Y

When I read Glengarry Glen Ross, I can honestly say I didn't question why there were no women in it. I actually didn't even notice. And I think the obvious reason is that the play was written by a man. I don't find the play to be misogynistic nor anti-feminist; I find the play to be about men in general and I don't think the addition of a woman would maintain the integrity of their characters (or lack thereof).

These men are put in this mock life or death situation and thus in the heat of the moment you see each man for what he truly is. I believe this is an analysis of the self and where Mamet might place himself amongst these sordid individuals.

At first, I felt no sympathy for these characters. I found Levine to be pathetic, begging for help from Williamson, insulting him when refused, and then going right back to kissing his ass again. Roma, albeit shrewd and smooth, was just too arrogant for me to like him. Moss was full of hot air. Aranow had no courage. And Williamson...well, I did feel bad for him because he really was just doing his job.

Roma says "What is our life? It's looking forward or it's looking back" and that encompasses all these men through stages. Perhaps they start out unassuming like Aranow, gain a little arrogance and hot air to become a Moss, become a successful Roma, and crash and burn to become a Levine. This play is about a man saying "What kind of man do I want to be?"

This existential quandary would not be solved or exacerbated by using women as any characters. Perhaps Mamet does not write women well and therefore chooses to write stories about men, a subject he is most familiar with because he is one. If anything, I don't think this play would be as cutthroat and despicable if there were women in it. It could either lean further into misogyny about getting beaten by a girl or become soft and have no compulsion to move forward. Maybe it's saying that women would have nothing to do with this environment because they're too smart to be in it.

Are You My Mother?

There is this rampant sisterly rivalry and a tragically farcical plot in King Lear that I believe definitely draws attention to being motherless. The mother as a figure in the family is crucial for nurturing and without it the children could subsequently turn out maladjusted. Lear has three daughters- Goneril and Regan I vision being the elder and more close in age with the youngest being Cordelia who must have been considerably younger. The daughters are grown and there is no mention of their mother. I could say that their mother died when the girls were young but that would not make sense if I assume that Cordelia is so much younger.

I could deduce, however, that Goneril and Regan did spend more time with their mother and that perhaps the mother died in childbirth with Cordelia. Perhaps their mother was as coniving and avaricious as the eldest daughters.

That being said, I think that Lear's feminine side might be stronger than he comes to realize. I believe he loves his daughters but because he is detached from them in a men-are-from-mars kind of way, he does not understand them fully and just loves them for being his offspring. Whether it be dementia or just sheer absentmindedness, he does not grasp his daughters' feelings and, eventually, it confounds him. I think that he resents his wife's death because perhaps with her at his side he would not have been so betrayed. He is left short-changed and that could be what makes the tragedy. Even if his wife was as evil as his eldest daughters, he might have been able to forsee mutiny.

The lack of a literal and figurative femine side put Lear at a disadvantage and it was only when all was at a loss did he realize this. Lear is but a man, human and prone to making mistakes. I don't think he was afraid to evoke his feminine side; I think he just wasn't aware that he had one.