Talk:The Boatswain's Mate

What is the basis of the statement that is it a "feminist opera"?
The article makes the bald statement "It was Smyth's fourth and most unabashedly feminist opera" without offering any indication of how, why or whether it is feminist at all.

I have not seen the libretto, but I have read Jacobs's original and the synopsis in the article. If the synopsis is correct, the differences Smyth introduced are: (1) Benn and Travers meet at the Beehive instead of out on the road (this avoids a scene-change on stage), (2) Travers's cupboard is downstairs (ditto), and (3) Benn tells the police what he thinks has happened, whereas in the original Waters forces him to dig the grave then lets him go home to sweat. The last change, quite a big one, gives a more satisfactory scene for light theatre, but it also weakens Mrs Waters, who is not as much in control of Benn as she was in the original -- hardly a feminist amendment! And of course, Waters starting to fall for Travers is unchanged.

OK, Smyth used the tune of her suffragette march, but it was a very good tune, and she used other good tunes, too. If that is the reason for stating that it is a feminist work, rather than a work that happens to be by a noted feminist, then the statement is unjustifiable. If there is another reason, it should be indicated. Wyresider (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree its not explicitly backed up by the content in the rest of the article, so the phrase could be removed from the lede, though I would think it quite likely a reliable source could be found supporting at least the statement that it has been described as feminist. I will see if I can find anything. do you remember making this edit in 2007?? (maybe not!) - Aegoceras (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was probably referring to this. The idea that Mrs Waters does not wish to remarry was in itself a feminist statement in those days.  See also this, this, this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Folks. I had a look at Ssilvers references.

We can dismiss the first one outright (finboroughtheatre). On the question at hand, it says "Smyth’s fourth and most obviously feminist opera" -- which is where we started. It also says, "Ethel Smyth, composer and suffragette, and widely regarded as the first female opera composer." Be very careful of references that say "widely regarded!" Fact is, she wasn't. I don't know how many came before her, but I have a recording of Francesca Caccini's opera La liberazione di Ruggiero dall'isola d'Alcina, premiered in 1624 or thenabouts and performed in Warsaw in 1628. Cecille Chaminade's La Sévillane was performed in 1882. Helena Munktell's In Firenze was premiered at the Stockholm Royal Opera in 1889. The finboroughtheatre author goes on to rabbit about "a soprano confident and ringing enough to be worthy of the feminist heroine of W. W. Jacobs’s jovial yarn." Eh? You what?!? Witness dismissed!

So ... the other four references.

Retrospect opera says "It has sometimes been described as the feminist Smyth’s most feminist work". Yes, we know that. Next ...

MusicOMH ... "it is Smyth’s fourth and most obviously feminist opera." Oh dear, not again ... do you think he read that somewhere (yes, it was he -- his name was Simon).

ASO ... I won't bother quoting it, because it's the same as the others.

The Rough Guide to Classical Music: "a comic opera with a decidedly feminist theme -- Mrs Waters, the strong-willed heroine, constantly outwits a bumbling suitor ...". Horse-feathers! She doesn't "constantly outwit" him. She merely refuses proposals from a suitor who's a manifest ass (until a better suitor comes along).

ENOUGH!

Let's recap.

1. To my understanding, there is and was nothing specifically feminist about a widow not being in a tearing rush to re-marry.

2. Only one reference, by an author who seems to have more bees than facts in her[?] bonnet, has thought of Jacobs's story as feminist.

3. Smyth's only significant alterations to the plot were (1) in Smyth's version (according to the article), Waters left Benn in charge of the pub, and (2) in Jacob's original, Benn (very unwillingly) obeys her command to dig a grave, whereas in Smyth's adaptation he goes to the police. Neither of these changes exactly squares with the referenced works' claim that the opera is a celebration of "strong-willed feminism"!

4. Finally, we have Ssilver's "The idea that Mrs Waters does not wish to remarry was in itself a feminist statement in those days." Marry, probably so. Re-marry, no, I'm not convinced. But let's say you're right: what's the drift of the story? The ending is inconclusive, but it looks like Mrs Waters is thinking she might re-marry!

When I started, I merely questioned the assertion. Now that I have been led to lookmore closely, I am convinced that it is nonsense, a snowball started by someone "reading into Homer more than Homer knew" and grown by the www.

So what are we left with? Is it too fanciful to imagine that a celebrated feminist who was also a fairly gifted composer and [as or more more gifted] writer might simply have written a light/comic opera? If that is impossible, perhaps someone could explain to me the feminist basis of her Mass in D, because I seem to have overlooked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyresider (talk • contribs) 15:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Wyresider (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mrs Waters based on Mrs Pankhurst?
The article offered neither reason nor reference for its statement that Jacobs had based Mrs Waters on Mrs Pankhurst. It did give a link to an article on Jacobs, but that in turn offered nothing on the matter. The assertion seems highly improbable, and as there was nothing to support it, I have deleted it. Wyresider (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)