Katy Gentry

ENC 1102H

March 29th, 2017

Rhetorical Analysis Final Draft

But Is It Credible Enough: A Rhetorical Analysis

In recent history, Broadway has been widely praised for its ongoing strides in promoting

a more diverse message, showcasing people from all walks of life. However, like all media, there

are still hurdles and obstacles in the way of true diversity, and it is this situation that has

prompted me to examine the different ways that this idea of diversity has manifested itself on

the Broadway stage, specifically looking at the types of shows and how minority or marginalized

characters are being presented and the success that follows. With this analysis, I will examine

one of my sources to determine its relevancy and credibility in my argument.

Broadway Might Not Be So White, But Is It Woman Enough? is a written summation

of a conversation had by two New York Times theatre critics, in which they discuss the degree of

gender equality and representation on the Broadway stage in this most recent season. The two

critics whose conversation is presented, Laura Collins-Hughes and Alexis Soloski, are both

frequent writers for the New York Times, and the nature of their work as individuals includes

reviews, theatre news, and other features. Collins-Hughes, who has worked as an arts journalist

since 1993, has worked as both a writer and an editor for several different publications, and

received the National Arts Journalism Program fellow at Columbia University in 2005. Alexis

Soloski frequently writes for both The New York Times and other well-known publications, such

as The Guardian, and currently holds a position lecturing at Columbia University. This edited

version of their conversation, published by the New York Times to their website and in the print
edition of their paper on June 5th, 2016, came forth just a few days before the 2016 Tony Awards

took place. As noted, this piece has been edited from the original conversation, and there is no

way to know the degree to which statements might have been amended or what was omitted,

whether it be minor filler words adapted or any content was rewritten or removed.

In the adapted conversation, Collins-Hughes and Soloski discuss the successful shows of

the 2015-2016 Broadway season, a season that has loudly been hailed in recent months for its

ethnically diverse productions, including that of Hamilton: An American Musical, a retelling of

the life of Alexander Hamilton as played by people of color, as well as the revival of the musical

The Color Purple, just to name a few. In light of the then upcoming Tony Awards, and the

ongoing praise of the seasons racial diversity as well as the use of female creative teams as

selling points, the two women take a critical look at the gender diversity and presentation of

women on Broadway, and also briefly touch on the comparison between women on and off

Broadway, expanding the scope of their article.

The article is presented strictly as the dialogue between the two women, with the online

publication of the article including the occasional insert of an image, and ultimately, it argues

that the number of women, both onstage and off, has lots of room to grow, and that the depictions

of women onstage are not necessarily good representation, leaving something to be desired of the

gender parity on the Broadway stage. Despite the increase in shows that are being led by female

characters, the emotional and character arcs of these female characters is, in their eyes, generally

a rehashing of what has been done before, or does not paint an accurate picture of the variety of

womanhood. They also discuss the focus that is put on a womans relationship to her children or

the men in her life.

 The largest degree of support provided in the article for their argument is simply their

own expert testimony these are two women who not only are able to approach the subject

through the lens of their own experience of womanhood, but who are also well educated and

have built their careers in the world of theatre and its discussion. That said, the fact that both

contributors to this article on the portrayal of women could, in some contexts, be perceived as a

bias on their part, and Soloski even acknowledges at one point that the both of them tend to favor

shows in which female journalists triumph, making note not only of their subjective

judgements but the way in which their own lives and careers craft their exact perspective on

these shows. This particular bias, though, becomes more of a debate regarding overt sexism than

the article directly acknowledges. However, this consideration, as well as the discussion of how

female characters exist onstage in relation to their children or the men in their lives, help to

indicate to the audience that this conversation extends far beyond simple theatre critique

conversations like this are easily found in other discussions of representation in media, and also

indicate an involvement in feminist discourse as well.

Collins-Hughes and Soloski also use terminology specific to the field and the discourse

communities they are touching on, such as a reference to the Bechdel test, a standard frequently

used in feminist discussions to evaluate the female presence in media, based on the characters

and the exact content of their interactions. In order to pass, there must be at least two named

women, they must talk to each other, and their conversation is unrelated to a man. Collins-

Hughes and Soloski use it to discuss the two main women in Hamilton, and then proceed to also

include an alternate viewpoint, acknowledging that given the exact nature of the relationship

between the Schuyler sisters, and the way they hold their own on an equal intellectual playing

field with Hamilton himself, the Bechdel tests qualifiers are not the most ideal to put this show
up against. While Hamilton fails to pass the test, the arcs and relationships of its women are not

completely discountable or unworthy of acknowledgement.

Soloski and Collins-Hughes also expand their argument by comparing the gender

disparity on Broadway against the shows produced Off-Broadway in the same season.

Referencing the compelling female characters in shows such as Indecent by Paula Vogel and

Revolt. She said. Revolt Again. by Alice Birch, they start the discussion of these successful

shows and the way they crafted diverse, well rounded, and deep female characters, and the

unusual and honest way they were presented. Broadway is considered the staple of American

theatre because it is where the greatest amount of money and commercial involvement is

centered, however works in other realms of theatre are in no way genuinely lesser while Off-

Broadway, these productions featuring strong female characters are still successful and pulling in

great audiences. Here, Soloski and Collins-Hughes are demonstrating that the need for better

female characters on Broadway is not hindered by a lack of marketability or audience for these

shows.

Ultimately, their discussion is made to be accessible to the everyday person, any reader of

the New York Times or its theatre section an in-depth knowledge of theatre isnt absolutely

necessary to follow the argument the women are making, as there are links provided to

information about each show and each plot is explained enough to understand its relevancy. A

reader with no knowledge of the shows can still follow the argument and the evidence that the

shows provide, trusting the summarizing presented from a credible theatrical source. In their

conversation, Collin-Hughes and Soloski note the way in which certain shows, such as Waitress,

have used the fact that the show originated from an all-female creative team as a marketing

point, since it is such a rarity. It becomes clear that both feel that while strides have been made in
dealing with the racial disparity on Broadway, the way that women interact both onstage and

offstage with productions are, for the most part, lacking, though they do acknowledge that there

were several compelling female roles presented in Off-Broadway houses.

Ultimately, their opinions can be summed up in Soloskis closing remark Next season,

Id like to see women suffer a little less and run the world a little more. In this past Broadway

season, the emotional and character arcs of female characters have overwhelmingly been tied to

men, their relation to men, or their suffering, and women deserve a much broader spectrum of

roles in the spotlight of Broadway, matching the broad spectrum of roles they play in real life. In

relation to my argument regarding the ways that diversity on Broadway has manifested, this

article provides a solid point of view regarding gender diversity on Broadway more

specifically, their discussion of the nuances in the kind of women being presented in Broadway

productions and the ties to traditional feminist discourse creates a great basis on which to further

facilitate a discussion on these matters. Additionally, they briefly touch on the idea of casting

women in traditionally male roles, the gender-related counterpart to a method of casting known

as color blind or nontraditional casting in which people are cast in a role generally

considered to be of a different ethnicity or race than their own. This brings up an interesting

point to discuss as well, and in conjunction to the testimony provided by these two women, the

article gives numerous quotes to pull from, as well as several shows to examine more closely and

discuss in my own context.

Works Cited
Collins-Hughes, Laura, and Alexis Soloski. "Broadway Might Not Be So White, But Is It

Woman Enough?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 May 2016. Web. 1

Feb. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/theater/women-on-broadway-a-year

of-living-dangerously.html>.