Photograph 51:penelopiad making invisible visible PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Photograph 51:penelopiad making invisible visible PDF

Description

In the retelling of history, the stories of particular individuals are rendered invisible. Margaret Atwood and Anna Ziegler present an unconventional retelling of a well-known story in their respective texts, The Penelopiad and Photograph 51. Both texts challenge the original version of history where women were rendered silent and their lives were therefore invisible. Instead, they reaffirm the notion that ‘HIStories’ are created by the powerful and therefore the stories of the oppressed are rendered invisible. In both texts, the objective truth is not visible as many stories have versions which seem to compete. However the polylogue of both texts makes visible the complexity of finding the truth given that the ‘truth’ of a story is dependent on the capacity of the story teller to be impartial and honest. Both Atwood and Ziegler seek to make women visible, and present a perspective that was not given in the historical texts. Women in both texts are able to acknowledge the ways in which they have been marginalised and rendered invisible. In The Penelopiad, Penelope’s “sack of words” was mostly to do with Odysseus. Atwood demonstrates that the character of Penelope created by The Odyssey was created in reference to Odysseus, and consequently attempts to challenge this by giving voice to a character whose story that wasn’t fairly told. Like Atwood, Ziegler also attempts to give a voice to an unfairly represented woman, Rosalind Franklin. Franklin was rendered silent by the men’s version of the story. Even when she reflects on “The Winter’s Tale” she can’t remember who “played Hermoine” as she just wasn’t “memorable” in the way that the men in the play were. Ziegler emphasises that it was the men’s journey that was seen as more important, and implies that the same applies to the first retelling of the discovery of DNA. In both texts, women had to challenge the patriarchy in order to become “visible”. Atwood created a character who subversively challenged by becoming “like water”, whilst Ziegler’s character was more direct with her disapproval of the patriarchal values. Franklin insists on working alone when it becomes clear that Wilkins sees her appointment as his “assistant” as one that “frees him from the menial tasks” associated with their job. Her overt rejection of this role has her classified as “ornery”, illustrating her willingness to directly challenge societal values. Both authors have structured their texts as to make visible the plight of women. The many and competing voices of Photograph 51 depict the myriad of ways the historical texts disregard the stories of women, rendering them invisible. When Franklin ponders “if only I’d been.. “ the men are quick to jump in with defensive justification as to why she was bound to become invisible, ranging from being born at the wrong time to not being a good enough scientist. The audience are encouraged to resent the way that Franklin does not get to tell her own story without the interjections of men. In the script, she is even referenced by her first name “Rosalind”, unlike “Watson” or “Crick”, alluding to another “invisible” problem. Unlike Franklin, Penelope is driven, despite being “boneless, breastless, lipless” to take charge of her own story, saying it’s time “to do a little story telling of [her] own”. Both texts sought to present previously untold stories. Penelope is directly aware of the silence created and attempts to present a story of her own. In not allowing Franklin to tell her story, Ziegler makes visible the silence around Franklin’s role in the discovering of the structure of DNA. Atwood and Ziegler emphasise how history has been created by those in power, and therefore the stories of the oppressed have been rendered invisible. Both authors acknowledge the power of the patriarchy in retelling history. In The Penelopiad, Odysseus was always “so plausible”, and as a result “many people believed his version of events [as told by Homer] was the true one”. Atwood challenges the truth of his “version of events”, suggesting that they are not genuine. She depicts the power of the patriarchy by alluding to the notion that The Odyssey, and perhaps other books in the Canon, are commonly believed because they were the stories told by men, and not because they are the most reliable or factual. Unlike Atwood, Ziegler does not allude to the power of the patriarchy in controlling history, but instead explicitly illustrates it. The conversational interjections from the male

characters in Photograph 51, “did it really happen that way?”, accentuates the way in which the males have a freedom and voice in the play that Franklin is not given. Ziegler depicts the freedom and power that men have, and proposes that this freedom transferred into their ability to create history. Both texts also illustrate the desire of men to maintain the visible patriarchal power. The Odyssey is the “main authority” on “the subject” of women at the time. Atwood draws attention to the irony that the version of history as recorded by a man could accurately portray the story of women. The “authority” commonly given to The Odyssey is undermined by Atwood as the Judge comments on how it “contains far too much sex and violence, in my opinion”. Atwood uses this offhand comment to allude to the belief, established by those in power, that certain parts of history do not need to be recorded. Ziegler equally depicts the desire to maintain patriarchal power, however she does this by depicting their immediate actions, as opposed to challenging the storytelling. When Franklin reflects, “if [she]’d only…” the men quickly jump in to place blame back onto her. “Been more careful… Been a better scientist… Been friendlier…” Ziegler illustrates how even in hindsight the men were unwilling to admit their failures, and hence draws attention to the desperate desire to maintain control of the story. Both texts also illuminate the discrepancy between the “official” version of history and the characters created in the new texts. Watson alludes to the possibility of Franklin’s future if she had “been a better scientist”, yet it was Franklin who discovered the “secret of life” and “made the invisible visible”. The irony of this statement is an attempt to suggest that the men were telling the story that they wanted to be true, rather than an accurate “version of events”. Atwood also challenges the depiction of Penelope in the original version of history. Penelope questions what she “amounted to”, suggesting that she feels there was more to her that the stories didn’t portray and that she wasn’t able to define who she was as an individual. Atwood uses this to explore how women in general, and also those who weren’t powerful weren’t able to define themselves, and were instead defined by those in power. Both authors highlight the role of the patriarchy in creating a biased version of history, however Atwood explores the ability of women to later define themselves, whilst Ziegler challenges the desire to uphold the power of the patriarchy.

Both authors depict how the objective truth can appear invisible as many stories seem complete, however the polylogue of both texts allows the audience to question the capacity of the story teller to be impartial and honest. Penelope outrightly states that she is “[doing] a little story telling”, demonstrating her ability to deviate from the objective truth. As Penelope “[spins] a thread of [her] own”, Atwood alludes to the biased storytelling that may have happened in The Odyssey. When Crick questions “did it really happen that way?”, Ziegler is, like Atwood, exposes the capacity for characters to recall events in a “way” that suits them and their desire to be represented in history. Both texts also present competing stories and perspectives. Penelope had a tendency to romanticise the actions of others, describing how the maids “could dissolve into tears” and that it was “a relief to their nerves”. In contrast, in their lament the maids show resentment at the fact that “if [they] wept, no one dried [their] tears”. In showing two contrasting perspectives of the same event, Atwood is able to undermine the reliability of the narrator. She proposes that the retelling of history is intrinsically linked with the perspective of the storyteller, and hence that it is impossible for it to be objective. Someone’s truth is rendered silence. Ziegler also depicts that conflicting perspectives of each character, however she uses this to challenges the integrity of each character, and hence suggests that the retelling of history can be altered by the motivations of the storyteller. Ziegler shows the competion of multiple perspectives through the “misunderstanding” when Franklin arrives at King’s College London. Franklin arrived under the impression that she would be “heading up the study”, whilst Watson decided that she was to “be assisting [him]”. The form of text chosen by each author lends itself to a different way of storytelling. In Atwood’s novella, the audience is only given two perspectives and hence two voices through which they hear the story. Reading only one version leads to a biased version of the story, as certain events are exaggerated, excluded or manipulated to suit the storyteller. However, Ziegler’s play presents the perspective of multiple different

characters, and ostensibly allows the audience to form their own opinion in order to understand the truth. In reading the script, there is less room for personal interpretation of events as specific stage directions are given, such as “hesitantly”. However the viewing of a play is affected by the personal interpretation and opinion of both the actors and the audience. Both authors present a complex and competing versions of ‘history’. However, the many perspectives presented by Ziegler attempt to overcome the personal biases that rendered them invisible, whilst the more limited perspective given by Atwood aims to challenge the ability for the retelling of history to be objective. After reading these texts, it can be understood that the retelling of history is inevitably biased. The depiction of history from multiple perspectives attempts to overcome the fallacy of truth, and instead render visible an objective version of history. In recognising the stories of people whose stories have been rendered silent, history is able to more fully explore the human condition....