The “Kane” Mark: A Dual Construct

Fall 2010 109 The “Kane” Mark: A Dual Construct Yael Zarhy-Levo The short career of the British dramatist Sarah Kane is commonly associated with a media stir—the controversy over her first play, Blasted (1995), the massive coverage of her suicide (1999), and of the posthumous production of her last play, 4.48 Psychosis (2000). While this media stir has in itself drawn much scholarly attention, another aspect of the Kane case, perhaps no less intriguing, has not as of yet been given the in-depth examination it deserves. This aspect relates to the singular nature of Kane’s critical reception: namely, a reception that evolved along two axes, leading to the emergence of two images of the dramatist. The first axis regards reviewers’admittance of Kane into the theatrical canon, a reception process that resulted in an image that singularized the playwright’s work.Along the second axis, her other image emerged from the perceptions of her work in the context of the new 1990’s drama, constructing Kane as a major representative of a new wave of writing. In inquiring here into the processes evolving along these two axes, I aim both to further illuminate the principles underlying reviewers’ conduct in the reception of individual dramatists and to demonstrate those critical moves that construct a playwright’s image as a prototype of a new theatrical trend or movement. Reviewers’ Reception: A Preliminary Note In the reception process of a new playwright, reviewers typically compare the new offering to already established theatrical models, locating the newcomer in light of their affiliation to or divergence from already recognized theatrical trends or schools, while also assessing the newcomer’s particular means of theatrical expression in terms of their potential contribution to the theatre.1 It should be stressed, however, that reviewers’ attempts to draw an affinity between a new work and previously established theatrical model(s) can result in either their endorsement of the new play or its rejection. That is, they can present the new offering as continuing an already recognized theatrical trend, thereby extending the legitimacy attributed to the established works to the play in question; or, in Dr. Yael Zarhy-Levo, a senior lecturer, teaches theatre history, theatre criticism, and modern British theatre in the Department of Literature at Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Her publications include: The Theatrical Critic as CulturalAgent: Constructing Pinter, Orton and Stoppard asAbsurdist Playwrights (Peter Lang, 2001); The Making of Theatrical Reputations: Studies from the Modern London Theatre (Studies in Theatre History and Culture, ed. Thomas Postlewait, University of Iowa Press, 2008); essays in Poetics, Theatre History Studies, Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, Theatre Survey and Theatre Research International; chapters in The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter (Cambridge, 2001, and 2nd Edition, 2009), and, with Freddie Rokem, in Writing & Rewriting National Theatre Histories (University of Iowa Press, 2004). 110 Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism contrast, they can present the new work as failing to correspond to any previously established theatrical model and, at times, they might even reject the play when unable to point out a specific affiliation. Consider, for instance, the initial critical rejection of Harold Pinter’s first performed play in London, The Birthday Party (1958), or the unfavorable critical responses to John Arden’s first play, The Waters of Babylon (1957).2 When introducing a newcomer, reviewers devise a “package of attributes” that they perceive as characterizing the dramatist’s work. Once they have pointed to similarities to established theatrical models or to specific influences of such models, and differentiated the newcomer’s contribution from that of other, alreadyestablished playwrights, this package becomes formulated into the “playwright construct.” This construct comprises an aggregation of traits recurring in the works that typify the dramatist in terms of influences and innovation. The emergence of the construct marks the completion of the process of the playwright’s admittance into the canon. It becomes the dramatist’s trademark, serving the reviewers in their enhancement of the playwright’s cultural capital. It is worth noting here that the issue of reception of theatrical works has been discussed by various scholars, who often vary in their approaches and/or focus. Marvin Carlson’s essay...