In the late 1980s, as the second wave of feminism ended and the third began, a variety of new approaches to gender criticism emerged. One such approach, founded on the ideas of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, sought to deconstruct the world by analyzing the language with which humans describe it. Feminists became concerned with the acts of “conditioning” and “socialization,” attempting to determine how society distinguishes between the terms “female” and “feminine.” Socialization inevitably defines feminine characteristics that are accepted as “normal,” and creates a set of codes under which all females must operate. However, as the third wave of feminism highlighted the eclectic voices of modern women, society discovered that typically “feminine” characteristics are not inherent in every female. In her book, Sexual Politics, American feminist writer Kate Millett claims that the most crucial distinction within feminism is between sex and gender, “the former being a matter of biology, the latter a construct, something learned or acquired, rather than 'natural'” (Barry). Furthermore, French social theorist Simone de Beauvior claims, in Part Two of her book The Second Sex, that “One is not born a woman; rather, one becomes a woman” (Barry). Both of these statements assert that while gender may be a biological determination, sexuality is constructed by social experiences after birth. Society expects a woman's sexuality to evolve in one direction – toward her sexual subjugation unto male dominance. Once females discover their sexuality, they are expected to use it to propagate the male seed. As more sexually independent women emerged during the 1980s, it is no surprise that political issues evolved out of their desire to achieve gender equality. The 2003 film, Monster, which is based on the true story of the United States' first convicted female serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, is a testament to the danger of society's strictly defined gender roles. Women who are pressured to adhere to gender characteristics they do not biologically possess may potentially lash out against society for the gender branding to which they've been subjected. It could be said that society itself is responsible for the construction of the cold-blooded killer that Wuornos became.
Wuornos challenged traditional gender roles at every turn, working as a prostitute, being involved in a lesbian relationship, and eventually morphing into a man-killing “monster.” Wuornos admitted to killing six men between 1989 and 1990, and was executed for her crimes in 2002. She was unrepentant in her admission of the acts, as if the victims deserved to pay for what she claimed to be a life of male-dominated oppression. As a prostitute, she seduced men into desiring her sexual services, and then, just before she delivered, she murdered them. But the film depicts Wuornos as more than just a murderous prostitute. Flashbacks show that Wuornos turned to killing as a result of the constant oppression she'd endured because of her gender since she was a small child. While she may have used her gender to her advantage while seeking murderous justice, she had previously failed to escape the confinement of her gender time and time again. This is what drove Wuornos to her monstrous crimes.
Although the film doesn't attempt to justify Wuornos' actions, it does depict her as a flawed, loving, and hopeful character. It becomes easy to sympathize with her even though her crimes are so outrageous. The film begins with Wuornos' narration as she reminisces about letting boys look at her breasts for money and acceptance. She was raped by a family friend at age 8, and when she told her father about it, he beat her. She was pregnant by the age of 13, and by the time she was old enough to care for herself, all she knew was sex. She kept searching for the right man to take her away from her miserable world, exchanging sexual favors for attention. When men started refusing her attention and paying her money instead, she accepted prostitution as a way of life. At one point in the film, Wuornos makes up her mind to change her lifestyle, to get a job, and to clean up her act. She is ridiculed for her ignorance at every turn, and even a police officer propositions her for a sex act, telling her, “Once a prostitute, always a prostitute.” Wuornos claimed self-defense in the first murder; she said the man raped and brutalized her beforehand. But while the film generates some sympathy for Wuornos and her unfortunate life, it still depicts the brutality of the murders and the calculating attitude with which she carried them out. By the third murder, she was carefully planning the engagements and keeping newspaper clippings about the murders as mementos. Still, in defense of Wuornos, the authors of the article, “Serial Murder and the Case of Aileen Wuornos” state that “the social, psychological, and family history of Ms. Wuornos … is helpful as it explains the manifestation and maintenance of attachment disorder and psychopathy throughout much of her life” (Arrigo & Griffin). It is evident that Wuornos' cold-blooded demeanor emerged from the constraints placed upon her by society. Wuornos did not “become a woman,” as de Beauvior suggests, but was forced, time and time again, to fulfill the feminine roles prescribed to her.
Monster speaks volumes about what is typical and what is deviant regarding gender roles in modern American society. First, it proves that a society based on gender and class hierarchies has no sympathy for abused girls who grow up to be prostitutes. The legal system determined Wuornos to be not only guilty but deserving of the death penalty. Second, it reaffirms – and then challenges – the typical roles of dominant males and submissive females. It depicts how males work to keep females “in their place.” Wuornos' story is not typical of every woman's, but it is an extreme case of the male- dominated oppression many women encounter at some point in their lives. When Wuornos finally decided to act on the anger raging within her, she took on a more dominant role, and at last used her gender as a variable, luring men into a deadly trap. Third, the movie joins a long line of films depicting lesbians as dangerous. Wuornos becomes involved with a woman just as she begins her murderous rampage. Her disgust for men prevents her from having sexual relations with them outside of prostitution, so she becomes involved with Selby Wall who teaches her how it feels to be loved and then eventually gives her up for her crimes. But Wuornos is not the strategic, psychological killer that is portrayed in films like Basic Instinct. She phallacizes herself by killing with a gun, providing some distance between it and her victims, because she knows her physical presence is incapable of creating fear in the men. The evolution of Wuornos' criminality indicates that as she began seeking vengeance against her violators, she also began taking on more and more masculine characteristics. Wuornos challenged femininity at every turn. Not primarily feminine or masculine, Wuornos proved that women can not be held to typical gender roles in today's modern society.
As noted by Miriam Basilio in her article, “Corporal Evidence: Representations of Aileen Wuornos,” the case “is examined in relation to the high degree of violence against women and the marked disparities in prison sentences for men and women convicted of violent crimes.” At a time when women's social mobility caused anxiety in conservative sectors of American society, the story of America's first female serial killer became highly sensationalized by the media. Prosecutors and media commentators labeled Wuornos as a “highway sex worker,” and the FBI profiled her as “a (male) serial killer with the stereotype of a masculine lesbian” (Basilio). The media's stress on Wuornos as a female serial killer undermines the routine incidences of violence against women as well as any attempt for a woman to defend herself.
As depicted in the film, Wuornos supported her own death sentence. She lacked remorse regarding the murders and thought death to be the only way to escape her oppression. It is imperative that gender issues like those that Wuornos suffered are not ignored in the social arena. Men must not assume that they are losing a piece of the proverbial pie to women's social elevation. This power struggle must be abandoned for gender progress to be made in the world. Society as a whole must avoid creating language which engenders human beings who are incapable of being defined as primarily masculine or feminine. A female who had been sexually violated her entire life, Wuornos found it impossible to escape the oppression of her gender. She simply could not divorce a lifetime of experience from the urge to taste justice.
Works Cited
Arrigo, Bruce A. and Griffin, Ayanna. “Serial Murder and the Case of Aileen Wuornos: Attachment Theory, Psychopathy, and Predatory Aggression.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22. 2004, 375-393.
Barry, Peter. “Feminist Criticism.” Beginning Theory. 2nd ed. New York: Manchester University Press, 2002, 121-134.
Basilio, Miriam. “Corporal Evidence: Representations of Aileen Wuornos.” Art Journal 55(4). 1996.
Monster. Dir. Patty Jenkins. Perf. Charlize Theron, Christina Ricci. 2003. DVD. Media 8 Entertainment, 2004.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Chaucer's Wife of Bath: Feminism for the Ages
For centuries, literary critics have debated Geoffrey Chaucer's sexual politics within Canterbury Tales. Perhaps the most debatable of his characters is the head-strong, sexually motivated Wife of Bath. The Wife speaks as both a feminist and a misogynist, promoting the characteristics of her nature while simultaneously denouncing them. While Chaucer's story was likely interpreted as comedic by his Medieval audience, 21st century gender analysts seek to understand the author's true intent. As a modern woman, I find Chaucer's voice liberating for women of his era, and conclude that his satire was fueled by a desire to undermine the misogynistic tone of the world in which he lived. Chaucer was aware of the historical patriarchal constraints on women, and also of another sort of woman who was emerging thanks to the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on the importance of marriage. Some women were making a career out of wifehood – a vice the Wife of Bath has no qualms bragging about. My analysis will consist of two main components: historical/societal context and the gendered language of the prose. I seek to prove Chaucer a feminist based upon his contradictory tale.
Life for the common Medieval women was challenging. Blamed for the Fall of Man, she was destined to suffer. She was the property of her husband and no more than a vessel for transmitting seed from one generation of males to the next. Judith Bennet claims that “Medieval people thought of conjugality as a hierarchy headed by a husband who not only controlled his wife's financial assets and public behavior, but also freely enforced his will through physical violence” (qtd. Butler). In fact, occasional violence was acceptable and expected in marriage. While Benedictine orders recommending marriage over sexual deviance protected many single women from rape and premarital assault, it confined others to a life of male domination and silence. Many women married for financial security and to have some level of political power through their husbands. Also, a married woman was considered a better-governed woman, thus she could satisfy her community by fulfilling a Christian duty (Nelson).
Despite the brutal conditions women were often exposed to in their marriages, many women fought to hold onto their unions even when their husbands desired an annulment. Although the church gave husbands divine power over their wives, the courts still somewhat upheld marriages as an equal union. Women seeking separation from their husbands could successfully walk away with half of the couple's assets. Because women discovered this ally, they began taking advantage of their husbands just as they had been taken advantage of for years. Women found a loophole through which they could claim cruelty, unfaithfulness or impotence of their husbands, and the courts would reward them for their suffering (Butler). Chaucer's Wife of Bath is one woman who is proud to have taken advantage of several husbands. She has learned how to “work the system” in a manner that equates wifehood to a career. Reigning in one husband after another with sex as her greatest asset, she takes pride in dominating the men who are legally permitted to dominate her.
In her Prologue, the Wife discusses at great length her experience as a wife while (often improperly) citing both ancient Biblical and misogynistic texts as they relate to the institution of marriage. She is familiar with the church's arguments against women and seeks to counter them, rejecting the masculine tradition of womanhood as something created by bitter, impotent old men. She presents her own “glossed” versions of the texts, mimicking previous exegetes who interpreted scripture for their own personal benefit. Indeed, much of the Wife's rhetoric serves to dispute that which is written in the misogynistic book her fifth husband, Jankyn, carries around with him. This “book of wicked wives,” called Valerie and Theofraste, contained stories of the most deceitful wives in history: Eve, who brought all of mankind into sin by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden; Delilah, who betrayed Samson; Clytemnestra, who murdered Agamemnon, and others (Chaucer, 328-329). When she finally tears pages from Jankyn's book and punches him in the face, she is repaid with a blow to the head that leaves her deaf in one ear. Her hearing loss is caused, ironically, by her one silent action, her attempt to destroy the written tradition that has constructed her. As Elaine Tuttle Hansen remarks, “The Wife's mutilation serves as a climactic symbol of the simultaneously dumbing and deafening effect of the dominant discourse and the social structure it enforces.”
The Wife attempts to use literature to argue against the male dominance she is subject to, but (as evidenced by her failure to maintain her train of thought as well as her incorrect citations) she fails to bring a clear, feminist argument to the table. She continually affirms the misogynist rhetoric she debates. This is because the voice of the tale is unmistakably masculine, a product of the male author's pen and also of a world where language for women hardly existed. Writing by women was rare in Chaucer's era, and he had to create a language to use for his Wife. It is to be expected that her language should be as masculine as the Miller's, because her words are being constructed by a man. Chaucer's weakness – that he is not female – haunts him as he is touted as a misogynist for his creation of the head-strong Wife of Bath. It is the Wife, after all, who asks, “Who painted the lion?” This is a reminder to the reader that this tale was not created by a woman, after all, and that she is constructed in a masculine world with masculine language whether she likes it or not. At best, her voice serves as a parody of man, both challenging and emulating male authority. Since feminist historians and literary critics are faced with the problem of women's absence in written tradition, they often turn to the Wife as a rare instance of woman as agent, speaker and reader (Hansen). The Wife, although a fictional character who's reality is completely debatable, offers a rare glimpse into Medieval domestic life. Chaucer attempts to bring the history of womens' experiences to the table with the creation of one character who both embraces and rejects the amenities of her gender. While he may desire to portray the Wife as a rightly independent being, he fails to escape the prison of masculine language in which she is constructed. Instead, he ushers in a “feminine monstrosity who is the product of the patriarchal authority she ineffectively and only superficially rebels against” (Hansen).
Much of the rhetoric that the Wife both references and debates stems from ancient anti-feminist works by philosophers such as Aristotle, Galen and St. Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle assumed that male domination was the rule in all natural species. Galen determined that women were ruled by cold and wet qualities, while men were ruled by the hot and the dry. Since heat is nature's primary instrument, he concluded that “within mankind the man is more perfect than the woman.” Aquinas argued that “the power of rational discernment is by nature stronger in man” than in woman, who is “by nature of lower capacity and quality than man." The Wife embodies all of the stock traits which anti-feminist authors and preachers such as Robert Rypon, William Lichfield, John Bromyard and Nicholas Bozon habitually ascribed to women: their lustfulness and nagging, their vanity, their garrulousness and their disobedience (Rigby). It must be noted that all of these attributes are seen as specifically female characteristics, meaning that all women are eventually judged by their gender, not their individual nature.
Through the Wife, Chaucer questions the misogynistic beliefs of the society in which he lives. She argues that she should be permitted to marry as many husbands as she chooses, because God permitted Solomon to have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (Chaucer, 312). In the Old Testament, God does allow Solomon and others to take multiple wives, but it was for the purpose of reproduction and filling the earth. The Wife takes the advice, “Be fruitful and multiply” to heart. Tropologically, this statement meant that people should multiply their virtues; allegorically, it meant that they should multiply the congregation of those faithful to God. The Wife's interpretation is literal, and she uses it to justify her career as a wife (Rigby). She also says that, while she knows Jesus only approves of marrying once, her dear apostle (to whom she has paid her indulgences) forgives her and recommends she remarry again rather than “burn within” (Chaucer, 312). She sarcastically takes the church official's word over God's because it allows her to sustain herself. As a married woman, she has financial security and sexual control over her husband. The Wife refers to Saint Paul's prescription of “marital debt” between husband and wife eight times throughout her Prologue. She relies heavily on the fact that she can control her husband with her sex. This is also why she praises those who are capable of remaining chaste, but denounces the thought of herself doing so. She uses the metaphor of the need for wooden vessels as well as golden and silver vessels in a lord's household (Chaucer, 314). In other words, impure women can serve God in other ways; not all women are to be virgins. After all, she argues, without sex there would be no virgins in the first place.
Above all, as her Tale exhibits, the Wife desires complete sovereignty over her husband. She claims that since man is the most reasonable of the two sexes, he also must be most suffrable. This relates to Biblical tradition which claims that since Eve was so easily tempted to eat the apple, she must be the most unreasonable of the sexes. However, a closer look at an Anglo-Saxon version of Genesis proves that reason had little to do with Eve's decision to stray from God's word. In “Genesis A” of the Junius XI manuscript, the devil tempts Eve into coercing Adam into eating from the Tree of Life by saying, “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam” (Killings). Eve ultimately gives in to the devil because she desires to have complete sovereignty over her husband, just as the Wife of Bath desires. Because holy scripture calls for a man to have dominion over his wife, woman is bound to desire equality at some point or another.
Chaucer's tale is a satire on the oldest story told: the Fall of Man wrought by woman's weakness. However, woman deserves pity when one realizes she is only weak because she desires to reign in her husband's heart just as he reigns in her's. Furthermore, the Fall prescribed eternal suffering for women, a tradition that Christians have perpetuated since. Even when medical techniques were discovered in the 19th century to relieve the pain of suffering of women from childbearing, many Christian clergy were reluctant to support the efforts (Cullinan). Scripture makes it very clear that the pains of childbirth and subjugation of women unto men are both punishments for sin, period. However, as Chaucer's Pardoner claims, sin came to earth through a single man (Rigby). Chaucer recognizes that Eve is not alone in her sin, and that Adam, too, is responsible.
Chaucer shows that the goodness of feminine nature is contained even in the anti-feminist account of women. He superimposes the Wife's own point of view over a tradition of misogyny, proving that not even the history of anti-feminist ideas can destroy personal experience. His audience likely interpreted the Prologue and Tale as highly comedic, as the Wife substantiates accusations of garrulity, lust and disobedience while simultaneously refuting them. According to S.H. Rigby, “It is regrettable to have to go through the Wife of Bath's arguments in order to show why, in Medieval terms, they are inadequate, but the number of scholars who now believe that we are supposed to find the Wife's case convincing requires us to perform this task.” Chaucer was highly aware of the patriarchal constraints upon Medieval women. His piece should be read as a feminist work that was well ahead of its time. After all, it is not uncommon for Chaucer to be referred to as the father of modern literature.
References
Butler, Sara. “Runaway Wives: Husband Desertion in Medieval England.” Journal of Social History 40.2 (2006): 337-359.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale.” Canterbury Tales. New York: Covici Friede Inc., 1934. 311-344.
Cullinan, Colleen Carpenter. “In Pain and Sorrow: Childbirth, Incarnation, and the Suffering of Women.” Cross Currents 58.1 (2008): 95-107.
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. "The Wife of Bath and the Mark of Adam." Women's Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15.4 (1988): 399-416.
Killings, Douglas B., ed. “Genesis A.” Codex Junius XI. Project Gutenberg, 1996.
Nelson, Janet L. “Gender, Memory and Social Power.” Gender and History 12.3 (2000) 722-735.
Rigby, S. H. “Misogynist versus Feminist Chaucer.” Chaucer in Context: Society, Allegory and Gender. Manchester University Press, 1996. 116-163. Rpt. in Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 56. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. 116-163. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009.
Treharne, Elaine. “The Stereotype Confirmed? Chaucer's Wife of Bath.” Writing Gender and Genre in Medieval Literature: Approaches to Old and Middle English Texts. Ed. Elaine Treharne Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. 93-115. Rpt. in Poetry Criticism. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 58. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 93-115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009.
Life for the common Medieval women was challenging. Blamed for the Fall of Man, she was destined to suffer. She was the property of her husband and no more than a vessel for transmitting seed from one generation of males to the next. Judith Bennet claims that “Medieval people thought of conjugality as a hierarchy headed by a husband who not only controlled his wife's financial assets and public behavior, but also freely enforced his will through physical violence” (qtd. Butler). In fact, occasional violence was acceptable and expected in marriage. While Benedictine orders recommending marriage over sexual deviance protected many single women from rape and premarital assault, it confined others to a life of male domination and silence. Many women married for financial security and to have some level of political power through their husbands. Also, a married woman was considered a better-governed woman, thus she could satisfy her community by fulfilling a Christian duty (Nelson).
Despite the brutal conditions women were often exposed to in their marriages, many women fought to hold onto their unions even when their husbands desired an annulment. Although the church gave husbands divine power over their wives, the courts still somewhat upheld marriages as an equal union. Women seeking separation from their husbands could successfully walk away with half of the couple's assets. Because women discovered this ally, they began taking advantage of their husbands just as they had been taken advantage of for years. Women found a loophole through which they could claim cruelty, unfaithfulness or impotence of their husbands, and the courts would reward them for their suffering (Butler). Chaucer's Wife of Bath is one woman who is proud to have taken advantage of several husbands. She has learned how to “work the system” in a manner that equates wifehood to a career. Reigning in one husband after another with sex as her greatest asset, she takes pride in dominating the men who are legally permitted to dominate her.
In her Prologue, the Wife discusses at great length her experience as a wife while (often improperly) citing both ancient Biblical and misogynistic texts as they relate to the institution of marriage. She is familiar with the church's arguments against women and seeks to counter them, rejecting the masculine tradition of womanhood as something created by bitter, impotent old men. She presents her own “glossed” versions of the texts, mimicking previous exegetes who interpreted scripture for their own personal benefit. Indeed, much of the Wife's rhetoric serves to dispute that which is written in the misogynistic book her fifth husband, Jankyn, carries around with him. This “book of wicked wives,” called Valerie and Theofraste, contained stories of the most deceitful wives in history: Eve, who brought all of mankind into sin by eating the apple in the Garden of Eden; Delilah, who betrayed Samson; Clytemnestra, who murdered Agamemnon, and others (Chaucer, 328-329). When she finally tears pages from Jankyn's book and punches him in the face, she is repaid with a blow to the head that leaves her deaf in one ear. Her hearing loss is caused, ironically, by her one silent action, her attempt to destroy the written tradition that has constructed her. As Elaine Tuttle Hansen remarks, “The Wife's mutilation serves as a climactic symbol of the simultaneously dumbing and deafening effect of the dominant discourse and the social structure it enforces.”
The Wife attempts to use literature to argue against the male dominance she is subject to, but (as evidenced by her failure to maintain her train of thought as well as her incorrect citations) she fails to bring a clear, feminist argument to the table. She continually affirms the misogynist rhetoric she debates. This is because the voice of the tale is unmistakably masculine, a product of the male author's pen and also of a world where language for women hardly existed. Writing by women was rare in Chaucer's era, and he had to create a language to use for his Wife. It is to be expected that her language should be as masculine as the Miller's, because her words are being constructed by a man. Chaucer's weakness – that he is not female – haunts him as he is touted as a misogynist for his creation of the head-strong Wife of Bath. It is the Wife, after all, who asks, “Who painted the lion?” This is a reminder to the reader that this tale was not created by a woman, after all, and that she is constructed in a masculine world with masculine language whether she likes it or not. At best, her voice serves as a parody of man, both challenging and emulating male authority. Since feminist historians and literary critics are faced with the problem of women's absence in written tradition, they often turn to the Wife as a rare instance of woman as agent, speaker and reader (Hansen). The Wife, although a fictional character who's reality is completely debatable, offers a rare glimpse into Medieval domestic life. Chaucer attempts to bring the history of womens' experiences to the table with the creation of one character who both embraces and rejects the amenities of her gender. While he may desire to portray the Wife as a rightly independent being, he fails to escape the prison of masculine language in which she is constructed. Instead, he ushers in a “feminine monstrosity who is the product of the patriarchal authority she ineffectively and only superficially rebels against” (Hansen).
Much of the rhetoric that the Wife both references and debates stems from ancient anti-feminist works by philosophers such as Aristotle, Galen and St. Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle assumed that male domination was the rule in all natural species. Galen determined that women were ruled by cold and wet qualities, while men were ruled by the hot and the dry. Since heat is nature's primary instrument, he concluded that “within mankind the man is more perfect than the woman.” Aquinas argued that “the power of rational discernment is by nature stronger in man” than in woman, who is “by nature of lower capacity and quality than man." The Wife embodies all of the stock traits which anti-feminist authors and preachers such as Robert Rypon, William Lichfield, John Bromyard and Nicholas Bozon habitually ascribed to women: their lustfulness and nagging, their vanity, their garrulousness and their disobedience (Rigby). It must be noted that all of these attributes are seen as specifically female characteristics, meaning that all women are eventually judged by their gender, not their individual nature.
Through the Wife, Chaucer questions the misogynistic beliefs of the society in which he lives. She argues that she should be permitted to marry as many husbands as she chooses, because God permitted Solomon to have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (Chaucer, 312). In the Old Testament, God does allow Solomon and others to take multiple wives, but it was for the purpose of reproduction and filling the earth. The Wife takes the advice, “Be fruitful and multiply” to heart. Tropologically, this statement meant that people should multiply their virtues; allegorically, it meant that they should multiply the congregation of those faithful to God. The Wife's interpretation is literal, and she uses it to justify her career as a wife (Rigby). She also says that, while she knows Jesus only approves of marrying once, her dear apostle (to whom she has paid her indulgences) forgives her and recommends she remarry again rather than “burn within” (Chaucer, 312). She sarcastically takes the church official's word over God's because it allows her to sustain herself. As a married woman, she has financial security and sexual control over her husband. The Wife refers to Saint Paul's prescription of “marital debt” between husband and wife eight times throughout her Prologue. She relies heavily on the fact that she can control her husband with her sex. This is also why she praises those who are capable of remaining chaste, but denounces the thought of herself doing so. She uses the metaphor of the need for wooden vessels as well as golden and silver vessels in a lord's household (Chaucer, 314). In other words, impure women can serve God in other ways; not all women are to be virgins. After all, she argues, without sex there would be no virgins in the first place.
Above all, as her Tale exhibits, the Wife desires complete sovereignty over her husband. She claims that since man is the most reasonable of the two sexes, he also must be most suffrable. This relates to Biblical tradition which claims that since Eve was so easily tempted to eat the apple, she must be the most unreasonable of the sexes. However, a closer look at an Anglo-Saxon version of Genesis proves that reason had little to do with Eve's decision to stray from God's word. In “Genesis A” of the Junius XI manuscript, the devil tempts Eve into coercing Adam into eating from the Tree of Life by saying, “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam” (Killings). Eve ultimately gives in to the devil because she desires to have complete sovereignty over her husband, just as the Wife of Bath desires. Because holy scripture calls for a man to have dominion over his wife, woman is bound to desire equality at some point or another.
Chaucer's tale is a satire on the oldest story told: the Fall of Man wrought by woman's weakness. However, woman deserves pity when one realizes she is only weak because she desires to reign in her husband's heart just as he reigns in her's. Furthermore, the Fall prescribed eternal suffering for women, a tradition that Christians have perpetuated since. Even when medical techniques were discovered in the 19th century to relieve the pain of suffering of women from childbearing, many Christian clergy were reluctant to support the efforts (Cullinan). Scripture makes it very clear that the pains of childbirth and subjugation of women unto men are both punishments for sin, period. However, as Chaucer's Pardoner claims, sin came to earth through a single man (Rigby). Chaucer recognizes that Eve is not alone in her sin, and that Adam, too, is responsible.
Chaucer shows that the goodness of feminine nature is contained even in the anti-feminist account of women. He superimposes the Wife's own point of view over a tradition of misogyny, proving that not even the history of anti-feminist ideas can destroy personal experience. His audience likely interpreted the Prologue and Tale as highly comedic, as the Wife substantiates accusations of garrulity, lust and disobedience while simultaneously refuting them. According to S.H. Rigby, “It is regrettable to have to go through the Wife of Bath's arguments in order to show why, in Medieval terms, they are inadequate, but the number of scholars who now believe that we are supposed to find the Wife's case convincing requires us to perform this task.” Chaucer was highly aware of the patriarchal constraints upon Medieval women. His piece should be read as a feminist work that was well ahead of its time. After all, it is not uncommon for Chaucer to be referred to as the father of modern literature.
References
Butler, Sara. “Runaway Wives: Husband Desertion in Medieval England.” Journal of Social History 40.2 (2006): 337-359.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale.” Canterbury Tales. New York: Covici Friede Inc., 1934. 311-344.
Cullinan, Colleen Carpenter. “In Pain and Sorrow: Childbirth, Incarnation, and the Suffering of Women.” Cross Currents 58.1 (2008): 95-107.
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. "The Wife of Bath and the Mark of Adam." Women's Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15.4 (1988): 399-416.
Killings, Douglas B., ed. “Genesis A.” Codex Junius XI. Project Gutenberg, 1996.
Nelson, Janet L. “Gender, Memory and Social Power.” Gender and History 12.3 (2000) 722-735.
Rigby, S. H. “Misogynist versus Feminist Chaucer.” Chaucer in Context: Society, Allegory and Gender. Manchester University Press, 1996. 116-163. Rpt. in Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 56. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. 116-163. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009
Treharne, Elaine. “The Stereotype Confirmed? Chaucer's Wife of Bath.” Writing Gender and Genre in Medieval Literature: Approaches to Old and Middle English Texts. Ed. Elaine Treharne Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. 93-115. Rpt. in Poetry Criticism. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 58. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 93-115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009
Two Sides of the Same Coin: Opposing Characters in Superbad
There comes a time when every boy must become a man. In Superbad, Judd Apatow's 2007 hit comedy film directed by Greg Mottola, two socially inept teenage boys attempt to do just that, in one dramatic, panic-driven evening. The film was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, who reportedly drafted the script while they were between the ages of thirteen and fifteen years old. Its main characters, two polar opposite peas in a pod, are named after the writers themselves. Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera) are ridiculously dependent upon each other's friendship. They've been inseparable for many years, but they've recently gotten into different colleges, and thus have to contemplate life apart from one another. It is clear early on in the film that this unhealthy dependence upon one another must be broken for either boy to mature. This essay is an attempt to identify the film's binary opposition of Seth and Evan's characters. Seth is a vulgar, sex-obsessed misogynist, while Evan is a responsible, timid, undersexed feminist. While the two leading males in this film are completely characteristically opposite, their combined traits help create a picture of any typical modern pubescent boy making the transition to manhood.
Much can be learned about the main characters by paying attention to the language they use. When we first meet Seth, he is on the phone with Evan, seriously contemplating whether or not to subscribe to the “Vag-tastic Voyage” Internet porn site. Because the site comes with free access to a variety of other porn sites, he finds it most appealing. “That's disgusting! You're like an animal,” Evan tells him, recommending he subscribe to a site with better production value and an ambiguous name like “Perfect Ten.” Seth rejects this advice, saying that sites like that “don't actually show penis going into the vagina.” “You ever see a vagina by itself?” he asks. “Not for me.” Seth is so obsessed with sex that his language is covered in it. He emasculates his best male friends with sexual remarks such as, “Don't be such a vagine!” or by calling them names like “dick-mouth.”
Seth's regard for women is determined when he claims how proud he is for getting into a community college, where the “girls are half as smart, thus twice as likely to fellat[io]” him. He recommends that Evan “bang” his crush object, Becca, and then leave her, saying that, “She looks like she could take a dick.” This is when we see the first moral differences between the two male characters. Evan is offended by Seth's crudeness towards the girl he likes. He is more concerned with making Becca his girlfriend, while Seth is only concerned with having enough sex before college to be in control of his sexuality. As a matter of fact, Evan often times seems terrified of sex. He complains to Seth about his embarrassment at having to hide his erections, saying that the world he one day wants to live in is a world where girls desire to see “boners.” This sensitivity becomes even more prevalent as we see Evan prove to be the feminist of the duo. When the boys approach a woman who has undergone a breast reduction, Seth says that “making your tits smaller is like slapping God against the face for giving you a gorgeous gift.” Evan argues that the poor woman had back problems, and that she looks better than ever now that she can jog comfortably.
The boys' differing approaches to sex are best exhibited in their interactions with the leading females in the film. Seth uses humor to communicate with the ladies. When he is paired with Jules in Home Economics class, he makes crude sexual gestures behind her back so that his friends can see. He is shameless, because later, he makes a crude sexual gesture to her face. When she asks him to buy the alcohol for her party that night, she tells him if he scratches her back, she will scratch his. “Funny thing is, Jules,” he says, “Is that my back is located on my cock!” Seth uses humor to try to overcome his low self-esteem, which stems from the fact that he is a chubby, unattractive pubescent male. He is convinced that sexual experience will help him make up for his shortcomings. Evan is just as awkward with women, but in a different way. When Becca catches him staring at her breasts in class, he quickly diverts his gaze. He is odd, quirky and uncomfortable in every interaction the two share. He tries particularly hard to be masculine by, for example, offering to purchase Becca's Goldslick vodka for the evening's party. After this romantic gesture, we are reminded of his fear of sex when, while standing in the hallway at school, he is knocked into Becca, and his hand inadvertently touches her breast. He apologies profusely and is utterly embarrassed.
Of course, it is Seth who comes up with the master plan for the evening, one that will assuredly culminate with sex for both him and Evan. Seth assumes that since he has been put in charge of bringing the alcohol, he and Evan can make sure Jules and Becca get drunk enough to sleep with them. “Fucking is an actual possibility,” Seth enthusiastically tells Evan. “You know how girls say, 'Oh, I was so drunk, I shouldn't have fucked that guy!'? We could be that mistake!” Seth avoids thinking that Jules might be using him for alcohol, and jumps right to the conclusion that “she wants [his] dick in or around her mouth.”
Seth's plan begins crumbling around him before it has a chance to get off the ground. First of all, his plan requires that he and Evan work together, but the tale's underlying theme – boys finding independence which will lead them to manhood – interferes. When Seth first learns about Jules' party, and again, when Jules asks Seth if he can buy alcohol for everyone, he runs straight to Evan to tell him the news. It is almost as if Seth can't make a single decision without running it past his good friend's voice of reason first. Evan's reliable voice starts to fade, however, as the boys begin growing apart. Evan's first move towards independence comes just after Seth opens up to him, confessing his traumatizing “Ghostbusters lunch box dick treasure chest” tale. Seth confides in his best friend about how he was subjected to therapy for his penis-drawing obsession, but Evan simply states, “That's super-gay,” and walks away. For the first time in their relationship, Seth feels truly abandoned.
Seth will continue to feel abandoned by Evan throughout the night, as his sex-driven alcohol chase leads them into one bad situation after another. When a fight breaks out at a house party where they end up, Evan wants to bail. “I don't wanna lose my balls!” he exclaims. “I'm just gonna tell Becca how I feel. I'm not gonna get her drunk to have sex with me. I respect her. I'm not gonna put that kind of unfair pressure on her.” Seth, who has clearly lost sight of reason, exclaims that he would “kill for pussy, no questions asked.” There is absolutely nothing brotherly or fraternal about this remark. We already know Seth has no real respect for women, and now, he has admitted to have no respect for anything other than sex.
At the same house party, Seth's decision to place sex higher than anything else works against him. As he walks through the living room, surrounded by young women grinding up against men on the dance floor, the camera pans back and forth between several girls' breasts and a bucket of beer sitting at the end of the room. Eventually, Seth's gaze hones in on one particular girl who chooses to dance with him. The girl is sexy and has no qualms grinding up against Seth. This is very uncharacteristic for Seth, as this is the first time we've actually seen him “get some” in the film. It is no surprise that this reward is only to humiliate him. When another male party-goer notices a red stain on Seth's leg, he realizes that the girl leaked menstrual blood onto his pants. This plot device used to humiliate Seth is verified when the girl actually screams “You humiliated me!” at him. It is humorous that Seth is so steadfast to his plan until he is sidetracked by sex. It is ironic that he is, in turn, humiliated for the one sex act he is able to achieve. Furthermore, Seth has been humiliated by the reality of a woman's sexuality. His desire to avoid such feminine characteristics garners such a humiliation.
Despite the misogynist tones that Seth brings to the tale, the portrayal of women in Superbad is realistic. Sideline characters, like the liquor store clerk, are average women. She happens to be a very intelligent woman who is upset she has to deal with simple-minded police officers because she has to take a veterinary exam the next day. Officer Slater (Bill Hader) discusses his ex- and current wife, the former a whore and the latter a sweetheart. Superbad includes all types of females. Just as it juxtaposes the characters of Seth and Evan against one another, the two leading females in the cast are similarly positioned. Jules and Becca can both be said to possess opposite characteristics that can inherently be found in any modern blossoming woman.
Jules is the cool girl in school. She's hosting the big graduation party, and Seth just knows he's going to be able to get her drunk enough to sleep with him. However, Jules isn't the typical drunk party girl that Seth expects her to be. As a matter of fact, she doesn't drink at all. Instead, she just wants her guests to have a nice time. When Seth tries to make a move and finds out his hopes have been dashed, he becomes very emotional and starts crying. “This is my last chance to make you my girlfriend,” he says. “You'd never get with me while you're sober.” Jules manages to tell Seth she's sorry, but that she's flattered, before he passes out and busts her in the face.
Becca, much to Evan's dismay, is the typical drunk party girl. When he arrives at Jules' party, she is already “smashed,” and has admitted that she wants to “fully blow” Evan. “Isn't that unethical?” Evan asks Becca's friend. “Not if you're drunk, too,” she replies. So, reluctantly, Evan locks himself in the bathroom in an attempt to get himself drunk enough to contend with Becca. However, he can't get past thinking that taking advantage of a drunk girl is wrong. Even when horny, drunk Becca tries to encourage Evan to drink some more, he toasts, “To people respecting women!” Later, when he rejects Becca's sloppy advances in the bedroom, she complains, “I don't understand why you have to be such a little bitch about it.” Becca is representative of today's liberated young woman, who finds comfort in committing acts of sexual exploitation while intoxicated. She justifies Seth's perception of women, while Jules defies it.
After Seth is rejected by Jules and Evan survives his adventure with Becca, the cops bust the party. Seth finds his intoxicated friend passed out on the living room couch, so he picks him up and carries him out the door. “He's my best friend!” he exclaims to fellow party-goers on his way out. Once out on the street, Evan wakes up to find himself being cradled in Seth's arms. In a true throwback to their past together, and to prove that nothing really changed on this wild night, they decide to have a sleepover at Evan's house, complete with Pizza Bagels. While bundled up in side-by-side sleeping bags, Seth tells Evan, “I was being a dick,” and confesses his love to him. “I'm not even embarrassed to say it,” he says. The boys hold each other, whispering “I love yous” until they fall asleep. The next “Morning After” scene mimics a typical heterosexual scene after a one-night stand. Seth and Evan both wake up and share an uncomfortable glance. Seth scrounges for his shoes and says he should get moving. “You don't have to rush out like that,” Evan tells him. They make plans to go to the mall together. On the way out of the room, to eliminate any remaining awkwardness, Seth retreats to his tried-and-true character, exclaiming, “Cool, so, uh, your mom's got huge tits!”
At the mall, the boys surprisingly run into Jules and Becca. Predictably, Becca claims she doesn't “remember much,” but thanks Evan for being a “nice guy about it all.” Seth exchanges an apology, too, telling Jules he “acted like a fucking idiot” and that she doesn't “deserve that.” The couples then decide to divide paths, Seth going with Jules to buy cover-up and Evan going with Becca to buy comforters. The irony lies in the fact that each boy has selected a girl similar to his best friend as a mate. As far as binary oppositions go, Jules is Seth's Evan and Becca is Evan's Seth. The boys share one final awkward moment, when they agree to call each other later. As Curtis Mayfield's “P.S. I Love You” plays through the scene, Jules and Seth head down the escalator. Seth gazes lovingly at Evan as he rides down the stairwell. Seth has learned he must divorce himself from his best friend if he is ever to find his own sexual independence. Evan seems to already understand this, and is now free to mature at his own pace without Seth's juvenile antics to hold him back. He's also now had his first semi-sexual experience and doesn't possess the same fear of females as he did before.
The binary opposition of Seth and Evan's characters in Superbad helps us understand the opposing forces within every modern pubescent male. He receives mixed signals from the females he attempts to pursue. Today, women expect a man to be both passive and aggressive, sensitive yet in control, a sex machine, but not a sexual predator. Seth interpreted these messages in the most misogynistic manner possible. Evan avoided the messages altogether, holding back his own sexual urges out of an extreme respect for women. In reality, most young men are a combination of these traits. The sub-story of Officers Micheals (Rogen) and Slater is a cautionary tale. If Seth and Evan don't mature soon, they could potentially emerge into similar overgrown boys.
Much can be learned about the main characters by paying attention to the language they use. When we first meet Seth, he is on the phone with Evan, seriously contemplating whether or not to subscribe to the “Vag-tastic Voyage” Internet porn site. Because the site comes with free access to a variety of other porn sites, he finds it most appealing. “That's disgusting! You're like an animal,” Evan tells him, recommending he subscribe to a site with better production value and an ambiguous name like “Perfect Ten.” Seth rejects this advice, saying that sites like that “don't actually show penis going into the vagina.” “You ever see a vagina by itself?” he asks. “Not for me.” Seth is so obsessed with sex that his language is covered in it. He emasculates his best male friends with sexual remarks such as, “Don't be such a vagine!” or by calling them names like “dick-mouth.”
Seth's regard for women is determined when he claims how proud he is for getting into a community college, where the “girls are half as smart, thus twice as likely to fellat[io]” him. He recommends that Evan “bang” his crush object, Becca, and then leave her, saying that, “She looks like she could take a dick.” This is when we see the first moral differences between the two male characters. Evan is offended by Seth's crudeness towards the girl he likes. He is more concerned with making Becca his girlfriend, while Seth is only concerned with having enough sex before college to be in control of his sexuality. As a matter of fact, Evan often times seems terrified of sex. He complains to Seth about his embarrassment at having to hide his erections, saying that the world he one day wants to live in is a world where girls desire to see “boners.” This sensitivity becomes even more prevalent as we see Evan prove to be the feminist of the duo. When the boys approach a woman who has undergone a breast reduction, Seth says that “making your tits smaller is like slapping God against the face for giving you a gorgeous gift.” Evan argues that the poor woman had back problems, and that she looks better than ever now that she can jog comfortably.
The boys' differing approaches to sex are best exhibited in their interactions with the leading females in the film. Seth uses humor to communicate with the ladies. When he is paired with Jules in Home Economics class, he makes crude sexual gestures behind her back so that his friends can see. He is shameless, because later, he makes a crude sexual gesture to her face. When she asks him to buy the alcohol for her party that night, she tells him if he scratches her back, she will scratch his. “Funny thing is, Jules,” he says, “Is that my back is located on my cock!” Seth uses humor to try to overcome his low self-esteem, which stems from the fact that he is a chubby, unattractive pubescent male. He is convinced that sexual experience will help him make up for his shortcomings. Evan is just as awkward with women, but in a different way. When Becca catches him staring at her breasts in class, he quickly diverts his gaze. He is odd, quirky and uncomfortable in every interaction the two share. He tries particularly hard to be masculine by, for example, offering to purchase Becca's Goldslick vodka for the evening's party. After this romantic gesture, we are reminded of his fear of sex when, while standing in the hallway at school, he is knocked into Becca, and his hand inadvertently touches her breast. He apologies profusely and is utterly embarrassed.
Of course, it is Seth who comes up with the master plan for the evening, one that will assuredly culminate with sex for both him and Evan. Seth assumes that since he has been put in charge of bringing the alcohol, he and Evan can make sure Jules and Becca get drunk enough to sleep with them. “Fucking is an actual possibility,” Seth enthusiastically tells Evan. “You know how girls say, 'Oh, I was so drunk, I shouldn't have fucked that guy!'? We could be that mistake!” Seth avoids thinking that Jules might be using him for alcohol, and jumps right to the conclusion that “she wants [his] dick in or around her mouth.”
Seth's plan begins crumbling around him before it has a chance to get off the ground. First of all, his plan requires that he and Evan work together, but the tale's underlying theme – boys finding independence which will lead them to manhood – interferes. When Seth first learns about Jules' party, and again, when Jules asks Seth if he can buy alcohol for everyone, he runs straight to Evan to tell him the news. It is almost as if Seth can't make a single decision without running it past his good friend's voice of reason first. Evan's reliable voice starts to fade, however, as the boys begin growing apart. Evan's first move towards independence comes just after Seth opens up to him, confessing his traumatizing “Ghostbusters lunch box dick treasure chest” tale. Seth confides in his best friend about how he was subjected to therapy for his penis-drawing obsession, but Evan simply states, “That's super-gay,” and walks away. For the first time in their relationship, Seth feels truly abandoned.
Seth will continue to feel abandoned by Evan throughout the night, as his sex-driven alcohol chase leads them into one bad situation after another. When a fight breaks out at a house party where they end up, Evan wants to bail. “I don't wanna lose my balls!” he exclaims. “I'm just gonna tell Becca how I feel. I'm not gonna get her drunk to have sex with me. I respect her. I'm not gonna put that kind of unfair pressure on her.” Seth, who has clearly lost sight of reason, exclaims that he would “kill for pussy, no questions asked.” There is absolutely nothing brotherly or fraternal about this remark. We already know Seth has no real respect for women, and now, he has admitted to have no respect for anything other than sex.
At the same house party, Seth's decision to place sex higher than anything else works against him. As he walks through the living room, surrounded by young women grinding up against men on the dance floor, the camera pans back and forth between several girls' breasts and a bucket of beer sitting at the end of the room. Eventually, Seth's gaze hones in on one particular girl who chooses to dance with him. The girl is sexy and has no qualms grinding up against Seth. This is very uncharacteristic for Seth, as this is the first time we've actually seen him “get some” in the film. It is no surprise that this reward is only to humiliate him. When another male party-goer notices a red stain on Seth's leg, he realizes that the girl leaked menstrual blood onto his pants. This plot device used to humiliate Seth is verified when the girl actually screams “You humiliated me!” at him. It is humorous that Seth is so steadfast to his plan until he is sidetracked by sex. It is ironic that he is, in turn, humiliated for the one sex act he is able to achieve. Furthermore, Seth has been humiliated by the reality of a woman's sexuality. His desire to avoid such feminine characteristics garners such a humiliation.
Despite the misogynist tones that Seth brings to the tale, the portrayal of women in Superbad is realistic. Sideline characters, like the liquor store clerk, are average women. She happens to be a very intelligent woman who is upset she has to deal with simple-minded police officers because she has to take a veterinary exam the next day. Officer Slater (Bill Hader) discusses his ex- and current wife, the former a whore and the latter a sweetheart. Superbad includes all types of females. Just as it juxtaposes the characters of Seth and Evan against one another, the two leading females in the cast are similarly positioned. Jules and Becca can both be said to possess opposite characteristics that can inherently be found in any modern blossoming woman.
Jules is the cool girl in school. She's hosting the big graduation party, and Seth just knows he's going to be able to get her drunk enough to sleep with him. However, Jules isn't the typical drunk party girl that Seth expects her to be. As a matter of fact, she doesn't drink at all. Instead, she just wants her guests to have a nice time. When Seth tries to make a move and finds out his hopes have been dashed, he becomes very emotional and starts crying. “This is my last chance to make you my girlfriend,” he says. “You'd never get with me while you're sober.” Jules manages to tell Seth she's sorry, but that she's flattered, before he passes out and busts her in the face.
Becca, much to Evan's dismay, is the typical drunk party girl. When he arrives at Jules' party, she is already “smashed,” and has admitted that she wants to “fully blow” Evan. “Isn't that unethical?” Evan asks Becca's friend. “Not if you're drunk, too,” she replies. So, reluctantly, Evan locks himself in the bathroom in an attempt to get himself drunk enough to contend with Becca. However, he can't get past thinking that taking advantage of a drunk girl is wrong. Even when horny, drunk Becca tries to encourage Evan to drink some more, he toasts, “To people respecting women!” Later, when he rejects Becca's sloppy advances in the bedroom, she complains, “I don't understand why you have to be such a little bitch about it.” Becca is representative of today's liberated young woman, who finds comfort in committing acts of sexual exploitation while intoxicated. She justifies Seth's perception of women, while Jules defies it.
After Seth is rejected by Jules and Evan survives his adventure with Becca, the cops bust the party. Seth finds his intoxicated friend passed out on the living room couch, so he picks him up and carries him out the door. “He's my best friend!” he exclaims to fellow party-goers on his way out. Once out on the street, Evan wakes up to find himself being cradled in Seth's arms. In a true throwback to their past together, and to prove that nothing really changed on this wild night, they decide to have a sleepover at Evan's house, complete with Pizza Bagels. While bundled up in side-by-side sleeping bags, Seth tells Evan, “I was being a dick,” and confesses his love to him. “I'm not even embarrassed to say it,” he says. The boys hold each other, whispering “I love yous” until they fall asleep. The next “Morning After” scene mimics a typical heterosexual scene after a one-night stand. Seth and Evan both wake up and share an uncomfortable glance. Seth scrounges for his shoes and says he should get moving. “You don't have to rush out like that,” Evan tells him. They make plans to go to the mall together. On the way out of the room, to eliminate any remaining awkwardness, Seth retreats to his tried-and-true character, exclaiming, “Cool, so, uh, your mom's got huge tits!”
At the mall, the boys surprisingly run into Jules and Becca. Predictably, Becca claims she doesn't “remember much,” but thanks Evan for being a “nice guy about it all.” Seth exchanges an apology, too, telling Jules he “acted like a fucking idiot” and that she doesn't “deserve that.” The couples then decide to divide paths, Seth going with Jules to buy cover-up and Evan going with Becca to buy comforters. The irony lies in the fact that each boy has selected a girl similar to his best friend as a mate. As far as binary oppositions go, Jules is Seth's Evan and Becca is Evan's Seth. The boys share one final awkward moment, when they agree to call each other later. As Curtis Mayfield's “P.S. I Love You” plays through the scene, Jules and Seth head down the escalator. Seth gazes lovingly at Evan as he rides down the stairwell. Seth has learned he must divorce himself from his best friend if he is ever to find his own sexual independence. Evan seems to already understand this, and is now free to mature at his own pace without Seth's juvenile antics to hold him back. He's also now had his first semi-sexual experience and doesn't possess the same fear of females as he did before.
The binary opposition of Seth and Evan's characters in Superbad helps us understand the opposing forces within every modern pubescent male. He receives mixed signals from the females he attempts to pursue. Today, women expect a man to be both passive and aggressive, sensitive yet in control, a sex machine, but not a sexual predator. Seth interpreted these messages in the most misogynistic manner possible. Evan avoided the messages altogether, holding back his own sexual urges out of an extreme respect for women. In reality, most young men are a combination of these traits. The sub-story of Officers Micheals (Rogen) and Slater is a cautionary tale. If Seth and Evan don't mature soon, they could potentially emerge into similar overgrown boys.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Psychoanalytic Reading of Ian Fleming's "Doctor No"
Ian Fleming's James Bond is a complex man. He is a highly skilled secret agent who oozes machismo and arrogance. He's also a suave and gentlemanly ladies' man. Bond could be called a real “man's man” most of the time. However, as Fleming's Doctor No begins to unfold, the reader learns that Bond failed his previous mission, almost getting himself killed in the process. M's response to this outcome is to send Bond on a new mission, a “routine investigation and report” in sunny Jamaica (21). M is most likely aware of the true danger of this mission – going toe-to-toe with Doctor No. M sends Bond on this mission to help reignite his masculinity. He even castrates Bond from his beloved Beretta handgun, (a gun M's armorer refers to as a “ladies' gun”) forcing him to end “his fifteen years' marriage to the ugly bit of metal,” and to take on two unfamiliar weapons (20-21). At this point, Bond is certainly emasculated. He heads to Jamaica for a relaxing investigation, but will soon be embroiled in a battle to reconnect with his inner animal, his life drive, his masculinity. It is not until Bond meets the beauty in this tale, Honeychile Rider, that he will be able to do so.
As soon as Bond arrives in Jamaica, a clear coding of animal attributes begins to color the story. These animal codes reflect just how civilized Bond is, and how very foreign the wild is to him. As Bond flies into Jamaica, he describes it as a “big green turtle-backed island” (32). He greets his native sidekick, Quarrel, by shaking his “paw” (34). He quickly notices the horse-drawn carts and donkeys littering the area. Bond is aware that he is out of his element. When he first arrives at his hotel, to better acclimate himself with his new surroundings, Bond strips off his old clothes and showers to wash away the “last dirt of big-city life” (37). Later, while sleeping in his hotel room, Bond awakes to find a centipede crawling up his body. Although he is able to remain still until the centipede crawls onto the pillow, he shakes uncontrollably and vomits after the experience. This reaction exhibits Bond's fear of the wild that he will soon be facing.
Bond's reignition of manhood begins when he meets Honey. This is not surprising if one is familiar with Fleming's works. Bond is a man who thrives on beautiful women and a good martini. Bond's life drive switches on when he feels he has a woman to protect. Honey is that woman in Fleming's Doctor No. When he first sees Honey on the beach at Crab Key, Bond uses both masculine and animal terms to describe her. He says that she has “more powerful muscles than is usual in a woman,” and that her “behind was almost as firm and rounded as a boy's” (79). Bond is immediately excited by this wild, naked woman with a knife at her hip. “Her imperious attitude and her quality of attack were exciting,” he says. “The way she had reached for her knife to defend herself! She was like an animal whose cubs are threatened” (83). Bond also describes her as “a dog that nobody wants to pet” (83). Throughout the novel, he will refer to her as “a principal girl dressed as Man Friday” (84), an “Ugly Duckling” (109), a “poor little bitch” (92), and an “extraordinary Girl Tarzan” (120). Nearly every time Bond takes a moment to look at Honey, to comment on how he views her, he uses either masculine or animal terms in the description. Bond appreciates the animal instincts that are exhibited by this woman. In fact, she will have to help him find his own before he can escape from Crab Key alive.
Honey proves to be an asset on Bond's excursion, as she provides helpful tips on navigating the island and hiding from their pursuers. Honey becomes the wild, animal part of Bond that he needs to survive. Once they are captured and separated by Doctor No, Bond must use his own animal instincts to prevail. He does this by thinking of Honey often – four times in the course of Doctor No's death trial, to be exact. His greatest hope is to come out of the course alive so that he may rescue the girl, who has been taken away and tied up naked on the mountain for crabs to eat. Thinking of Honey reminds Bond of the animal nature that lies within himself. When he first begins the trial, Bond is injured by the wire grille that attacks him like a snake. After he crawls through the ventilation shaft to find heat as his next opponent, he tells himself to think of the girl for strength. Once he makes it through the fiery shaft, his animal instincts have fully risen to the surface:
Next, Doctor No uses nature against Bond, (as he is often inclined to do) this time putting thirty giant tarantulas in his way. After stabbing them all to death, Bond once again thinks of Honey for courage. Bond's next challenge is against the giant squid, which seems to molest him at the end of his trial. He is subject to the “hard kiss of the suckers” walking up his thigh and hip (202). After Bond plunges his spear into the squid, it empties its ink sac at him. Despite the fact that Bond has been in and out of consciousness, and is badly burned and bruised, he has managed to use his animal instincts to overcome Doctor No's death trial. Now, in order to finish the job and take out Doctor No, Bond thinks of Honey once more. He then has the strength to wash up and continue.
After burying Doctor No under a pile of guano dust, Bond runs into Honey and learns that she has escaped the crabs safely and is on her way to kill Doctor No herself with a screwdriver. Once he learns that she is fine, his mind reverts to focusing on his own pain: “He ran automatically. He hardly thought of the girl” (215). When Honey explains to Bond that she escaped the crabs by having no fear of them, he says, “I wish to heaven I'd known that. I thought you were being picked to pieces” (221). In fact, without thinking that Honey was in danger, Bond may not have found the life drive that he needed to survive.
Bond redeems himself for his previous failed mission by reigniting his manhood on this one. However, it took a woman to show him what he was missing. The climax of this transformation occurs once Bond and Honey return to Jamaica, as Honey cleans and cares for Bond's battle scars. “Hold tight, my darling. And cry. It's going to hurt,” she tells him (229). As Honey applies the medicine, Bond allows “tears of pain” to “run out of his eyes and down his cheeks without shame” (229). This beautiful scene exhibits Bond's rugged masculinity through the wounds, but also emasculates him by putting Honey in control. Bond concludes his trip by sending M a snarky telegram, telling him to “kindly inform armorer Smith and Wesson ineffective against flame-thrower” (229). The message is his way of reclaiming his masculinity, of telling M that he's back in the game. But while he has reclaimed his life drive, his animal instinct, his masculinity, the tale ends with Honey demanding “slave-time” from Bond. The emasculation of Bond at the end of the novel brings the tale full circle.
Work Cited
Fleming, Ian. Doctor No. New York: Penguin, 1958.
As soon as Bond arrives in Jamaica, a clear coding of animal attributes begins to color the story. These animal codes reflect just how civilized Bond is, and how very foreign the wild is to him. As Bond flies into Jamaica, he describes it as a “big green turtle-backed island” (32). He greets his native sidekick, Quarrel, by shaking his “paw” (34). He quickly notices the horse-drawn carts and donkeys littering the area. Bond is aware that he is out of his element. When he first arrives at his hotel, to better acclimate himself with his new surroundings, Bond strips off his old clothes and showers to wash away the “last dirt of big-city life” (37). Later, while sleeping in his hotel room, Bond awakes to find a centipede crawling up his body. Although he is able to remain still until the centipede crawls onto the pillow, he shakes uncontrollably and vomits after the experience. This reaction exhibits Bond's fear of the wild that he will soon be facing.
Bond's reignition of manhood begins when he meets Honey. This is not surprising if one is familiar with Fleming's works. Bond is a man who thrives on beautiful women and a good martini. Bond's life drive switches on when he feels he has a woman to protect. Honey is that woman in Fleming's Doctor No. When he first sees Honey on the beach at Crab Key, Bond uses both masculine and animal terms to describe her. He says that she has “more powerful muscles than is usual in a woman,” and that her “behind was almost as firm and rounded as a boy's” (79). Bond is immediately excited by this wild, naked woman with a knife at her hip. “Her imperious attitude and her quality of attack were exciting,” he says. “The way she had reached for her knife to defend herself! She was like an animal whose cubs are threatened” (83). Bond also describes her as “a dog that nobody wants to pet” (83). Throughout the novel, he will refer to her as “a principal girl dressed as Man Friday” (84), an “Ugly Duckling” (109), a “poor little bitch” (92), and an “extraordinary Girl Tarzan” (120). Nearly every time Bond takes a moment to look at Honey, to comment on how he views her, he uses either masculine or animal terms in the description. Bond appreciates the animal instincts that are exhibited by this woman. In fact, she will have to help him find his own before he can escape from Crab Key alive.
Honey proves to be an asset on Bond's excursion, as she provides helpful tips on navigating the island and hiding from their pursuers. Honey becomes the wild, animal part of Bond that he needs to survive. Once they are captured and separated by Doctor No, Bond must use his own animal instincts to prevail. He does this by thinking of Honey often – four times in the course of Doctor No's death trial, to be exact. His greatest hope is to come out of the course alive so that he may rescue the girl, who has been taken away and tied up naked on the mountain for crabs to eat. Thinking of Honey reminds Bond of the animal nature that lies within himself. When he first begins the trial, Bond is injured by the wire grille that attacks him like a snake. After he crawls through the ventilation shaft to find heat as his next opponent, he tells himself to think of the girl for strength. Once he makes it through the fiery shaft, his animal instincts have fully risen to the surface:
Bond's lips drew back from his teeth and he snarled into the darkness. It was an animal sound. He had come to the end of his human reactions of pain and adversity. Doctor No had got him cornered. But there were animal reserves of desperation left and, in a strong animal, those reserves are deep (193).
Next, Doctor No uses nature against Bond, (as he is often inclined to do) this time putting thirty giant tarantulas in his way. After stabbing them all to death, Bond once again thinks of Honey for courage. Bond's next challenge is against the giant squid, which seems to molest him at the end of his trial. He is subject to the “hard kiss of the suckers” walking up his thigh and hip (202). After Bond plunges his spear into the squid, it empties its ink sac at him. Despite the fact that Bond has been in and out of consciousness, and is badly burned and bruised, he has managed to use his animal instincts to overcome Doctor No's death trial. Now, in order to finish the job and take out Doctor No, Bond thinks of Honey once more. He then has the strength to wash up and continue.
After burying Doctor No under a pile of guano dust, Bond runs into Honey and learns that she has escaped the crabs safely and is on her way to kill Doctor No herself with a screwdriver. Once he learns that she is fine, his mind reverts to focusing on his own pain: “He ran automatically. He hardly thought of the girl” (215). When Honey explains to Bond that she escaped the crabs by having no fear of them, he says, “I wish to heaven I'd known that. I thought you were being picked to pieces” (221). In fact, without thinking that Honey was in danger, Bond may not have found the life drive that he needed to survive.
Bond redeems himself for his previous failed mission by reigniting his manhood on this one. However, it took a woman to show him what he was missing. The climax of this transformation occurs once Bond and Honey return to Jamaica, as Honey cleans and cares for Bond's battle scars. “Hold tight, my darling. And cry. It's going to hurt,” she tells him (229). As Honey applies the medicine, Bond allows “tears of pain” to “run out of his eyes and down his cheeks without shame” (229). This beautiful scene exhibits Bond's rugged masculinity through the wounds, but also emasculates him by putting Honey in control. Bond concludes his trip by sending M a snarky telegram, telling him to “kindly inform armorer Smith and Wesson ineffective against flame-thrower” (229). The message is his way of reclaiming his masculinity, of telling M that he's back in the game. But while he has reclaimed his life drive, his animal instinct, his masculinity, the tale ends with Honey demanding “slave-time” from Bond. The emasculation of Bond at the end of the novel brings the tale full circle.
Work Cited
Fleming, Ian. Doctor No. New York: Penguin, 1958.
ENG 311 Final Paper Prospectus
For my final paper, I plan to explore Geoffrey Chaucer's “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale” to determine if his creation of the wife's character ultimately colors him as a misogynist or a feminist. While reading the tale, as a modern woman, I think his voice to be liberating for women of the era, although I know that the story was interpreted as comedic by Chaucer's audience. Chaucer was aware of the historical patriarchal constraints on women, but also of another sort of woman who was emerging thanks the Roman Catholic Church's emphasis on the importance of marriage. Some women were making a career out of wifehood – a vice the Wife of Bath has no qualms bragging about. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is a satire, after all. This leads me to believe that Chaucer would have intended for his work to be read as more feminist than misogynist, although he knew that his misogynist audience would read it otherwise.
The voice of the tale is unmistakably masculine, a product of the male author's pen and also of a world where language for women hardly existed. Writing by women was rare in Chaucer's era, and he had to create a language to use for his Wife. It is to be expected that her language should be as masculine as the Miller's, because her words are being constructed by a man. Chaucer's weakness – that he is not female – haunts him as he is touted as a misogynist for his creation of the head-strong Wife of Bath.
Just as the Wife of Bath uses scripture to justify her actions, I, too, plan on referring to a religious text, “Genesis A” of the Anglo-Saxon Junius XI manuscript, to defend my argument. I will focus on the words the devil uses to tempt Eve into coercing Adam into eating from the Tree of Life: “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam.” Eve ultimately gives in to the devil because she desires to have complete sovereignty over her husband, just as the Wife of Bath desires. Because holy scripture calls for a man to have dominion over his wife, woman is bound to desire equality at some point or another. Chaucer's tale is a satire on the oldest story told: the Fall of Man wrought by woman's weakness. However, woman deserves pity when one realizes she is only weak because she desires to reign in her husband's heart just as he reigns in her's.
With the use of the following journal articles, I plan to analyze “The Wife of Bath's Tale and Prologue” through a societal and cultural lens, discussing the impact of religion and the institution of marriage on Medieval women. I will ultimately argue that Chaucer's piece should be read as a feminist work that was well ahead of it's time. After all, it is not uncommon for the author to be referred to as the father of modern English literature.
Annotated Bibliography
Butler, Sara. “Runaway Wives: Husband Desertion in Medieval England.” Journal of Social History 40.2 (2006): 337-359.
This article details the phenomenon of women marrying – and then deserting – their husbands during Medieval England. Benedictine orders from the church emphasized marriage, and women who had once been in abusive male-dominated relationships were leaving their husbands, taking half of the man's assets with them. This article highlights women like the Wife of Bath who made a career out of marriage, explaining their societal reasons for doing so.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale.” Canterbury Tales. New York: Covici Friede Inc., 1934. 311-344.
“The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale” will be the primary focus of my paper. I will use quotations within the text to analyze the character of the Wife, and will aim to prove Chaucer a feminist based on this piece of literature.
Cox, Catherine S. "Holy Erotica and the Virgin Word: Promiscuous Glossing in the Wife of Bath's Prologue." Exemplaria: A Journal of Theory in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5.1 (1993): 207-237. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
This article discusses the language of “The Wife of Bath's Prologue,” pointing out that the Wife could never truly speak with a woman's voice because she has been constructed in a man's world. It also focuses on the topic of “glossing” a text, as Cox claims Chaucer has done with the prologue, inserting overtly masculine vocabulary for a purpose. This argument takes on another layer as the Wife herself speaks about glossing while relaying her own glossed version of scripture.
Cubitt, Catherine. “Virginity and Misogyny in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England.” Gender and History 12.1 (2000): 1-32.
This article explains how women were affected by Benedictine orders that stressed marriage over sexual deviance. Because many women feared being dominated by a man, they avoided marriage and instead chose chastity. Others, who had previously been subject to rape and abuse, found themselves protected under the orders. Just as the Wife of Bath does, the article discusses a married woman's sexual obligation to her husband.
Cullinan, Colleen Carpenter. “In Pain and Sorrow: Childbirth, Incarnation, and the Suffering of Women.” Cross Currents 58.1 (2008): 95-107.
Cullinan's article details the pain of childbearing and society's acceptance of this pain as a natural part of a woman's reproductive right. Using religious discourse, she explains how, since the Fall of Man, it has been culturally accepted that women should suffer. This article interests me because it helps explain the Wife's desire to have masculine equality and escape the constraints of womanhood.
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. "The Wife of Bath and the Mark of Adam." Women's Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15.4 (1988): 399-416.
This article discusses the Wife's use of language and her knowledge about Biblical texts, which would have been uncharacteristic for a woman of her time. This knowledge unmistakably paints her voice as masculine, Hansen argues.
Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Writing about – and around – medieval women.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 29.3 (1993): 214-218.
This article is a review of five books on the topic of “the experiences of medieval women,” however, the reviewer claims that sources on the subject were profoundly limited. Karras states that most of the books she could locate on the topic of medieval women were primarily concerned with misogyny and the male-dominance of said women. Therefore, there is no justifiable voice for women of the era to be referenced. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale,” although written by a man, are some of the era's only feminine voices to be found.
Killings, Douglas B., ed. “Genesis A.” Codex Junius XI. Project Gutenberg, 1996.
I will refer to this section of the Anglo-Saxon manuscript to cite the devil's temptation of Eve. As he tries to influence her to talk Adam into eating from the Tree of Life, he says, “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam.” I find it very interesting that the devil tempts the woman – defined as the weaker sex – with sovereignty over her husband. How ironic that Chaucer's Wife desires the same.
Morgan, Gerald. “Medieval Misogyny and Gawain's Outburst Against Women in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.'” Modern Language Review 97.2 (2002): 265-279.
Morgan's article explores anti-feminist themes in “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” and parallels them with Chaucer's Knight in Canterbury Tales. This article may be relevant to my discussion as it draws strong parallels between “The Wife of Bath's Tale” and the story of the knight on King Arthur's court who was found guilty of assaulting a maiden.
Nelson, Janet L. “Gender, Memory and Social Power.” Gender and History 12.3 (2000) 722-735.
This article explores the historical role of women in families, as well as their contribution to written literature. It also defines male dominance, explaining the historical and societal reasons a man desires to reign supreme over his family.
Rigby, S. H. “Misogynist versus Feminist Chaucer.” Chaucer in Context: Society, Allegory and Gender. Manchester University Press, 1996. 116-163. Rpt. in Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 56. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. 116-163. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009.
This article discusses Chaucer's sexual politics in Canterbury Tales, and defines the ways that his work can be read as both misogynist and feminist in nature. Where I aim to determine Chaucer's intent, this article is more of a description of his characters and their sexual attributes.
Treharne, Elaine. “The Stereotype Confirmed? Chaucer's Wife of Bath.” Writing Gender and Genre in Medieval Literature: Approaches to Old and Middle English Texts. Ed. Elaine Treharne Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. 93-115. Rpt. in Poetry Criticism. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 58. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 93-115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009.
In this article, Treharne describes how Chaucer was capable of constructing man's most feared opponent – a domineering female. The author focuses on Chaucer's fine grasp of language to paint a satirical image of the society in which he lived.
The voice of the tale is unmistakably masculine, a product of the male author's pen and also of a world where language for women hardly existed. Writing by women was rare in Chaucer's era, and he had to create a language to use for his Wife. It is to be expected that her language should be as masculine as the Miller's, because her words are being constructed by a man. Chaucer's weakness – that he is not female – haunts him as he is touted as a misogynist for his creation of the head-strong Wife of Bath.
Just as the Wife of Bath uses scripture to justify her actions, I, too, plan on referring to a religious text, “Genesis A” of the Anglo-Saxon Junius XI manuscript, to defend my argument. I will focus on the words the devil uses to tempt Eve into coercing Adam into eating from the Tree of Life: “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam.” Eve ultimately gives in to the devil because she desires to have complete sovereignty over her husband, just as the Wife of Bath desires. Because holy scripture calls for a man to have dominion over his wife, woman is bound to desire equality at some point or another. Chaucer's tale is a satire on the oldest story told: the Fall of Man wrought by woman's weakness. However, woman deserves pity when one realizes she is only weak because she desires to reign in her husband's heart just as he reigns in her's.
With the use of the following journal articles, I plan to analyze “The Wife of Bath's Tale and Prologue” through a societal and cultural lens, discussing the impact of religion and the institution of marriage on Medieval women. I will ultimately argue that Chaucer's piece should be read as a feminist work that was well ahead of it's time. After all, it is not uncommon for the author to be referred to as the father of modern English literature.
Annotated Bibliography
Butler, Sara. “Runaway Wives: Husband Desertion in Medieval England.” Journal of Social History 40.2 (2006): 337-359.
This article details the phenomenon of women marrying – and then deserting – their husbands during Medieval England. Benedictine orders from the church emphasized marriage, and women who had once been in abusive male-dominated relationships were leaving their husbands, taking half of the man's assets with them. This article highlights women like the Wife of Bath who made a career out of marriage, explaining their societal reasons for doing so.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale.” Canterbury Tales. New York: Covici Friede Inc., 1934. 311-344.
“The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale” will be the primary focus of my paper. I will use quotations within the text to analyze the character of the Wife, and will aim to prove Chaucer a feminist based on this piece of literature.
Cox, Catherine S. "Holy Erotica and the Virgin Word: Promiscuous Glossing in the Wife of Bath's Prologue." Exemplaria: A Journal of Theory in Medieval and Renaissance Studies 5.1 (1993): 207-237. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
This article discusses the language of “The Wife of Bath's Prologue,” pointing out that the Wife could never truly speak with a woman's voice because she has been constructed in a man's world. It also focuses on the topic of “glossing” a text, as Cox claims Chaucer has done with the prologue, inserting overtly masculine vocabulary for a purpose. This argument takes on another layer as the Wife herself speaks about glossing while relaying her own glossed version of scripture.
Cubitt, Catherine. “Virginity and Misogyny in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England.” Gender and History 12.1 (2000): 1-32.
This article explains how women were affected by Benedictine orders that stressed marriage over sexual deviance. Because many women feared being dominated by a man, they avoided marriage and instead chose chastity. Others, who had previously been subject to rape and abuse, found themselves protected under the orders. Just as the Wife of Bath does, the article discusses a married woman's sexual obligation to her husband.
Cullinan, Colleen Carpenter. “In Pain and Sorrow: Childbirth, Incarnation, and the Suffering of Women.” Cross Currents 58.1 (2008): 95-107.
Cullinan's article details the pain of childbearing and society's acceptance of this pain as a natural part of a woman's reproductive right. Using religious discourse, she explains how, since the Fall of Man, it has been culturally accepted that women should suffer. This article interests me because it helps explain the Wife's desire to have masculine equality and escape the constraints of womanhood.
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. "The Wife of Bath and the Mark of Adam." Women's Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15.4 (1988): 399-416.
This article discusses the Wife's use of language and her knowledge about Biblical texts, which would have been uncharacteristic for a woman of her time. This knowledge unmistakably paints her voice as masculine, Hansen argues.
Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Writing about – and around – medieval women.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 29.3 (1993): 214-218.
This article is a review of five books on the topic of “the experiences of medieval women,” however, the reviewer claims that sources on the subject were profoundly limited. Karras states that most of the books she could locate on the topic of medieval women were primarily concerned with misogyny and the male-dominance of said women. Therefore, there is no justifiable voice for women of the era to be referenced. “The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale,” although written by a man, are some of the era's only feminine voices to be found.
Killings, Douglas B., ed. “Genesis A.” Codex Junius XI. Project Gutenberg, 1996.
I will refer to this section of the Anglo-Saxon manuscript to cite the devil's temptation of Eve. As he tries to influence her to talk Adam into eating from the Tree of Life, he says, “Thou mayest rule the heart of Adam.” I find it very interesting that the devil tempts the woman – defined as the weaker sex – with sovereignty over her husband. How ironic that Chaucer's Wife desires the same.
Morgan, Gerald. “Medieval Misogyny and Gawain's Outburst Against Women in 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.'” Modern Language Review 97.2 (2002): 265-279.
Morgan's article explores anti-feminist themes in “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,” and parallels them with Chaucer's Knight in Canterbury Tales. This article may be relevant to my discussion as it draws strong parallels between “The Wife of Bath's Tale” and the story of the knight on King Arthur's court who was found guilty of assaulting a maiden.
Nelson, Janet L. “Gender, Memory and Social Power.” Gender and History 12.3 (2000) 722-735.
This article explores the historical role of women in families, as well as their contribution to written literature. It also defines male dominance, explaining the historical and societal reasons a man desires to reign supreme over his family.
Rigby, S. H. “Misogynist versus Feminist Chaucer.” Chaucer in Context: Society, Allegory and Gender. Manchester University Press, 1996. 116-163. Rpt. in Literature Criticism from 1400 to 1800. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 56. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. 116-163. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009
This article discusses Chaucer's sexual politics in Canterbury Tales, and defines the ways that his work can be read as both misogynist and feminist in nature. Where I aim to determine Chaucer's intent, this article is more of a description of his characters and their sexual attributes.
Treharne, Elaine. “The Stereotype Confirmed? Chaucer's Wife of Bath.” Writing Gender and Genre in Medieval Literature: Approaches to Old and Middle English Texts. Ed. Elaine Treharne Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. 93-115. Rpt. in Poetry Criticism. Ed. Lawrence J. Trudeau. Vol. 58. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 93-115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Ohio University. 28 Oct. 2009
In this article, Treharne describes how Chaucer was capable of constructing man's most feared opponent – a domineering female. The author focuses on Chaucer's fine grasp of language to paint a satirical image of the society in which he lived.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Literacy and Technology: Skills for 21st Century Students
The Age of Technology
Students today live in an unconventional age in which technology has transformed the way we produce, distribute, and receive information. The concept of text has changed from traditional print materials to a variety of media, including television, film, and the Internet. The ability to share and access media on such a grand scale challenges our understanding of what it means to be literate. As globalization demands social and economic technologies more than ever before, it becomes clear that students need to be taught these new and emerging skills in order to meet the demands of the market. For 21st century students to adapt to this new Age of Technology, they must possess the literacy skills to process and analyze many different forms of media. The traditional educational system leaves little room for this type of instruction. Educators must adapt to this new climate and change perspectives if they are to reach their students, who bring to the classroom a host of skills that often remain unstimulated and unappreciated.The New Millennials
Children who have grown up since the emergence of the World Wide Web and an assortment of digital technologies, including cell phones, text and instant messaging and video games, are now referred to as the New Millennials. This generation is special in that it is the first to be completely immersed in Information Communication Technology (ICT) for their entire lives.Last year, Diane Hansford and Rachael Adlington (2008) of the University of New England compiled information on global teen Internet use to prove the results of this phenomenon. Currently, in Australia, approximately 90 percent of teenagers use the Internet daily or at least several times per week. In the United Kingdom, 75 percent of 9-19-year-olds have accessed the Internet at home, and 92 percent have accessed it at school. American teens get online just as often - 87 percent of 12-17-year-olds use the Internet daily or at least several times per week. As a result, the net-savvy adolescent knows that he is able to produce texts and publish online just as easily as any adult.
Many young people are avid online authors of multimodal texts. Because New Millennials are so adept at absorbing and responding to a consistent churn of new media technologies, they are able to store, analyze, and recreate media in powerful new ways. Also, many young people are excellent at multitasking when using the Internet and computer based programs. However, according to Hansford and Adlington (2008), in the school setting, "these same students may show reluctance to engage in paper-based authoring."
It is evident that a dissonance exists between the home and school worlds equally occupied by today's students. Because of the availability of digital technologies, today's teenagers bring a rich and new set of literacy practices to the classroom that is often disregarded by educators. It must be recognized that drawing from and building on students' prior knowledge and experiences will be paramount to student success.
Media Literacy
Media literacy has been defined as "the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and effectively communicate in a variety of forms including print and nonprint texts." These "nonprint texts" have exploded into multiple forms of literacy including information literacy, visual literacy, and computer or digital literacy (Considine, 2009, 471-472). Media literacy has become vital to manipulating the technological landscape of the world today. It helps students develop their abilities to analyze and evaluate the multitude of information they are exposed to. Exposure to mass amounts of literature is not enough. Students need to be taught what to do with the information once they have it.Literacy for the Future
There is mounting evidence for the importance of media literacy instruction for the futures of today's students, and educators would be wise to pay attention to it. For example, the 21st Century Workforce Commission suggested that “the current and future health of America’s 21st century economy depends directly on how broadly and deeply Americans reach a new level of literacy―‘21st-Century Literacy’” (Black). Furthermore, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development has written that developing media literacy skills deserves "widespread consideration in schools and community organizations as an essential part of becoming a well-educated citizen” (Considine, 2009, 474). Many New Millennials have lived through the ICT boom without access to modern technologies. While some students today are digitally literate, others need instruction. Most New Millennials are self-taught, but not well-taught. If given the proper tools and instruction, these students could excel in ways that students before never had the opportunity to.The Educational System
The educational system today is failing 21st century students in a variety of ways. First of all, it generally avoids new technology in the classroom. Most New Millennials enter formal classrooms that are not prepared to take advantage of the technological skills they bring with them. Public schools have complicated filtering systems that prevent students from accessing sites like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, which allow them to utilize their online literacy as a means of social interaction.Secondly, the system today fails because it employs digital immigrants to teach digital natives. A digital native is a New Millennial, essentially – one who has been immersed in ICT their entire life. A digital immigrant is a person of an older era, when modern technologies did not exist. This person has to be acclimated to the world of technology. Many times, these digital immigrants avoid new technology altogether. In the classroom, this is unfortunate, because many digital natives use a wide array of new technologies in their daily lives. They use instant messaging and chat, trade media, sometimes via peer-to-peer file sharing software, and establish their own online reputation and take part in evaluating the online reputation of their peers. They play games, read news and blogs and search for knowledge all across the Internet. All of these skills could be utilized as methods for literacy instruction.
The challenge for today's educators, mostly digital immigrants, is to continue to provide the richness of old curriculum alongside new and emerging content to prepare students for 21st century life. As Lotta C. Larson states, “It is imperative that today's preservice teachers know how to teach and facilitate the new literacies” (125).
Teaching 21st Century Digital Students
In 2007, the National School Boards Association argued that students utilize words, music, photographs, and videos to express themselves creatively online. They recommended that “school districts may want to re-examine their policies and practices and explore ways in which they could use social networking for educational purposes” (Considine, 2009, 475). Because New Millennials have been reared in a climate different from their teachers', it is important for teachers to find ways to connect with their students. Teachers today who utilize technology in the classroom are often the most memorable. The authors of the article, “Stories About Struggling Readers and Technology,” claim that “even professional reading teachers tended to treat technology as having almost magical effects on children” (Anderson, 2009).During the past three years, as I have pursued my English degree in hopes of one day teaching literacy and technology, I have encountered several effective teaching techniques that have proven successful with New Millennials and other ICT children. For the remainder of this essay, I will outline some of these techniques.
Popular Culture
Today, small children learn to read with books by Dora the Explorer. Hotwheels and Barbie offer personalized web spaces and online chat rooms for children. Popular culture is finding its way into literature everywhere, and modern students love it. New Millennials and their younger siblings have grown up on television and films. It takes more than textbooks and lectures to grab their attention.During Winter Quarter 2007, I took a course with Dr. Kathleen Davies at Ohio University – Chillicothe. The course was English Special Topics: Gender. On the first day of the class, I was surprised to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the syllabus. We watched a few episodes, read a book of literary criticism on the show, and did our own research on gender roles throughout the series. We also watched films like Pan's Labyrinth and Chocolate, following them up with research and peer-reviewed writing. The course was very engaging, as everyone in the class enjoyed reading and writing about entertainment that they had either already seen or would have likely watched on their own at some point in time. Since this was a freshman composition course, I felt the pop culture integration was extremely appropriate.
The following quarter, I took another Special Topics class with Dr. Davies, this time, Rebels. We viewed films like Rebel Without a Cause and Foxfire and read books such as 1984 and Into the Wild. The course concluded with presentations on students' favorite historical rebels or acts of rebellion. Students gave presentations on John Lennon, the Quakers, illegal piracy, animal rights and a variety of other subjects. Once again, pop culture integration proved highly successful, as all of the students were highly interested in the subject matter.
Multimodal Authoring
Students today utilize web sites like MySpace and Blogger to create their own online texts. These sites are used for creative expression, much like the journaling teens of yesteryear. Young people today write volumes on their blogs, using both text, graphics, movies and music to express themselves. Teachers can capitalize on these multimodal authors, who are efficient enough online to handle such a challenge.I have taken many online classes with English professor Dr. Jan Schmittauer, also from Chillicothe, who utilizes online literature ladders to engage her students in multimodal authoring. A literature ladder is a tool to help teach various aspects of a certain topic. For example, a novel may be assigned. After the novel is read, the student participates in several “rungs” of the ladder, which elaborate on the book's components. The first rung might be a historical overview or a wiki entry, the second rung a character analysis, the third rung a personal reaction to the story written as a blog post, etc. The purpose is to engage the student through a variety of media while personalizing the content so that it means the most to them.
At the end of Dr. Schmittauer's Young Adult Literature class, I created a literature ladder myself. It is intended for a junior high to high school age audience and is to be utilized for teaching Red Scarf Girl, a novel about the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It incorporates multimodal activities that will encourage the students to make personal connections with the novel. It can be viewed here: http://redscarfgirlitladder.blogspot.com/.
Literacy Outside of the Box
Because new technologies are constantly emerging and the definition of literacy is changing daily, it is important that educators keep their minds open when determining the methods of instruction which they utilize to reach students. I have found that, sometimes, unconventional methods can be quite successful to develop literacy skills. For example, video games are often blamed for poor behavior in children. However, I can testify that, with proper instruction and management, video games can be a magnificent tool to teach literacy.I have never been a gamer. Like every other kid I knew, I had a regular Nintendo, but I've just never had the patience for video games. Now, I have a five-year-old daughter, and she's already become more of a gamer than I ever was. About a year ago, she started expressing an interest in games, and since my husband and I already owned an XBox, we bought her “Lego Star Wars.” I watched in amazement as she picked up on the controls, how easily she understood the language of the game. It came natural to her. Now, the games are very 3-dimensional, and since I'm used to older, 2-D games, I have a hard time catching on. Gracie is usually giving me orders so that I can keep up with her on screen.
Now, a year later, Gracie has defeated dozens of video games all on her own. She's learned words like, “save,” “loading,” “exit,” “next,” because of the visual repetition. We most always read the stories on screen with her, and she often picks up on words all on her own. What's most important is that we are playing the games with her. If we accept gaming as a tool for literacy, we have to manage all aspects of the technology. I'm very cautious when I purchase games for Gracie. I do a lot of research to determine which games she will best benefit from, and which games promote the values I agree with. And when we crack open a new game, I always sit down with her as she starts playing it. Gracie appreciates this most of all; she wants someone to recognize her achievements as she plays. I think it's very important that we reward children for their gaming accomplishments, especially when they know they've put a lot of brain-power into the puzzles the games offer.
As Gracie's literacy began developing through gaming, my husband Nick had the opportunity to spread the technology to our community. A librarian at the Garnet A. Wilson Public Library in Waverly, Nick was keenly aware of the large population of teens coming to the library, especially for technological resources like Internet use. Assuming that there would be teens in the community who would appreciate gaming at the library, he introduced Game Night. The library invested in a Wii, and Nick donated his old PS2. For nearly a year now, Nick has been hosting the event each Thursday night, and faithfully, twelve to fifteen children, teens and adults show up. One evening, after one of the initial Game Nights, Nick told me about a boy who had come to the event. At some point, he became bored with the games. “Let's go upstairs and look at some books!” he exclaimed. Nick said he thought, “Mission accomplished.” Since, Nick has payed particular attention to the Young Adult selection at the library, beefing it up with graphic novels and anime as well as Honor List books. And everything is getting checked out.
Conclusion
Every individual has a unique design, a unique way of absorbing information. We must expand literacy media to encapsulate all types of learners and to offer a variety of ways to learn. The New Millennials and even younger generations will inherit the future, which will be filled with a vast array of technologies. New methods of teaching and learning are now required to meet the educational needs of every individual. By paying attention to new technologies and widening the definition of literacy, educators can successfully reach their 21st century students, who are patiently waiting for someone to take advantage of the vast array of technological skills they bring to the table.References
Anderson, R. & Balajthy, E. (2009). Stories about struggling readers and technology. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 540-542. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.Black, R. (2009). English-language learners, fan communities, and 21st century skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 688-697. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Considine, D., Horton, J. & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the Millennial generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 471-481. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Hansford, D. & Adlington, R. (2008). Digital spaces and young people's online authoring: Challenges for teachers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(1), 55-68. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Larson, L. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: Beyond books with new literacies and instructional technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 121-131. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
What is Literature?
The editors of The Norton Introduction to Literature Portable Edition make it clear in the anthology's introduction that the concept of literature is subjective and personal to the reader, and is ever-changing. They cite the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of literature as “writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect (4)”. I believe this is true – literature's form makes it a work of art, and it is certainly an outlet for human emotion. We enjoy comedies, tragedies, romantic poetry, and all sorts of literature that feeds our emotions. I would add two elements to this definition. One is that literature is timeless and can be enjoyed for eternity. The themes and lessons learned in literature are relevant to people of any era. The other is that literature speaks the truth about humanity. It employs a message or lesson that is learned from analyzing human behavior. Literature is based on the human experience, and therefore, we learn about ourselves by reading about others. The selections in the Norton anthology adhere to all of these elements. I feel that the literary canon for this class was adequate, and that the pieces of fiction, poetry and drama we analyzed were indeed important pieces of literature that should be taught in the classroom. In this essay, I will provide examples of works we studied to explain what I believe literature to consist of.
First, I classify literature as an art form, the author, an artist. Just like painting, photography or sculpture, there is a structured form to literature. Fiction has its characters, setting and plot; poetry is identified by its meter and rhyme scheme; and drama utilizes tone, sets and imagery to convey a message. Literature can be appreciated for its adherence to such timeless techniques. When an author utilizes the appropriate literary devices in his work, he proves that he understands the art of literature, and his work becomes a part of an ever-growing compendium of valuable literature that others can learn from.
While structured forms increase the appreciation for literature, sometimes, a challenge to those forms can make literature exciting. For example, in “Sonnet,” poet Billy Collins pokes fun at traditional forms by seemingly ignoring them. At first glance, it seems as though Collins' goal was to upset the sonnet form with his poem, but upon further inspection it is evident that he, too, has remained loyal to many of the rules for its form. First and most noticeable, Collins strays from the traditional sonnet rule of rhyme. While “Sonnet” defies the proper rules for a poem of its type, Collins still includes a discussion of the rules in his writing. “But hang on here wile we make the turn,” he writes, referring to the predictable change-of-pace on the ninth line of a sonnet (553). Collins doesn't want to be restrained by the rules of the art he creates. His poem is an attempt to break the mold, to prove that it is acceptable to try new techniques in writing. However, the fact that he still employs many of the sonnet's requirements proves that he still respects the structure that accompanies poetic form.
Next, I contend that literature speaks the truth about humanity. Because literature is based on the human experience, it can be read by other humans in similar or entirely different situations. Lessons can be learned from the outcomes in each tale. It is for this reason that much of literature revolves around culture and history. Since old adages tell us that “history repeats itself” and “there are no new ideas,” often times, themes in literature are recycled. Human beings share a variety of experiences, but each individual has a different perspective. Therefore, literature allows many accounts to be given regarding the same types of experiences or events in history. One example of such “recycled” ideas is the death of the American Dream. In this class, we studied Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller's play about Willy Loman, a man obsessed with the promise of the American Dream. Willy is fixated on the superficial qualities of attractiveness and thinks that one must be likeable to share in the Dream. His disillusionment leads to his own psychological downfall, as he realizes the disparity between the Dream and his own life. This isn't the first time I've been exposed to this theme in a literature class. Just last quarter, I studied The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald's take on the the death of the Dream. Written twenty years before Death of a Salesman, the story is narrated by Nick Caraway, a young man fascinated by the glitz and glamor of the Jazz Age. The tale is symbolic of 1920s America in general, a time when the American Dream disintegrated into a fervor of unprecedented prosperity and material excess. Both Loman and Caraway inherited their world views from a desire for money and pleasure that surpassed more noble goals. This is a theme that is recurring throughout much of literature. When we see a theme repeat itself in literature, it is evident that it is a theme that affects all of humanity.
Because literature reflects themes that affect all human beings, it is timeless. A story written centuries ago can mean just as much for a modern reader as it did for an ancestral one. For example, “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman was written in the 19th century, but it speaks volumes about gender roles even still today. In this fictional short story, the narrator is confined to an upstairs nursery in a plantation home by her husband, who also serves as her doctor. Her husband attempts to keep her from other people in order to treat her post-partum depression. However, the pattern on the ugly, yellow wallpaper in the room feeds the narrator's understimulated mind. At the story's climax, the narrator helps an imaginary woman escape from imaginary bars that have appeared in the wallpaper. Women of any era who have felt the pressure of male dominance can rejoice alongside the narrator as she rips the suffocating paper from the walls.
Literature is an art form. It speaks the truth about humanity. It is timeless. The editors of the Norton anthology also conclude that literature is ever-changing. I think it is vital to recognize this. The definition of literature has changed since written language was developed. Now, literature is expanding to encapsulate not only printed materials but staged performances, film, television, video games and more. I hope that now and in the years to come, educators focus on expanding their literary canons to include a variety of media to teach both tried-and-true traditional as well as new literature.
Works Cited
Collins, Billy. “Sonnet.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 553.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper. The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 316-327.
“Introduction.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 1-10.
Miller, Arthur. “Death of a Salesman.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 923-993.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Analysis: Dorothy Parker's “A Certain Lady”
Dorothy Parker's poem, “A Certain Lady,” is told through the voice of a woman who serves as a sometime-companion for a man she is deeply in love with. It is difficult to determine if the speaker is Parker herself, or another woman entirely. Regardless, the woman reciting the words is well aware of her position as a comforter, a shoulder to lean on. She knows that the man she loves is not really dedicated to her and her alone, and that her love for him is lost. Through this essay, I will utilize Option One and analyze the speaker's view of her predicament. This woman continually fails to connect with the man she loves for a host of probable reasons. He may be unaware of her true emotions, and she may have been too passive in her attempts to prove them. Alternatively, the woman may have a love interest outside of her relationship with the man that keeps her satisfied. Most likely, the speaker has failed to develop a romance with the man for fear of risking their friendship.
It is difficult to hide one's emotions, but the woman in this poem does just that. “Oh, I can smile for you, and tilt my head,” she says. She drinks his “rushing words with eager lips,” and paints her mouth a “fragrant red” (1-3). It seems to me that she knows this man well and often meets with him, dressed to impress and ready to gobble up the words he has to offer. She knows she is skilled at the art of listening and attending his needs, as she refers to her “tutored finger-tips” with which she traces his brows (4). This woman is deeply infatuated with the man. She pours herself into him while he, a boastful character, speaks only of himself. When he tells her about all the things he loves, she says, “Oh, I can laugh and marvel, rapturous-eyed” (6). She seems completely fascinated by the man. However, he is unaware of the “thousand little deaths” her heart has died since they began these meetings (8). Every time they depart, and she fails to acquire her rightful place on his arm, her heart breaks, and she dies a little on the inside.
Parker defines a “certain” type of lady in this poem, one who knows her place in the world. In other words, this woman lets the man make all of the decisions and advances. She says, “And you believe, so well I know my part / That I am gay as morning, light as snow” (10). She presents herself to be quite capable of carrying on this type of open relationship. To the eye, she appears happy and unburdened. However, in the next two lines, she admits the difficulty she finds in maintaining this arrangement: “And all the straining things within my heart / You'll never know” (11-12). These lines also prove that the woman doesn't necessarily expect her arrangement to change. She knows the man will never know about her internal emotions, and he's not the type to ask her how she's feeling.
Actually, when this man comes to meet the speaker, he bestows upon her tales of other women: “And you bring tales of fresh adventurings / Of ladies delicately indiscreet / Of lingering hands, and gently whispered things” (14-16). This must be incredibly hurtful for the woman, who despite knowing that this man is involved with other women when he's away from her, maintains her loyalty to his friendship. Her loyalty could, in fact, be sending the wrong signal to this man, further encouraging him to share his romantic tales with her. She says, “And you are pleased with me, and strive anew / To sing me sagas of your late delights” (17-18). Because she is such a marvel listener, and seems to enjoy the stories the man brings to her, he never learns that she desires to be one of those delicate ladies he speaks of. In the very next line, she stresses the confusion that exists in their relationship: “Thus do you want me – marveling, gay and true / Nor do you see my staring eyes of nights” (19-20). She isn't sure that the man knows her intentions, therefore, how can she expect him to reciprocate her feelings?
The woman in the poem eventually chalks up her loss to being a less appealing woman than the others he pursues: “And when, in search of novelty, you stray” (21). Upon their departure, so that she doesn't seem as desperate as she feels inside, she kisses him “blithely” on the lips and says, “And what goes on, my love, while you're away / You'll never know” (22-24). The author leaves these last lines ambiguous. Perhaps the speaker is saying that because the man has never expressed an interest in her personal emotions, he will never find out how she truly feels. When they go their separate ways, he continues to pursue other women, but she thinks about him and patiently awaits their next meeting.
Another interpretation of this ending could be that the woman isn't a fool at all, and that when they are separate, she, too, seeks out more novel options. The fact that she kisses him “blithely” - lightly, carelessly, a feather-kiss – means that she is trying to appear less passionate about the man. Perhaps she, too, has other love interests on the side. This is very unlikely, though, given her strong affections for the man throughout the rest of the poem.
She may kiss him “blithely” to pretend that she's not quite so romantic about him, or to show that she doesn't care about his disregard for her. The cynical tone of the poem coincides with her actions. This woman is trying to pretend to be something she's not for the sake of preserving what relationship they have. This relationship is very painful for her, but she endures it because she treasures the friendship she has with the man. Her fear of losing the only intimacy they have keeps her coming back time and time again.
Work Cited
Parker, Dorothy. “A Certain Lady.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 438.
It is difficult to hide one's emotions, but the woman in this poem does just that. “Oh, I can smile for you, and tilt my head,” she says. She drinks his “rushing words with eager lips,” and paints her mouth a “fragrant red” (1-3). It seems to me that she knows this man well and often meets with him, dressed to impress and ready to gobble up the words he has to offer. She knows she is skilled at the art of listening and attending his needs, as she refers to her “tutored finger-tips” with which she traces his brows (4). This woman is deeply infatuated with the man. She pours herself into him while he, a boastful character, speaks only of himself. When he tells her about all the things he loves, she says, “Oh, I can laugh and marvel, rapturous-eyed” (6). She seems completely fascinated by the man. However, he is unaware of the “thousand little deaths” her heart has died since they began these meetings (8). Every time they depart, and she fails to acquire her rightful place on his arm, her heart breaks, and she dies a little on the inside.
Parker defines a “certain” type of lady in this poem, one who knows her place in the world. In other words, this woman lets the man make all of the decisions and advances. She says, “And you believe, so well I know my part / That I am gay as morning, light as snow” (10). She presents herself to be quite capable of carrying on this type of open relationship. To the eye, she appears happy and unburdened. However, in the next two lines, she admits the difficulty she finds in maintaining this arrangement: “And all the straining things within my heart / You'll never know” (11-12). These lines also prove that the woman doesn't necessarily expect her arrangement to change. She knows the man will never know about her internal emotions, and he's not the type to ask her how she's feeling.
Actually, when this man comes to meet the speaker, he bestows upon her tales of other women: “And you bring tales of fresh adventurings / Of ladies delicately indiscreet / Of lingering hands, and gently whispered things” (14-16). This must be incredibly hurtful for the woman, who despite knowing that this man is involved with other women when he's away from her, maintains her loyalty to his friendship. Her loyalty could, in fact, be sending the wrong signal to this man, further encouraging him to share his romantic tales with her. She says, “And you are pleased with me, and strive anew / To sing me sagas of your late delights” (17-18). Because she is such a marvel listener, and seems to enjoy the stories the man brings to her, he never learns that she desires to be one of those delicate ladies he speaks of. In the very next line, she stresses the confusion that exists in their relationship: “Thus do you want me – marveling, gay and true / Nor do you see my staring eyes of nights” (19-20). She isn't sure that the man knows her intentions, therefore, how can she expect him to reciprocate her feelings?
The woman in the poem eventually chalks up her loss to being a less appealing woman than the others he pursues: “And when, in search of novelty, you stray” (21). Upon their departure, so that she doesn't seem as desperate as she feels inside, she kisses him “blithely” on the lips and says, “And what goes on, my love, while you're away / You'll never know” (22-24). The author leaves these last lines ambiguous. Perhaps the speaker is saying that because the man has never expressed an interest in her personal emotions, he will never find out how she truly feels. When they go their separate ways, he continues to pursue other women, but she thinks about him and patiently awaits their next meeting.
Another interpretation of this ending could be that the woman isn't a fool at all, and that when they are separate, she, too, seeks out more novel options. The fact that she kisses him “blithely” - lightly, carelessly, a feather-kiss – means that she is trying to appear less passionate about the man. Perhaps she, too, has other love interests on the side. This is very unlikely, though, given her strong affections for the man throughout the rest of the poem.
She may kiss him “blithely” to pretend that she's not quite so romantic about him, or to show that she doesn't care about his disregard for her. The cynical tone of the poem coincides with her actions. This woman is trying to pretend to be something she's not for the sake of preserving what relationship they have. This relationship is very painful for her, but she endures it because she treasures the friendship she has with the man. Her fear of losing the only intimacy they have keeps her coming back time and time again.
Work Cited
Parker, Dorothy. “A Certain Lady.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 438.
Setting and Plot in “The Yellow Wallpaper”
Charlotte Perkins Gilman's “The Yellow Wallpaper” is a short story that explores the submissive role of women in marriage as well as the need for self-expression. The setting of the tale, which is told through the narrator's private journal, contributes to the narrator's internal conflicts, as it prevents her from escaping them. Set in the late 19th century, the narrator is suffering from post-partum depression following the birth of her child. She is cared for by her husband, John, who is also conveniently her doctor. Through her journal, she documents the controlling nature of her husband, who keeps her isolated from the world so that her condition will improve. However, her disconnection from the real world only drives her closer to insanity.
In the story's time period, it was typical for women to be treated like children by their husbands. The narrator exhibits this each time she confronts John about the approach to her medical treatment. In response, he calls her “little girl” (322), or “his blessed little goose” (318). One time in particular, the narrator says, “And dear John gathered me up in his arms, and just carried me upstairs and laid me on the bed, and read to me till it tired my head” (321). This is certainly how one would treat their child, not their wife. This is further demonstrated when John insists the narrator stay in the upstairs nursery.
In this era it was also expected for women to obey their husbands without question. Although she desires to keep a journal to help relieve some of her stress, she knows her husband forbids it: “There comes John, and I must put this away – he hates to have me write a word” (317). She is cautious of her emotions around her husband, being careful to not show emotions around him or anyone else. “I take pains to control myself – before him, at least,” she says, “and that makes me very tired” (317).
Since scientific and medical knowledge was limited in the 19th century, and John is a medical authority, the narrator doesn't dare question her husband's medical advice, although she admits to disagreeing with his ideas. “So I take phosphates or phosphites – whichever it is, and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to 'work' until I am well again,” she says (316). It is obvious that she doesn't have much faith in any of these treatments, but is still expected to follow not only the doctor's – but her husband's – orders.
The room containing the yellow wallpaper, where John insists the narrator stay to rest, causes her to lose her sanity. It is a large upstairs room, which John boasts as being big and airy. First a nursery, then a playroom and gymnasium, the room reminds the narrator of all of the things she cannot have. Because it was a nursery and playroom, it is a constant reminder that she cannot be with her newborn baby. The fact that it was a gymnasium reminds her of fun, entertaining activities that she cannot participate in.
There are two windows in the room. One looks to the garden and derelict greenhouses and the other to the bay and a private wharf. These views only remind the narrator of the places she cannot go. Also, she describes the house as “A colonial mansion, a hereditary estate,” which leads the reader to believe it is in the south, perhaps on a plantation (316). The story also takes place during the Fourth of July. This information proves that the narrator is trapped inside during the beautiful summer months in a gorgeous area of the country, when getting outside for some excitement would seem to be particularly therapeutic. Furthermore, she claims the house is nearly three miles from town. Getting outside from time to time wouldn't have burdened the narrator or anyone else, but John insisted she stay inside and rest.
The room itself has bars on the window, which were probably initially installed to keep children safe. The narrator, though, sees them as the gates of her prison. While she is disgusted by the horrible yellow wallpaper, the pattern on it is the most mentally stimulating thing in the room. Therefore, it is not surprising when her focus on it turns into an obsession. The setting of the story directly contributes to the plot action, which develops as the narrator watches the wallpaper come to life. As the narrator perceives the wallpaper to become more and more bizarre, she becomes further and further detached from reality.
First, the narrator sees no design in the wallpaper. It was “one of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin,” with “lame uncertain curves” (317). She is mostly annoyed by the pattern and the fact that John won't let her tear down the paper. He thinks the fact that it irks her will do her some good. Later on, though, she starts to notice a pattern of a “broken neck and two bulbous eyes” emerging in the print. “I never saw so much expression in an inanimate thing before...” she now says (319). As the story progresses, she begins to see a sub-pattern in the wallpaper. “I can see a strange, provoking, formless sort of figure,” she says, “that seems to skulk about behind that silly and conspicuous front design” (319). The narrator actually admits to becoming more child-like in her obsession with the wallpaper: “I used to lie awake as a child and get more entertainment and terror out of blank walls and plain furniture than most children could find in a toy-store” (319). She becomes the child John has created.
The story climaxes when the narrator notices a difference in the wallpaper during the day and at night. At night, the shape she's been focusing on becomes a woman trapped behind bars, but “by daylight she is subdued, quiet.” “I fancy it is the pattern that keeps her so still,” the narrator writes. “It is so puzzling. It keeps me quiet by the hour” (323). She assumes that the pattern is keeping the woman prisoner by day, until, one day, while looking out the window, she sees the woman “creeping” around the garden. She knows it is the woman in the wallpaper, because she says “she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight” (325). However, the narrator goes on to admit her similarity with the woman, admitting that she, too, creeps around in the daytime: “I always lock the door when I creep by daylight. I can't do it at night, for I know John would suspect something at once” (325).
As the narrator becomes more mentally unstable, she realizes that she must “free” the woman trapped in the wallpaper at night. When she begins tearing down the wallpaper, her character begins to merge with that of the woman she sees trapped: “I pulled and she shook, I shook and she pulled, and before morning we had peeled off yards of that paper” (326). She further characterizes this figment of her imagination by working with her to tear down the bars. When the paper is torn down, the narrator looks out the window and remarks, “...there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. I wonder if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did?” (327) At this point, she has become the woman in the wallpaper, as she directly refers to herself as the woman who escaped. But although the other women are “creeping” on the lawn, she suddenly finds the confinement of the room more comfortable, and begins crawling around the perimeter with her shoulder to the “smooch” on the wall. When her husband faints after seeing her mental state, she continues “creeping” around the room, crawling right over top of him each time she passes.
Setting is the literary device which drives Gilman's “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The confinement of the narrator to the upstairs room explores the roles of women in marriage and society, as well as the importance of self-expression and social interaction. The yellow wallpaper in the room feeds the narrator's understimulated mind. She is rarely permitted visits with other people and is not even allowed to keep a private journal. She enters the story with many negative feelings regarding her husband's treatment of her, and the yellow wallpaper gives her something to focus on while pondering her situation. All the while, she becomes more obsessed, more manic, and more desperate for an escape.
Work Cited
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper. The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 316-327.
In the story's time period, it was typical for women to be treated like children by their husbands. The narrator exhibits this each time she confronts John about the approach to her medical treatment. In response, he calls her “little girl” (322), or “his blessed little goose” (318). One time in particular, the narrator says, “And dear John gathered me up in his arms, and just carried me upstairs and laid me on the bed, and read to me till it tired my head” (321). This is certainly how one would treat their child, not their wife. This is further demonstrated when John insists the narrator stay in the upstairs nursery.
In this era it was also expected for women to obey their husbands without question. Although she desires to keep a journal to help relieve some of her stress, she knows her husband forbids it: “There comes John, and I must put this away – he hates to have me write a word” (317). She is cautious of her emotions around her husband, being careful to not show emotions around him or anyone else. “I take pains to control myself – before him, at least,” she says, “and that makes me very tired” (317).
Since scientific and medical knowledge was limited in the 19th century, and John is a medical authority, the narrator doesn't dare question her husband's medical advice, although she admits to disagreeing with his ideas. “So I take phosphates or phosphites – whichever it is, and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to 'work' until I am well again,” she says (316). It is obvious that she doesn't have much faith in any of these treatments, but is still expected to follow not only the doctor's – but her husband's – orders.
The room containing the yellow wallpaper, where John insists the narrator stay to rest, causes her to lose her sanity. It is a large upstairs room, which John boasts as being big and airy. First a nursery, then a playroom and gymnasium, the room reminds the narrator of all of the things she cannot have. Because it was a nursery and playroom, it is a constant reminder that she cannot be with her newborn baby. The fact that it was a gymnasium reminds her of fun, entertaining activities that she cannot participate in.
There are two windows in the room. One looks to the garden and derelict greenhouses and the other to the bay and a private wharf. These views only remind the narrator of the places she cannot go. Also, she describes the house as “A colonial mansion, a hereditary estate,” which leads the reader to believe it is in the south, perhaps on a plantation (316). The story also takes place during the Fourth of July. This information proves that the narrator is trapped inside during the beautiful summer months in a gorgeous area of the country, when getting outside for some excitement would seem to be particularly therapeutic. Furthermore, she claims the house is nearly three miles from town. Getting outside from time to time wouldn't have burdened the narrator or anyone else, but John insisted she stay inside and rest.
The room itself has bars on the window, which were probably initially installed to keep children safe. The narrator, though, sees them as the gates of her prison. While she is disgusted by the horrible yellow wallpaper, the pattern on it is the most mentally stimulating thing in the room. Therefore, it is not surprising when her focus on it turns into an obsession. The setting of the story directly contributes to the plot action, which develops as the narrator watches the wallpaper come to life. As the narrator perceives the wallpaper to become more and more bizarre, she becomes further and further detached from reality.
First, the narrator sees no design in the wallpaper. It was “one of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin,” with “lame uncertain curves” (317). She is mostly annoyed by the pattern and the fact that John won't let her tear down the paper. He thinks the fact that it irks her will do her some good. Later on, though, she starts to notice a pattern of a “broken neck and two bulbous eyes” emerging in the print. “I never saw so much expression in an inanimate thing before...” she now says (319). As the story progresses, she begins to see a sub-pattern in the wallpaper. “I can see a strange, provoking, formless sort of figure,” she says, “that seems to skulk about behind that silly and conspicuous front design” (319). The narrator actually admits to becoming more child-like in her obsession with the wallpaper: “I used to lie awake as a child and get more entertainment and terror out of blank walls and plain furniture than most children could find in a toy-store” (319). She becomes the child John has created.
The story climaxes when the narrator notices a difference in the wallpaper during the day and at night. At night, the shape she's been focusing on becomes a woman trapped behind bars, but “by daylight she is subdued, quiet.” “I fancy it is the pattern that keeps her so still,” the narrator writes. “It is so puzzling. It keeps me quiet by the hour” (323). She assumes that the pattern is keeping the woman prisoner by day, until, one day, while looking out the window, she sees the woman “creeping” around the garden. She knows it is the woman in the wallpaper, because she says “she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight” (325). However, the narrator goes on to admit her similarity with the woman, admitting that she, too, creeps around in the daytime: “I always lock the door when I creep by daylight. I can't do it at night, for I know John would suspect something at once” (325).
As the narrator becomes more mentally unstable, she realizes that she must “free” the woman trapped in the wallpaper at night. When she begins tearing down the wallpaper, her character begins to merge with that of the woman she sees trapped: “I pulled and she shook, I shook and she pulled, and before morning we had peeled off yards of that paper” (326). She further characterizes this figment of her imagination by working with her to tear down the bars. When the paper is torn down, the narrator looks out the window and remarks, “...there are so many of those creeping women, and they creep so fast. I wonder if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did?” (327) At this point, she has become the woman in the wallpaper, as she directly refers to herself as the woman who escaped. But although the other women are “creeping” on the lawn, she suddenly finds the confinement of the room more comfortable, and begins crawling around the perimeter with her shoulder to the “smooch” on the wall. When her husband faints after seeing her mental state, she continues “creeping” around the room, crawling right over top of him each time she passes.
Setting is the literary device which drives Gilman's “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The confinement of the narrator to the upstairs room explores the roles of women in marriage and society, as well as the importance of self-expression and social interaction. The yellow wallpaper in the room feeds the narrator's understimulated mind. She is rarely permitted visits with other people and is not even allowed to keep a private journal. She enters the story with many negative feelings regarding her husband's treatment of her, and the yellow wallpaper gives her something to focus on while pondering her situation. All the while, she becomes more obsessed, more manic, and more desperate for an escape.
Work Cited
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper. The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 316-327.
Shakespeare and Collins: Ironic Sonnets
There comes a time when every great artist questions the integrity of the work he's producing. Even literary masters like William Shakespeare and Billy Collins have found the need to question the rigid rules that accompany many art forms. In Shakespeare's “My mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun” and Collins' “Sonnet,” the authors defy such rules to prove that, perhaps, they are meant to be broken. Life is not always as predictable as poetry dictates, and these authors want to be sure that their readers are aware of that.
In the sonnet, “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun,” Shakespeare speaks about only one thing – his flawed lover. His words reflect romantic sonnets of the time, but simultaneously poke fun at them. The true purpose of the poem is not for Shakespeare to explain how undesirable his mistress is, but rather to cast an ironic voice towards the type of writing he, too, is well-known for.
He uses romantic imagery such as eyes like the sun (“My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”), ruby red lips (“Coral is far more red than her lip's red”), rosy cheeks (“I have seen roses damasked, red and white / But no such roses see I in her cheeks”), perfume, delight (In some perfumes there is more delight / Than the breath with which my mistress reeks”), and pleasure (“I love to hear her speak, yet well I know / Music hath a far more pleasing sound”). However, he parodies these words with true life imagery of the woman he loves, a woman who is nothing that traditional poets write about. He confesses his love for this woman although she doesn't fit the typical mold for a beauty in a romantic poem.
This sonnet by Shakespeare was very rare for his time. It was very original in the fact that it depicted real love, as told through the eyes of a real lover. As Shakespeare admits his mistress' flaws, he realizes that they are what make her human. At the end of the sonnet, he writes: “I grant I never saw a goddess go / My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.” He means that he is unfamiliar with the goddesses of traditional romantic poetry, but knows that his own lover is real and tangible.
“Sonnet” by Collins parallels Shakespeare's piece by, once again, poking fun at traditional poetry. Collins, however, doesn't parody subject matter, rather, he points out the stiff structure of the sonnet itself. At first glance, it seems as though Collins' goal was to upset the sonnet form with his poem, but upon further inspection it is evident that he, too, has remained loyal to many of the rules for its form.
First and most noticeable, Collins strays from the traditional sonnet rule of rhyme. Although the poem has fourteen lines and is split into two sections, there is no noticeable rhyme pattern. The poem also mentions “iambic bongos,” a reference to the traditional meter of sonnets, iambic pentameter, although Collins himself doesn't stick to the rule.
While “Sonnet” defies the proper rules for a poem of its type, Collins still includes a discussion of the rules in his writing. “But hang on here wile we make the turn,” he writes, referring to the predictable change-of-pace on the ninth line of a sonnet. “Sonnet” makes this “turn,” as well; the first eight lines speak negatively about a sonnet's strict rules, while the ninth line ushers in a resolution to the problem.
Collins, like Shakespeare, doesn't want to be restrained by the rules of the art he creates. His poem is an attempt to break the mold, to prove that it is acceptable to try new techniques in writing. However, the fact that he still employs many of the sonnet's requirements proves that he still respects the structure that accompanies poetic form. Shakespeare employs a similar technique by using romantic words to describe the undesirableness of his mistress. Both of these authors use irony to deliver their message. By doing so, they are capable of both criticizing and praising the rules of poetry at the same time.
Works Cited
Collins, Billy. “Sonnet.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 553.
Shakespeare, William. “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 552-553.
In the sonnet, “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun,” Shakespeare speaks about only one thing – his flawed lover. His words reflect romantic sonnets of the time, but simultaneously poke fun at them. The true purpose of the poem is not for Shakespeare to explain how undesirable his mistress is, but rather to cast an ironic voice towards the type of writing he, too, is well-known for.
He uses romantic imagery such as eyes like the sun (“My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun”), ruby red lips (“Coral is far more red than her lip's red”), rosy cheeks (“I have seen roses damasked, red and white / But no such roses see I in her cheeks”), perfume, delight (In some perfumes there is more delight / Than the breath with which my mistress reeks”), and pleasure (“I love to hear her speak, yet well I know / Music hath a far more pleasing sound”). However, he parodies these words with true life imagery of the woman he loves, a woman who is nothing that traditional poets write about. He confesses his love for this woman although she doesn't fit the typical mold for a beauty in a romantic poem.
This sonnet by Shakespeare was very rare for his time. It was very original in the fact that it depicted real love, as told through the eyes of a real lover. As Shakespeare admits his mistress' flaws, he realizes that they are what make her human. At the end of the sonnet, he writes: “I grant I never saw a goddess go / My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.” He means that he is unfamiliar with the goddesses of traditional romantic poetry, but knows that his own lover is real and tangible.
“Sonnet” by Collins parallels Shakespeare's piece by, once again, poking fun at traditional poetry. Collins, however, doesn't parody subject matter, rather, he points out the stiff structure of the sonnet itself. At first glance, it seems as though Collins' goal was to upset the sonnet form with his poem, but upon further inspection it is evident that he, too, has remained loyal to many of the rules for its form.
First and most noticeable, Collins strays from the traditional sonnet rule of rhyme. Although the poem has fourteen lines and is split into two sections, there is no noticeable rhyme pattern. The poem also mentions “iambic bongos,” a reference to the traditional meter of sonnets, iambic pentameter, although Collins himself doesn't stick to the rule.
While “Sonnet” defies the proper rules for a poem of its type, Collins still includes a discussion of the rules in his writing. “But hang on here wile we make the turn,” he writes, referring to the predictable change-of-pace on the ninth line of a sonnet. “Sonnet” makes this “turn,” as well; the first eight lines speak negatively about a sonnet's strict rules, while the ninth line ushers in a resolution to the problem.
Collins, like Shakespeare, doesn't want to be restrained by the rules of the art he creates. His poem is an attempt to break the mold, to prove that it is acceptable to try new techniques in writing. However, the fact that he still employs many of the sonnet's requirements proves that he still respects the structure that accompanies poetic form. Shakespeare employs a similar technique by using romantic words to describe the undesirableness of his mistress. Both of these authors use irony to deliver their message. By doing so, they are capable of both criticizing and praising the rules of poetry at the same time.
Works Cited
Collins, Billy. “Sonnet.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 553.
Shakespeare, William. “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Alison Booth, J. Paul Hunter and Kelly J. Mays. New York: Norton, 2006. 552-553.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
