11). Rather than focus on the obvious and distinct differences in the texts, Sanders chose to illuminate vital similarities between texts to make connections deeper than obvious connections to Shakespeare.

Shakespearean plots and subtexts are known throughout reading communities in some form or fashion, and Sanders points out that authors from Barbara Trapido (Juggling), to Leslie Forbes (Bombay Ice), to Marina Warner (Indigo), to Jane Smiley (A Thousand Acres), in the small measures their appropriations allow readers who already have some form of opinion/stance on Shakespeare's original works allow for connections and growth in re-viewing texts in a new light. Not just in their re-vision of Shakespeare, but also in the way they incorporate other texts into their texts, creating intensely rich pieces of art. These authors use pieces of what is familiar to them, and to others, in order to rework and illuminate a new vision of texts.

Sanders points to several linking themes which appear and reappear in women's appropriations of Shakespeare. Twins, the carnivalesque, family/lack of family, magic, and individual character growth/loss are all themes which run throughout Shakespeare's works as well as throughout the authors Sanders spotlights. Within these commonalities, certain repeating plays are repeatedly appropriated-King Lear and The Tempest are the two most predominantly found within this text. Due to the silent female characters and non-existent mothers, it is an obvious connection Sanders draws from to bring her vision to the texts she studies.

I found that the texts Sanders chose to focus her attention on fascinating and enjoyed the journey embarked upon in the exploring of different approaches to appropriating Shakespeare. Sanders used authors from different cultures who told different stories on very basic levels, but made her case in vying for a commonality. However, I do feel that her point could have been as effective (if not more so) if she would have used slightly fewer texts to emphasize her point in regards to the important role that intertextuality plays in these key appropriations of Shakespeare. Reading, re-reading, and then re-reading again to keep straight which text Sanders was actually focusing on, be it the focal author of the chapter, or another text that author wrote, or the text that was written by someone else that was like another book by someone else in this other book, was highly frustrating when I really wanted to learn and gather as much information as possible about the key authors I thought Sanders was solely going to focus on.

While it would have been nearly impossible for Sanders to focus on every single woman author who has ever appropriated Shakespeare, Michelle Cliff's being left out of the discussion seems remarkable considering Sanders seems to draw from every single kind of text imaginable during her discussions. While a casual mention may have been thought to be enough, for all the stretches made in layering texts to find a common ground, Sanders would have been well off to include the Carib artist for her appropriations in her novels Abeng and No Telephone to Heaven. That being said, Sanders' text opens readers up to a wealth of texts, ideas, conventions, and conversations occurring in the textual community concerning the manipulating and adapting of Shakespeare's texts. In confining her argument to eight specific authors and their significant texts, Sanders appeals to readers across critical borders to emphasize the wealth which lies within intertextuality. This book would be a great addition to any lovers of Shakespeare, gender theorists, or for any lovers of great writing. This text can facilitate a new vision and voice for reading appropriations of Shakespeare, while exposing readers to a variety of texts which may not normally be associated "with" Shakespeare.