Volume 1 - Issue 1 (4) | PP: 41 - 49
Language : English
DOI : https://doi.org/10.31559/baes2018.1.1.4
DOI : https://doi.org/10.31559/baes2018.1.1.4
656
27
A Dissident Reading of Seduction in Howard Barker’s The Gaoler’s Ache and 12 Encounters with a Prodigy
Received Date | Revised Date | Accepted Date | Publication Date |
1/8/2018 | 23/8/2018 | 9/9/2018 | 6/10/2018 |
Abstract
Howard Barker’s Theatre of Catastrophe aims at displaying the contradictions and inconsistencies in the rationally social, political and conservative processes. This theatre which is characteristically irrational represents characters whose obstinacy makes them uncompromising individuals as encountering and struggling against ideologies in post-chaotic situations. These figures by using deception and sexuality reveal themselves as Dionysian seducers to open up the rifts within rational communities and to oppose power authorities. In this respect, Barker’s The Gaoler’s Ache and 12 Encounters with a Prodigy stage two child protagonists whom by their seduction and ingenuity attempt to make changes in the situations they have found themselves in. they are engaged in continuing battle against the external forces that mould their identities according to their hegemonic discourses. The researchers, thus, by using dissident reading and close reading, have explored the forms of dissidence and how these forms are going to be shaped by Dionysian impulse as an opposition to authority and power in Barker’s aforesaid plays.
Keywords: Howard Barker, Dionysus, Gaze, Dissidence, Seduction, Eroticism
How To Cite This Article
Farhadi , R.Mozaheb , M. A. & , M. H. B. (2018). A Dissident Reading of Seduction in Howard Barker’s The Gaoler’s Ache and 12 Encounters with a Prodigy . Bulletin of Advanced English Studies, 1 (1), 41-49, 10.31559/baes2018.1.1.4
Copyright © 2024, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.