tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post4649999921137315609..comments2024-03-29T03:04:00.853-05:00Comments on Wuthering <br>Expectations: Cranford and the strong female characterAmateur Reader (Tom)http://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-43299067775840230352013-02-03T20:33:53.286-06:002013-02-03T20:33:53.286-06:00Oops, I meant damson (typos, typos) - plums! I do...Oops, I meant damson (typos, typos) - plums! I don't know about a vegan version, though. Ingredients include butter, eggs, and a lot more butter. Plus, of course, booze.<br /><br />I somehow feel that I am due to read another Trollope novel.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-38447260437167648692013-02-03T19:39:47.777-06:002013-02-03T19:39:47.777-06:00That makes me want to be both tipsy on dansom tart...That makes me want to be both tipsy on dansom tart (whatever that may be) as well as reading Cranford--although the less known Trollope I'm reading (The Golden Lion of Granpere) is pretty good too.Colleenhttp://jamandidleness.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-48785874958189305742013-02-03T18:47:55.364-06:002013-02-03T18:47:55.364-06:00That is just what I was thinking! Except my versi...That is just what I was thinking! Except my version is "Since Rohan linked these old posts, maybe I should fix some of the typos. Look at 'em all."<br /><br />Looking over the series, I now wish I has put in more quotes. I wish they were nothing but quotes. "[T]ipsy on dansom tart" - ha ha ha ha!Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-18314197854403806202013-02-03T16:45:15.015-06:002013-02-03T16:45:15.015-06:00Gah, I completely missed the fact when I wrote the...Gah, I completely missed the fact when I wrote the above comment that these posts were from 2009! Rohan linked to them and I just dove right in, assuming they were recent. So, I apologize for being unobservant. And for all the typos I can see there now.Colleenhttp://jamandidleness.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-41242356980638790472013-02-03T14:50:11.162-06:002013-02-03T14:50:11.162-06:00"Hey Emily" - that is sad. Hi, Emily, h..."Hey Emily" - that is sad. Hi, Emily, hope you are well, wherever you are, whatever you are doing.<br /><br />Colleen, you reinforce my impression that the search for the "strong female character" has become, for many readers, just a reflex. A received idea, not a critical idea.<br /><br />I understand, when I read three novels in a row by sub-Hemingwayish authors who have trouble granting their female characters any sort of independent existence that I might get particular pleasure when I finally run into a tough, independent, take no guff gal. But of course that does not make the Strong Female Character good, but rather emphasizes how the sub-Hemingways are bad.<br /><br />Your last paragraph makes sense. <i>Cranford</i> you can find anywhere.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-19621415344252081942013-02-03T14:28:18.064-06:002013-02-03T14:28:18.064-06:00Hey Tom, hey Emily.
I too have been frustrated ne...Hey Tom, hey Emily.<br /><br />I too have been frustrated near to madness with this strong female character business because, in my experience as both reader and professor, developed subjectivity is NOT what most people mean by that phrase. Indeed, Emily, you are the only person I've come across (and I'm thankful for it! It gives me hope) that doesn't mean, simply, tough, independent, and taking no guff from the menfolk when invoking this hackneyed term.<br /><br />The last time I taught, I taught a Shakespeare class and it took, literally, almost the whole year to have that class unlearn the strong female character ideal as a framework for making sense of female characters. And this was an extremely bright group of students capable of parsing the problematic mess of, for example, surveillance and morality, in Measure for Measure!!<br /><br />I was on the verge on reading Cranford, Tom, but am going to spend the next two months reading lesser known Trollope and Gissing novels as I've been blessed with the unexpected windfall of a short-term library card for a fantastic university library.Colleenhttp://jamandidleness.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-89502857161696643952009-09-16T14:47:47.177-05:002009-09-16T14:47:47.177-05:00Ah, Biddy, I forgot about Biddy - because she'...Ah, Biddy, I forgot about Biddy - because she's completely forgettable. Dickens and his young women, they're such a problem. Dickens does have female characters as vivid as Wemmick (maybe not as vivid as Miss Havisham!) but they're never the heroines or possible love interests - again, excepting the one case where he switches to first person.<br /><br />Your clarification makes a lot of sense to me.<br /><br />Nicole, I read your post before I read your comment here, and was sort of wondering the same thing. But there's a logic, in your case - Smollett (and Fielding) are the ancestors of Dickens. In the Fielding\Richardson dichotomy, there is no question which one Dickens was.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-47397859027087356082009-09-16T14:22:08.374-05:002009-09-16T14:22:08.374-05:00I also totally agree about Dickens's non-round...I also totally agree about Dickens's non-rounded yet vital characters...and yet, I still don't find Stella or Biddy to be particularly "strong" female characters, even from a Dickensian perspective. People like Wemmick and Pumblechook are fantastically fun to read, despite their lack of subjective development; by contrast I find Estella and Biddy to be totally uninteresting. There's no humor about them, no quirkiness, none of Havisham's glorious grotesqueness, and none of Esther Summerson's distinctive narrative voice, since they don't really have voices at all. (BTW, I agree about Esther - I was really surprised to find how impressed I was with her!) <br /><br />So I mean, it doesn't have to be subjectivity necessarily, but I guess I think of "strong" female characters as ones that are fully realized within the scope of whatever literary techniques are being used. And Havisham is "strong" to me because she's compelling and unique and fun to hate, not because she happens also to be a tyrant.Emilyhttp://www.eveningallafternoon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-87909588839173633672009-09-16T12:48:57.681-05:002009-09-16T12:48:57.681-05:00Dickens also provides a counter-argument, though. ...<em>Dickens also provides a counter-argument, though. His books are full of strongly depicted characters who are barely two-dimensional but absolutely alive. They're as developed as they should be, and serve as arguments against the importance of subjectivity.</em><br /><br />Were you secretly reading my mind as I wrote this morning's post, specifically mentioning the vitality of Dickens's nonrounded characters? Weird!nicolehttp://www.bibliographing.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-11041222091040782012009-09-15T22:03:04.797-05:002009-09-15T22:03:04.797-05:00Not argumentative - very informative. The posibili...Not argumentative - very informative. The posibility had escaped me that "strong" was related to "developed." That's a fair thing to look for!<br /><br />Dickens is a good example for your point. The fact is that, with a few exceptions (and Esther Summerson, something more than an exception), his young women are not interesting characters. Sketches, stereotypes, exactly.<br /><br />So, to me, this is an artistic failure, maybe the greatest failure of Dickens.<br /><br />Dickens also provides a counter-argument, though. His books are full of strongly depicted characters who are barely two-dimensional but absolutely alive. They're as developed as they should be, and serve as arguments against the importance of subjectivity.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-15530866398169915462009-09-15T13:22:11.042-05:002009-09-15T13:22:11.042-05:00Personally, when I complain about a lack of strong...Personally, when I complain about a lack of strong female characters, I'm usually talking about the way certain authors pay a lot of attention to the subjectivity and rich inner lives of their male characters, yet are content to leave their female characters as sketches or stereotypes. I want characters who are strongly depicted, but not necessarily strong in their actions. So, for example, I think Wharton's Lily Bart is a strong female character, despite her many frustrating weaknesses, because her subjectivity is so developed, whereas Dickens's Estella is a pretty weak character, even though she's "sassy" or whatever, since she's only seen through Pip's eyes and never gets to express her own subjective perceptions in any depth.<br /><br />Um, anyway, I'm enjoying exploring your blog. Sorry that my first comment is sort of argumentative! I've seen a couple of people reading <em>Cranford</em> lately, and their reviews have all been intriguing. I'll have to check it out!Emilyhttp://www.eveningallafternoon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-73125362271776696202009-09-03T13:52:49.895-05:002009-09-03T13:52:49.895-05:00I seem to find these qualities whether I look for ...I seem to find these qualities whether I look for them or not. Some I even carry around with me, everywhere I go.Amateur Reader (Tom)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13675275555757408496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3383938214852108244.post-73227838127235583152009-09-03T09:59:25.924-05:002009-09-03T09:59:25.924-05:00"Weak, soft, foolish, pathetic, thin-skinned,..."Weak, soft, foolish, pathetic, thin-skinned, vain, ludicrous, misguided, lunatic, stupid, and many other wonderful features."<br /><br />Qualities I look for both within books and out!Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11632328198420140293noreply@blogger.com