Analysis of Death and the Maiden by Dorfman - Book Report/Review Example

DEATH The current report looks at the theme of revenge mixed with the theme of gender roles in the play Death and the Maiden. The basic argument that the current report follows is that Paulina’s actions in the play can be explained as two ways: acts of revenge and acts of an oppressed woman in a patriarchal society; the predominant explanation, however, is that of revenge. This is basically a book that follows the arc of its plot through a revenge theme, so revenge must be the most important element. However, the uncertainty about some of the characters’ relationships also lend this play an air of mystery. Ultimately, Paulina must confront the self-interest that drives her to take violent revenge on Dr. Miranda. Death and the Maiden must be briefly summarized before analysis may proceed. The play is the story of Paulina, who, when in prison for unnamed political crimes, she was raped. All of the actions of revenge and recognition that make up the play’s plot involve this rape. She recognizes the rapist years later, after political fortunes in the country change. The setting of the play is Latin or South America, but the country is not specified. “The time is the present and the place, a country that is probably Chile but could be any country that has given itself a democratic government just after a long period of dictatorship” (Dorfman, 4). The main rapist was a doctor, and Pauline recognizes him later as Dr. Miranda, and takes him captive. The play is left a mystery, however, because Paulina’s husband tries to protect the man, and it is left unsaid whether or not there may be a case of mistaken identity. So, either Pauline is crazy, or she is telling the truth—she gets a confession and appears satisfied, but the ending is left unresolved, so Pauline may kill the doctor It appears at the end of the play that Pauline may have indeed gone crazy, as she starts seeing the doctor’s ghost. Paulina knows superficially that vengeance is an action, not a series of drawn out philosophical uncertainties within the trial she “arranges” for him, but her essential character is motivated by self-interest. This is not to say that Paulina is only interested in self-preservation, but rather that she is unable to simply kill the doctor, as she knows she must, because she is not essentially the sort of person who does not deliberate over decisions in a manner that seeks to instruct others. From this perspective, Paulina is a tragic hero in the play, but her heroism is not forged on the battlefield of the soldier, but rather in the mind of the judge. She must go through a process of rebellion that frees self-interest and philosophizing from her character before he is able to actually act out and carry out her revenge. This process takes up a lot of the play, so that by the end, the viewer or reader is more concerned with Pauline’s self-interest and indecision than they are with the plot of the play, which is being delayed by her failure to simply kill the doctor without having the showy trial. She makes some progress in that she is unable to question the fact that the doctor raped her, but this does not mean that she is willing or ready to act. There are also gender issues that are at work in Paulina’s revenge and trial of the doctor. Women often participate in revolutions, but they seldom bear the fruits of such equality afterwards. Political awareness and advancement like Paulina’s, for a woman was a mixed advancement in many cases, because often when the troops came home, the working women were expected to abandon their roles in the revolution and go back to being a woman in society. Although women were taking more jobs than ever in the 20th century worldwide, gender segregation remained a major issue in South and Latin America, where most countries have strong patriarchal cultures. Income disparities between women and men working the same job continued as proof of continuing sex discrimination, even though women became more respected because of what they had achieved during various revolutions. Dr Miranda often shows more direct action than Paulina when he is being put to the show trial, and when he realizes that she represents a danger. When revenge does come, it comes too late, and tragedy ensues. Paulina has spent most of the play deliberating in the show trial about her revenge on the doctor, so that in the end, the action appears less important than the deliberation, and the play’s viewer or reader is left with the mystery. This is a direct challenge to the cultural values of the play’s contemporary audience, who were taught to respect knowledge and the method of the linear narrative with a clear ending. What the playwright seems to be saying is that something like a show trial for human rights abuses actually impediments to getting things done as they are supposed to be done. They can provide keen insights into the human mind and spirit, but ultimately, they are only based in the realm of the mind and the spirit, and therefore have trouble assimilating into reality. Paulina is often both distracted and abstracted in her relation to other characters in speech and the audience. She offers keen and often startling accusations during the trial, such as the torture by electricity, that work to blind the audience or reader to what is really happening: time is slipping past, and no action is being taken. It would not be stretching the truth to say that throughout most of the play, the key way that Paulina seeks revenge against Dr. Miranda is in her own mind. She does this because she is used to following her own self-interest and has trouble assimilating her own self into reality. As mentioned above, this play is a statement about gender as well as about revenge. Essentially, in a patriarchal culture, by taking the authority role of the judge, jury, and executioner, Paulina is going against status quo gender role norms. She is showing a feminist response indicative of Latin American women and the struggles they have faced in a patriarchal culture. Especially when this culture is then used to suppress native cultures, as in Latin and South America, this patriarchal culture often has preconceived notions of superiority and ideas of backwardness, which are evidenced in the European colonialist’s fear of slipping into a pre-industrial state in which nature is left uncontrolled. The play shows how there have been many progressive strides made in the women’s liberation movement worldwide in the past forty years, with women taking some of the same roles as men. Different nations and cultures have different estimations of this progress within different structures. A lot has changed during the twentieth century, and great strides have been made in terms of equality and liberation. One of the main strides that has occurred more recently within the women’s liberation movement is a shift in emphasis from women’s liberation as it is perceived in a mode that stresses middle-class economics to a more socially concerned paradigm of liberation that unites the rich and poor in their struggle. And although class and economics are interesting to apply to Death and the Maiden, as well as feminism, it is mainly less a play about gender than it is about revenge. Paulina’s revenge, and her delay through the show trial, are the points of the play’s key focus. REFERENCE Dorfman, A (2000). Death and the Maiden. New York: G rove. Read More