Gertrude was no Gemma

I've compared Gemma Morrow and Gertrude (Hamlet's mom) in recent posts.  I vow never to do so again.  Gemma transcends Gertrude.

Now, the similarities between Gertrude and Gemma can't be denied.  Gertrude's husband and father of her child dies (is murdered) and she marries the king's younger brother, Claudius (note:  similarity to Clay).  Shakespeare surrounds Gertrude in a little bit of mystery:  because she marries Claudius so soon after King Hamlet's death, and doesn't really appear to mourn, was she involved in the murder?  In Sons, we haven't really been told how long it took Gemma to marry Clay after the accidental  death of John Teller (hit by a semi...that's about all we know, and that he took two days to die).  Gertrude clearly loves Hamlet and wants him to be happy.  She wants him to marry Ophelia, and it pains her to see his descent into madness.  She's also relatively aware that it was her hasty marriage to Claudius that causes Hamlet's malaise.

Much about Gertrude is left to interpretation; Gemma is no different.

However, when Shakespeare penned Gertrude's lines, the reader is not provided with a great deal of character depth.  In fact, if we follow Hamlet's vision of his mother, she represents the so-called weakness of the female gender:  driven by passion and sex.  While she obviously loves her son and does want him to be happy, we have no sense that she will make a sacrifice for him. In the final scene of the play, Gertrude does die in Hamlet's stead, but only by accident.

Gertrude was no Gemma.

Compared to Gertrude, Gemma's character depth is like a glacial lake.  Now, it's undeniable that Gemma is heavily power-driven.  She enjoys her role as Queen and doesn't take kindly to anyone who she perceives as a threat to her influence.  I'm only speculating here, but Gemma might be the type of person who allies themselves with people of power, and when they perceive their power to be waning, they find a way to separate.  Case in point:  Gemma knew John Teller's philosophy about what the MC should be, and that if he was allowed to move the MC forward in that direction, his power in Charming would diminish.  Enter Clay Morrow.  The great thing is, Gemma doesn't appear to be so completely enamored with Clay that her vision for what her life should be is clouded.  Maybe it was when she was younger - but it isn't now.  Does anyone get the sense that Gemma's starting to explore her options now that Clay's arthritis (and judgment) are weakening his stance in the club?

There's a great quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding, where the matriarch of that family tells the heroine:  "The man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she likes."  It's a great reminder that, even in the most paternalistic societies and subcultures, the power dynamic between men and women is always present...sometimes even more so in a culture like Sam Crow.   Gemma knows she's the heart of the MC; perhaps she doesn't understand the depth of that power until her rape...she knows that if Clay and Jax realize she's been attacked (and therefore the center of the MC's power), it will truly break an already weakened club. She could so easily turn the "head" of the club in that direction, but she's wise enough not to.

Within this MC power structure, Gemma sees her role as matriarch as one that requires actions that often cross the ethical divide.  When it comes to family, you gotta do what you gotta do.   Jax (and now Abel, too) are practically the center of her universe, and she didn't really appear to juggle with the ethical implications of giving Wendy enough crank to make Jax a widower.  On the flip side of that coin, Gemma wants to protect what Jax loves - even if she didn't trust Tara in season 1, she gave her a hand gun (serial removed) to protect herself, without knowing who she needed protection from. 

Maybe that's why the Gemma from Season 2 is so much more dynamic and real than the Gemma in Season 1.  I'm not going so far as to say that Karma has come to call, because no one -- and I mean no one ever deserves to be raped, ever -- but I am not afraid to say that the rape was a catalyst for Gemma.  It was a catalyst for a lot of things on the show, but especially for Gemma's character arc.  We've seen her engage in some major self-reflection over the last three episodes, from paging through a bible and John Teller's book, to spending a lot of time in the hospital chapel.  We know Gemma is completely averse to being a victim, and we know she's definitely not going to be made to feel like a victim in a therapists office.  She's going to seek her own path.  I'm willing to bet Gemma's understanding of John Teller's words will come none too soon. 

In a previous entry, I asked that Gemma be given an opportunity to right the wrong that was done to her, and I meant, basically, that I hoped she got to kick someone's ass...really kick it, like, cause enduring, painful, debilitating injuries.  Although I do think the whole "eye for an eye" deal is one that is sometimes useful (and will still cheer Gemma on if she gets to have her retribution), I'm not sure that would be the best outcome.  Maybe if she just gets to face her attacker, confront A.J. about what he and his crew did to her, and let him see that she has not been broken, and that her spirit has transcended the need for physical retribution, then justice will be served.

Then Clay and Jax can have at them.

But where will the similarities between Gemma and Gertrude end?  Will Gemma spend spies after Jax (has she done so already?).  Will she witness Jax's murder of whoever fills Polonius's shoes (hmmm..who is Polonius on the show)?  Will she sacrifice her own life (accidentally or not) to save Jax?


Images:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/mothers_day/bd_mom_hamlet.jpg
http://www.daemonstv.com/images/fx/sons_of_anarchy3.jpg