Wrapping Up: Themes, Connections and Big Ideas

After our discussion today, surrounding the big ideas of the course, it got me thinking about the overall concepts and ideas that we should be taking away at the end of the semester. It seems that there are three important concepts that have evolved from the course that must come into consideration.
First and foremost is the political reformation between the Tories and The Whigs. Political satire, especially as we've seen with Hudibras and Swift was a huge focus and the opening focal point for the semester. With the shift away from the ideologies and the monarchical structure of the renaissance, it’s no wonder that so many early writers in this long 18th century were concerned about political reformation. Secondly, concern over the status of literature and the 'proper' education of the masses is crucial. All of the periodical literature took a stance on the influence of books, the rise of the novel and the proper education for the public, considering all ages and genders. It seems the shift was away from political conflict with a move towards the influence of the novel, especially as many women writers were gaining immense popularity towards the middle of the century, gaining agency through the financial and intellectual stability of their works. Third, the shift towards personal subjectivity is crucial. As with Millennium Hall and Equiano, the humanization of move towards equal or comparable notions of liberty and opportunity is key. This is very radical, especially considering that less than 150 years before, women weren’t even allowed to portray women in plays and the theater.
Overall, these are huge, far reaching issues, things that are still heavily charged issues even through today. Politics has been and will always be a huge point of debate and seems to be even more of a point of debate now than it was with the Cromwell era that exists in this time period. The concern over literature seems to have dwindled, but the importance of ethnic writers and the anxiety surrounding popular literature has not, and will probably never, go away. However, the last issues, about humanization of the other is the one that most intrigues me. Even in Shakespeare, the notion of the other and orientalism is prominent, such as in Othello. But the slave narrative we’ve read (are reading) Equiano, is astounding considering how early it has come up chronologically compared to the American Slave narratives and the progress towards freedom of the slaves in America. In addition, the shift towards a women’s movement and early feminism is heavily prevalent, even though we didn’t really hit Wollstonecraft. They do recede quite a bit as the industrial boom hits and as the trope of the ‘madwoman in the attic’ and female insanity crop up in the Victorian Era. However, the seeds towards a revolution of equality were being planted, no matter how long it would eventually take for them to form (such as the emancipation proclamation, the vote for women, civil rights, and women’s sexual and reproductive rights, etc.)

Prefaces: Musing on Novels

Northanger Abbey
Purpose: To come to the defense of novels, which have been so thoroughly degraded and undervalued.
Author is trying to convince the reader of: The importance of novels, amongst a boom of periodicals, satiric poems and translations of older texts which were overtaking the genres of literature.
Why the author has chosen his/her approach: This approach seems evident. Novels were often considered lowly writing, especially to those who see themselves as 'arbiters of good taste', like Addison and Steele. In addition, being a woman novelist, the reputation of not only the author's personal life, but her works came under great scrutiny, thereby making it necessary to defend the profession and art of novelist and novel.
Does the approach connect to larger debates about novels: The debate here is the place and importance of novels, as by the time Northanger Abbey was written, novels were becoming more of a mainstream form of literature and especially by the time it was published, the influence of novels was on the rise. Here, Austen vehemently defends novels, saying they contain the most complete analysis of human nature, are in the best language imaginable and display the greatest powers of the artistic and creative mind.
Highlight a key passage or two:
"Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another;we are an injured body"
"...the greatest powers of the mind are displayed, in which the most thorough knowledge of human nature, the happiest delineation of its varieties, the liveliest effusions of wit and humour, are conveyed to the world in the best chosen language"

Belinda
Purpose: To provide a rejection and denunciation of the qualities given to the classification of a work in the category of novel.
Author is trying to convince the reader of: The subjectivity of classification and perception of novels. The acceptance or rejection of this, is up to the public to decide.
Why the author has chosen his/her approach: It seems Edgeworth has chosen this approach to reject the scorn and disdain of novels, that the 'folly, errour and vice' often times found in novels, gives them a bad reputation. It seems then for her, clear and concise standards would best benefit her aim.
Does the approach connect to larger debates about novels: In considering her connections to the larger debate surrounding novels, she seems more in line with the notions of Addison and Steele, that there is a correct classification of novels, as impression upon the readers is everything, hence her notion that her story is a 'moral tale'.
Highlight a key passage or two:
"Every author has a right to give appellation he may think proper to his works. The public also has a right to accept or refuse the classification that is presented"
"But so much folly, errour and vice are disseminated in books classed under this denomination that it is hoped the wish to assume another title will be attributed to feelings that are laudable and not fastidious."

Frankenstein
Purpose: To explain the origins of her work, and by extension disassociate herself from her work and view its creation in the utmost objective fashion.
Author is trying to convince the reader of: The insignificance of the author's personage and reputation in the actual creation of the story. Other than influences from her literary parents and her husband, Lord Byron and the readings of horror and ghost stories produced her work, which has no real connection to her character.
Why the author has chosen his/her approach: I think Shelley has chosen this approach, and its objectivity, so as to not have others see how her dark, dangerous and horrific story could have any connection to her mental state of mind. She paints herself as a writer of contemplation and that what she could create, rather than experiences, are what would produce reputable fiction.
Does the approach connect to larger debates about novels: In considering the larger debates about novels, it seems key that Shelley is trying to break the mold of analyzing an author, and specifically a female author's reputation and biography as crucial to whether his/her literary career is made or broken. By saying that her creative imagination could do much more for her works than could her own history, Shelley is distancing her works from pertaining to the individual and rather appealing to universality of literature.
Highlight a key passage or two:
"Life appeared to me, too common place an affair as regarded myself. I could not figure to myself that romantic woes or wonderful events would ever be my lot; but I was not confined to my own identity, and i could people the hours with creations far more interesting to me at that age than my own sensations"
"One which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature and awaken thrilling horror..."

Mary Barton
Purpose:To describe the origins of the novel, particularly those that stem from sympathy for the working poor and the dichotomy between, resentment of and injustice from the wealthy.
Author is trying to convince the reader of: Her writings being truthful to her own experience and interpretation of the world, rather than directly clashing with the economic and political systems and structures that existed at the time.
Why the author has chosen his/her approach: It seems to me, that Gaskell has picked this approach so as to protect herself from coming under fire for what can be supposed as condemnation of the injustice of political climate at the time.
Does the approach connect to larger debates about novels: By saying that she is simply writing her own truth, and that any agreements or disagreements that arise from that are unintentional, she is fitting into the mold of reputation making or breaking a literary career. She is not challenging the status quo of the heavy scrutiny of novels, and especially novels by women; instead, she is just attempting to defend her own particular novel rather than trying to help overturning said status quo about the perception of novels.
Highlight a key passage or two:
"I know nothing of the Political Economy, or the theories of trade. I have tried to write truthfully; and if my accounts agree or clash with any system, the agreement or disagreement is unintentional."

In considering the stance of each of these four prefaces, it seems that the overwhelming majority are in the defense of novels and the repealing of previous standards by which novels and their authors are judged. Austen defends the genre of novels, Edgeworth calls for reform in what we can consider to be called a novel and Shelley calls for disassociation of he author from his or her work. Barton seems to be the only one who is not calling for major reform amongst both the educated, high-class reviewers and the public perception and influence from novels. However, Barton does recognize the standards by which her works will be judged and hopes to mitigate any cross-fire that may occur if her works are seen as a critique of any system. This is perhaps a suggestion that her work really is a critique and call for reform, so she could in fact fit in with the other three authoresses ideals concerning the perception of not only their works, but the genre as a whole.

Female Quixote and Female Madness

In pondering questions from the list for the last day of Female Quixote, I wish to address question 3, concerning Sir Charles' debate about whether or not to commit Arabella, after her plunging into the Thames episode. Although it is still too early for this to become a concept, nonetheless a literary lens and criticism, the "Madwoman in the Attic', as it relates to medical discourse in the upcoming Victorian Literature era can be incredibly useful. Drawing on the presentations and my own literary work from Dr. Hague's Victorian Lit class last semester, the discourse surrounding female rebellion, free-thinking, desire for independence and a desire for less constrictive attitudes towards sex were seen as a mental instability in women, who were seen as biologically wanting to be in a subservient position. If a woman exhibited these qualities, any male family member, whether it be brother, uncle or father, could commit her to an institution, just on the basis of his word. Although this notion truly first appears in Jane Eyre with Bertha, this concept can help us to understand Sir Charles’ motives and reasoning behind debating this prospect. In addition, in medical and psychological studies, there was much to be desired (Freud, in all of his power and influence, hadn’t even become notable yet, even in the Victorian Era).

            Considering the example of Arabella, it seems that she is a threat to not only her own health and safety but also a threat to those around her, with her seemingly deluded fantasies which others, including Charles, will interpret as mental instability. Allowing her to simply return to the country, rather than commit her to an institution is not feasible for many reasons. First and foremost, although Arabella had been ‘confined’ to the castle, she could easily escape and endanger herself and others, such as the Edward episode. Having the time and efforts to literally and physically contain Arabella would be an expansive and costly endeavor. Secondly, simply confining her, making her the Madwoman in the Attic like Bertha, does not ‘cure’ her ‘condition’ as it were. If Charles believes her to be mentally unstable, then medical help would be the best option for Arabella, which it seems that he does. However, it is not simply that he is thinking of Arabella as mentally unsound and a threat to others, he always claims that she is absurd and an embarrassment to herself. It seems then that the family name, which rests on Arabella as the holder of fortune is at stake, both in the individual and the familial level. Her disconnect comes from her acceptance of fantasy as reality, rather than seeing them as two separate entities. In order to resolve this, Sir Charles enlists the help of a cleric, who clears this divide up for Arabella, “…whether Life is truly described in those Books; the Likeness of a Picture can only be determined by a Knowledge of the Original. You have yet had little Opportunity of knowing the Ways of Mankind, which cannot be learned but from Experience…” (379). Rather than committing Arabella to the fate of Madwoman, Sir Charles takes a route of medical assistance, recognizing the insufficiency of confinement and the necessity of helping Arabella overcome her gaps in education.

Locke vs. Johnson

In considering our discussion today, of Locke and Johnson and their receptions to reading, I wanted to continue the debate over who is more optimistic about the ability of mankind to reason and arrive at correct and truthful conclusions. First, let us consider Locke’s evidence concerning reading and readership: “Those who have read of every thing are thought to understand every thing too ; but it is not always so. Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking makes what we read ours. We are of the ruminating kind, and it is not enough to cram ourselves with a great load of collections; unless we chew them over again, they will not give us strength and nourishment.” Here, Locke claims that the mere act of reading does not necessarily improve one’s knowledge or one’s mind, as we can see through the example of Arabella. However, as Locke point outs, Arabella’s flaw is that she does not think about what she has read, she takes it at face value rather than seeing it as fiction or romance. However, Locke notes that we are of ‘ruminating kind’ who must chew things over in order to digest the meaning of a work. Locke does not say that all classes of people have the ability to do this, however, and considering his ‘tabula rasa,’ one needs the proper foundation to have any reason at all. 

Turning attention to Johnson, Rambler Number 4, let us consider his argument as well: “But the fear of not being approved as just copyers of human manners, is not the most important concern that an author of this sort ought to have before him. These books are written chiefly to the young, the ignorant, and the idle, to whom they serve as lectures of conduct, and introductions into life. They are the entertainment of minds unfurnished with ideas, and therefore easily susceptible of impressions; not fixed by principles, and therefore easily following the current of fancy; not informed by experience, and consequently open to every false suggestion and partial account.” Although on the surface this seems to be a negative critique, Johnson’s underlying meaning must be ascertained. Although saying that much of the masses are young, ignorant and idle who would take this literature as a realistic guide to life, such as Arabella does with her French Romances, he appeals to a much broader audience of people to be targeting.

 However, it seems that Johnson feels these minds are easily penetrated with ideas, he seems to feel that the mind is more malleable than Locke who believes the foundation is the key to arriving at the correct ‘truth.’ Johnson is much more concerned with the guidance a person can be given, despite age or social status. He does not see their prior learning, or lack thereof, to have ingrained principles into them, unlike Locke. His comment on the ‘current of fancy’ might seem to at first have a negative connotation but the ability to take in, process and choose is implied here, whereas Locke discounts it entirely if the foundation is not built or built correctly. From this, it seems that Johnson’s theory could lend just as usefully to examining Arabella as Ross’s assertion that Lockian theory does. Johnson’s ideas would even paint her in a more favorable light, that she could be changed and guided, which is what we as readers hope, versus Locke basically saying that she is a broken record for which there is no fix.