Post reply

Message icon:

Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 12:02:00 PM »

Yes, concerning the press-reactions, gender is actually a very good topic.

@Jess Hmmm, I should have known that there is a copy of that article available through you. But I have to hand in my paper next Tuesday, so it's too late now. Couldn't get hold of a copy of Graham Saunders book as well... MUP seems to have some delays in publishing it.

Archive 27-3-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 12:01:20 PM »

Well the british press are suspisious of anything, Especaly women

Though Dwarves, most journos look up to them

Archive 11-4-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 12:00:32 PM »

Jaidn! Really! Is this true? That in the UK there is a suspicion that women can do something other than reproduce and marry?! *giggles* Wow! Are you sure? This sounds as if something agents Scully and Mulder might have to investigate...well, only Mulder isn't there next thing I know, you will be writing about dancing midgets in red rooms! *tsk tsk darling* :)

Archive 4-4-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:59:49 AM »

I agree with Jess as there was a definate bias in the reaction becouse of gender, one thing to look at it to compair the reviews for 'Blasted' with those for Mark Ravenhill's 'Shopping and F**king', though Ravenhill's play is very differnt it is also violent and deals with homosexuality. But the reviews concentrated on Mark as a writer not Mark as a person. The Tinker review especaly seems to ignore the play, and talk about Sarah as a person, most of it in accurate as well (apart from her name and age the rest is wrong). Of course Tinker was publising in a very right wing newspaper which would be happier to see a female write wearing dresses from Laura Ashley and writing stuff in the style of Charlotte Bronte... But there is always a suspicion in the media (in the UK) that women can do something other than marry and reproduce.

Archvie 27-3-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:59:11 AM »

Hi Louise, I do agree that the sanctimonious outrage and overreaction to Blasted were triggered partly because the subject matter was being handled by a woman, and such a young one at that.

Archive 27-3-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:58:33 AM »

Thank you so much for such a prompt reply, the article was very informative and I would never have found it if it wasn't for people sharing knowledge on the disscussion page.

What I mean to discuss in relation to 'gender' was question whether the theatre critics were MORE shocked and OVEREACTED to the content and form of the play because Kane was a young woman writing about violence in her first play? I fully realise that she detested labels (I think this came thorugh quite strongly from the interview in Rage and Reason) but I believe the critics' initial perception of the play could have been marred by the gender/age and experience of the playwright. Even though she did not see herself as writing especially for, or on behalf of women, (or any group), it did not prohibit journalists taking these factors into account when responding in the form of critical reviews.

Does anyone ave any thoughts on that? Much appreciated!!!

Archive 26-3-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:58:11 AM »

Hi! Wish you good luck, i am writing on Kane myself at the moment, about the construction of identity in her plays. Just one thought on you topiclist: I don't think it's a good idea to write on a female/gender issue concerning Sarah's work. She never intended such a thing, and said in various interviews that she does not want to be seen as a gender-writer. And - no, I don't have a copy of the MarieClaire article. But there are other quite interesting aritcles on her. For example I like the "sad hurrah" in the Guardian very much. You can find it here:,4273,4035366,00.html
Archive 26-3-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 17, 2007, 11:57:24 AM »

I'm yet another student who regularly checks the site as I have chosen to write my third year drama degree dissertation on, not specifically kane's work but, the initial media reaction to Blasted and the widespread reversal in opinion subsequent to her death. I'm comparing the reviews from 1995 and 2001 and discussing various points: the violence, a female writing about violence, the anti-naturalistic style, economic language etc...

Any thoughts at this point would be appreciated.

P.S. Did anyone ever find the Marie claire article?

Archive 26-3-2002