Jessie and Thelma Revisited: Marsha Norman's Conceptual Challenge in 'night, Mother

Abstract

It has been over a decade since Marsha Norman's play ‘night, Mother was first produced (1981) and shortly after won the Pulitzer Prize (1983). During those years, feminist critics have both praised it and attacked it as a discourse on the condition of women in (post)modem society, disagreeing among themselves on whether to applaud the play's positive virtues of presenting female entrapment in a male-centered ideology or to condemn the play's defeatist resolution of suicide in the face of that entrapment. Beyond this character-based debate has arisen the equally heavily debated, more general criticism that female/feminist playwrights who utilize the realist format are implicitly permitting the feminist message to be subordinated to a restrictively dominating, male-constructed mode of presentation. While some critics challenge this position and defend Norman against the charge, others have virtually dismissed her precisely because of her format choices.

Is Jessie right to end her life?

“…Ginter‐Brown (2001, pp. 190, 194) writes, “on this particular night, she [Jessie] maintains perfect control” and “she triumphs because she, alone, decides what constitutes her proper nourishment.” Smith (1991, p. 287) talks of Jessie's suicide as a “bold act of emancipation.” Demastes (1993, p. 116) says that Jessie “finally decided that after a lifetime of being told what to do (and doing it badly), the one action she can do without outside influence/interference is to commit suicide.” Both Morrow (1988, p. 29) and Browder (1989, p. 110) see the suicide as an act that allows Jessie to have power and control over her life. According to Kundert‐Gibbs (1995, p. 61), both Jessie and her mother “achieve a deeper humanity” through Jessie's suicide.…”

“…74–78; Smith, 1991, pp. 282–288); Jessie's psychological condition (Demastes, 1993, p. 115; Greiff, 1989, pp. 224–228; Morrow, 1988, pp.…”

“…23–32); passivity and self‐victimization (Demastes, 1993, p. 117; Kundert‐Gibbs, 1995, p. 55; Smith, 1991, pp. 284–285); social disadvantage (Demastes, 1993, pp. 109–119; Spencer, 1987, pp.…”