Death and the Maiden – Page 2 – Literature and Law Spring 2020

Paulina and Schubert

In “The Death and the Maiden,” Paulina takes it upon herself and Gerado to try Roberto in a household trial. The goal of this trial is justice and closure for Paulina, who seeks to get Roberto to confess to his crimes. Yet, the trial is unique in that it is occurring privately rather than publicly, making me question how this distinction impacts the effect it has on Paulina. One way I think we can see how it impacted her is through the symbolism of Schubert’s orquestra. In the end, I believe we can see that Paulina does receive some justice and/or closure (I’m not sure they are the same and how to draw the line between them in this instance) for the crimes committed against her.

While she was trying Roberto, she explained how she could not listen to Schubert’s quartet because it was played by Roberto while she was raped. Paulina says. “And now, I’ll be able to listen to my Schubert again.” (21). This hope of Paulina’s after trying Roberto becomes true. In the last scene, Paulina and Gerado are at a concert hall to hear the orquestra of Death and the Maiden. This action is symbolic and I read it as her receiving some sort of feeling of closure/justice as she now has the power to listen to Schubert again, a power taken by Roberto predating his trial. Yet, during the concert it is clear that there is still a gap in her satisfaction of the trial’s result: “Paulina does not applaud” unlike the rest of the audience (66). This makes me wonder what would it have taken for her to clap, which to me would have signified her feelings of complete and total justice/closure. Would it have been for Roberto’s crimes and name to be public? Would it have been for him to be punished under law? Or perhaps, is this as far as justice can reach for Paulina, and Roberto’s crimes will always slightly stain her appreciation for Schubert?

Is Paulina a Reliable Character in Death and the Maiden?

From the beginning of Ariel Dorfman’s Death and the Maiden, it is clear that Paulina is a character that has experienced some sort of a traumatic situation in her past that has permanently altered her personality. This is evident from the first mention of Paulina in the play. When she hears a car approaching her house, she instantly becomes worrisome, “She hurriedly stands up, goes to the other room, looks out the window… goes to the sideboard, takes out a gun, stops when the motor is turned off and she hears Gerardo’s voice” (2). Dorfman makes Paulina’s harrowing past even more prominent when she and Gerardo discuss his offer from the President, “Nobody in the new government knows. I’m talking about the fact that we never made it public, as you never—as we never denounced the things that they—what they…” (6).

Paulina then goes on to capture Roberto (15), a man whom her husband trusted enough to not only willingly offer him solace in their guest room for the night- but insisted that he stay there, as he declares “I won’t hear of it. You’re staying. You’re what? You’re half an hour away… Not another word” (13). This action, in accordance with Paulina’s paranoia and distressed nature, seems to strongly imply that Paulina may suffer from some form of mental instability; which Roberto does suggest claiming, “I do not know you, madam. I have never seen you before in my life. But I can tell you this: you are extremely ill, almost prototypically schizoid” (23). At which point I found myself agreeing with him and generally believing that Paulina was just unstable and becoming unhinged; which very well may have been Dorfman’s intentions in making Paulina seem to be of such unsound mind.

The point at which I found myself beginning to agree with and fully believe Paulina’s accusation against Roberto came when she tells Gerardo that she recognizes more than just Roberto’s voice, “It’s not only the voice I recognize, Gerardo. I also recognize the skin. And the smell. Gerardo. I recognize his skin” (27). In situations such as Paulina’s, victims are taught to memorize as many details of their captors and surroundings as possible; therefore, it is highly plausible that Paulina could not mistake these aspects because they have been engrained into her memory. Furthermore, Paulina inserted slight variations in her story to Gerardo knowing that he would use that for Roberto’s confession; thus, proving that Roberto was, in fact, guilty- as he corrected all of her discrepancies (45). Not only does this prove Roberto’s guilt, it also proves Paulina’s reliability as a character.

Poetic Injustice

I find it ironic that Gerardo, a justice on the Commission, is serving the biggest injustice to his very own wife. The beginnings of Gerardo’s promise first appear on page 35 where Paulina says, “…what did you swear you’d do to them when you found them? ‘Some day, my love, we’re going to put these bastards on trial. Your eyes will be able to rove’ – I remember the exact phrase, because it seemed, poetic – ‘your eyes will be able to rove each one of their faces while they listen to your story.'” Gerardo offered her sweet, consoling words but seemingly only to keep her placated and submissive.

Gerardo’s intentions of placation continue to become more noticeable on page 45 where he and Roberto are alone in the kitchen. Gerardo tells Roberto that he needs to confess to the part, even though Gerardo has doubts that Roberto is guilty because Gerardo thinks his wife is “sick” and wants her to stop her madness. How is Gerardo supposed to fulfill his promise of justice to Paulina if all he does is question and belittle her? It seems as though every opportunity Gerardo has to seek the truth, he turns a blind eye to the evidence laying before him because, if Roberto somehow is proven innocent, Gerardo’s career would be over before it was made. His justice for Paulina is a self-serving one in which the end assists him, not his wife.

On page 63, Roberto confesses to Paulina that Gerardo coached him on his confession; however, on the following page, Paulina in turn admits to Roberto that she expected him to do so which is why she fed Gerardo incorrect details which the abuser then subconsciously corrected. Paulina had apparently abandoned hope of her husband carrying through on his promise of justice and sough it herself. Gerardo never completed his promise of poetic justice, and in the end, whatever justice was doled out was delivered by Paulina herself.

Death and the Maiden: Toxic Masculinity Stands Trial

The victim in this play being a woman shows that even in a dictatorship, death is not the only injustice that needs to be brought to the attention of the government. Paulina has had to live 15 years of her life dealing with these unspeakable acts and not being able to do anything about it. Women in this text are poked fun at plenty of times, and it seems that the theme of not believing women is prevalent here. Men suffered violence and death as well, but Paulina had her dignity forever stripped of her and these memories have never left her. The system, even a democratic one, is always flawed when it comes to believing women when they claim rape. This idea that even the person she considers closest to her doesn’t believe her exemplifies that idea that nobody ever believes women when they talk about rape and that idea that the system put in place would rather have them be silenced. Gerardo takes his wife’s perpetrator’s side, and on multiple occasions insists that women are crazy. Gerardo says, ” You know women…,” on p.14 of the text when referring to his wife. This statement was only the beginning of many other truths that Gerardo was to share on his opinion of women later on. Roberto says on page 18,” Of the two things you never share, my friend, one is your toothbrush.” This statement alludes to this other unsaid thing men do not share is women. This is ironic in both the senses that come to find out Roberto hadn’t only raped his wife, but when he had raped her, it had been with a group of men, therefore; sharing a woman. Centering women in the middle of all of this social disorder about injustice within the government and enacted by a truth commission shows how even after the dictatorship has ended, it seems women were still going to be denied that voice they needed in accusing their rapists. Paulina’s husband is involved in both matters personal and professional, as he’s on the commission board and he doesn’t support her in either aspect. It feels like it is Paulina against the world and she’s been living through a nightmare that will never be brought to justice, and even at the hands of a man who claims to love her she cannot find anyone to really and truly hear her.

Gender Roles in Death and the Maiden

Embedded throughout Death and the Maiden written by Ariel Dorfman, many themes circulate through the hands of the entirety of the play. One of the main themes is gender and gender roles. Paulina is put in a position where she is in her own home with her husband and the man that supposedly raped and tortured her. In order for Paulina to cope with who she believes to be her rapist in her home, she acts out and ties Roberto to a chair. This falls out of the classic gender role that women are supposed to obtain. Women, both victims and non-victims, are told to suppress their feelings and not let their emotions get the best of them; however, Paulina closes this gap between the gender roles by allowing her emotions to run free. Paulina’s husband also seems to be shocked by the unexpected makeshift trial that occurs in his house. He repeatedly asks and begs Paulina to rethink what she is doing and to take the rational route of thinking, that killing Roberto will do nothing because she is not even positive that he is the right man. Paulina rejects these reasonings with a sense of exhaustion and anger. She will no longer listen to the man who thinks it is his duty to interject his opinions on what a woman ought to do, “When are you going to stop telling me what I can and can’t do. ‘You can’t do this, you can do that, you can’t do this.’ I did it” (24). Paulina’s unpredictable actions take gender roles and completely flips them on their head. She takes an abused woman who was taught to suppress her feelings and emotions and unties her tightly bound leash. Paulina’s actions show what a woman who has been violated mentally and physically looks like when they finally release the image of what should be. Paulina set fire to the gender roles and acted in the face of trauma the only way she knew how: with wild aggression.

Is There A Way To Break The Cycle of Injustice?

When further inspecting the major themes of Ariel Dorfman’s Death And the Maiden, the most prominent one was the notion that this cycle of violence and injustice is inescapable. This cycle is simply a closed circle, constantly continuing around and around until someone makes the active choice to break the norm and begin the cycle of forgiveness. Yet, Dorfman raises the question that seemingly no one tends to think about: why is it the victims responsibility to be the one ending this cycle. At the culmination of Act II Scene I, Paulina wrestles with putting her own needs above the decision to break the cycle: “And why does it always have to be the people like me who have to sacrifice, why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why? Well, not this time. This time I am going to think about myself, about what I need.” I included this whole quote to further stress just how this cycle is able to continue, by everyone having their own idea of what justice is. In this case, Paulina equates justice to the death of her rapist/doctor, while her husband Gerardo equates justice to having the accused go through the proper channels of a trial. Yet, even if Paulina chooses to perform her definition of “justice”, who’s to say that it is her responsibility to allow this doctor to have a proper channel. For in certain societies a “proper” trial is nothing more than a sham, and in this one (which had recently just emerged from underneath totalitarian rule), the people’s faith in the justice system seems low. When one loses faith in the only system known to solely be meant to bring justice and balance to society, this is all but solidifying the overall cycle of injustice perpetrating throughout the land.

A New Way to View Yourself – Death and the Maiden

Act III Scene 1 of Death and the Maiden by Ariel Dorfman contains a very interesting symbol towards the end of the scene which involves a set of stage directions involving a large mirror which is facing the audience as a whole. A giant mirror drops down on to the stage and makes the audience look at themselves and the crowd of people around them as well. This prop is a very momentous staple to the story, and a unique way to have the audience reflect on the acts they have just seen. It is extremely unexpected that the audience would be forced to look at themselves in this way, because usually the audience just reacts to themselves and don’t truly notice or think much into their own reactions. this surprise which engages thought, and changes audience perceptions. When the audience stares into the mirror, this is a way to not only see their own reactions regarding what they have just witnessed, but also the reactions of others around them. In class it was mentioned that we can all have a different “side” we take in this play, and it is very much possible to become uncertain if that is the right side to take at certain points in the piece. When the mirror drops down, it is easy to see all the different opinions and “sides” going on within the audience and within the individual themselves. This shows that everyone in the audience plays a part in how the play is perceived, which further connects to the big picture of how the population as a whole all have a say in how the “norms” of society and the world around us is perceived.

What is truth?

Ariel Dorfman’s “Death and the Maiden” explores the story of a traumatized woman in a former totalitarian regime. The irony of this play is that Paulina’s husband, Gerardo, is in charge of the government’s Truth Commission, which investigates the crimes and horrors of the former dictatorship in an effort to bring forth the atrocities and guilty to the public eye for purposes of justice, yet he doesn’t believe his wife when she exposes the man who raped and tortured her. At his defense, Gerardo’s view of justice and the law stands as a barrier from allowing him to completely and undeniably believe his wife, as his job in the newly democratic government is to search for the truth through witnesses and testimony in a professional courtroom setting. However, his definition of justice, which is a pretty universal view of practiced law, inhibits him from listening to his wife and poses the question of whether or not trial courts expose the whole truth of these kinds of situations. It also poses the question on whether or not Paulina’s truth would even be valid within the official court system even though she is clearly certain that her truth is the only truth. Who is protected from the law in theory versus in practice?

Where are Women in the Law?

The question that I pose in the title is one that has been left for us in almost all of the readings. We read about what justice does for men (The Furies) and what the law provides for men (Declaration of Independence). What we don’t see is where the law has left room for women. This question is asked in Death and the Maiden and answered in an interesting way. Paulina has been unable to see justice for the horrible crimes committed against her. She shows serious disillusionment with the justice system which leads her to kidnap her abuser to put on her own trial. She sums up her thoughts at the end of the play by asking, “And why does it always have to be people like me who have to sacrifice, why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why?” (Dorfman 66). Because she knows that the actual commission won’t help her, Paulina tries to invent her own system of justice that still lets her down. I think here she is giving her own answer to the presented question. She says that it’s not as easy as women just being left out of the justice process, but they are the ones to lose the most. Not only is Paulina brutally tortured and raped, but then she has to be labelled as “sick” and irrational. She is lied to by her husband and her rapist who conspire against her. The system of justice that she invents, still finds a way to re-victimize her. I think an interesting and bold claim that Dorfman could be trying to make is that justice is sexist. The plotline features two men conspiring against a survivor of sexual assault who is just trying to heal. Rather than listening and believing her, Gerardo automatically believes the other man in the situation. There is a moment that he believes her, but it still seems that he turns on her. The law, and justice in the law, does not leave room for women so women have to make room for themselves. Still, however, the system is stacked against survivors hiding behind the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” which Gerardo brings up in the play. I think I am ending with even more questions than I began with about the law being sexist. Why do women have to find justice for themselves/why aren’t they believed? Why haven’t we fixed this? Where do we draw the line at innocent until proven guilty?

The Power to Orchestrate Justice

When reading “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “Death and the Maiden,” the trials that are conducted to bring about truth and justice are carried out by those in power; Ben-Gurion and Israel in “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and Paulina in “Death and the Maiden.” Ben-Gurion ordered the capture of Eichmann only have to him put on trial in a land he had never inhabited and Paulina held Roberto hostage by possessing a gun and keeping him tied up. The obvious imbalance of power in both ‘trials’ allows the distortion of truth and undermines the validity of whatever ‘justice’ is administered. This leads me to the question, “Who has the ability to define and administer justice?” And the most pertinent response to that would be those who are in power, but that leads me to then ask, “Is that really justice?”

While there are plenty of disparities between the two trials; the settings, audiences, and circumstances regarding the truth on whether or not the accused actually committed the alleged crimes being the primary ones, the biased presuppositions of those conducting the trials, the ones in power, predetermined the ruling of guilty for both Eichmann and Roberto. Even though Eichmann did in fact have a role in the Third Reich and there in uncertainty regarding Roberto’s role in Paulina’s torture, both of their prosecutors had the ability to impose any ruling they chose on the defendant. The one’s in power had the ability to create whatever version of the truth necessary to reach a guilty verdict and is what happened in both instances. The Israeli court accused Eichmann of anything they could to find him guilty, such as the minuscule (when compared to the entirety of the Holocaust) and almost certainty false allegation that he killed a man with his own hands, even though his role in the atrocities of the Nazi Regime were already confirmed. Eichmann’s role in the Holocaust was not going to be dismissed even if the degree to which he served in it was limited and inconsequential. The Israeli government was so hell-bent on his guilt and the outcome of the trial, they were willing to fabricate any evidence they could to see it through. Paulina admitted that the only way in which she would not kill Roberto was if he confessed, and when asked about the possibility of his innocence, she responded, “If he’s innocent? Then he’s really screwed.” Paulina, like the Israeli government, had the capability to determine the verdict in favor of her biases because of the power granted to her through the gun and ability to threaten life.

The way power undermines justice is evident in both “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “Death and the Maiden.” Another instance of it is alluded to in “Death and the Maiden” in the Investigating Commission’s inability to prosecute the crimes of the past government because of the amnesty granted to them through the lasting support of the Army. This is what causes Paulina to search for her own justice, but in doing so, she becomes the very one who, like her government and the Israeli government in “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” is able to twist truth through power and determine what is justice.