Gravity
by Matt Stoltz, 2003
David Hume once said, "The mind is the theatre in which all of our perceptions come into play" (Hume, 49). But what happens when perceptions clash and heads butt? In the play M. Butterfly, by David Henry Hwang, he uses the title as his primary metaphor, but he convolutes the play by having too many themes working around it which can distort the reaction of the audience. The tenor is the butterfly and the vehicle is the M, now the problem with this is that the tenor and the vehicle imply too many things, making it far to abstract to make a clear description of reality. The interaction between the vehicle and the tenor yields nothing except confusion to an audience that is simply stimulated by the superficial layers of the play.
Looking at the metaphor M. Butterfly, one is able to extract a vast spectrum of ideas which Hwang suggests, for example: East vs. West, man vs. woman, sexuality, power relations, race, gender, class, stereotypes, fantasy… etcetera. Now, from a mathematical point of view the metaphor has many variables in the equation, making the problem much more difficult to solve. In other words, Hwang's butterfly metaphor is too ambitious and the audience can have a head full of themes that don't seem to connect to each other. For example, a secondary metaphor which feeds into the butterfly metaphor is when Gallimard says; "I knew this little flower was waiting for me to call, and, as I wickedly refused to do so, I felt of the first time that rush of power-the absolute power of a man" (Hwang, 32). This example implies a power relationship as the tenor and the vehicle is Song, but the number of themes that this metaphor suggests is too many: Power relations, stereotypes, east vs. west, and man vs. woman, race, and gender. However, another peripheral metaphor that relates to the butterfly metaphor is when Gallimard says, "You're as real as a hamburger. Now get out! I have a date with my butterfly and I don't want your body polluting the room" (Hwang, 90)! Here, the tenor is real, and the vehicle is hamburger, suggesting that the themes of fantasy vs. reality, sexual identity, and love. These two examples don't share much in common, but they both managed to be applicable to the butterfly metaphor. As you can see, the interaction between the metaphors is misleading when trying to glue them all together in order to understand exactly what aspect of reality Hwang is trying to describe. In Hwang's afterword he says that, "My wife, Ophelia, thought Monsieur Butterfly too obvious a title, and suggested I abbreviate it in the French fashion. Hence, M. Butterfly, far more mysterious and ambiguous, was the result" (Hwang, 96). Yes, the title does become more ambiguous but it also becomes superfluous and compromises the integrity of the metaphor.
There is an interesting web site that can be found through proquest which offered an essay by two Asian American critics, Moy and Lee, who didn't think very highly of the play, or David Henry Hwang. They basically said that the main effect which the audience experienced was the fact that Gallimard mistook Songs rectum for a vagina. And I concur, after I read the play I found myself chuckling at the fact that Gallimard believed Song was a man, and that was it. That was the immediate effect the story had on me, however, a classroom is nice by the way it has the ability to make sense of such non-sense. Honestly, without the luxury of a class most of the students, specifically in our class, would have put the book down and had a reaction similar to what Moy and Lee describe. Now, focusing more specifically on the butterfly metaphor, I recall that our class passively agreed on the notion that the metaphor represented some sort of transformation that occurred between the characters of Song and Gallimard but didn't really come to a complete understanding. For example, in class Janet asked Mrs. Owings; "Can you explain in your own words what the butterfly metaphor means, I know you have already explained it so many times, but I just don't get it". And Janet doesn't stand alone, we don't get the butterfly metaphor because Hwang makes it unclear, and too ambiguous for us to make a single interpretation of it. Now, some would call that clever, and artistic, meaning that it reaches people on an individual basis, but Hwang doesn't deserve that kind of credit, he himself doesn't know what he wants his audience to feel after they wrestle with the metaphor. In my opinion, reflection and interpretation are the greatest commodities of the human mind, but when they are clumsily stimulated by someone like Hwang, who doesn't have a firm grasp on the effect of his own material, it can be a recipe for confusion not yielding anything.
I will admit Hwang wrote an entertaining play that describes many themes and socio-political issues but it ends there, he offers us no new insights into these themes/issues, or how we should treat them differently, they are stagnant by virtue, or rather vice, of the metaphor he presents us with. In addition, the authenticity of the play can be regarded as questionable, because the play was based on an actual event that was later transcribed into an opera, and then finally, Hwang got his hands on it and simply injected it with scores of themes. According to a web page dedicated to art and culture, Hwang says it himself, "I've been a pretty blatant thief in modeling various plays on work by other playwrights" ("David Henry Hwang"). Obviously, Hwang's play was instigated by an external force, but there are still some ardent admirer's of Hwang who are swooned into submission through his thematic sugar and sorcery. Admirers such as Jack Kroll who have the audacity to compare Hwang to literary geniuses such as Arthur Miller; "If Hwang can again fuse politics and humanity, he has the potential to become the first important dramatist of American public life since Arthur Miller, and maybe the best of them all" (Kroll). I hate to rain on Kroll's parade, assuming that he speaks of Millers "The Crucible" in comparison to Hwang's play because they are both based on historical events and both titles carry a heavy metaphor, but Miller's play focused on one theme, namely that of how people are cowed into mainstream ideologies in order to escape persecution, rather than a multitude of themes like Hwang does. Also, to highlight my growing animosity towards Hwang I will attack his inability to accept negative criticism by the way he responded to the lack of enthusiasm which The Washington post offered; "On the morning after opening night, most of the reviews were glowing, except for the Washington Post…We all simply concluded that the gentleman was possibly insecure about his own sexual orientation and therefore found the play threatening" (97). Oh well, if that's the case than I'm in big trouble with Hwang.
So there you have it, not only did Hwang's metaphors fail to describe reality effectively to the audience, but the hubris of a Tony award winner has been illuminated by a part-time college misfit. However, the audience was most certainly stimulated by the most obvious sexual aspects of the play, but when looking at the metaphor as a whole the only thing one can do is go cross-eyed because the play is too potent with themes to make quality connections. It's safe to say that gravity works even on an "elevated" play such as M. Butterfly.