Can the performance of satire function as an effective catalyst for social change? If so, how? If not, what factors hamper comedy's subversive efficacy?

Satirical comedic performance may sometimes be a catalyst for social change because it creates space for the performance to mirror the society or societal customs that define a culture. A purely satirical performance by itself (without comedy) is insufficient to be deemed acceptable by the culture that it represents. A comedic theme is necessary because it allows a frivolous theme to be interwoven into the performance and this is how safe space is created. Having a comedic theme both sets and maintains the overall expression of ideas in a way that provides an "escape route" to be used before encountering real trouble through audience rejection. For example, if I were to produce a satirical performance, the concept of my production would be non-comedic, and therefore could be taken seriously or personally - which would open the door for a flood of other negative emotions. However, if I deploy my satirical performance in the form of a comedy, then I have established a "not to be taken seriously" mantra for the production that will serve to protect it from harsh judgment or negative emotion. I am able to deliver my message bluntly, but will have the insurance policy of "just kidding" to insulate my production from overreaction.

To address the question of effectiveness here, I feel that it would be best to state that the satirical comedic performance has the potential to inspire social change, but may not necessarily do so. Simply put, it depends on the blend of comedy with the satirical content. Too much comedy and the audience will take very little away from a performance; too little comedy and an audience may recoil with feelings of resentment or anger. I believe the appropriate mix of satire and comedy will contribute much to the effect of the performance.

It is easy, then, to see how a performance with too much comedy can cause a production to have no effect beyond mindless entertainment. Conversely, a satirical performance with too little comedy can lose subversiveness and, through negative reactions, serve to reify the culture that is sought to subvert. So, then what is the perfect mix of satire and comedy that will allow subversion to occur and act as a catalyst for social change? If we could answer that question, there would be no need for study or reflection here.

We can know that subversion is possible because of the works of Dario Fo. As Scuderi points out, Fo enjoyed using the telling of bible stories as a means of criticizing the upper class. In a method known as Commedia dell' Arte, Fo has found the correct balance of satire to blend with comedy in order to find subversive success. Fo has used the mix to masterfully (and dangerously) use performance in order to criticize both the notion of religion, and the abuse of its influence.

Why was poetry considered a proper literary from of expression for Victorian ladies?

Poetry was considered "proper" for Victorian ladies because of the societal limitations placed on women during the Victorian period. Emotions were considered to be the opposite of logic and rationality. For men, the expectation was to be completely logical and rational in their lives in order to facilitate the ordinary fixed workings of the world. More than this, men were considered to be "hardwired" as purely logical and mechanically thinking according to the Victorian mindset. Women, on the other hand, were presumed to be emotional and excitable. Just as men were viewed as being "hardwired" as rigidly mechanical in their thinking, so too were women viewed as being emotional and, as a result, somewhat frivolous and certainly less valuable and significant.

It was presumed in the Victorian period that poetry was best suited for women because of the assumption that they were equipped with the emotional capability to deliver it. After all, poetry is frequently considered to be designed to invoke emotion - as well as being notably deficient in any physically significant performative aspect. Combine this concept with the intolerance and prejudice that actresses (and actors) were viewed with and it becomes extremely difficult for a woman to venture outside of her societally "designated space".

In the case of Anna Cora Mowatt, it is a testament to her performative ability that Edgar Allen Poe had criticized (or at least remained largely unimpressed with) her poetry. As a noteworthy and supportive critic of Mowatt, I believe that Poe only remained unaffected by Mowatt's poetry because he knew her to be capable of so much more. He wasn't saying that she was incapable of producing poetry as much as he was saying that he was uninterested in it because he knew how vast her talent was, and poetry simply did not accommodate such tremendous talent. In a sense, this was an affirmation of her true ability to write, read, perform, and maintain her status as a "lady" in the intolerable eyes of a Victorian society in which she lived.