No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Gender and Theatrical Realism: The Problem of Clyde Fitch1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2010
Extract
Clyde Fitch was the most famous playwright of the early twentieth century, but today no one studies him. The disconnect between his fame in his lifetime and his obscurity after death points to a major historiographical problem, a problem that began in Fitch's own day. Fitch's numerous contemporary critics, many of whom were early proponents of theatrical realism, criticized his plays as effeminate, bound by the narrow conventions of the legitimate theater that relied on women as its predominant patrons. By contrast, realism, as the critics under-stood it, was masculine, bringing the gritty reality of what contemporary commentators regarded as the real world to the stage. Criticizing Fitch's feminine dramatic sensibilities became a way of prodding him toward a strained realism in his own plays. Fitch's story illustrates the close connection of realism to the gendered hierarchy that became an unconscious element in the determination of literary value. In dismissing Fitch as worthy of scholarly attention, current theatrical historians have followed Fitch's contemporary critics. Even as they have eviscerated the gendered standards of the early twentieth century, present-day scholars have retained the critical judgments and the generic categories that the gendered standards produced.
- Type
- Essays
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2008
References
2 For the number of Fitch plays being performed during the 1900-01 season, see Wilmeth, Don B., Staging the Nation: Plays from the American Theater: 1787-1909 (Boston, 1998), 9Google Scholar; for a general introduction to Fitch's life and work, see “Clyde Fitch” in Bordman, Gerald, The Oxford Companion to American Theatre, 2nd ed. (New York, 1992), 260–61Google Scholar.
3 Dithmar, Edward A., “At the Theatres: Clyde Fitch in His New Role of Foremost American Dramatist and Other Topics,” New York Times, Feb. 3, 1901, 20Google Scholar; Henderson, Archibald, “A Real American Dramatist,” The Dial, Sept. 7, 1916, 138Google Scholar.
4 “Clyde Fitch: A ‘Sissy’ Boy Who Became a $250,000 a Year Dramatist,” Literary Digest, Nov. 13, 1920, 74Google Scholar.
5 Moses, Montrose J. and Gerson, Virginia, eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters (Boston, 1924), 17–18.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., 46 (first quotation), 48 (second quotation). On Fitch's college career performing female parts, see “Death of Clyde Fitch,” The Independent, Sept. 9, 1909, 614Google Scholar. The reference to Fitch's aestheticism is likely a veiled allusion to Fitch's ambiguous sexual orientation, rumors about which persisted throughout his lifetime. On the code language common in the late nineteenth-century to talk about male homosexuality, see Wise, Benjamin E., “On Naive and Sentimental Poetry: Nostalgia, Sex, and the Souths of William Alexander Percy,” Southern Cultures 14 (Spring 2008): 54–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dowling, Linda, Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford (Ithaca, NY, 1994)Google Scholar. Among Fitch's gay lovers, he likely had a relationship with Oscar Wilde. The volume of preserved correspondence from their relationship is small, probably due to the latter's sodomy trial and subsequent disgrace, but it remains suggestive. See Knox, Melissa, Oscar Wilde: A Long and Lovely Suicide (New Haven, 1994), 151–53nlGoogle Scholar; McKenna, Neil, The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde (London, 2003), 109–17Google Scholar.
7 For examples of the frequent charge that Fitch was a playwright of manners, see “American Playwright's Tightening Grip on life,” Current Opinion, Feb. 1910, 202Google Scholar; Hamilton, Clayton, “Clyde Fitch,” Bookman, Oct. 1909, 135–38Google Scholar, esp. 137; “The Fatal Modesty of Clyde Fitch,” Current Literature, Nov. 1909, 554Google Scholar.
8 Clyde Fitch quoted by Merington, Marguerite, “Clyde Fitch: An Intimate Portrait,” Drama, Dec. 1923, 96 (both quotations)Google Scholar.
9 Steell, Willis, “Clyde Fitch as Collaborator,” Theatre, Dec. 1909, 176.Google Scholar
10 “Death of Clyde Fitch,” 614.
11 “Fatal Modesty of Clyde Fitch,” 553.
12 Posdewait, Thomas, “The Hieroglyphic Stage: American Theatre and Society, Post-Civil War to 1945” in The Cambridge History of the American Theatre, ed. Wiimeth, Don B. and Bigsby, Christopher (New York, 1998), 2:111.Google Scholar
13 Frye, Northrop, “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time” in Contemporary Literary Criticism: Uterary and Cultural Studies, ed. Davis, Robert Con and Schleifer, Ronald, 3rd ed. (New York, 1994), 45.Google Scholar
14 Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, “Contingencies of Value,” Critical Inquiry 10 (Sept. 1983): 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar (second quotation), 10 (first quotation); for a superb exploration of the multiple functions of aesthetic judgment and value in the visual arts, see Wagner, Anne Middleton, Three Artists (Three Women): Modernism and the Art of Hesse, Krasner, and O'Keeffe (Berkeley, 1996)Google Scholar.
15 Charvat, William, The Profession of Authorship in America, 1800-1870: The Papers of William Charvat, ed. Bruccoli, Matthew J. (Columbus, OH, 1968)Google Scholar, vi (third quotation), 284 (first two quotations).
16 Kibler, M. Alison, Rank Ladies: Gender and Cultural Hierarchy in American Vaudeville (Chapel Hill, 1999), 5Google Scholar (second quotation), 6 (first quotation), 12 (third quotation); see also Snyder, Robert W, The Voice of the City: Vaudeville and Popular Culture in New York (New York, 1989), 3–25Google Scholar; Newbury, Michael, “Polite Gaiety: Cultural Hierarchy and Musical Comedy, 1893-1904,” Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 4 (Oct. 2005): 381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Douglas, Ann, The Feminization of American Culture (1977; New York, 1998)Google Scholar; see also Tompkins, Jane P., Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction, 1790- 1860 (New York, 1985)Google Scholar. Douglas's work has provoked controversy, in part because she wrote with the assumption that there are formal literary criteria for determining good from bad works of literature. She argues that most of what women wrote in the nineteenth century ought to be classified as bad literature by those formal standards. The so-called Tompkins-Douglas debate emerged when her most vigorous opponent, Jane Tompkins, countered by trying to rehabilitate several women writers in order to call into question the entire idea of formal literary criteria in the determination of a canon. In Tompkins's argument, the criteria of literary judgment are historically determined and always changing, so Douglas's dismissal of women writers merely takes a standard created in the middle of the twentieth century and uses it, ahistorically, across time. That is a real debate, but even if one agrees with Tompkins (and I do), it still leaves the core of Douglas's book untouched. Douglas rightiy shows that women dominated the new mass culture of the nineteenth century and provided the determinate context for literary production in the authorial profession, a point on which both she and Tompkins agree.
18 Bell, Michael Davitt, The Problem of American Realism: Studies in the Cultural History of a Literary Idea (Chicago, 1993), 4Google Scholar (second quotation), 22 (first quotation, italics original); see also Bell, Michael Davitt, Culture, Genre and Literary Vocation: Selected Essays on American Literature (Chicago, 2001), 11Google Scholar. Howells appreciated vaudeville as an alternative to what he considered the feminine triviality of the legitimate stage; see Howells, William Dean, “On Vaudeville,” Harper's Monthly Magazine, Apr. 1903, 811–15Google Scholar, repr. in American Vaudeville as Seen by Its Contemporaries, ed. Stein, Charles W. (New York, 1984), 68–77Google Scholar. The functional goal of realism could be related what other historians have called the period's crisis of masculinity; see, for example, Kasson, John F., Houdini, Tartan, and the Perfect Man: the White Male Body and the Challenge of Modernity in America (New York, 2001)Google Scholar; Putney, Clifford, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920 (Cambridge, MA, 2001), 1–44Google Scholar; Pendergast, Tom, Creating the Modern Man: American Magazines and Consumer Culture 1900-1950 (Columbia, MO, 2000), 1–18Google Scholar, esp. 12-13; Filene, Peter G., Him/Her/Self: Gender Identities in Modern America, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, 1998), 74–99Google Scholar; Hoganson, Kristin L., Fighting For American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the SpanishAmerican and Philippine-American Wars (New Haven, 1998)Google Scholar; Bederman, Gail, Manliness and Civilisation: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917 (Chicago, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kimmel, Michael S., “The Contemporary ‘Crisis’ of Masculinity in Historical Perspective” in The Making of Masculinities: The New Men's Studies, ed. Brod, Harry (Boston, 1987), 121–54Google Scholar; Dubbert, Joe L., “Progressivism and the Masculinity Crisis” in The American Man, ed. Pleck, Elizabeth H. and Pleck, Joseph H. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980), 303–20Google Scholar. On the social transformations that produced the crisis of masculinity', see Lears, T. J. Jackson, No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920 (1981; Chicago, 1994), 3–58Google Scholar; Livingston, James, Pragmatism and the Political Economy of Cultural Revolution, 1850-1940 (Chapel Hill, 1994)Google Scholar.
19 Herne, James A., “Art for Truth's Sake in the Drama” in American Drama and Its Critics: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Downer, Alan S. (Chicago, 1965), 2, 8, 9.Google Scholar
20 , M. C. D., “Women and the American Theatre,” Nation, June 1, 1918, 665.Google Scholar
21 Tyrell, Henry, “Mary Shaw—A Woman of Thought and Action,” Theatre, Aug. 1902, 23.Google Scholar
22 “The American Girl's Damaging Influence on the Drama,” Current Uterature, Dec. 1907, 673Google Scholar.
23 “As an Actor Sees Woman,” Ladies' Home journal, Nov. 1908, 26Google Scholar.
24 Lewisohn quoted in Douglas, Ann, Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s (New York, 1995), 380Google Scholar.
25 Eaton, Walter Pritchard, “Women as Theater-Goers,” Woman's Home Companion, Oct. 1910, 13.Google Scholar
26 On the challenge of realism even to those writers who did not embrace it, see , Bell, Problem of American Realism, 8–9.Google Scholar
27 Davis, and Schleifer, , eds., Contemporary Uterary Criticism, 21.Google Scholar
28 New York Tribune, May 20, 1890Google Scholar; see also “Fileur,” Theatre, June 1890, 440–42Google Scholar; New York Times, May 20, 25, 1890Google Scholar.
29 New York Tribune, Nov. 7, 1890.Google Scholar
30 Clyde Fitch to Mrs. Howmans, Apr. 11, 1891, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters, 66Google Scholar.
31 Howells, William Dean, “The Moral Reformation of the Stage,” Harpers Monthly, Aug. 1891, 477–79Google Scholar, repr. in Howells, William Dean, A 'Realist in the American Theatre: Selected Drama Criticism of William Dean Howells, ed. Murphy, Brenda (Athens, OH, 1992), 52Google Scholar (first six quotations), 53 (seventh and eighth quotations).
32 On Frohman's entertainment empire, reliance on female patrons, and survey, see Auster, Albert, Actresses and Suffragists: Women in the American Theater, 1890-1920 (New York, 1984), 40Google Scholar.
33 Fitch to Marguerite Merington, July 25, 1897, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His letters, 117Google Scholar (italics original); on Fitch's discontent with his treatment by the press, see Fitch to E. A. Dithmar, Mar. 17, 1895, in ibid., 100; on Fitch's difficulty in finding a producer, see editorial note in ibid., 174; for the history of the Bijou and Amelia Bingham, see New York Times, Jan. 16, 1901Google Scholar.
34 New York Times, Jan. 16, 17, 1901Google Scholar; Dithmar, Edward A., ‘“The Climbers’ and “When Knighthood was in Flower'-Julia Marlow and Clyde Fitch,” New York Times, Jan. 20, 1901, 20Google Scholar.
35 Reamer, Lawrence, “The Drama,” Harper's Weekly, Feb. 9, 1901 (all four quotations).Google Scholar
36 Towse, J. Ranken, “The Drama,” Critic, Mar. 1901, 227Google Scholar; see also, Strang, Lewis C., Players and Plays of the Last Quarter Century (Boston, 1903), 2: 171–75Google Scholar.
37 Howells, William Dean, “The Recent Dramatic Season,” North American Review, Mar. 1901, 475Google Scholar (all four quotations). Dithmar weighed in on Fitch's side, criticizing the vapidity and lack of critical standards that Howells's dramatic criticism employed; see New York Times, Mar. 3, 1901Google Scholar.
38 , Dithmar, “At the Theatres: Clyde Fitch in His New Role of Foremost American Dramatist and Other Topics,” New York Times, Feb. 3, 1901, 20.Google Scholar
39 Fitch to John Corbin, Feb. 10, 1903, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters, 230Google Scholar.
40 Fitch to Marguerite Merington, Feb. 10, 1903, in ibid., 230 (all quotations, italics original).
41 Fitch to Arthur Byron, Feb, 15, 1903, in ibid., 231 (all four quotations); see also “Contemporary Celebrities: A Playwright Who Succeeded,” Current Literature, Feb. 1903, 147–48Google Scholar.
42 On Fitch's hopes for Glad of It, see Fitch to Tod Galloway, Jan. 8, 1904, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His letters, 255–56Google Scholar; see also his response to John Corbin about his treatment by the press, Fitch to John Corbin, Oct. 30, 1904, in ibid., 279-82.
43 Maude Adams to Fitch, Jan. 1904, in ibid., 256 (first through third quotations), 257 (fourth through sixth quotations); this entire exchange could be a coded message about Fitch's ambiguous sexual orientation, though it is necessarily only suggestive. On neurasthenia, see Beard, George Miller, American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences, A Supplement to Nervous Exhaustion (1881; New York, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 Howells, William Dean, “Some New American Plays,” Harper's Weekly, Jan. 16, 1904, 88–90Google Scholar, repr. in , Howells, Realist in the American Theatre, 130Google Scholar.
45 Fitch to William Dean Howells, Jan. 20, 1904, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters, 257Google Scholar (all four quotations, italics original). Fitch might not have been trying solely to gain Howells's critical favor, because he had drawn a similar connection between himself and Howells shortly after the success of Beau Brummell, see Fitch to Mrs. E. A. Dithmar, Dec. 27, 1890, in ibid., 64.
46 William Dean Howells to Fitch, Jan. 26, 1904, in ibid., 258 (both quotations, italics original).
47 Fitch to Virginia Gerson, Jan. 8, 1907, in ibid., 330.
48 Eaton, Walter Prichard, “Our Infant Industry,” in Downer, , ed., American Drama and Its Critics, 23Google Scholar (first two quotations), 28 (third and fourth quotations).
49 Birnbaum, Martin, “Clyde Fitch: A Critical Appreciation,” Independent, July 15, 1909, 129Google Scholar (first and second quotations), 130 (third quotation).
50 Dale, Alan, “The Impersonal Note on Criticism,” Cosmopolitan, Aug. 1909, 350Google Scholar; see also Hale, Edward E. Jr, “The Obstinacy of Mr. Clyde Fitch,” Bookman, Mar. 1906, 63–65Google Scholar; “Clyde Fitch as Dramatist,” Nation, June 6, 1907, 526–27Google Scholar; “The Evolution of Clyde Fitch,” Current Literature, Sept. 1909, 316–17Google Scholar.
51 On Fitch's intention to write a masculine drama, see editorial comment in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters, 385Google Scholar. Shortly before Fitch's death, he gave an address at Yale on his emerging dramatic technique, which confirmed his intention to move away from the matinee girl; see Fitch, Clyde, “The Play and the Public,” in Fitch, Clyde, Plays by Clyde Fitch, ed. Moses, Montrose J. and Gerson, Virginia (Boston, 1921), 4: xv–xlviiGoogle Scholar.
52 On Fitch's deteriorating health and death, see Fitch to Virginia Gerson, Aug. 29,1909, and Cablegram, Sept. 4, 1909, in Moses, and Gerson, , eds., Clyde Fitch and His Letters, 383–84Google Scholar, 385.
53 New York Sun excerpted in “Placing Clyde Fitch,” Literary Digest, Sept. 18, 1909, 437Google Scholar (all three quotations).
54 “The Lounger,” Putnam's Magazine, Nov. 1909, 244.Google Scholar
55 “A Playwright Gone,” Collier's, Sept. 18, 1909, 11.Google Scholar
56 “The American Stage Loses Clyde Fitch,” Theatre, Oct. 1909, 112.Google Scholar
57 , Hamilton, “Clyde Fitch,” 135Google Scholar (first three quotations), 136 (fourth through sixth quotations), 137 (seventh through eighth quotations), 138 (ninth quotation); see also “The Fatal Modesty of Clyde Fitch,” 552-54; , Steell, “Clyde Fitch as Collaborator,” 176–78Google Scholar; Briscoe, Johnson, “The Passing of Clyde Fitch,” Green Book Album, Nov. 1909, 1064–68Google Scholar; Marbury, Elisabeth, “My Crystal Ball,” Saturday Evening Post, Sept. 15, 1923, 24–25Google Scholar.
5 New York Tribune, Dec. 22, 1909Google Scholar [italics added]. For press accounts of the prior month and opening night, see Carnevale-Kanak, Janet Ann, “Clyde Fitch and His Reception by the Periodical Press” (PhD diss., Fordham University, 1978), 246–47Google Scholar, 252-58; Hellie, Thomas, “Clyde Fitch: Playwright of New York's Leisure Class” (PhD diss., University of Missouri-Columbia, 1985), 85–86Google Scholar. The production history is somewhat confusing. Five weeks prior to the official opening night, the cast apparendy staged a preview at the Hyperion Theatre under the auspices of the Shubert Brothers, and women fainted at that production as well; see “New Fitch Drama Makes Women Faint,” New York Times, Nov. 16, 1909Google Scholar.
59 New York Times, Dec. 22, 1909.Google Scholar
60 New York Evening Post, Dec. 22, 1909.Google Scholar
61 Klauber, Adolph, “Power of Theatrical Illusion,” New York Times, Dec. 26, 1909, SMI 4.Google Scholar
62 Goodman, Edward, “The American Dramatic Problem,” Forum, Feb. 1910, 190Google Scholar (first through third quotations), 191 (fourth quotation).
63 “Plays and Players,” Hampton's Magazine, Mar. 1910, 401Google Scholar (first and second quotations), 404 (third and fourth quotations).
64 Winter, William, “Shadows of the Stage: Events of the Season,” Harper's Weekly, Apr. 16, 1910, 24.Google Scholar
65 Hamilton, Clayton, “Big Situations in the Drama,” Bookman, Mar. 1910, 63Google Scholar (first quotation), 65 (second and third quotations), 66 (fourth and fifth quotations).
66 Klauber, Adolph, “The End of the Season,” New York Times, May 15, 1910, X7.Google Scholar
67 Eaton, Walter Pritchard, At the New Theatre and Others (Boston, 1910), 278.Google Scholar
68 , Hamilton, “Big Situations in the Drama,” 66Google Scholar; for other examples of the multiple connections between The City, masculinity, and realism in theatrical reviews, see the character descriptions in the New York Tribune, excerpted in “American Playwright's Tightening Grip on life,” 202; “Mr. Clyde Fitch and Mr. Belasco, David,” Life, Jan. 6, 1910, 36Google Scholar; “The City,” Dramatist, Apr. 1910, 39–41Google Scholar; “The City,” Collier's, Jan. 15, 1910, 7Google Scholar; Pollock, Channing, “The Thick of the Season,” Green Book Album, Mar. 1910, 513–16Google Scholar; Dale, Alan, “Wanted-More Audiences,” Cosmopolitan, Apr. 1910, 615–20Google Scholar.
69 Moses, Montrose J., The American Dramatist, 1st ed. (Boston, 1911), 173Google Scholar (second through sixth quotations), 182 (first, seventh, and eighth quotations); for other assessments of Fitch as a realist, see Mabie, Hamilton W., “American Plays Old and New,” Outlook, Dec. 28, 1912, 945–55Google Scholar; “To Score Success Today a Play Must Be a Knockout,” The American Playwright, Apr. 1913, 118–20Google Scholar; Dramatist, July 1912, 263–64Google Scholar; “Clyde Fitch,” Nation, May 18, 1916, 550–51Google Scholar; , Eaton, At the New Theatre and Others, 282Google Scholar; Quinn, Arthur Hobson, A History of the American Drama: From the Civil War to the Present Day (New York, 1927), 2:265–96Google Scholar.
70 , Douglas, Terrible Honesty, 247Google Scholar (both quotations). In art, philosophy, and other areas of culture, modernism meant the embrace of figuration and the rejection of realistic representation; in the typical narratives of the American stage, the opposite was the case. For modernism's challenge to realism in the nontheatrical arts, see Shi, David E., Facing Facts: Realism in American Thought and Culture, 1850-1920 (New York, 1995), 275–302Google Scholar.
71 , Henderson, “A Real American Dramatist,” 137.Google Scholar
72 “Clyde Fitch: A ‘Sissy’ Boy Who Became a $250,000 a Year Dramatist,” 74.
73 Mencken, H. L., “A Butterfly of Yesterday,” American Mercury, Jan. 1925, 124Google Scholar (first two quotations), 125 (third through seventh quotations).
74 Moses, Montrose J., The American Dramatist, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1925), 313Google Scholar (first quotation), 314 (third and fourth quotations), 415 (second quotation).
75 Quinn, , History of the American Drama, 2:295-96.Google Scholar
76 Downer, Alan S., Fifty Years of American Drama, 1900-1950 (Chicago, 1951), 11Google Scholar (second quotation), 15 (third quotation), 39 (first quotation).
77 Meserve, Walter J., An Outline History of American Drama (Totowa, NJ, 1965), 126Google Scholar (first quotation), 159 (second quotation); for similar examples a generation later, see Wilson, Garff B., Three Hundred Years of American Drama and Theatre: From Ye Bare and Ye Cubb to Chorus Line, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982), 144–48Google Scholar; Mordden, Ethan, The American Theatre (New York, 1981), 26–29Google Scholar.
78 Richardson, Gary A., American Drama from the Colonial Period through World War I: A Critical History (New York, 1993), 154 (both quotations).Google Scholar
79 Denison, Patricia, “The Legacy of James A. Herne: American Realities and Realisms,” in Realism and the American Dramatic Tradition, ed. Demastes, William W. (Tuscaloosa, AL, 1996), 19Google Scholar; see also Murphy, Brenda, American Realism and American Drama, 1880-1940 (New York, 1987)Google Scholar.
80 Kaplan, Amy, The Social Construction of American Realism (Chicago, 1988).Google Scholar
81 , Moses, American Dramatist, 1st ed., 173.Google Scholar
82 , M.C.D., “Women and the American Theatre,” 665.Google Scholar
83 , Tompkins, Sensational Designs, 195Google Scholar; see also , Bell, Culture, Genre, and Literary Vocation, 1–12Google Scholar.