Pet Peeve
I have a pet peeve when reading or working on plays: I hate reading a play that consists entirely of male characters. Now, granted, there are plenty of great plays that are entirely made up of male characters (Glengarry Glen Ross comes to mind), but when I read these plays, I end up thinking about all the women actors I know (far more than of them than male actors) who aren’t getting into the play. When I write, I always like to ensure that there is at least one female presence in the script I create.
So, imagine my distress as I begin to work on my history play, and find that I cannot find a way to work a woman into the play. The action of the historic event in question (the Upper Canada Rebellion for those keeping track at home) was orchestrated and perpetrated by men. Yes, most of those men had wives, but the wives themselves were not involved in the Rebellion at all. Additionally, there are no references in any of the historical documents I’ve looked at of any direct female involvement.
Of course, this is unsurprising. The Victorian sensibilities of the time would not have allowed any of the men to permit a woman near this dangerous affair, but I’d love to be able to find some evidence of some direct female involvement. Otherwise, adding something in feels both like an obvious fabrication and a betrayal of the actual events (which, I have previously indicated, I want to be careful with).
I think I have to accept the fact that the rebellion was a man’s affair, and that the woman, though loved by their husbands didn’t directly participate. This does pain me somewhat, but there doesn’t seem to be anyway around it, that doesn’t involve adding participants that were simply not present.
