Nancy Armstrong

Nancy ArmstrongIntro: This was another assignment on a certain article and there Literary Theory. Of all the different theories we studied I felt I related closest to hers, as a feminist. I also liked looking into the other theories her writing related to.Nancy Armstrong and the Politics of DomesticityIn Nancy Armstrong’s paper, “Some call it fiction: On the politics of Domesticity, she questions what we look to for representing history, focusing on novels, especially novels written by women. She begins by questioning the relationship between history and literature. Why wouldn’t it be logical to look to fiction novels of various time periods to gain an insight on the way of life in various time periods? Don’t we now even have fiction writers who write historical fiction to teach about characteristics of previous time periods? In fact I can recall many important lessons being taught by novels and films that were fact based, but added a story to follow, making it fiction. In history class most students cannot escape the movie roots, based on events, but a fictional story all the same. There are lessons through which an entire curriculum of history is taught through historical fiction novels, making the stories more personal to the reader, allowing them to relate, regardless of the gap in time which we live.Perhaps we must begin, as Armstrong did in questioning why this has not been looked at until now as “history”. In her writing she states that “the assumption that history consists of economic or political events as if these were essentially different from other cultural events.” (Armstrong) Don’t most economic or political decisions begin with a personal one? One must decide to marry their love, live in the environment they were born into, be raised by the class of people your parents belonged. Until one day you decide to make a change. Rather than your older brothers who left school to work on the family farm, you remain in school and pursue an education, changing your status economically and politically. But it all started with your personal decision on how you direct your life. Your decisions affect your community you live in, whether you farm the country and provide food for them, or become a Doctor caring for those who help provide for you. Ultimately the personal choices we make may somehow reflect on those around us, our politics, our economics, and our history. Armstrong sites Ian Watts, author of The Rise of the Novel (Watt) in which he describes the socioeconomic characters that Defoe and Fielding wrote about, and credit them with giving rise to the novel. But Watt goes on to credit Jane Austen with talent, attributed to nature, and a good eye for detail, no recognition of the amazing grasp Austen had for the dealings of various classes in the early 1800’s. Where is the credit due Austen, who not only had an amazing talent but had the courage to write such personally invested novels in a time when the world was dominated by men? Her writings in fact have proven the test of time, in that she has had such an influence and a grasp on such matters that they still relate in today’s world. Because of that relation they are as popular now as when first written, movies of her novels have been made with such great actresses as Kiera Knightley in Pride and Prejudice, Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow, and Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson. As well as several others made for A&E and the BBC, and the latest being about the life of Austen herself. Does this make women more personal writers? Because they are able to create more relatable characters, that can stand the test of time. Is this fact why they struggle so to keep economic and political history separate, even more superior to personal? With this new and emerging writing of personal history the middle class emerges from such works. But Watt and Williams, who helped define the difference between political and cultural writings, neglect to give due credit to the women writers of the times. (Williams)We have tried to collaborate on the political and economical history throughout time, here in the states as well as throughout the world, and throughout time. But we will always fall short on our complete look into our past because of the restraints we as a people have placed on women throughout this history. We have limited our knowledge to what we the powerful men of the time think important, not the middle class citizen, or women. Perhaps if we had listened to what women had to say we could have had more insight to various turning points in history? Maybe a more personal reference to the accounts of wars and uprisings could have prevented future mistakes. In an article Armstrong referenced, it showed just how little value they placed on women in the late 1700’s. (McBurney) An article in Addison’s Spectator, Mr. Spectator advised that women “be in a particular Manner how they meddle with Romances, Chocolates, Novels and the like inflamers, which I look upon to be very dangerous to be made use of during this great Carnival of Nature.” (McBurney) If we as women cannot even be trusted with chocolate how are we to be trusted in preserving history? In the reference in the text it also refers to the fact that as women novelist emerged, Women were encouraged to read these novels that “celebrated the same domestic virtues and saw the same form of Domestic happiness as the ultimate reward for demonstrating these virtues.” (Brown) From this statement it sounds as though the women of the time were being trained like one would train a pet or raise a child. Have we as women not yet proven our worth, or is the personal value we apply to our work that greatly devalued?With the fact that women were becoming more educated, and reading, soon the emergence of etiquette guides emerged. It gave distinct jobs to the men and women of the household. Men’s jobs seemed to pertain more towards duties outside the home, acquire goods, be entertaining, seek a living etc. While women’s duties were within the home, gather goods, keep house, boast of silence. (Cleaver)Now as times have changed, we still in general look at the jobs of the sexes in a similar manner, but we as women have taken on some of the men’s duties as well. Now we may look at these and get a laugh out of what was once expected out of women at the time these were written, Even as recently as the 1940’s magazines were advising readers what makes a good marriage, and the importance of personal appearance and a happy marriage, (Welshimer) but we still have these writings today, Good Housekeeping, October 2007 highlights “Add sizzle to your sex life,” and “Fixes for sagging skin”. Why we are as women “instructed” on what is expected of us? Why do the powerful women who edit these magazines profit by pointing out men’s flaws in women? True we have come a long way in how we are treated on the surface, but have we as women truly broken free of the bonds men have bound us with. It appears as though we have only loosened them. Why, though would we as women help hold on to these sexist expectations? Is it perhaps because we have simply accepted them, or embraced them. Why else would beautiful women justify taking off there clothes for men’s entertainment? But then again, would not these women too be looked down upon, regardless of what time we talk about. While we know they are out there, don’t those who have been raised “properly” pretend they do not exist? So not only do we raise the bar for us as women, we classify ourselves as well.For example, Armstrong quoted Bronte’s Shirley, when she is teaching the French men how to be more English, by reading Shakespeare. (Bronte) Not only are men more superior to women, but English men more superior to Belgium. Or Mother’s more to Strippers, and Business women more to mothers? Or some other absurd rise in ranks that we ourselves have placed on women and our culture. In Bronte’s Shirley, Carolyn is charged with making Robert, who is half Belgian half English, “Completely English” as to imply that English is more superior to the Belgians. We as a culture have assigned the task of providing the proper upbringing to our children, teaching them what is expected of them, and knowing right from wrong. Do we not question the mother’s role in a child’s behavior when we see a child act–up? We as women have been given this great role as being in charge of our children and how the act towards other adults, and then towards their future wife, as well as how they adapt to society, whether they are proper citizens or fall through the cracks. So why when there have been mother’s throughout history, who have proven just how effective we are at encouraging positive actions from our offspring, did society not until recently recognize the role we had in recording effective history? But the point is we have. Women have made a great contribution to history and citing it. We just need to recognize it for what it is.While Austen’s works are enjoyable and still applicable today, it is her characters that are believable and realistic. And they fit so well into the various classes of her time, and they still find their place in today’s world. We are a creative group, women and we continue to express ourselves through writing, and not only had those articles pressed upon us in the grocery store lines. But we truly have brilliant writers who have related to us as people through their believable characters as Bronte and Austen once did. I think part of what made them great writers is recognizing other great writers. We are not only recognizing great literature through Essays such as Armstrong’s and Fetterleys’s, but these classic writing continually reappear in new novels. Armstrong cited Bronte's Shirley, where she is making him read Shakespeare to improve his English, and mannerisms. Even Shakespeare referenced the bible in passing in several of his works. Now we have new emerging writers such as Stephenie Meyer, who in her Twilight series referenced Austen's Mansfield Park, and Bronte's Wuthering Heights, as well as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. (Meyer) So are these classics only now becoming references for history, whether romanticized or fact based. It is amazing to me how these great writers often refer to other great writers. I think this is simply because they can relate to them through there characters, as well as the fact that great writers must be inspired by what they read.So in our society, have we finally come to terms with the fact that women can be as effective if not more so in preserving history? Haven’t we proven ourselves as writers to be held to the same expectations as men? Or have we been so mesmerized by the heading of magazines telling us where we fall short that we still have hurtles to overcome before we as women can be considered for historical views on time.Armstrong, Nancy. "Some Call It Fiction: On the Politics of Domesticity." Richter, David H. The Critical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1990. 1419.Bronte, Charlotte. shirley. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.Brown, Homer Obed. Institutions of the English Novel from Defoe to Scott. Philidelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1997.Cleaver, John Dod and Robert. "A Godly Forme of Householde Gouernment." London, 1614. 1427.McBurney, William H. "Four Before Richardson: Selected English Novels, 1720-1727." Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963. 1421.Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown and company, 2005.Watt, Ian. "The Rise of the novel." Berekeley: University of California Press, 1957. p.57.Welshimer, Helen. ""My Husband Says-"." Good Housekeeping February 1940.Williams, Raymond. "The Long Revolution." New York: University of California Press, 1961.

The Sex of the Writer

The Sex of the WriterIntro: This is a paper I had to write for my literary class. I really was pleased how it turned out, however I felt like I could have gone on a lot further if I wanted to. There was so many ways to go with this essay and I felt i barely scratched the surface. I can't wait to get back to school and study some of these theories in more depth.The Sex of WriterDoes ones gender determine what kind of a writer you are? What about what you prefer to read? I asked friends and colleagues, and a book group with both men and women what differences they notice between male and female authors. The response most often was they couldn’t think of any. Then after thinking on it someone would point out that women seem to develop characters better, but not always. There were exceptions, as there most often are. But then there is also the topics they write on, there are few female horror authors, Mary Shelley wrote an incredible Horror novel, Frankenstein, but it had a much more personal attachment to the characters, even the monster. What about Male romance novelists? Sidney Sheldon loves to write about strong female characters, but they fall a little short of true love and romance and have a little more of a lustful side story to the main suspense of the book. De Stael wrote on women writers in the early 1800's, yet it still held many points that still apply today. (Stael 293) Perhaps what we should be asking is what drives someone to write? Is Germaine De Stael correct in her statement that “a desire to please excites their minds” (Stael 293)referring to women? So if women write to please, but “their triumphs and failures are equally and completely arbitrary.” (Stael 293) then which is it that drives women to write? Perhaps it is self pleasing, a desire to put our thoughts out there for others to view in a creative outlet of wordplay. Or is it our desire to prove we can be equals to men. What then draws one to write, men or women? De Stael claims that men simply hide their desire for applause under nobler causes. But don’t we all seek approval in some form. Perhaps the restrictions placed on women gave any recognition of a women’s writing that self satisfying desire to please. Negative reviews are recognition after all. While men had to accomplish more, many times they had a more hidden agenda disguising their wanted applause. De Stael also pointed out the differences noted today by the readers I asked when she wrote her piece in the late 1700’s. “and women are the ones at the heart of everything relating to humanity, generosity, delicacy” (Stael 295) Isn’t that what makes women more personable writers, developing characters, so we understand them personally. But De Stael then offers why men were protective and restrictive of their women writing, they did not like seeing the creatures entrusted to their protection talked about or ridiculed. Perhaps because then they would feel required to defend them on issues they themselves were not ready to take arms against. From Virginia Woolf’s excerpts from A Room of One’s Own, she begins by drawing a picture of Shakespeare’s sister. (Woolf 599)While it is a rather bleak view of what a brilliant mind trapped in the wrong sex at the time had to endure, it was unfortunately fairly accurate of how such a young lady would have been treated then. Her talent would be squashed, forced to hide her books and her writings. Her future planned out by her parents through an arranged marriage, forcing her to run away in a last attempt to fulfill her natural talent. Then she is turned down at the chance to develop that talent, she ends up dying alone, unable to have followed her heart and her desire to write. But then would a woman have even been given that much of an opportunity, to read, to be learned back then? Women were more of a property then a person. They were not given the option to develop their intellectual talents, or even explore them as they are now. They simply were taught to tend to household chores. While we have made great strides since the time of Shakespeare, women are still bound by some unseen line that we have not been able to rise to, in order to prove our equality to men. However, we are closer than we have ever been.Woolf then turns her focus to eighteen century female writers, Austen, Bronte and Eliot. (Woolf 602) They were able to break through their expected confines of the social expectations of the time and demonstrate their writing talents, while it was still hidden or disguised where their writings came from. She compares their lives to their novels. Don’t we write on what we know and study? Austen being a woman would like to have traveled like her male counterparts, but instead was confined to her home and town forcing her to interrupt live from her sitting room view. As Woolf pointed out, if she was enraged by the restraints placed upon her, you would not know it from her texts. She managed to tell her stories with the enduring charm she intended without the frustration of her place in that time, thus creating novels from this time period which have withstood the test of time. Charlotte Bronte had a passion that showed into her novels. According to Woolf, “She will write in a rage when she should write calmly. She will write foolish where she should write wisely. She will write of herself when she should write of her characters. She is at war with her lot.” (Woolf 603) Simple changes in tone, or topic, help show the hostility in her writing through characters, displaying the anger with her restraints through her writing. Imagine someone like that writing now, no restraints, able to channel all her frustrations where they should be directed, leaving her writing more innocent. Would we have appreciated it as much? Woolf then compares them to women writers of today. While we as women have made great progress in the past few centuries, do we still have further to go? Are novels written by women as widely read as top male novelists? There have been great strides made by leading writers in fiction and nonfiction. Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling was bumped off the number one spot of the New York Times best selling list by another female fiction author, Twilight author Stephenie Meyer. Do we not accept women writers as equals to men? Perhaps that depends partly on who reads them, men or women, and their opinions. What makes a great fiction writer is a book drawing upon the accurate attributes shown by men and women making it believable, making us want to read it, pulling readers from both sexes and from various genres of fiction, Do men and women read different genres of books? Are women drawn to romances more than men, is that why they write them? Do men prefer the horror; does our gender determine our preferred genre of reading? The final excerpt from Woolf examines the mental marriage of a man and women. I think we write on what we know, and we respond to what we read by relating to it. For a man to expect woman to grasp their writings, women must relate to it. We see his true feelings come through the pages, how he treats his female characters, does he respect them, does he view the male lead higher then his female counterpart etc. Men, who have embraced women and fallen in love with the differences from themselves, can interrupt our views much more naturally. Woolf one time asked herself, “whether there are two sexes in the mind corresponding to the two sexes in the body, and whether they also require to be united in order to get complete satisfaction and happiness.” (Woolf 607) I think this would only make sense to explain what makes a truly great writer admired by both sexes. I think then they can truly understand the other sex and create believable characters, and realistic situations within the scope of the characters. I think an understanding, or mesh of the minds, is needed to encompass a truly believable story. Woolf said, “men, that is to say, are now only writing with the male side of their brains. It is a mistake for a woman to read them, for she will inevitably look for something that she will not find.” (Woolf 609) Writers need to explore the marriage of their male and female minds to tap into the aspects of both sexes, thus attracting both sexes as fans.So are women drawn to women writers and men to male writers? Perhaps this is why it wasn’t until more women were reading until female writers emerged. Women could not connect to men’s books at the time, creating a need for more female writers as women were become more literate. So did the emergence of female writers create the division between men and women writers, or was the difference who was now reading? I think in recent times men have been able to make their writing appeal not only to men but to women as well. Look at some of the great fiction writers of today, Stephen King, John Grisham, and Dan Brown. They have been able to consistently hit the best sellers list, a feat which could not be done appealing to men only. Looking at the opposite sex, there have emerged several best selling women, Mary Higgins Clark and Danielle Steele, both of whose books are read by men and women. So have the writers become more encompassing of the other sex, or have we as readers learned to be a resistant reader as Judith Fetterley has suggested.I think as far as we have come, even Fetterley would claim we still have further to go. We read these classic pieces of literature perhaps as the author intended, although we then dissect it trying to find hidden meanings and archetypes pulling symbolism that even the author couldn’t have predicted. So how do we interpret this differently depending on our gender? In the examples used by Fetterley such as The Great Gatsby we as women rather than taking in the story of a young man discovering the disheartened “American Dream” we relate to the female prize, Daisy whom throughout the story is treated as a trophy to be won, rather than a person. So Fetterley is asking us to relate to the story as a whole, not sympathize with either of the characters specifically. We are also to ask the important question, who profits? “The Questions of who profits, and how, are crucial because the attempt to answer them leads directly to an understanding of the function of literary sexual politics.” (Fetterley 1039)Is this way of reading even possible for the different sexes to apply to reading, or do we instinctively side with our same sex character portrayed in the story? I think it must be somewhere a part of us. Why we as young girls find ourselves drawn to the fairy tales, a Cinderella story or even Hansel and Gretel. But we then recognize the archetypes of those child hood fairy tales in our favorite novels even as adults. We read Harry Potter and think it is like Cinderella he leaves the wicked step parents and finds true happiness in the other world that he never thought could exist. But then as men we see it as a new journey of self discovery such as the Stars Wars and GI Joes stories little boys grew up hearing. Do we as Women miss on some very poignant points made in classic novels that we simply overlook, because we are not as exposed to the similar patterns? Would Fetterley say that is our fault for not being a resistant reader? So how do we avoid these obstacles that have been placed in front of us since birth? Is the solution in the patterns we read?I think the key to exploring the differences between the sexes of the writer or reader is perhaps the patterns they follow. As I pointed out women tend to find ties to fairy tales, while men tend to relate coming of age battle sequences and journeys of self discovery. Thomas C. Foster points out in his guide to reading between the lines, How to Read Literature Like a Professor, we crave repetition and familiarity. (Foster 191) Because of our comfort with familiarity we tend to read the genres we relate to, both men and women, something we can relate to. We as women tend to draw on the personal aspects, love, drama, realistic believable characters. Men focus more on the actions and what is happening to the characters. So are there archetypes or patterns with the characters in novels as well as the actions that we relate to?Let us look a little at classic texts. In Emma we have the heroine, a would be spinster, content with playing matchmaker for her friends and acquaintances. She is a strong character; one might even look at her as being overly confident with the acceptance of being a old maid, in a day when women had few rights, as we see in other Austen novels, such as Sense and Sensibility. But perhaps we look at her as weak, perhaps afraid of finding someone, and not free to do as she pleased being somewhat under the control of a man. Yet we love her for this overconfidence, even when it blows up in her face. I think we love this idea of a strong woman, even in Austen’s time, because even she is not strong enough to deny her feelings and are thus subject to falling in love. (Booth 989) So then we follow Fetterley’s advice and ask ourselves, who profits? I think all can agree they both do, Mr. Knightley has found a love that he can talk to and is comfortable being with, and Emma has found her love, someone to ground her and keep her in check. While in earlier times we often found the women lacking in the relationship, writers have been able to find a balance. While some novels may walk a fine line, the good ones still attract our attention, even if one party may be profiting a little more.In Conclusion, does the sex of the writer determine which sex the novel applies to? We have found that women are drawn to men and men are drawn to men. We tend to relate to what we know instinct already, the familiar patterns, and repetition. However we have definitely blurred the lines and become better writers being able to write novels that appeal to both sexes and encompass the views equally. There will always be the exceptions that someone will pick apart and dissect what the author was thinking when they wrote it, but for now we have great female and male writers to please all the readers out there, so no one should ever be lacking for a good book. Booth, Wayne C. "Control of Distance in Jane Austen's Emma." Richter, David H. The CriticalTradition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's , 2003. 989-1001.Fetterley, Judith. "Introduction to the Resisting Reader." Richter, David H. The Critical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2003. 1035-1042.Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature Like a Professor. New York: HarperCollins, 2003.Stael, Germaine De. "On Women Writers." Richter, David H. The Critical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007. 293-297.Woolf, Virginia. "A Room of One's Own." Richter, David H. The Critical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/St./Martins, 2003. 596-610.