Understudies: Theatre and Sexual Politics by Michelene Wandor (review)

Book Reviews 145 Hunter clears the air on several key uncertainties regarding Stoppard's writing methods: "Yet Stoppard's underlying calm is something other than holding back. It is a view of life: the comic/satirical/conservative rather than the angry/visionary/revolutionary" (p. 194)· Hunter's emphasis-directed organization of chapters, however, leads to some problems. Because he is treating essentially the same plays over and over in each chapter, simply using different angles ofentry, he begins to repeat himself. The chapter "Thinking" is both the most important in potential substance and the most flawed in the entire book. In it, Hunter atte'mpts to retrace Stoppard's philosophical reading and ethical background - a difficult task for which Hunter is not equipped. And whereas most of the book comprises impressionistic criticism - and often is astute, given the inherent limitations of that method - in "Thinking" Hunter tries a more analytical approach. As a result, however, he ends up mired in speculative biographical criticism (pp. 157 ff.). The final section of the study, called "Study-Guide," is unusual - and awkward. Structured to allow the reader "to select the treatment of a single play," because it "combines the functions of bibliography, synopsis, annotation, and index" (Preface), "Study-Guide" seems designed for students. No notes are offered throughout the book; suddenly, in this final section, annotations are given for some of the unusual allusions cited both in Hunter's book and in the Stoppard plays treated in it. A dual set of page numbers is therefore required - and is provided. Most readers, I believe, will find "Study-Guide" of dubious worth, because it is so quirky to use. Jim Hunter's Tom Stoppard's Plays fills in ,some details not found elsewhere and provides some sharp insights into individual plays. But his book cannot be considered the definitive scrutiny of the fascinating drama of Tom Stoppard. For one thing, Hunter eschews previous scholarship on his subject, relying mostly on his own critical instincts. Whereas this strategy allows him to roam about the plays more freely, released from any obligation to acknowledge others' previous findings, it also forces him to "rediscover" factors in Stoppard's work already identified in earlier scholarship and criticism. Furthermore, when he does occasionally tum to interviews or previously published criticism, Hunter focuses almost exclusively on British commentators (Brustein being one exception). Either Hunter is not familiar with Stoppard criticism in North America, or he deliberately chooses a parochial stance. In any case, the resulting limit on scope limits in tum the total persuasiveness of Hunter's observations. As a consequence, Hunter's Tom Stoppard's Plays deserves a reading but cannot replace prior work, such as that of Ronald Hayman for just one example, in marshaling essential insights into Stoppard's drama. C.J. GIANAKARIS, WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY MICHELENE WANDOR. Understudies: Theatre and Sexual Politics. London: Eyre Methuen 1981. Pp. 88. $5.95 (PB). Michelene Wandor's Understudies: Theatre and Sexual Politics is a dense, provocative feminist analysis of "the relationship between theatre, class and gender" in British Book Reviews alternative theatre of the 1970'S (p. 7). Wandorbegins by noting that alternative theatre differs from commercial theatre in three significant ways: it develops "flexible and collaborative work methods," performs to "new audiences," and represents "the experience of the oppressed and exploited" (p. 7). Wandor's feminist-socialist perspective assumes the value of these innovations, but her stated mission is to document only those theatre groups whose work "has been spurred by feminist or by a politicised gay consciousness" (p. 7). Wandor's Understudies, then, unlike Catherine Itzin's sweeping coverage of 1970'S alternative theatre, Stages in the Revolution, is an admittedly partisan history, one might sayan experiment in writing a feminist history. It is an approach which, by its deliberate narrowness, gives the author a passionate polemical authority, but also raises disturbing questions about aesthetics - her basis for evaluating and valorizing certain theatre groups and the work they produce. After reviewing the political and theatrical background of the 1970's, Wandor's next three chapters divide the decade into early, middle, and late phases. "The first phase" covers the agitprop experiments that grew out of street demonstrations...