NOTES FROM DAY TWO OF KNIGHT/NATALIE/OCT. 11th

Here's a pretty straightfoward account of our discussion surrounding Natalie's illuminating presentation on affection in “The Knight of the Burning Pestle”:

Natalie's presentation on “The Knight of the Burning Pestle” explored its representations of heterosexual marriage/coupling and the question of affection. What makes affection possible? More specifically, what makes affection possible in the theater? What does love/desire/marriage look like in the theater?

Using the Jasper/Luce coupling as a jumping-off point, Natalie posited that ideal marriage here functions as a collaborative partnership. She pointed to “yoke-fellow” as a particularly apt figure for this kind of partnership, in that it is “lateral, connected, and [ultimately] productive.” Natalie appended to her description that, in these dominant narratives of partnership, labor [might] have to be performed in order to mediate the desire of women (see p.106). So, Natalie asserts that a kind of “labor of love” in creating this narrative both prompts and sustains affection—it necessitates a plot both Jasper and Luce agree on. Theater/performance/playing mediates desire and allows for affective presentations. To wit: love = narrative; when put into play, narrative makes heterosexual love/marriage/partnership possible.

Tracey then brought into the discussion Rafe and Susan. This is a humorous cross-caste pairing yet we feel affection because, in playing the part of grocer, we can see how Rafe could really be Susan's husband. Emily noted how the pestle is essential to his named character and thus to the narrative.

Ellen then noted how, in this formulation, mutuality is raised as object of collective investment/identification. But then, who is the play for? We note how a sophisticated audience would laugh at evocations of Shakespeare for instance. What about Nell's constant interruptions? Do they alienate us or do we identify affection in ourselves in seeing her “genuineness”? Nell mostly commands the play's performance, a play mostly written/improvised for her. The willingness of Beaumont to make a play true for a humble woman rings of pleasantness; there's something affective/charming about her naivete/sincerity. But is there a different desire for an audience that isn't so “immune”?

More discussion of the labor of love as creative process (“breed soft smiling”) and, as Steven gestured towards, surrogacy of the play for George and Nell's lost child.

Then John brought up Old Merrythought as a confounding element to “affection": the terrible father ultimately "wins." As such, how much can we invest in this play? Natalie stated that if we conceive as MT as someone who figures “life as merry passage together” then his character still facilitates affection. But Michael reminded us “what do you say to a woman who had to marry 'the spirit of Saturnalia'"? Ellen remarked that he represents the “spirit of aphasia” who “loses track of human existence.” In any case, Ellen also reminded us, in turn, to think about boy actors. Then MT becomes absurd; his character slides into farce, with the performance undercutting its political implications.