This paper examines the lives and works of three major playwrights — Christopher Marlowe, Oscar Wilde, and Joe Orton — who each defied the social norms of their respective eras. Drawing on biographical sources, the paper argues that authentic, uncompromising art requires the artist to remain true to their own identity, regardless of social pressure or consequence. Each playwright faced public condemnation, legal persecution, and personal hardship rooted in their refusal to conform, particularly regarding their sexual orientation. Their plays, the paper contends, are not merely social critiques but deeply personal reflections of the artists' own experiences, identities, and inner conflicts.
Art needs to be truthful, uncompromising, and oftentimes bold in order for its value to pass the test of time. Art has helped shape and even change society. Even though there are numerous perspectives and theories on the meaning and purpose of art, one can safely argue that art is deeply influenced by the life of the artist who creates it. In other words, there is a strong link between art and the artist. Especially in the case of literature, one cannot strive to fully comprehend the meaning of a certain work without attempting to understand the life of its creator. In many cases, similarly to the divine process of creation as presented in the Bible, art is created using the mold of the artist. Of course, this does not mean that any piece of writing is a true reflection of the personality and lifestyle of the writer. However, in the case of artists who have truly challenged the norms, this rule seems to apply.
Not denying one's identity and staying true to oneself is an art form in itself, because social norms and prejudice tend to shape who we are, especially in modern society. Some artists have dared to challenge this system and to create uncompromising works that have succeeded in altering mentalities. This, however, is a lengthy process that takes a great deal of time. Often misunderstood and judged by their contemporaries, these artists led their lives according to their own moral code and did not allow anyone else to dictate who they should be. Nonetheless, the price they had to pay was high, and their legacy is enduring.
This paper explores the lives of three major playwrights: Christopher Marlowe, Oscar Wilde, and Joe Orton. Each of these playwrights represents a certain age, but they share one very important aspect in common: they all lived their lives according to their own beliefs and desires, and died young, leaving behind an incredibly valuable legacy represented by their writings. Ultimately, this paper strives to illustrate that in order to create such work, one must stay true to one's identity and not give in to social pressure, irrespective of the age the artist lives in or the consequences of this act of resistance.
Christopher Marlowe was born in Canterbury, England, on February 26, 1564. Ironically, he was baptized in St. George's Church, in the shadow of one of the finest Gothic cathedrals in the world. The irony resides in the fact that Marlowe would grow up to be an atheist who would offend and defy his companions with what the latter considered blasphemies. He was born to a working-class family, and not much is known about Marlowe's life until the age of 15, because most of the information now known about his life comes from official documents. He was raised in the city, but his writings do not reveal any obvious local influences. At age 17, he was selected by the Archbishop of Canterbury to pursue his studies at the University of Cambridge, where he would prepare for the ministry. Despite the fact that during his university years his enthusiasm decreased considerably and that he was accused of being a spy, Marlowe denied everything and graduated in 1587 at age 23.
That same year he traveled to London, where his first play would be performed. Tamburlaine, a powerfully original drama played by one of the best actors of the day, Edward Alleyn, won Marlowe great success and led him to persevere as a dramatist; before the end of 1587 the second part of Tamburlaine was performed (Poirier: 20). In the course of the following years his plays followed one another on stage, and their success aroused the jealousy of the less gifted playwright Robert Greene, who vented his spleen against his rival in several of his own works (Ibid). Marlowe shared an apartment in London with the other major pre-Shakespeare playwright, Kyd, though the nature of their relationship is not known. Meanwhile, his reputation as an atheist was established as early as 1588, when Greene published Perimedes the Blacksmith, "which contains the first piece of evidence on Marlowe's heterodox opinions" (Poirier: 26).
Marlowe's dual personality was noted by some of his contemporaries and close acquaintances, such as Kyd. This duality was also reflected in his writings, in the sense that the violence of his dramas — reflecting his own irascibility — is opposed to the kindness and gentleness found in some of his poems. Marlowe was not a "great respecter of the law" (Poirier: 40), and his sexual orientation was a serious issue in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England. Despite being widely practiced, homosexuality was still publicly unaccepted. There is no trace of heterosexuality in Marlowe's plays because writing was his way of rebelling against the dominant social order; that is why, perhaps, homosexuality surfaces time and again in his work. His biography presents the cultured poet and the secret agent side by side — a man who associated with noblemen and commoners alike. As one scholar observed, "these two aspects are not so irreconcilable as to prevent us from blending them. They are the double manifestation of a personality which may not be always consistent, yet displays a certain unity" (Poirier: 36).
"Wilde's biography, sexuality, and imprisonment"
"Orton's rise, Halliwell relationship, and violent death"
The art of Marlowe, Wilde, and Orton reflects their own personal turmoil. The three cases discussed in this paper illustrate that in order for art to be truly valuable, it must be honest. The artist cannot write about society, love, or morality without taking their own experience into account, because total objectivity is not possible in art. Their plays are not based solely on social critique but on a deep process of soul-searching and the exposure of personal intimacy, so that the audience may understand them first as people, and then as artists. These playwrights did not hide behind words and did not deny themselves. On the contrary, they had the strength to embrace who they were despite public scrutiny and condemnation. Subjectivity allows for interpretation, and it is precisely through interpretation that one can derive meaning. The plays that these artists produced are not only vivid depictions of the societies they reacted against, but also profound reflections of their own selves.
You’re 45% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.