Writing Gender
I have just finished reading Cranford and one of the things that interested me the most is the way that the female author (Gaskell) writes men. The men of Cranford are, in many ways, feminine. Captain Brown lives a rather domestic life, looking after his daughters, and Peter goes so far as to dress as a woman. This made me think back to our class discussions and blog discussions regarding Die Vernon in Rob Roy. Die Vernon is a masculine female written by a male (Scott). By writing gender this way, are the authors commenting on what the ideal member of the opposite sex would be like, or are they falling back on the ideals that they know and are simply placing these ideals on members of the opposite sex out of lack of understanding? Is this a trait of gender specific literature (e.g. Chick Lit and Lad Lit)? Is the 'Colin Firth' character of Chick Lit a true example of masculinity or is he a female ideal of what a man should be? I tend to think the latter is true. In the same way, I expect many of the females portrayed in Lad Lit will similarly be some kind of a male ideal of what a female should be.
I wanted to put this out there before we approach Hornby's How to Be Good, since all I know going into the novel (having not even read the back cover yet) is that it is Chick Lit written by a man. I don't know what to expect of the major female character(s). I am interested to see how a man writes a woman in Chick Lit, and how this differs from how a man writes a woman in Lad Lit.
I wanted to put this out there before we approach Hornby's How to Be Good, since all I know going into the novel (having not even read the back cover yet) is that it is Chick Lit written by a man. I don't know what to expect of the major female character(s). I am interested to see how a man writes a woman in Chick Lit, and how this differs from how a man writes a woman in Lad Lit.
posted by Angela @ 2:24 p.m.
1 Comments:
At 10:03 p.m.,
Christine Marie said…
Great points Angela! I think it's especially fascinating how the women of Cranford 'write' males in--or more often out of--thier society. Think about Mr. Hoggins. When he and Lady Glenmire first become engaged, the narrator (Mary Smith) relays the Cranford ladies'speculation as to the engagement:
Had he ever been to see Lady Glenmire at Mrs. Jamiesons? [...] Or had thier interviews been confined to the occaisional meetings in the chamber of the poor sick conjurer? [...] And now it turned out that a servant of Mrs. Jamieson's had been ill, and Mr. Hoggins had been attending her for some weeks. So the wolf had got into the fold, and now he was carrying off the shepardess. (115).
Here, the ladies of Cranford write a familiar gender stereotype: the male as the wolf waiting to prey upon an innocent passive female. It's a lot like Little Red Riding Hood. But let's be honest, at least Red Riding Hood was held accountable for her decisions and not made into the passive victim that Lady Glenmire is.
Consider this though: what if Cranford is indeed a satire of small town life; couldn't we also read a satire of gender relations into the book? Maggie suggested to me the other day that Cranford is indeed satire on both the notions of aristocracy and country life. Could we read this scene as satirical? I for one read a bit of sarcasm in Mary Smith's comments. She indicates to us before that that Mr. Hoggins is quite a respectable man and a good doctor to boot. Thus the only reason this match is inappropriate is his class position. Since the novel is already making critical commentary on the divisions of class, I don't know that we can take the gender-writing of Hoggins as a wolf-like male and Lady Glenmire as a dull, passive female. I think the satirical tones of the novel undercut this writing and perhaps are poking fun at the proposed stereotypes.
Post a Comment
<< Home