The New Woman in Early Twentieth-Century American Dramas
When viewing early twentieth-century American dramas such as Eugene O’Neill’s
Beyond the Horizon and George Kelly’s Craig’s Wife, a recurring trend appears: female
characters seemingly depicted as selfish and opportunistic within their marriages. Many critics
argue the women in these plays exploit their husbands for their own personal gain, lying to and
manipulating their spouses in pursuit of their own needs and wants. They are viewed as harsh,
unsympathetic characters with few redeeming qualities, a negative representation of the assertive
New Woman found in American society. However, a closer examination of these two plays
reveals more to these women than initially meets the eye. In a male-dominated world, early
twentieth-century women were entirely dependent on men for their safety and security. Their fate
depended on a successful marriage, as women had no means of supporting themselves or holding
any respectable position in society without a husband. The only way for the women in these
plays to assert control over their lives is to assert control over their marriages, and ultimately,
their husbands. However, rather than acknowledge the patriarchal system that drives these New
Women to use their marriages to ensure their futures, they are instead labeled as self-centered
individuals, pursuing their own selfish needs at the expense of their husbands. The purpose of
this essay will be to examine the differences between the perception and the reality of the New
Woman as presented in Beyond the Horizon and Craig’s Wife, as well as the role of these plays
in challenging the patriarchal view of a woman’s place in society.
During the early twentieth century and even continuing today, American drama has
admittedly been unkind to its female characters. As Susan E. Nornhold notes, “Past dramatists
have not portrayed women in a favorable light, nor is there an appreciable amount of
contemporary American drama available which indeed does portray the American woman as a
1
human being with emotional and physical prowess” (53). One such example of a seemingly
negative portrayal of women in American drama can be found in Beyond the Horizon where
readers are introduced to Ruth Atkins, a woman who marries impulsively and later regrets her
decision. Her husband, Robert Mayo, is ill-suited for their life on a farm, and many critics would
argue Ruth spends much of the play unfairly nagging and berating him because he cannot make
the farm a success. Her behavior, in fact, is often deplorable. During an argument with Robert,
she tells him, “I hate the sight of you! … If I could have seen how you were in your true self like you are now - I’d have killed myself before I’d have married you!” (83). She threatens to
leave with Robert’s brother, Andrew, and only resigns herself to staying after realizing Andrew
no longer wants her. Her treatment of Robert is nothing short of brutal, making it easy to see why
critics would argue that O’Neill created a selfish, dishonorable woman as the female lead in his
play.
When viewing Ruth through the lens of the New Woman, however, her portrayal comes
across very differently. Deborah S. Kolb describes the New Woman as “unafraid to challenge
male decisions and male dominance. … While she might still retain the status of wife and
mother, the New Woman frequently demanded new respect and responsibility” (149). Unlike her
submissive predecessors, Ruth is not afraid to challenge her husband and question his decisions.
Her methods are no doubt ruthless, but as she cannot possibly hope to survive in the world as a
single woman, her future is directly tied to her husband. She cannot support herself or hold any
respectable position in the community without a spouse, and unlike Robert who can determine
how successful he wants to be, Ruth can only improve her station by pressuring Robert to
improve his. Given the nature of the society in which she lives, the sole power available to Ruth
and women like her is the power she wields over her husband. When Robert becomes ill and
2
ventures ever closer to death, Ruth does not look for other means to ensure her survival; she
simply gives up. Her source of power - her control over her husband - is gone, and she knows it.
She disengages from the world, resigned to her fate; nearly every line she speaks is prefaced with
“in a dead voice” or “dully,” indicating her despondency. Her remark to Andrew regarding the
death of her child seems to further reinforce her attitude towards her circumstances as she
comments, ““There’s a time comes - when you don’t mind anymore - anything” (97). While
Ruth is clearly not a shining example of a loving and supportive wife, her assertive behavior is
not without cause, as it is the only means available to her to achieve safety and security in a
patriarchal world.
Like Beyond the Horizon, Craig’s Wife seems to portray a selfish, opportunistic female
lead in the form of Mrs. Craig. Mrs. Craig admits to viewing her marriage as a “bargain” she
made with Mr. Craig, regarding it almost as a business transaction in order to get what she wants.
She confesses to her niece, Ethel, “I saw to it that my marriage should be a way toward
emancipation for me. … [T]he only road to independence for me that I could see, was through
the man I married. … [I]t isn’t financial independence that I speak of particularly. I knew that
would come - as the result of another kind of independence; and that is the independence of
authority - over the man I married” (16-17). She admits that to planning from the beginning to
maintain control of Mr. Craig throughout their marriage, thus ensuring her own independence.
Her exploitation of Mr. Craig does not go unnoticed by others in the house either, as Miss
Austen observes, “You don’t want your husband only that he’s necessary to the upkeep here. But
if you could see how that could be managed without him, his position here wouldn’t be as secure
as the position of one of those pillows there” (50). While Mrs. Craig does not confirm Miss
Austen’s accusations, she does not deny them either. The reality is there is truth to in Miss
3
Austen’s statements whether she wants to admit it or not. Mrs. Craig further appears to mistreat
Mr. Craig by shunning their friends and family in favor of maintaining the sanctity of their home,
as well as lying to him to maintain appearances within the community. Eventually, even Mr.
Craig accuses Mrs. Craig of trying to maintain the upper hand in their marriage, declaring, “You
didn’t want them [his friends at the house] because … their visits implied an importance to me
that was at variance with your little campaign - the campaign that was to reduce me to one of
those wife-ridden sheep that’s afraid to buy a necktie for fear his wife might not approve of it”
(121). Mrs. Craig’s treatment of Mr. Craig is nothing short of shameful, emphasizing her
determination to maintain control of her marriage at all costs.
The evidence pointing towards Mrs. Craig as manipulative and opportunistic within her
marriage is certainly damning; however, if one again uses the lens of the New Woman to
evaluate Mrs. Craig’s behavior, the perception of her character drastically changes. Like Ruth in
Beyond the Horizon, Mrs. Craig is bound to her husband for survival; she cannot earn a living or
maintain any kind of respectable social status without a spouse. Mrs. Craig is only too aware of
this standard, thus she makes sure to marry and marry well. However, she is wise enough to
realize the perilous nature of her position, noting that her safety and security ultimately depend
on her husband’s “mood.” She lives and dies by his decisions, enduring his successes and
failures as if they are her own. Mrs. Craig, however, chooses not to let her fate rest solely in the
hands of her husband. After witnessing her own mother suffering loss and heartbreak at the
hands of her father who mortgaged their home for another woman, Mrs. Craig declares, “I saw
what happened to my own mother, and I made up my mind it ‘ud never happen to me” (123).
Mrs. Craig attempts to gain control in her marriage not because she is simply selfish or
materialistic; she fears for her safety and security in a society where a woman cannot survive
4
without a man. She does not want the rug pulled out from under her as it was for her mother, and
the only way for her to assert control over her fate is to assert control over her husband.
However, the difficult nature of her circumstances goes unnoticed by her friends and family, as
well as by many critics who fail to recognize Kelly’s attempt to expose the patriarchy’s attempts
to oppress women. Mrs. Craig is simply viewed as selfish and unrelenting, leaving her alienated
and alone by the end of the play.
Ultimately, Beyond the Horizon and Craig’s Wife are meant to challenge the traditional
roles assigned to women, lifting the lid on the process used by the patriarchy to maintain its
control. It is not that these women’s behavior is without criticism; certainly Ruth Atkins’ and
Mrs. Craig’s actions cannot be entirely condoned. However, more can be found to their stories
than simply wives who control and exploit their husbands. These plays also represent the
desperate situation of New Women in American culture who found themselves choosing
between relinquishing their fate entirely into the hands of a man or facing condemnation for
daring to assert control over their futures. In the end, the patriarchal system of the early twentieth
century ensured women had few (if any) other options than these, thus forcing women not to
seek power merely for the sake of power, but to seek power for the sake of survival.
5
Works Cited
Kelly, George. Craig’s Wife. Little, Brown, and Co., 1926.
Kolb, Deborah S. “The Rise and Fall of the New Woman in American Drama.” Education
Theatre
Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, 1975, pp. 149-160.
Nornhold, Susan E. “Portrait of a Woman: A Predictable Drama.” The New England Journal, vol.
74,
no. 3, 1985, pp. 52-53. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/817106.
O’Neill, Eugene. Beyond the Horizon. The Pulitzer Prize Plays, 1918-1934, edited by Kathryn
Coe
William H. Cordell. Random, 1934, pp. 53-104. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3206108.
6