M. Butterfly, a Play by David Henry Hwang

M. Butterfly, a Play by David Henry Hwang M. Butterfly is a play written by David Henry Hwang. The drama won the Tony Award for Best Play in 1988. The Setting The play is set in a prison in present-day France. (Note: The play was written in the late 1980s.) The audience travels back to 1960s and 1970s Beijing, via the memories and dreams of the main character. The Basic Plot Shamed and imprisoned, 65-year-old Rene Gallimard contemplates the events that led to a shocking and embarrassing international scandal. While working for the French embassy in China, Rene fell in love with a beautiful Chinese performer. For over twenty years, they carried on a sexual relationship, and over the decades, the performer stole secrets on behalf of the Chinese communist party. But heres the shocking part: the performer was a female impersonator, and Gallimard claimed that he never knew he had been living with a man all those years. How could the Frenchman maintain a sexual relationship for over two decades without learning the truth? Based on a True Story? In the playwright notes at the beginning of the published edition of M. Butterfly, it explains that the story was initially inspired by real events: a French diplomat named Bernard Bouriscot fell in love with an opera singer whom he believed for twenty years to be a woman (quoted in Hwang). Both men were convicted of espionage. In Hwangs afterward, he explains that the news article sparked an idea for a story, and from that point the playwright stopped doing research on the actual events, wanting to create his own answers to the questions many had about the diplomat and his lover. In addition to its non-fictional roots, the play is also a clever deconstruction of the Puccini opera, Madama Butterfly. Fast Track to Broadway Most shows make it to Broadway after a long period of development. M. Butterfly had the good fortune of having a true believer and benefactor from the beginning. Producer Stuart Ostrow funded the project early on; he admired the finished process so much that he launched a production in Washington D.C., followed by a Broadway premiere weeks later in March of 1988 - less than two years after Hwang first discovered the international story. When this play was on Broadway, many audiences were fortunate enough to witness the incredible performance of BD Wong starring as Song Liling, the seductive opera singer. Today, the political commentary may fascinate  more than the sexual idiosyncrasies of the characters. Themes of M. Butterfly Hwangs play says much about humanitys propensity for desire, self-deception, betrayal, and regret. According to the playwright, the drama also penetrates the common myths of eastern and western civilization, as well as the myths about gender identity. Myths About the East The character of Song knows that France and the rest of the Western world perceive Asian cultures as submissive, wanting - even hoping - to be dominated by a powerful foreign nation. Gallimard and his superiors grossly underestimate China and Vietnams ability to adapt, defend, and counterattack in the face of adversity. When Song is brought forth to explain his actions to a French judge, the opera singer implies that Gallimard deceived himself about his lovers true sex because Asia is not considered a masculine culture in comparison to Western Civilization. These false beliefs prove detrimental to both the protagonist and the nations he represents. Myths About the West Song is a reluctant member of Chinas communist revolutionaries, who see the westerners as domineering imperialists bent on the moral corruption of the East. However, if Monsieur Gallimard is emblematic of Western Civilization, his despotic tendencies are tempered with a desire to be accepted, even at the cost of supplication. Another myth of the west is that nations in Europe and North America thrive by generating conflict in other countries. Yet, throughout the play, the French characters (and their government) constantly wish to avoid conflict, even if it means they must deny reality in order to attain a facade of peace. Myths About Men and Women Breaking the fourth wall, Gallimard frequently reminds the audience that he has been loved by the perfect woman. Yet, the so-called perfect female turns out to be very male. Song is a clever actor who knows the exact qualities most men desire in an ideal woman. Here are some of the characteristics Song exhibits to ensnare Gallimard: Physical beautyShrewdness which gives way to submissivenessSelf-sacrificeA combination of modesty and sexinessThe ability to produce offspring (specifically a son) By the end of the play, Gallimard comes to terms with the truth. He realizes that Song is just a man and a cold, mentally abusive one at that. Once he identifies the difference between fantasy and reality, the protagonist chooses fantasy, entering into his own private little world where he becomes the tragic Madame Butterfly.

Composing With an Implied Audience in Mind

Composing With an Implied Audience in Mind Definition The term implied audience applies to readers or listeners imagined by a writer or speaker before and during the composition of a text. Also known as a  textual audience, an implied reader, an implied auditor, and a fictional audience. According to Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca in Rhetorique et Philosophie (1952), the writer predicts this audiences probable response to and understanding of a text. Related to the concept of implied audience is the second persona. See Examples and Observations below. See also: AudienceAudience Analysis  and  Audience Analysis ChecklistAdaptationEssayImplied AuthorNew RhetoricPersonaReading Examples and Observations Just as the speaker need not be, and usually is not, identical with the author, so the implied audience is an element of the poem itself and does not necessarily coincide with a given chance reader.(Rebecca Price Parkin, Alexander Popes Use of the Implied Dramatic Speaker. College English, 1949)Just as we distinguish between a real rhetor and rhetorical persona, we also can distinguish between a real audience and an implied audience. The implied audience (like the rhetorical persona) is fictive because it is created by the text and exists only inside the symbolic world of the text.(Ann M. Gill and Karen Whedbee, Rhetoric. Discourse as Structure and Process, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk. Sage, 1997)[T]exts not only address concrete, historically situated audiences; they sometimes issue invitations or solicitations for auditors and/or readers to adopt a certain perspective for reading or listening. . . . Jasinksi (1992) described how The Federalist Papers constructed a vision of an impartia l and candid audience that contained specific prescriptions for how the real audience should evaluate the arguments being addressed during the constitutional ratification debate.(James Jasinski, Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Sage, 2001) Every reading of an argument yields an implied audience, and by this, I mean the audience on whom the claim is understood to be made and in terms of which the argumentation is supposed to develop. In a charitable reading, this implied audience is also the audience for whom the argument is persuasive, the audience which allows itself to be influenced by reasoning.(James Crosswhite, The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. University of Wisconsin Press, 1996)Readers and Mock ReadersI am arguing . . . that there are two readers distinguishable in every literary experience. First, there is the real individual upon whose crossed knee rests the open volume, and whose personality is as complex and ultimately inexpressible as any dead poets. Second, there is the fictitious readerI shall call him the mock reader whose mask and costume the individual takes on in order to experience the language. The mock reader is an artifact, controlled, simplified, abstracted out of t he chaos of day-to-day sensation.The mock reader can probably be identified most obviously in subliterary genres crudely committed to persuasions, such as advertising and propaganda. We resist the blandishments of the copywriter just in so far as we refuse to become the mock reader his language invites us to become. Recognition of a violent disparity between ourself as mock reader and ourself as real person acting in a real world is the process by which we keep our money in our pockets. Does your toupee collect moths? asks the toupee manufacturer, and we answer, Certainly not! My hairs my own. Youre not talking to me, old boy; Im wise to you. Of course, we are not always so wise.(Walker Gibson, Authors, Speakers, Readers, and Mock Readers. College English, February 1950) Real and Implied ReadersIn Wayne Booths terms, the implied author of a text is the creator of an implied reader. But one does not need to agree with Booths conclusion that the most successful reading is the one in which the created selves, author, and reader, can find complete agreement (Rhetoric of Fiction). On the contrary, the pleasure of the text may arise from the readers refusal to play the role sketched out by the implied author. Viewed in this way, the rhetorical drama of the essay resides in the conflict between the conceptions of self and world that the reader brings to a text and the conceptions that the persona attempts to arouse.(Richard Nordquist, Voices of the Modern Essay. University of Georgia, 1991)