Sir, - I suppose it was inevitable that John Waters would jump on his bandwagon again, following the performance of Medea at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin (Opinion, May 19th). Nevertheless I find myself in the extraordinary position (for once) of agreeing with him when he states that today "all public discourse, including artistic discourse, is vetted for political correctness". Does it not occur to him, however, that many women, of various feminist persuasions and of none, reject the notion that a character such as Medea could achieve a genuine remedy for her situation in the destruction of her children?
I was first introduced to the Medea story when Brendan Kennelly, whose work I generally delight in, presented his interpretation of the drama at the RDS. I was not convinced that this "revenge" was either "necessary" - i.e. an inevitable "consequence of her husband's selfishness", as John Waters put it - or successful, i.e., giving the protagonist an authentic power with which to fight an unjust social system or to remedy a harrowing personal situation.
I accept that there are people who have bought into the Medea fiction. Some of these would, I suspect, regard Medea's "power" as so circumscribed by personal and political circumstances as to have become the rage of powerlessness, resulting in that action which John describes as "inaccessible to human understanding". There are also, I am certain, many people, including women, who have not accepted the so-called logic of the myth.
Personally, I would regard the life story of Caroline Norton, nearer to us in time (19th century) and in space (England), as a better example of a wife and mother fighting grave social and personal injustice. Her weapons, powerful indeed, were courage, love and intellect.
Finally, it must be remembered that Euripides was a man and that in the story of Medea we find a male-gendered concept of female power. - Yours, etc.
Marie MacSweeney, Trim, Co Meath.