Grenville, having at length established what he thought to be a line of the little missiles' flight, hastily made and bound up a bomb of no more than two pounds' weight. Not without hopes of actually slaying some of the unknown forces on the crest of the hill, they shot an exceptional number of their darts from the nearby thicket as the sun at last declined. Moreover, its deadly hail and detonation had come so unexpectedly, from the erstwhile silent terrace, that they knew not what to expect concerning the future. But that roar of his cannon they had understood, and to hear it again they had no appetite. That he had no rifle they were thoroughly convinced. His silence, indeed, was a mystery which theĝyaks not only failed to understand, but, likewise, a little dreaded. This means that while Eddie initially asserts his abusive authority only over his niece, he must eventually extend that authority over his wife, Beatrice, his wife's relatives, and his own neighbors.All afternoon the darts continued falling, intermittently-and Grenville made no response. By reconsidering the story of Lot as a criticism of sexual violence rather than homosexuality, I argue that Miller demonstrates how sexual oppression is never unilateral, but ultimately systemic and cyclical. In this essay, I return to Myles Hurd's comparative readings of the biblical narrative of Lot and Bridge in order to frame the play not as a critique of sexual repression but as a critique of Eddie's misplaced sexual authority. Critics have since disputed Eddie's psychological motivation for betraying the immigrants under his care in light of both incestuous and queer interpretations of the text. In his 1955 essay “On Social Plays,” Arthur Miller wrote of the “subjective forces that made what he evidently is” by referring to the “incestuous motif homosexuality” in the play (81).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |