Ritið : tímarit Hugvísindastofnunar - 01.05.2014, Síða 153

152
gegnum aldirnar um áðurnefnda þætti í fari kvenna, kynhvöt þeirra og líkama. Þá
er síðari hluti greinarinnar helgaður túlkun á leikritinu þar sem það er lesið sem
sviðsetning á átökum milli hefðbundinna siðaformgerða og nútímavæðingar.
Lykilorð: Halldór Laxness, Straumrof, íslensk leiklist, íslensk bókmenntasaga, femín-
ismi
A B S T R A C T
Furor uterinus and Bridal Chitchat:
Nymphomania, Hysteria and Modernity in Halldór Laxness’ Straumrof
Laxness’ theatrical work has not received anything resembling the scholarly atten-
tion afforded his novelistic output. But even in that context, it is difficult to account
for the silence that surrounds his first play, Straumrof, which was initially performed
by Leikfélag Reykjavíkur in 1934. The play has only been staged twice, with forty
years separating the performances. Someone might be tempted at this point to ask
whether it was conceivable that the silence that characterizes the scholarly outlook
and the play’s absence from the stage is simply a form of politeness towards Laxness
and his ill-conceived work. That the play’s imperfection is so abundantly clear that it
is hardly necessary to point a finger, to articulate them in words. That is not the case,
however. When the play was revived in 1977, the reviewer for newspaper Tíminn
called Straumrof a “masterpiece” and “probably the best play Laxness ever wrote.”
The theater critic for Morgunblaðið agreed, referring to Straumrof as Laxness’ “lost
play” and suggesting that it just might be “Laxness’ most cohesive play”. Looking
at the initial reception of the play, it is immediately notable that the contemporary
critical doldrums are the exception. Back during the play’s initial run, Reykjavík was
scandalized and all the major newspapers and journals were filled to the brim with
articles and reviews, and the play itself was not considered suitable for children who
were barred from entering the theater. The article examines the cultural discourse
around Straumrof and its reception history and posits that the main reason for the
asperse reaction the play met with in certain quarters during its initial run is its
frank thematization of female sexuality, gender politics and female sexual pleasure.
A number of critics pathologized the lead character, Gæa Kaldan, referring to her as
“pathological nymphomaniac” and “hysterical”, to give just two examples, and the
article contextualizes this strand of the discursive formation that greeted the play by
analyzing a tradition of medical, ethical and philosophical male musings on female
bodies, female sexual desire and pleasure. The last part of the article sets forth an
interpretation of the play that focuses on how the text “stages” a conflict between
traditional ethical formations and modernization processes, including the rise of
capitalism.
Keywords: Halldór Laxness, Straumrof, Icelandic theater, Icelandic literary history,
feminism
BJöRn ÞóR vilHJálmSSon