Does Melchior rape Wendla in SPRING AWAKENING?- Page 6

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 6:18pm

Spoilers in this post...

(Although I don't know why you'd be reading it if you hadn't seen the show...)


It's kind of surprising to me that this thread has gone on for so long with so little mention of the fact that Wendla dies. It seems people, including yourself, are so in love with this show that they don't want to accept that it portrays anything negative, completely disregarding the fact that the negativity would actually make its message far more powerful. And, you know, that Wendla DIES.

Let me break this down for you.

Wendla dies. She dies BECAUSE SHE GETS PREGNANT. She gets pregnant because she has sex. Sex that she doesn't even understand. Sex that she has because Melchior coerced her into doing it, because he believes it's love, he wants to get off, whatever it is that Melchior believes. But really? He knew what he was doing, and his decision to get her to go through with this act, in essence, killed her. That's the tragedy of it all, really isn't it? That this young, innocent girl ends up dying because of what her mother never told her? For the sake of his d*ck. Do we forgive him? That may be reckless and careless and ultimately an accident -- I'm not saying he SET OUT to kill her, that would be absurd -- but his knowledge was much greater than hers. Certainly adult society is much to blame, that's the point of the play, but where, in the story of those two children, does the downfall begin? Look at the tragedy his carelessness wrought. All because she didn't know. You don't have to intend to hold power over someone to have it. Sometimes it just is.

And he's just as naive as she is? I completely disagree. He knows what he's doing. She does not. He knows more about sex than she does. Please don't turn this into a debate of semantics, because it's not. I don't care if he never heard the word rape. It's not important. This is not about being able to put a term to it; there's still an issue of consent whether or not he's been told, "rape is when you..." With as much as he knows about the consequences of sexual intercourse, he should not have been doing it without her consent. He willingly. put. her. at. risk. Perhaps his intentions were not malicious, as I've already said I believe to be true, but he still did it. He was reckless. He doesn't have to see it as sexual abuse to know that when you're going to do something like that, you don't do it unless both parties are willing, especially given that he's aware that she doesn't know the risks, and doesn't know what's going on.

Why do you think this is a show set in 19th century Germany, staged with modern rock music? This is not a show about 19th century German society. It was created to be applicable to this society, in favor of self-exploration and expression, in opposition to repression. To say "this is what happens when we repress our children." So I'm sorry, going on about how in today's society, he would know, but back then, he didn't, doesn't fit the bill. You are trying way, way too hard to make a hero out of him. Just like the writers of that show.

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 06:18 PM

[snl89]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 6:33pm

*SPOILERS*


She dies BECAUSE SHE GETS PREGNANT.

ahh, THIS is where I have to disagree completely. She does NOT die because she gets pregnant. She dies because her MOTHER gets worried about what everyone will think when they find OUT that she's pregnant, so she physically forces her to have an abortion that gets botched, and from THAT she dies.

I'm sorry, it's just something I really have a problem with when people treat it as if it's Melchior's fault she died. It's NOT. Yes, he put her in the position that LEAD to her death, but she in no way died as a result of what HE did. She died as a result of what her MOTHER arranged. To blame that on Melchior isn't fair or right. Now if the story was such that she'd died during child birth, then that would be a fair argument. But she didn't die during child birth, and there's no reason to assume that she would have. She died from a botched abortion, and I can almost guarantee that Melchior as a character would not have ever agreed to or wanted her to get an abortion.

So if you're going to blame anyone for that, blame Wendla's mother who, though I'm sure she did love her, made a terrible, terrible mistake by putting her own self conciousness about what others would think over her thoughts of safety for her daughter's health. Melchior had NO SAY in how Wendla died.





Anyway, as for the rest of the debate, I really don't want to say anything more just because I feel like I'd just be repeating myself again, and you're completely entitled to your opinions, so I'm not going to try and keep convincing you otherwise :) I WILL say that I fully agree he was reckless, I wouldn't deny that. I just tend to disagree on the idea that "he should have known better". But again, everything I have to say in response to that, I've pretty much already said, so I'll just leave it and hope that we can agree to disagree! :)

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 06:33 PM

[Becky]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 6:36pm

Emcee, I agree with just about all of your thoughts, except one small point: the idea that Melchior knew the risks and "put her at risk" for his own pleasure (or whatever the reason.....) I think that's giving a little too much credit to a hormonal teenager. Even if both of them had been fully aware of what could happen - kids in situations like that aren't usually weighing the risks of their actions at the moment. I'm not sure "putting her at risk" ever crossed his mind when he was caught up in the moment - but I agree with your point that he was more knowledgeable and had control and power - and that they tried to soften the act to make Melchior more likeable.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 6:42pm

For the record, I was being at least a tiny bit facetious with my plot breakdown. I'm perfectly well aware that she dies because of a botched abortion, not literally because she gets pregnant. But she wouldn't have been having that abortion if she hadn't been knocked up, now would she? And yes, I'm also perfectly well aware that her mother arranged the abortion, but just think about the society they're living in. Where everything is repressed and children do not even know what sex IS, what mother is going to allow her 14 year old daughter to birth a child? Looking at it from the viewpoints of that time and place, it'd be like advertising how badly you screwed up in raising your kid. Of course she was going to arrange an abortion.

And that is all I am going to say about that.

Becky, I agree that teenaged reckless abandon is definitely a huge part of it. I'm sure he wasn't sitting there about to go for it thinking, "oh no, what if we conceive a baby and has to get an abortion and dies?!" -- because you're right, in the moment, being young, who thinks that? I was pretty much just making the point that he had a lot more knowledge of the act than she did, and, well, knowledge is power. He was aware of the consequences and the risks, and he went ahead with it anyway.

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 06:42 PM

[bandit964]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:17pm

This is the script from the original play, Spring's Awakening.

Act II, Scene 4

(A hayloft. - MELCHIOR is lying on his back in the new-mown hay. WENDLA climbs the ladder.)

WENDLA: So this is where you've crept off to? -Everyone's looking for you. The wagon has gone out again. You must help. A thunderstorm is coming.

MELCHIOR: Keep away! -Keep away from me!

WENDLA: What's the matter with you? -Why are you hiding your face?

MELCHIOR: Get out of here! -Or I'll through you down on the threshing floor!

WENDLA: Now I'm certainly not going. [Kneels down beside him.] Why don't you come with us to the meadows, Melchior? -It's dark and stuffy in here. Even if we do get wet to the skin, what do we care!

MELCHIOR: The hay smells so wonderful. -The sky must be as black as a pall. -All I can see is the poppy gleaming at your breast-and I can hear your heart beating-

WENDLA: -Don't kiss me, Melchior! -Don't kiss me!

MELCHIOR: -Your heart-I hear it beating-

WENDLA: People love eachother-if they kiss - - - - - - don't, don't - - - - - -

MELCHIOR: There is no such thing as love! That's a fact. -It's all just selfishness and self-seeking. -I love you as little as you love me. -

WENDLA: -Don't - - - - - - Don't Melchior! - - - - - -

MELCHIOR: - - - - - - Wendla!

WENDLA: Oh, Melchior! - - - - -don't - - - - - - - - - - - -don't- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -don't - - - - - - - - - - - -don't - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Updated On: 2/3/08 at 07:17 PM

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:27pm

For a show that is supposedly "ground-breaking" seems to me the authors wimped out. Clearly Wedekind had more balls a hundred years ago then these schmucks have today.

[East Village]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:33pm

It's so much more riveting that the scene is ambiguous in the musical. It's the turning point of the show, it shouldn't turn on a conclusion. Sorry BFB, if LUV isn't going to concede that Melchior is as lost as Wendla, I'm never going to concede that that scene isn't the most profound moment in contemporary theater. Of course, I'll also never concede that my dog isn't perfect

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:36pm

East Village, your dog probably IS perfect. But I think the original is braver.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:38pm

Updated On: 5/8/09 at 07:38 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:42pm

What are you even talking about? What does what I'm willing to concede about my interpretation of the show have to do with what you're willing to concede about yours? That's immature. I think Melchior is lost is in his own ways. Ways that are more visible in the play because of the masked man that was cut. He has knowledge of scientific human anatomy that gives him power over Wendla, which, in the context of sex, makes him far, far less naive than she is. So no, he is not AS lost as she is. But do I think he's not also suffering from the effects of the society he's in? Absolutely not. But I am certainly not denying that he is misguided. Why are you acting as though just because I've been presented with an opposing viewpoint, I should be expected to change what I think? I'm not changing my mind because I feel very strongly about what I saw. Not just to act like a child about it. At least my refusal to concede isn't simply for the sake of being a brat.

I happen to think that that scene, as a theatrical entity, is actually very riveting in the musical. I love the song "I Believe," and I think the staging on the suspended platform is remarkably effective. But, as far as what the action does for the plot, especially in light of the play, I don't think it's what it should be.

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 07:42 PM

[misschung]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:45pm

Now if the story was such that she'd died during child birth, then that would be a fair argument.

Wait, wait. Why? She's pregnant either way - how is it more his fault if she dies during childbirth than dying during an abortion? She's pregnant either way - which is a direct result of his coercing her into having sex, right? I haven't even seen the show, but that argument makes very little sense to me.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 7:49pm

MELCHIOR: There is no such thing as love! That's a fact. -It's all just selfishness and self-seeking. -I love you as little as you love me. -

Why, oh why, couldn't the musical have explored THAT? Melchior's story is so much more interesting when he has that frame of mind.

I DO consider coercion (which I think is pretty much the same thing as statutory rape? I'm not positive on that, but I think so. Correct me if I'm wrong) just as bad as rape. WHEN the person doing the coercing is fully aware of the impact of what they are doing and purposely takes advantage of someone because they are young and naive.

Isn't this counter to your previous point that forced sex is only rape when the person feels violated? I guess it just concerns me that people will defend Melchior's actions by any means necessary because the musical tells us that Melchior and Wendla are in love. It's made clear that Melchior knows the gross mechanics of sex, at the very least, and he doesn't listen when Wendla tells him to stop -- there's blame to be laid there, any way you look at it. Even if she doesn't feel that bad about it after, even if she enjoyed it during, he coerced her into having sex with him and didn't respect her wishes when she told him no. And that, to me, is rape.

I'm not judging Melchior based on his frame of mind in the situation (I think it's possible to feel various ways about that), but on a completely situational level, I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than rape. Maybe he didn't fully understand the consequences and maybe he was "lost," and that can factor into how one judges him for it, but that doesn't change the thing itself. Updated On: 2/3/08 at 07:49 PM

[snl89]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:15pm

Now if the story was such that she'd died during child birth, then that would be a fair argument.

Wait, wait. Why? She's pregnant either way - how is it more his fault if she dies during childbirth than dying during an abortion? She's pregnant either way - which is a direct result of his coercing her into having sex, right? I haven't even seen the show, but that argument makes very little sense to me.

yeah, I kinda realized after I typed that that I probably didn't say it the right way haha. It really wouldn't be that different, but just like.. I guess it would feel more directly related to him if she'd died during child labor. Then it would be like what he did litterally killed her. Whereas, with it being the way it is, she does not die from what he did. But you're right, really it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, and I do aknowledge that I was a bit quick to type that and didn't really think it through.




Isn't this counter to your previous point that forced sex is only rape when the person feels violated? I guess it just concerns me that people will defend Melchior's actions by any means necessary because the musical tells us that Melchior and Wendla are in love. It's made clear that Melchior knows the gross mechanics of sex, at the very least, and he doesn't listen when Wendla tells him to stop -- there's blame to be laid there, any way you look at it. Even if she doesn't feel that bad about it after, even if she enjoyed it during, he coerced her into having sex with him and didn't respect her wishes when she told him no. And that, to me, is rape.

Well.. it's not really that counter to it because I said from the beginning that, even though I didn't really consider coercion rape, in today's society especially, it's just as bad. As has been mentioned, it's still a form of sexual abuse, I just classify it a little bit differently then rape because I DO still feel like an actual rape results in the victim feeling violeted (yes, date rape fits into that category because even though the person isn't aware of what's going on while it's happening, the emotional impact on them in the aftermath is still very great.) But again, that DOESN'T mean that coercion isn't very often just as bad.


And I still just... I feel like people underestimate Melchior's naivety in the situation just because he happens to understand the mechanics of sex. I just don't get how a person can be expected to know not to do something when they've never been introduced to the idea that what they're doing is wrong. Yeah, he should have stopped and thought it through before he did it, but that's a teenager for you. How do MOST teenage pregnancies happen in the first place? Because the teens having sex just don't stop and think about the consequences of their actions.

So actually, I guess that's the way I see it: Melchior was being AS irresponsible as any other teenager who engages in unprotected sex (whether it be back then or modern day). No more, no less. The fact that Wendla didn't know anything about it doesn't really make too much of a difference, if you think about it, because it all comes back to the fact that he just plain wasn't thinking about it. And I think it's unfair to call what he did rape, because he didn't know that there WAS such a thing. So his naivety on that issue doesn't exuse him from being an irresponsible teenager who didn't think his actions through, but it does, in my opinion, exuse him from being a rapist. So he DOES have some blame (pretty BIG blame) in the situation, but just not that harsh.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:26pm

I feel like people underestimate Melchior's naivety in the situation

Well, I feel people will say just about anything to make excuses for him, because they don't want him to be the bad guy. Realize that pointing out the lack of consent doesn't make Melchior a criminal. But he's not a romantic hero, either.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:30pm

Updated On: 5/8/09 at 08:30 PM

[East Village]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:35pm

And you know how this would play out on Law & Order. [Insert name] of whatever broadway guest star would be defending Melchior. They'd open with "Wendla, did you ask the defendant to lift up your skirt, stare at your naked buttocks. And then proceed to demand he whip you with a stick? And didn't the defendant protest?"

I'm sorry LUV, perhaps I am being a little immature, but its a pretty difficult case.
Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:35 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:35pm

Excuse the double post, but a few more things...

The fact that Wendla didn't know anything about it doesn't really make too much of a difference, if you think about it, because it all comes back to the fact that he just plain wasn't thinking about it.

The entire show HINGES on the way she's been sheltered. It's about the consequences of the societal repression of those children.

I just classify it a little bit differently then rape because I DO still feel like an actual rape results in the victim feeling violeted

Honey. She. said. no. Whether he convinced her it was okay or not, she still. said. no. "No" is non-consent. Non-consent is still violation. Even if she gives in and ends up enjoying what he's doing to her body, it is still an act of violation. It seems like you're reluctant to use the word rape because that would automatically incriminate him, in your mind. But it wouldn't, as I've already addressed; you're using a specifically contextual definition of rape, not rape as non-consensual sex, period. Could you classify it as not being as awful as the classic modern-day criminal rape with a scary guy popping out of a dark alley corner? Yes. But she still. said. no.

And I think it's unfair to call what he did rape, because he didn't know that there WAS such a thing.

Melchior knows what sex is. He knows what the risks and consequences of sex can be. If he knows that, then shouldn't it click for him that you shouldn't do something like that without consent? I'm sorry, but this isn't about "well, nobody sat him down and spelled out 'you need to have consent in order to have sex.'" Maybe, maybe, he truly thought that what he was doing, coercing her, trying to make her feel better about it, was actually okay. But does that MAKE it okay? Just because it was by his (very skewed) standards? Absolutely not. So stop making excuses for him.

Just... wow. This is actually rather frightening.

And East Village -- a difficult case? What differences does it make to you whether I change my mind? What, are you on some sort of mission where you get Spring Awakening points for every convert you win over?

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:35 PM

[snl89]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:37pm

Well, I feel people will say just about anything to make excuses for him, because they don't want him to be the bad guy. Realize that pointing out the lack of consent doesn't make Melchior a criminal. But he's not a romantic hero, either.

I don't believe he's a romantic hero, but I DON'T think he's the bad guy either. So I'm not making exuses for him, because I'm not saying he did absolutely nothing wrong. I just think it's only fair, if we're going to bare in mind Wendla's naivety in the situation (which you can't really deny), to grant Melchior the same courtesy. :)



Melchior knows what sex is. He knows what the risks and consequences of sex can be. If he knows that, then shouldn't it click for him that you shouldn't do something like that without consent?

and THAT is precisely where I feel like people make the mistake of underestimating his naivety. Think about it: he has ONLY ever read about sex in books. He knows the legistics of how you do it, and what body parts are involved. That's about it. HOW would he ever know to think "oh, I should probably make sure she is okay with this before I do it?" That's something that's been pounded into OUR heads in our modern society, so it's very difficult to get beyond it. But if you really think about it, no, it WOULDN'T just click. At least, not in my opinion. It's only that obvious to us because we've been raised to think that way. We have been raised knowing that sex is simply something you do NOT do unless you have the other person's permission. But if you've only ever read about it in books- if you only know that one body part goes into another, body fluids are exchanged, and that is that- why would you think it's something that requires the other person's consent? Yeah, he knows she could get pregnant- again, that's where the irresponsibility comes in. But that's just a matter of that he's not thinking about it. But his irresponsibility does not make him a rapist I don't feel.

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:37 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:43pm

Wendla's naivete is much more extreme, much more of a cause, and much more of a problem in this particular situation. She is ultimately a victim of that naivete. We can't exactly say the same for Melchior, I'm afraid. Her naivete ALLOWS Melchior to assert power over her. Tell me, exactly what is it that he does not understand? It's been made pretty clear what Wendla doesn't get, and you keep repeating that Melchior is also naive, but you've yet to explain why. Just because he's young? This I can't wait to hear...

Why do we have to grant him a courtesy? Are all characters created to be liked and be sympathetic? How interesting would THAT kind of theater be?

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:43 PM

[snl89]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:49pm

It's been made pretty clear what Wendla doesn't get, and you keep repeating that Melchior is also naive, but you've yet to explain why. Just because he's young? This I can't wait to hear...

Sorry, I think I've mentioned it many times, but probably didn't make it too clear in actually explaining it: his naivety is not just that he is young. It's that, as much as Wendla doesn't know sex, Melchior doesn't know rape. Rape is not an act, or an idea, that he has EVER heard of. And I'm not just talking about the actual term: I'm talking about the act of it. The idea that having sex without the other person's permission is not okay. So if he doesn't understand this concept, how can he be expected to know to stop? He's never KNOWN the concept of "no means no", and to ignore that fact isn't quite fair to me.

Again, it's irresponsible of him not to stop and think "hey, I know that doing this could cause her to become pregnant, which wouldn't be good. Therefore I shouldn't do it", but beyond that? How can he be expected to think of it any deeper than that? That would be like expecting Wendla to somehow know that having sex will lead to results she doesn't want.

Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:49 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:50pm

I agree with everything you said Emcee except for the fact that the way the musical is staged Wedela seems to give in twords the end and allow him to have her, even though she doesn't really understand, which in my mind does not leave Melchior entirly to blame.
Updated On: 2/3/08 at 08:50 PM

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:53pm

Updated On: 5/8/09 at 08:53 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:54pm

Apparently you edited your post to include the answer. Nevermind.

You're still seeing "rapist" as the modern-day criminal who seeks to do this to women on some sort of serial basis. And no, Melchior is not that kind of rapist. He's not an attacker. Admitting that what he did was wrong doesn't automatically incriminate him. I know Melchior is adorable and hot and dreamy and we all love Melchior, but that does not make him innocent, either.

How is he supposed to know consent is probably a good thing to have? If he understands the logistics of the act, then he's likely going to understand the magnitude of it. She could get pregnant, for God's sake. You don't think it would dawn on him -- at least at SOME point, not necessarily as he's sitting there about to f*ck her -- that he should probably check and see if she's cool with this? He may be reckless, but he's not stupid.

Anyway, I can certainly see how you could categorize that as his own naivete. I actually pointed that out earlier. However, I don't think that excuses what he did. Non-consensual sex is still wrong. Nor do I think these are two equivalent forms of naivete, or that we should look at the two characters equally. If we go with your idea, then Wendla is actually a victim of both his AND her own naivete, is she not?

This is mind-numbing.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 8:57pm

I agree with everything you said Emcee except for the fact that the way the musical is staged Wedela seems to give in twords the end and allow him to have her, even though she doesn't really understand, which in my mind does not leave Melchior entirly to blame.

I don't think he's entirely to blame. Sorry if I implied that. Just mostly. I think, with her, it's quite simply a situation where... your mind says no and then your body says yes and eventually, your mind is powerless to do anything but follow. She likes how it feels, so she figures, why not? And once she stops resisting him, yes, she is also at fault for what happens to her.

[snl89]

Posted: 2/3/08 at 9:03pm

If we go with your idea, then Wendla is actually a victim of both his AND her own naivete, is she not?

Sure, I'd say that's a very fair assesment to make. I never said Wendla wasn't a victim here. She certainly is.


I know Melchior is adorable and hot and dreamy and we all love Melchior, but that does not make him innocent, either.

you make it sound like I'm saying "nooooo he did absolutely nothing wrong, he's as innocent as Wendla because he's adorable and dreamy!" :) NEVER said that, and I never would. Let's just put it this way: you don't think that he's completely to blame, just mostly, right? Well I don't think he's completely to blame, just some. He was wrong to be irresponsible and hasty. He made that mistake and Wendla was the victim of it. But I guess in my mind, when I hear "rape", I automatically think of things like what Martha's father does to her. And THAT, I feel, is SO SO much worse than what Melchior did to Wendla.