sko
New Member
Posts: 14 
|
Post by sko on Nov 16, 2015 18:18:59 GMT
In the packet, it said that "this nineteenth-ceentury ideal of the frail, even sickly female ultimately led to a glorification of the dead or dying woman" and went on to say that "women must be 'killed' into passivity in order for her to acquiesce.. her duty of self-abnegation 'relative to men'". Though I disagree with the thought process, I thought that it was a semi-accurate description of characters in Jane Eyre.
Though many tried (such as Mrs. Reed, Mr. Brocklehurst, St. John, and even Mr. Rochester), Jane was not "killed into passivity". Mrs. Reed and Mr. Brocklehurst tried to make Jane conform to the social norms by scolding her and sending her to Lowood, but as we see, Jane fights against being "killed". She develops her own desires and ultimately, her identity and morals. Mr. Rochester, similarly, tried to make Jane into something she was not. She feels uncomfortable with this, and instead of going along with it, she leaves him. St. John used his ideas of religion to attempt to convince Jane to go with him to India. However, she says that if she marries him, St. John will "kill her" - as in, he will kill her spirit, her morals, ideas, and identity.
As we see in the Wide Sargasso Sea, Bertha (or Antoinette) is "killed", but not into passivity. She instead, goes crazy. She is continually rejected by her mother and by Rochester. Her first friend dies. Antoinette doesn't turn to religion as Jane does, and this contributes to her loss of identity. Her loss of identity is how she is "killed".
I thought this particular passage was interesting because it was only a semi-accurate description. Many try to kill Jane into passivity, but they fail. However, it doesn't push Jane into the "fallen woman" category. She is still in the middle of the spectrum. Antoinette, unlike Jane, does get "killed" but is far from the ideal angelic woman in 19th century literature.
I think we still see a bit of this in contemporary literature, but it's always about fighting against being killed into passivity. For example, Tris in Divergent, at least in the first half of the book, struggles against how society veiwed her former faction and tries to create a new identity for herself. In fact, the women in the Abnegation faction seem like the "19th century woman" because they are selfless and overall angelic.
|
|
|
|
Post by aamornwichet on Nov 17, 2015 1:53:43 GMT
In the packet, it said that "this nineteenth-century ideal of the frail, even sickly female ultimately led to a glorification of the dead or dying woman" and went on to say that "women must be 'killed' into passivity in order for her to acquiesce.. her duty of self-abnegation 'relative to men'".
Ok I really like that you brought, this up because, when I was reading I thought it was an interesting note as well. It reminded me of a podcast I had listened to where the host essentially said that primary school is where children are tamed from wild animals to human beings. With this being said, we established in class that the ideal Victorianwoman is innocent and angelic like some kind of grown up cherub. In this period it seems that women, like children, or animals were sub-human and almost had to 'killed to be proper'. Jane as you mentioned is not like this. In fact it seems she nearly is 'killed into passivity', as she is not the 'wild child' she was in the red room. Yet, instead of being fully domesticated (which I'd like to point out both means married and tamed) Jane, leaves her station, living off the land for a while, almost reverting back to animal status. She then retames herself in a place where she is nearly equal to her cousins. She then is able to return to society fully functioning and much more independent. With both personality and economic qualities on par with many men. Perhaps this was a statement on Bronte's part. She is saying that if women are raised as equals, rather than treated as a child, they too can enjoy the benefits which society bestowed on the men and not the women of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Ms. McGettigan on Nov 17, 2015 19:00:17 GMT
Great convo here- the idea of being "killed into passivity" jumped out at me too. What do other people think- is Jane killed into passivity in some way? Is Bertha, or the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper?"
|
|
|
|
Post by crandallethan on Nov 19, 2015 2:03:58 GMT
Great discussion, I believe Bertha and the narroator are clearly killed into passivity. The narrator allowed John to control her. Whether it was when se pleaded to change the wallpaper or trying to leave her room early, she allowed John to steer her decisions. In Bertha's case, there is evidence in the article showing that Bertha was "killed into passivity" but following Jane Eyre the reader can infer this because Bertha marries Rochester unlovingly, and is kept away from him. Both of these decisions are made for her and we do not see any resistance from Bertha. Often in literature the author uses death to show the reader what happens when a character goes against the theme. In this case, the character dies in every sense but physically in order to highlight the affects of how these two cases in Bertha and the narrator apply to the rest of society. These barbarian scenarios more than likely are extreme cases but are used to grab attention to point towards the issue of society's depiction of women.
Jane, on the other hand shows far more get back. Jane shows lapses in her resistance, at first, she seems to let Rochester guide her in her decisions and he really controlled her emotions, but as the plot rolled on Jane counters this and leaves as she does any conflict that she does not have control over. Because she is somewhat rebellious, and mobile she is never "killed" into passivity more so pushed only to return to her inner morals/ideals.
|
|
sko
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by sko on Nov 19, 2015 11:13:27 GMT
Great discussion, I believe Bertha and the narroator are clearly killed into passivity. The narrator allowed John to control her. Whether it was when se pleaded to change the wallpaper or trying to leave her room early, she allowed John to steer her decisions. In Bertha's case, there is evidence in the article showing that Bertha was "killed into passivity" but following Jane Eyre the reader can infer this because Bertha marries Rochester unlovingly, and is kept away from him. Both of these decisions are made for her and we do not see any resistance from Bertha. Often in literature the author uses death to show the reader what happens when a character goes against the theme. In this case, the character dies in every sense but physically in order to highlight the affects of how these two cases in Bertha and the narrator apply to the rest of society. These barbarian scenarios more than likely are extreme cases but are used to grab attention to point towards the issue of society's depiction of women.
Jane, on the other hand shows far more get back. Jane shows lapses in her resistance, at first, she seems to let Rochester guide her in her decisions and he really controlled her emotions, but as the plot rolled on Jane counters this and leaves as she does any conflict that she does not have control over. Because she is somewhat rebellious, and mobile she is never "killed" into passivity more so pushed only to return to her inner morals/ideals. I think this is really interesting. I thought that although their respective husbands tried to kill their wives into passivity, Bertha and the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper" were not, mainly because they didn't end up acting like the "perfect 19th century woman". I do agree with the rest of what you said, though! Could you elaborate more on what you meant about Bertha and the narrator being killed into passivity? |
|
|
|
Post by echeng on Nov 20, 2015 22:42:45 GMT
The host essentially said that primary school is where children are tamed from wild animals to human beings. This brings up a fascinating connection to "The Yellow Wallpaper". Remember when the narrator describes the room as "it was a nursery first and then playroom and gymnasium, I should judge, for the windows are barred for little children and there are rings and things in the walls". Well, I was thinking that maybe the bars on the windows may be the same bars that cage animals (referring to the wild animals you mentioned). Both keep the things inside from gaining freedom, and both, eventually can make the inhabitant go mad (narrator goes crazy and tears the wallpaper, some animals who are cooped up for too long get jumpy and impatient). Furthermore, the narrator's description of the nursery, then playroom, and finally gymnasium also can be representative of a bildungsroman. A nursery is where young toddlers or babies go to play. They are supervised all the time by adults and cannot be independent at all. Then, we transition to a playroom where there are most likely grade-school children. Here, there is less supervision. Kids play with the toys they want to play with and make their own decisions on what to do with their time. Finally, we come to the gymnasium, where there is a huge range from high school students to full-grown adults working out. There is ultimate freedom here- people choose with sports to play, what rules to abide by, which workout regime to follow, etc. This may be sort of a stretch, but it kind of reflects a coming of age! |
|
|
|
Post by jordanhilker on Nov 21, 2015 5:39:49 GMT
The host essentially said that primary school is where children are tamed from wild animals to human beings. This brings up a fascinating connection to "The Yellow Wallpaper". Remember when the narrator describes the room as "it was a nursery first and then playroom and gymnasium, I should judge, for the windows are barred for little children and there are rings and things in the walls". Well, I was thinking that maybe the bars on the windows may be the same bars that cage animals (referring to the wild animals you mentioned). Both keep the things inside from gaining freedom, and both, eventually can make the inhabitant go mad (narrator goes crazy and tears the wallpaper, some animals who are cooped up for too long get jumpy and impatient) The bars on the windows could also represent the bars of a crib for a child. When the child is placed in the crib, they are trapped in it and cannot get out. The bars are there for protection, so you can infer that maybe the bars on the window are there to protect the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper." However, the narrator does not need to be protected because she is a grown woman and the bars just in fact make the narrator go crazy. |
|
kchen
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by kchen on Nov 21, 2015 15:27:48 GMT
The bars on the windows could also represent the bars of a crib for a child. When the child is placed in the crib, they are trapped in it and cannot get out. The bars are there for protection, so you can infer that maybe the bars on the window are there to protect the narrator in "The Yellow Wallpaper." To me, that bars on the window represented prison. Like prisoners, the narrator of “The Yellow Wallpaper” is locked into a room until she gets better, or is deemed ready to return to normal society, which is the purpose of prison sentences. The bars are meant to keep her in and protect those around her. The bars on the window represent how the narrator has become a prisoner in her own home; her husband and his sister act as her jailers and ensure that she does not escape while they “cure” her. In a way, she is falsely imprisoned and if they did not lock her up and they let her do what she wanted, she most likely would have felt better. |
|
