Dialogue in

Shakespearean Offshoots

The question that haunted so much ectfly criticism of Shakespeare on film, "Is it Shake.speare?" now seems irrelevant, according to Kenneth Rothwcll in his 2001 survey. "How the TwentiethCentury Saw the Shakespeare FQm." Tlie "text-centered preoccupation with the literal translation of Shakespeare's language Into film language" no longer interests critics (82-83). In a parallel development, several 1990s '"adaptations" create radical disjunctions between Shakespearean language and filmic images. Adopting a postmodern aesthetic of parody and pastiche, the.se films juxtapose fragments of contemporary media culture against Shakespeare'.s archaic poetry. Simultaneously, the Shakespearean "offshoot" ha.s become a popular film genre tliat dispenses with die plays' language altogether, wlule radically recontextualizing character, setting, and action.' As Shakespeare's dense poetic language has become irrelevant to film critics, it may be disappearing from, or be drowned out in. contemporary Shakespeare-based films. But maybe not. I find in many Shakespeiinian offshoot.s the kind of dialogues with their source texts that recent adaptations, like Baz Luhnnann's/?(W() + Juliet (1991) as\d Richard Loncraine's/?ic/wn/y//(1995), deliberately reject.

Mercutio as a black, drug-pushing diva in drag, Tybalt as a Hispanic gang leader wearing a Sacred Heart of Jesus vest, tlie Nurse as a Cuban nanny, and Lady Capulet as a Southern bellethese shifting images nsminiscent of MTV have made Luhrmann's adaptation of Romeo + Juliet the touchstone for defining postmodern Shakespeare tBurt 169-72). Likewise, the vaguely Nazi uniforms 104

Dialogue in Shakespearean Offshoot&/105 for Richard of Gloucester, the constant haze of cigarette smoke, an ever-present glass of whiskey characterizing the up-start queen's brother as an American playboy, and the action-movie sequence that recreates the Battle of Bosworth Fieldthese glossy images from Hollywood war movies have earned Loncraine's adaptation of Riduird III the label "camp" Shakespeare (Buhler 40-57). Whereas in Chitnes at Midnight (1966) Orson Welles famously created a visual language, in stark black and white film, to translate Hal's emergence from "base contagious clouds" into the light of kingship (7 Henry A' 1.2.190-91). Luhrmann and Loncraine deliberately interpolate images that jar against Shakespeare's language. The message sent to the exiled Romeo arrives late by the "Post Haste" mail service. Similarly. Richard shouts his famous line. "My kingdom fora horse!" (Richard III 5.4.7). because his jeep has broken down on the battlefield. As both tragic protagonists approach death, we are encouraged to laugh. These disjunctions between word and image situate the viewer's emotions at an ironic di.stance from the tragedy. Such films have prompted Richard Burt to claim that the relationship between Shakespeare and popular culture film has become "post-hermeneutic"^meaning diat there is no dialectical or dialogic relationship between the source play and the shifting surfaces of media images in ctirrent films. Shakespeare's language, argues Burt, is drowned out by noise, by "the nonsynchronization of high and low cultural registers" (Btm 162). Unlike Burt, who labels these contemporary adaptations unspeakable "Shaxxxpeares," Courtney Lehmann fmds in them Shakespeare's "remaines." which were bequeathed to posterity by Heminge and Condell in The First Folio. "Is the Shakespearean text always ah^ady postmodemr she asks. After all. Shakespeare himself engaged in the same kind of cannibalization and pastiche of past styles and authorities as the postmodern filmmaker (15-16. 159). I a^^e with Lehmann that Shakespeare's "remaines" do survive in contemporary film oddly enough in offshoots that seem to dispense with his language. Offshoots. I will argue, not only mimic Shakespeare's own transformative recycling of plots and archetypes, but not infrequently, they engage an intense dialogue with the language of their source texts. Four filmic offshoots of A'/g Z.^ar will Illustrate this claim. Two are recontextualizations that translate Shakespeare's plot and characters into different culture and/or historical moment: AJdra Kurosawa's Samurai epic Ran (1985) and A Thousand Acres (1997) based on Jane Smiley's Pulitzer-prize-winning novel about an Iowa farm family. The two others use the common plot device of a story about staging a Shakespearean play: The Dresser (1983). based on Ronald Harwood's play about a Shakespearean touring company in World War II England, and The King is Alive (2(XX)). a Dogme 95 film about tourists, stranded and bored, who enact King Lear in the African desert. In Ran. Kurosawa faithfully attends to Shakespeare's language, although not one word of the play is spoken. Relocating the Lear story in feudal Japan, die film's relation to its source text goes beyond mere plot and character parallels. Like Welles, Kurosawa translates Shakespeare's verbal poetry into filmic imagery. For example, the play's exploration of the cosmic implications of Lear's foolish division of his kingdom is reinforced visually as the insignia of the old king Hidetora, the sun cradled in the crescent moon, is split between the sun insignia of one son. whose banners are yellow, and tlie moon insignia of the other, whose banners are red. In the film's central battle scene. Hidetora is trapped in the tower of a castle he ceded to one son. As the armies of his two sons slaughter his remaining warriors, as his concubines commit ritual suicide, and as the tower is engulfed in fiames, Hidetora is immobilized in disbelief. Breaking out of his trance-like state, he reaches for his sword only to find the empty sheath. Horrified hy the chaos he has created, maddened by shock and grief, and impotent to end his life honorably, the Great Lord staggers down the steps of the tower. ,

106/Dialogue In Shakespearean Offshoots

In this scene, we see the two armies of his sons (the yellow banners on the left; the red on the righi) part to allow what appears to be a demon spirit of the Great Lord pass. With the flames of tlie tower raging directly above his head, Hidetora stumbles down tlie stairs between the two armies, dragging his empty sheath. In the division of the yellow army of the sun and ihc red army of the moon. Kurosawa images the chaos ("ran" means chaos) Lear calls down upon his kingdom in his rage upon the heath (Kint^ Lear 3.2.1-8). In die flaming tower above Hidetora's head, Kurosawa images Lear's madness, which mirrors the division in the state and the parallel tempest in nature he has caused (KL 2.4.283*86). In Hidciora's empty sheath and mask-like face. Kurosawa images Lear's impotence and suffering (KL 2.4.272-82). Famous for his meticulous construction of mise en sc^ne. Kurosawa u-anslatesalmost reverentiallyverbal poetrj' into film images. While enabling Shakespeare to speak to a completely different culture and era. Kuro.sawa also speaks. Setting Shake.speare's retelling of this legend about familial and national chaos in feudal Japiin. Kurosawa creates a parable about war for a nuclear age. After tJie camage of the film's climactic baltle. after ihe deaths of Hidelorj and all his sons (both good and evil)the film's final image FiKUses on the Tom o" Bedlam figure, a former enemy's son whom Hidetora had earlier blinded. L.eft alone on die ruined battlements of a castle that Hidetora had once burned, the blind boy stumbles towai'd the edge ofa precipice. Having survived the hon-ors tliat World War !I brought to Japan. Kurosawa imagines in Rati a world on the brink of destruction, prompting us U) ask with Kent. "Is this the promised end?" (KL 5.3.269). Kunisawii has used Shakespeare's representation of apocalyptic violence in pre-Christi;in Britain lo represent Japan's feudal past, its militarism that led to World War II. ;uid America'sdevastating nuclear response. Clciirh. F'^in\ relation toitssotirce text i.s not "post-henneneutic." Kurosawa has enabled the language of Kin^ l^ear to speak in images and answered with areinterpretationthat evokes the "historical depth" that Fredric Jameson finds absent in the ptistmodem aesthetic (16-25). Whereas Ran translates King Lear as a Western masterpiece that speaks to our postnuclear predicament. The Dresser mocks the elevation of Shakespeare as a beacon of hope in a world at war. and The King ;.v Alive at first represents his dnuiia as irrelevant and incomprehensible. While

Dialogue in Shakespearean Offshoots/107 they desacralize "Shakespeare," the icon of high Westem culture, nevertheless both films build toward a moment when the words of King Lear are allowed to speak with power and truth. In The Dres.ser, a once prominent but now declining actor-manager always called "Sir" is leading a rag-tag troupe of actors through a tour of provincial Engl ish cities during the darkest days of Worid War n.Foiced to play King Lear in a world that seems more and more like Lear's world of suffering. Sir struggles against eruptions of insanity thiXJUghout his preparations for tlie play, eventually becoming the role he plays: an impotent patriarch, raging against the loss of his powers. Despite exhaustion and delusions, he summons the will to perform by imagining that "We actors fight on the side of light vs. the powers of darkness." taking Shakespeare as a beacon of hope to every comer of the kingdom. Still, the off-stage scenes in his dressing room reveal that, beneath his self-representation as a heroic warrior against the "Barbarians." Sir is a narcissistic blow-hard. Thefilmfocuses on the relationship between Sir and his faithful dresser. Norman, whose effeminate mannerisms, anecdotal exempla, cajoling, coaxing, and bullying get the exiiausted and delusional Sir on stage for a sold-out performance of King Lear. As the day progresses, and the boundaries between "Sir" and the mad king blur, Norman subsumes one by oneall the supporting roles to Lear's drama. Playing children's games like "I Spy" :ind singing music hall songs like "A Nice Cup of Tea" to motivate Sir to begin putting on his make-up. Norman becomes the fool whose ditties and witty banter both distract Lear from hisrisingmadness and force him to see the truth. Like Goneril and Regan, he shamelessly flatters the company's tyraimical patriarch. Then, as curtain time approaches. Norman revives Sir's broken spirit by leading hitn through the ritua! of dressing for the performance, as Edgar deceives his blinded father in order to save him from despair. As Norman becomes Lear's flattering daughters, the ever hopefijl Edgar, and the fool, he also subsumes the language of the play. Even though Sir has played Lear 226 times, he cannot remember his first line; Norman has to prompt himrepeatedlythmugh his part., cues and all. Throughout the dressing room scenes. Shakes[)eare's poetry is fragmented either into mere shoithand designations for scenes, or the shattered remnants of Sir's identity, as when he launches into a hilarious medley of lines from six different plays when trying to remember his lines. As Sir's identity fractures into a pastiche of his past roles, "Shakespeare" seems to have splintered into random snippets. Having completed a final, sterling performance of King Lear, Sir lies prostrate in his dressing room and asks Nonnan to read what he's written so far in his autobiography. As Norman, who has been nipping at a brandy fiask thn>ughoul his ordeal of dressing Sir. reads the acknowledgements, he discovers to his horror that Sir has thanked everyoneexcept Nonnan. At his moment of triumph. Sir dies, and Nonnan explodes. Half drunk and blinded by tears. Nonnan delivers a fmal monologue in which the words spoken by Lear's faithful servants and daughter, and by Lear himself echo through Norman's grief and rage. In this refusal to leave his dead master, without whom he has no identity. Nonnan echoes the lament of Kent over the dead body of Lear (Ai 5.3.328-29). Exhausted by his role of faithfulretainer,however. Norman gives vent to all his repressed feelingsincluding rage at Sir's ingratitude. With Sir gone. Norman subsumes the role of Lear himself, railing against

27

108/DiaIogue in Shakespearean Offshoots his dau^ters' ingratitude. As the once naive Edgar leams to see the depths of human cruelty, and ends King Lear promising lo "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say" (KL 5.3.331), so Norman, for the first time confesses his contradictory feelings about Sir. These include not only devotion and rage, but also deep love. Throughout die film, several daughterfigureshave competed for Sir's attentiona young aspiring groupie, the dour but faithful stage manager, and Norman himself. At Sir's d e ^ . Nonnan confesses that he is the true Cordelia, who. albeit silently, "dotli love [Lear) most" (KL L1.51). and the film ends with the dresser prostrate in tears over Sir's body, singing tJie fool's song from the storm scene on die hea (AX 3.2.75-78). Thus Tfie Dresser both mocks tlie Image of Shakespeare as a beacon of civilization and bears witness to the power of his tragedy restaged in Norman's harrowing final monologue. TTie fihu's nslationship to its source text is indeed dialogic: Harwood talks back to "Shakespeare" as a culttiral myth, but then leads the audience to a climactic moment when Shakespeare speaksas echoes of Kent's, Edgar's, the fool's, Lear's, and Cordelia's words bespeak Norman's suffering. The King is Alive also questions Shakespeare's place in the contemporary world, while leading its audience to a climactic moment in which the words of King Lear speak the characters' lived experience. This Dogme 95 film su-ands a bus load of hapless travelers at an abandoned German mining camp in the African desertwhere the only water is dew collected trom rusting tin roofs, the only food is rusty cans of carrots (the dented ones arc poison), and the only inhabitant is an old miin who .speaks no English. Set against the ruins of the colonial past, the stranded travelers become a microcosm of contemporary Westem civilizationail seen from the perspective of ihe black African, whose beniu.sed voice-over comments on their phght. On the morning after their break-down, Henry, a former actor, now paid to read scripts for Hollywood B-movies, observes the others, hung over from the night's attempt to dull their fear by swilling all the booze they brought. He muses that it won i tx' jnriy rx-iore they begin staging some sort of "fantastic strip tease act of basic human needs." Laughing. Henry quotes Lear's words when meeting the niikcd. mad Tom o' Bedlam on the heath: "Is man no more than this?" (KL 3.4.103-04). Tliis scrap of Shakespeare engenders the idea of distracting himself by staging King Lear, and iie begins to write out die play from memory and to enlist his fellow travelers in rehearsing Shakespeare's most difficult and darkest tragedy. Ai tliis point the central convention of the genre of films about staging a Shakespeare play takes over the plot: the characters in the filtn's reality take on the identities enacted in the play's fiction. Although parallels between the characters' relationships and the fiction of Shakespeare's play multiply, the stranded travelers cannot act their roles. At first, they cannot even understand the words that Heruy has sometimes incompletely remembered. Then a breakthrough (xrcui-s. When one traveler mangles Goneril'sfiatteringspeech to Lear and asks Henry to explain who her character is and wherie she comes from. Henry responds with a recitation of Lear's rejection of Cordelia, Spoken from the depths of his estrangement from his own daughter. The cast's attention is riveted, as if for the first time the undecipherable words, scratched on the backs of the script for Space Killers thai Henry brought in his luggage, have emerged into tneaning.

Dialogue in Shakespearean Offshoot&'109 From the perspective of the African observer, however, the activities of the Westemers make no sense. At first, he notes that they are afraid, but that they don't hold each other. Once the rehearsals begin, he sees that they walk around saying words without talking to each other. Watching the Uxjupe sink into despairas two maniayLs fi^cture. an elderiy American breaks down with die DTs. and racial tensions escalate into violencethe Afiican muses objectively. "They didn't understand what they said." Eventually, however, they do come to understand not only archaic poetic language spoken with conviction, but also the raw cruelty and suffering that King Lear enacts. Jealous and annoyed by the diuiness of the innocent American Cordelia, the cynical young French woman poisons her. Devastated by rejection, a self-absorbed petty bore, who thought the American girl was the love of his life, defiles her dying body and hangs himself. In the film's final scene the shattered remnant of these stranded travelers sit in the darkness witli the body of their Cordelia before them, staring into a huge fire of bu.s tires, their last attempt to be seen andrescued.As the light from the fiames flickers on their begrimed and anguished faces, one by one they speak the words of King Lear that bear witness to the horror they have seen: "This cold night will tum us all to foots and madmen" (3.4.79-80). "Howl. howl, howl! O. you are men of stones. [...] Is this the promised end? [... | A plague upon you, murderers, traitors all; /1 might have saved hen now she's gone forever" (KL 5.3.263. 269, 275-76). Finally, when a party of Africans in a jeep is attracted to the fire, the travelers look toward the headlights, but their faces don'tregisterrecognition. It's as if they have finally entered the tragedy of King Lear that they have enacted, and they can no longer retum to the world from which they came. When the bus broke down, one savvy traveler told the fearful travelers, before he set out to fmd help, that above all else they must keep up their spirits. Amidst the ruins of colonial exploitation, in an abandoned German mining camp, these Westemers try to stage one of their culture's treasures. But Shake.speare's tragedy provides them neither entertainment nor hope. It has not been, as Sir vaunts in The Dresser, a shield against barbarism, because they are themselves the barbarians. Staging King Lear seems to be a fantastic idiocy to pass the time, and its language seems incomprehensible. In the end. however, Ihe play's words do allow the Westemers to bear witness to both the cruelty and baseness that has devastated their party (and much of the world colonized by the West), and the pity and humanity that Lear, Gloucester, and Edgar leam when they "see how tliis world goes [... 1 see it feelingly" {KL 4.6.147-49). Adhering to the Dogme Brotherhood's manifesto, Kristian Levring has mounted his rebellion against Hollywood special effects through a dialogue that enables Shakespeare's language to speak again. Whereas Ran translates Shakespeare's words into images that speak to postnuclear Japan, The Dresser and The King is Alive talk back to "Shakespeare." as the icon of high Westem culture, but then lead their audiences to aclimactic moment when we hear Shakespeare s language in all its tragic force. No such moment occurs in A Thousand Acres. This eco-fenunist recontextualizadon shifts

I lO/Diaiogue in Shakespearean Offshoots the play's point of view so that were-seethe familial, social, and even cosmic conflicts of King Lear IVom the perspective of Goneril and Regana shift that creates chilhng ironies in echoes of Shakespeare's words. Ginny and Rose are the twu older daughters of Larry, an irascible, aging patriarch who years ago appropriated not only a thousand acres of rich midwestem farm land, but also the bodies of iwo of his three daughters. Whereas the embittered Rose has never forgotten Larry's nightly visits to her bed, Ginny, naive and ever dutiful, has repressed all memories of the abuse. Rose lelis Ginny that Lairy did not rdpe her: he seduced her And she acquiesced for three years because Larry told her that it was O.K., that she was special, and that he would not become interested in her youngest sister Caroline, the Cordelia figure, so long as Rose complied, This perverse competition that Larry sets up for Daddy's iove becomes a ghastly transformation of the precipitating action of King Learihe king's fatal question: Which of you shall we say doth love us most. Thai we our largesl bounty may cxiend Where nature doih with merit chailcnge. IKL 1.1.31-5?) Ginny's slow and piainful realization of the full truth about Larry's version of demanding loveabout his appropriation of U)th her body and the landbecomes the central trajectory of the plot of A Thousand Acres. Shots of a seemingly endless expanse of cornfields establish tlie backdrop for Ginny's recognition ihat her five miscarriages, her mother's cancer, Rose's cancer, and Larry's dementia are probably the result of fertilizers and pesticides that have poisoned the aquifer. Like King Lear. A Tliousand Acres pn>bes questions about the relation of human evi! to cosmic dexastation. Discovering the depths of his daughters' ingratitude, the enraged Lear imagines that, as king, he can summon the forces of nature to ctirse Gonerilto "convey sterility" into her womb, to "dry up in her the organs of increa.se" {KL 1.4.271-77). Likewise, in A Vwusand Acres, Larry runs away into a thunderstorm, and when brought back to the farm, he lashes out at Ginny, replicating Lear's ritual curse: "But you're not really a womjui. are you? I don't know what you are, just a bitch, is all, just a dried up whore bitch. [...1 You'll never have chiidren." What Ginny comes to see, however, is that Larry is responsible for her miscarriages. Ironically, with his agricultural chemicals he has dried up his own daughter's "organs of inciTease." The eerie echoes of Lear's curse in Larry's tirade signal that, although the old king is impotent to effect hisre\'eoge,the modem farmer has cursed liis daugliters witli sterility and cancer.

Dialogue in Shakespearean Offshoot&/111 Whereas Larry never recognizes the evil he has engendered in his family and land, tlie ever naive, sweet Gitmy eventually achieves Lear's tragic enlightenment. The climactic scene in Ginny's transformation dramatizes the re-emergence of her repressed memories.^ As Larry declines into dementia, he goes to live with his youngest daughter whom he had earlier disowned. Concealed in a store dressing room, Ginny overiiears Larry fawning on Caroline as his "little birdy giri," whose childhood pranks he fondly recalls. As he pats Caroline andreminisces,Ginny is overwhelmed by the memory of Lany's late night visits to her bed. Furthermore, she knows that tlie childish pranks Larry recalls were played by Rose, not Caroline. In Larry's nostalgic, mistaken ramblings, Ginny hears not only the genesis of his lust for Rose, but also his conflation of all his dau^ters into interchangeable objects for his sexual use. This climactic scene of recognition ironically echoes I^ear's joy in his reunion with Cordelia, despite the defeat of their forces:
Come, let's away to prison. We two alone will sing hke birds i' the cage. When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down And ask of thee forgiveness. So we'll live. And pniy. and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh At gilded butterflies. {KL 5.3.8-13)

Whereas Lear has awakened from madness into a recognition of his guilt and areconciliationwith CordeUa, Lany's maudlin memories of his "little birdy girl" and her childhood pranks are the result ofdementiacausedby his own agricultural chemicals, not a change of heart. In A Thi>usanei Acres Lear's lucid moment of reconciliation is replayed as madness, notrecognitionaslust, not paternal love. It is Ginny wbo awakens to the truth, Like Edgar, who is shocked out of facile optimism when he meets bis blinded father on the heath, Ginny experiences a searing moment of recognition. Told from the point of view of Lear's "cruel" daughters, A Thousand Acres talks back not to "Shakespeare," the cultural symbol, but to Shakespeare, the playwright whose play is compHcit, Smiley implies, in the patriarehal ideology that engenders the devastation it dramatizes. When Shakespeare is allowed to speak in these (and many other) poetic echoes, the irony is devastatitig. Smiley has turned Shakespeare's language against itself. Although these four filmic offshoots of King Lear use little, if any, of the play's words and radically recontextualize setting, character, and action, they nevertheless engage their source text in an intense diaiogue by shifting perspective, translating tiie verbal into the visual, revivifying and ironizing Shakespeare's language. Whether the word becomes image (as in Ran), the word becomes flesb (as in The Dresser and The King is Aliv), or the word is turned against itself (as in A Thousand Acres)these King Lear offshoots are not "post-hermeneutic." They speak through, talk back to, and allow Shakespeare to speak again. Anna K. Nardo Louisiana State University

Notes ' By "adaptation" I mean a fihn that uses Ihe play's language and characters, although it may cut and reairange scenes, relocate the setting, and modemize the action. Afilmic"offshotit," however, uses little if any of Shakespeare's language, and radically recontextualizes character, setting, and action. Kenneth S. Rotiiwell uses "adaptation" for films that rely on Shakespeare's words, and "derivatives" for films that abandon his language altogether. He lists seven types of derivatives (A History ofShakespeare on Screen 219). Douglas Lanier discusses the terms "spin-off," "imitation," "revision," "adaptation," "transposition," "reinvention," and "appropriation" in order to argue

112/DiaIogue in Shitkespearean Offshoots that the term you use determines what you study (4-5). I prefer Tony Howard's term "offshoot" becaase it casts the broadest net and avoids the predetermination Lanier describes. - Ronald Harwood's script is based on the life of a famous actor-manager. Sir Donald Woifit, with whom Harwood once worited, and about whom Harwood wrote a popular biography (Canby), " In the film, these repressed memories resurface in the dressing room scene, whereas in Smiley's novel they resurface a.s Ginny tidies up her childhood room (Smiley 228-29). Tbis is just one of many important clianges from text to filmtoo many to discuss here.

Works Cited Buhter, Stephen M. "Camp Richani III and the Burdens of (Stage/Film) History." Shakespeare. Film. Fin de Slide. Ed. Mark Thornton Burnett and Ramona Wray. New York; St. Martin's, 2000, 40-57. Burt, Richard. Unspeakable Shaxxxspeares: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture. New York: St. Martin's, 1998. Canby,Vincent- "Ronald Harwood's 'Dresser.'" New York Times. Online. Lcxis-nexis. 6 Dec. 1983, Howard, Tony. "Shakespeare's Cinemutic Offshoot.s." V\e Cambridge Companion to Shake.'tpeare on Film. Ed. Russell Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. 295-313. Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or. The Cultural Logic of Laie Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. Lanier, Douglas. Shakespeare and Modem Popular Culture. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Lchmann, Courtney. Shakespeare Remains: Theater to Film, Early Modem to Postmodern. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2002. Rothwell, Kenneth S. A History of Sliakespeare on Screni: A Cemury of Film and Television. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. . "How the Twen[ieth-Cen[ury Saw the Shakespeare Film: "Is it Shakespeare?'" Literature/ Film Quarterly 29:2 i2tWI): 82-95. Shakespeare, William. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Ed. Stephen Orgel and A. R, Braunmuller. New York: Penguin, 2002, Smiley, Jane, .4 Thousand Acres. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1991.