Britney Lee<\/p>\n
Professor Bei<\/p>\n
English 1302, Period 4<\/p>\n
17 February 2020<\/p>\n
Annotated Bibliography <\/p>\n
Hwang, David Henry, and John Louis DiGaetani. \u201c\u2018M. Butterfly\u2019: An Interview with David Henry Hwang.\u201d TDR (1988-), vol. 33, no. 3, 1989, pp. 141\u2013153. JSTOR, www.jstor.org\/stable\/1145993. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020. <\/p>\n
The author Hwang is being interviewed about his play. discussing how and why he was encouraged to write about this topic that he describes as the \u201cexotic east\u201d. A big theme that is presented in the play is the existential question of being gay, since the main character, a man, has an affair with a Chinese woman that eventually turns out to be a man. In a way, it is argued that throughout the play the main character knew he was having an affair with a man. In addition, Hwang and DiGaetani discussed how cultural thoughts are brought about by what makes a man gay. Lastly, to close out the interview Hwang emphasizes on the Chinese working classes and how they apply to the life of people because all working classes have different values to individuals. These different classes Hwang discusses with Louis makes a clearer purpose for readers to understand why the play consists of \u201cEast vs. West\u201d and why it\u2019s an important factor in the play. <\/p>\n
The interview with David Hwang can be applied in my research paper because I\u2019ll be discussing the use of stereotypes in M. Butterfly. This interview deeply explains the background history of why Hwang\u2019s play has a major influence on Orientalism. DiGaetani interviewing Hwang and getting him to share the history of the play allows readers to step inside the mindset of Hwang and fully understand the customs he utilizes. Therefore with this article, I can have a paragraph discussing the stereotypes of \u201cEast vs. West\u201d and why it has a major role in this play.<\/p>\n
Kondo, Dorinne K. \u201c\u2018M. Butterfly\u2019: Orientalism, Gender, and a Critique of Essentialist Identity.\u201d Cultural Critique, no. 16, 1990, pp. 5\u201329. JSTOR, www.jstor.org\/stable\/1354343. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020. <\/p>\n
The author, Hwang wrote this play intending to challenge out definitions of truth and how a person decides for themselves what is true and what isn’t true. In accordance, to what one wants to hear and see. It also targets the topic of how gender is projected toward geography, meaning that different genders in different regions (east\/west) have different powers and responsibilities. The plot has an important point in Act 2, where Butterfly is waiting for her husband’s return, but during her period of waiting she has a child that only her maid knows about. She is in refusal and believes that her husband will indeed return. Due to this Butterfly decided to let go of her culture and pretend to be an American, while it eventually leads to her doom. This is a message that one should be themselves because deception does not always work.<\/p>\n
In\u00a0M. Butterfly\u2019: Orientalism, Gender, and a Critique of Essentialist Identity, readers are given the mindset that women can be easily negatively manipulated by men. Kondo\u2019s interpretation when dissecting Hwang\u2019s play is towards the common features of gender and orientalism, however, it flips when Act 2 approaches. My research paper can reflect this stereotype see in Kondo\u2019s article due to the fact it will be revolving around the stereotypes that can be seen in Hwang\u2019s play M. Butterfly. Kondo basically talks on how the play portrays a powerful and persuasive stereotype of gender and race. Women play a certain role in each culture and this article attempts to point out which characteristics each culture has and how one can affect the other. Which then can ease into my paper about stereotypes and give insight for readers to further understand M.Butterfly with support from Kondo\u2019s argument . <\/p>\n
Saal, Ilka. \u201cPerformance and Perception: Gender, Sexuality, and Culture in David Henry Hwang’s \u2018M. Butterfly.\u2019\u201d\u00a0Amerikastudien \/ American Studies, vol. 43, no. 4, 1998, pp. 629\u2013644.\u00a0JSTOR, www.jstor.org\/stable\/41157422. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020. <\/p>\n
In Saal’s article, she explains how Hwang uses sexuality in the play to explain the foundation of western culture and how things aren\u2019t what they seem to be. Saal explains this in a way of deception since there is always a secret agenda in what people do. The encounter between the east and west and colonialism is evident because the American man (Gallimard) meets the Asian woman (Song) and easily seduces him. There is also the patriarchy factor in the play since the man can easily tell the woman what to do and get her to essentially leave her culture behind. This represents how colonialism gets the men to destroy another culture to grow their own. The way Mr. Gilliard is manipulated to spill what he knows is interesting and shows the weaknesses of men. A man has desires whether they be homosexual or not and through seduction he is tempted to reveal what he knows because he believes it will get him what he wants in the end.<\/p>\n
Saal reveals how in\u00a0M.Butterfly\u00a0general stereotypes are reversed and creates confusion in the play for readers. Hwang show\u2019s how a \u201cwoman\u201d can seduce a man rather than being the typical way everyone is used to. In addition, how a \u201cwoman\u201d becomes more powerful than the man and gets the man to basically fall under her wing. This can be used in my research paper because throughout the play Hwang\u2019s play revolves around the construction of stereotypes of gender and culture by the relationship between Gallimard and Song. In addition, Hwang messes around with the concepts of man vs. women and East vs. West throughout the play by throwing out different ways they affect each other. These concepts can help support my essay by adding detail into the paragraph about East vs. West, but in addition form a new paragraph examining how these stereotypes affected the play.<\/p>\n
Shimakawa, Karen. \u201c\u2018Who’s to Say?” or, Making Space for Gender and Ethnicity in \u2018M. Butterfly.\u2019\u201d\u00a0Theatre Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, 1993, pp. 349\u2013362.\u00a0JSTOR, www.jstor.org\/stable\/3208359. Accessed 19 Feb. 2020. <\/p>\n
Shimakawa attempts to explain the thin line between the different themes in the play such as gay vs. straight, the roles of ethnicity, and how these characteristics affect the actions of the characters. Mr. Gallimard is initially attracted to Song because he senses danger in \u201cher\u201d as she keeps the mystery between them by not letting him in there too fast and warms him that there are differences between them. The original set of the play has a long-tipped ramp throughout the whole stage, which is supposed to close the gap between the different spaces in the play, such as the clash of east vs. west and male vs. female. Shimakawa also explains the cultural aspect of how Asian women are \u201csupposed\u201d to act touched because they should, according to the culture be \u201cwilling to sacrifice themselves for the love of a man.\u201d Song does this well in her seduction of Gallimard since she puts herself out there and then captivates him with everything she does, putting him first.<\/p>\n
Shimakawa\u2019s article can be utilized in my paper due to the fact it overviews the stereotypes that portray the role of women throughout M. Butterfly. Shimakawa discusses how Asian women are to act upon their culture, which can be seen with Song towards Gallimard. Hwang having Song inherit the cultural aspects of an Asian woman, while Song being a man underlines the fact of how Song was a woman to readers in the beginning. This idea twisting the reader\u2019s brain can be used in the paper because it reveals how one simple thing can mess with another person as in this case when Song comes out to be a spy landing Gallimard into jail.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Britney Lee Professor Bei English 1302, Period 4 17 February 2020 Annotated Bibliography Hwang, David Henry, and John Louis DiGaetani.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n