In spite of the title, the speaker of A Minor Role has, in fact, two minor roles. One is as a minor character in a stage play, perhaps an adaptation of Oedipus Rex, and the other is as the caregiver to someone with a complex and likely terminal illness. At first, it looks like the theatrical role operates as a straight metaphor for the role as caregiver, but ultimately we see that these two roles are incompatible.
The opening stanza of the poem, in which the speaker introduces themself as an actor, reminds us of the Seven Ages of Man speech from Shakespeare’s As You Like it:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
The start of the third line of the poem (“Exits and entrances…”), which directly replicates words from Shakespeare’s text, is Fanthorpe’s way of acknowledging that her metaphor is part of a long literary tradition which compares humans to actors. Additionally, the exits and entrances in Shakespeare’s text metaphorically signify birth and death and therefore subtly open to the poem’s major theme which is the championing of life over death.
The opening stanza additionally underlines the importance of minor characters. Ultimately it is the minor characters who are responsible for “propping” up the artifice of the theatre where a small error can result in the cracking of the edifice, bringing laughter and thus breaking the fragile illusion of the theatre. But more than just affirming the crucial importance of the minor characters, there is a striking and mystifying value judgement made on theatre in general – the world of the play is described as “monstrous.” At this point in the poem, we have little idea as to why drama might be seen in this way, but by the end of the poem, we have a stronger idea.
But before we get there, we should examine the ways in which playing a role is used to explore caregiving. Primarily, we see this through the delivery of prepared lines. The italics of these lies echo the italics of the theatrical lines in the first stanza. So we see the speaker make use of formulas such as “O, getting on, getting better,” “Bed? A good idea!” and “Thank you.” We understand that each of these examples involves a strategic use of language where truth is subservient to achieving specific goals. The first example is an outright lie, as the speaker admits a few lines later: “pretend all’s well, / Admit it’s not.” The speaker acknowledges that giving care involves shutting off the outside world, perhaps in order to protect the privacy of the sick person. Strikingly, the full quotation for thank you is: “saying Thank you / For anything to everyone.” The full sentence adds substantially to the enjambed reading. “For anything to everyone” indicates once more the strategic use of thanking. We see how the act of thanking has been stripped of its sincerity and has become an automatic response.
The poem attests to the profound disempowerment of navigating the healthcare system as a patient. Everyone must be thanked, whether they deserve it or not since treatment depends on the goodwill of all parties. This resonates with the line in the second stanza “getting on terms with receptionists.” And this subservience leads us back to the role being played by the speaker on stage. We see in the first stanza that they are a servant, endlessly repeating “yes sir. O no sir.” The 180 degree turn between these two sentences reveals that the servant must shape their response to please others just as the caregiver must kowtow to the demands of dealing with a lumbering healthcare system.
The world that the speaker inhabits is miserable. They must
Learn to conjugate all the genres of misery:
Tears, torpor, boredom, lassitude, yearnings
For a simpler illness, like a broken leg.
Here, the poem presents an unvarnished list of the emotions of the patient, acknowledging the bitter reality of serious illness. But this misery is presented as something to be dealt with, something which can be ameliorated or, in the word of the speaker, conjugated. This term, in conjunction with “genres” transcribes human misery into language indicating that there are ways to alter these feelings even if they cannot ultimately be solved. One method, as the joke about the broken leg indicates, might be humour. This section points to the main idea of the poem; that while the illness may be terrible, and while the patient may be suffering, the minor role of the speaker is to affirm a belief in life.
The end of the poem loops back to the start. The speaker is on stage, performing in the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex. Finally we understand why the fabric of the theatre is described as monstrous. The speaker quotes lines from the chorus at the end of the play: “Yet to my thinking this act was ill advised / It would have been better to die.” The chorus, which offers moral commentary, pronounces that Oedipus’ suffering is worse than death – that it would be better for him had he died rather than to suffer his appalling fate. As we know, Oedipus has, at this point, unwittingly killed his father, married (and had four children with) his mother, caused her suicide and blinded himself by gouging out his own eyes. He has also caused a plague to ravage the city of Thebes.
But for all the terrible suffering of Oedipus, the speaker finds the judgement of the chorus to be monstrous and rebuffs it with a simple, almost childish assertion: “No it wouldn’t!” Now we understand why they have jettisoned their spear and their servant’s tray. They refuse to play a part in a drama which promotes death over life. Presumably, in throwing their spear away, mid-scene, they have induced the “unwanted sniggers” mentioned in the opening stanza.
So, for all the unobtrusive, subtle and servile actions of the speaker throughout the poem, the final sentiment is uncompromising and surprisingly powerful. The speaker seems to be saying that no amount of suffering, no matter how horrible, would render death preferable to life. In doing so, they reject one of the most well known works of western drama and refuse to participate in its production. This broadens the concern of the poem. In the end, it is a comment on the function of art which, in the judgement of the speaker, must always “make you believe in life.”
