"The word dropped into her mind like a pebble thrown into a pond. She had heard it so often, and now she heard in once more. The same waves of thought circled outwards, waves of startled thought spreading out on all sides, rocking the shadows of familiar things, blurring the steadfast pictures of trees and clouds, circling outward one after the other, each wave more listless, more imperceptible than the last, until the pond was still again. (219)
From this passage, occurring immediately after Satan says 'death' to Lolly, we can envision Lolly's mind being the pond and the pebble representing death. Satan wants to hunt Lolly and protect her. This puts her in the same position as all the women she met in London who have accepted the value system she has been trying to escape.
Death has been symbolized throughout the novel in the form of a stuffed bird and the leaves in autumn. It is seen as a cycle with the pond becoming still after the ripples and spring arriving after winter. The death of Lolly's freedom came when her father died. The finality of death is represented also by Sybil and Caroline. By leaving London, Lolly feels that she is again awake after sleeping for 20 years. Leaving London is the feminist equivalent of running from death. By choosing to behave neither aggressively or passively, Lolly can achieve her goals. One of the most important lessons from her encounters with death is that she learns to open herself up to nature by understanding it. Through this openness, she allows herself to be changed in order to live with nature. Lolly also finds autonomy and learns that she must be assertive to survive. She becomes still after the ripples...and she lives.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Questions of Sexuality in Lolly Willowes
Sylvia Townsend Warner's personal life and lifelong relationship with Valentine Ackland leads critics and Amazon.com shoppers to classify Lolly Willowes as a lesbian novel. I found this curious because, in my own reading of Lolly Willowes, nothing lead me to believe that either Laura or the novel by itself were lesbian in nature.
It is true that Laura rejects marriage and the typical female role of the time, but she doesn't turn towards any other, more radical lifestyles. The unmarried "forward thinkers" of her time were creating art and making names for themselves, but joining them never even occurs to Lolly. She feels oppressed by masculine energy equates getting married to her death. Even so, the way that Laura rejects the few men that try to win her hand appears to be because she can't think of a single reason to get married, not because she has an overwhelming objection.
In Great Mop, Laura is presented with a view of open-ended, freewheeling sexuality. Dancing half naked with an entire village makes her feel exactly the same way that attending one of society's formal balls: awkward and out of place. She turns away from the sabbath just as she turns away from married life.
Laura Willowes shows no desire either for men or women throughout her life. Why, then, is this considered a lesbian novel?
She's a WITCH!
Although the cover explicitly shows large outlines of witches on broomsticks, I was never really sold on the idea that Laura was going to be supernatural. I figured that Warner wanted to play off of the idea of the Salem Witch Trials persecuting women who did not follow societal norms. Even when she states she is now a witch after the kitten, obviously sent by the Devil, scratches her I still thought it was just Laura’s imagination running wild (similar to the werewolf story). I saw it as a more tangible way to show Laura’s growing independence and how society has hindered her thinking, giving it a negative connotation of witchery. I was unsure whether Laura seriously thought she was a witch or was somewhat parodying the idea as Warner presumably meant to.
After reading father and seeing how the whole town was involved in witchcraft and there was an actual Devil in charge of them, I realized I was imposing too many of my own thoughts on the text. Just as many of us wanted a larger feminist stand that the beginning of the book prefaced with Caroline, I expected more subversive tones of witchcraft and the supernatural after seeing such blatantly stereotypical figures on the cover (I suppose I thought they were going for irony). While just reading it at face-value, I found it hard to discover the meaning of the novel after our original idea of feminism is somewhat shattered by Laura’s liberation coming from her subservience to a male Devil.
The Devil however is “chill” as Danielle said. He is “undesiring” and has “indifferent ownership” of her creating a striking contrast with how Titus viewed his ownership of the land (symbolizing men’s ownership and “way of loving” in general). He wants to control and create it through his illustrations while the Devil allows Laura to make her own decisions. Titus also shows his desire for it when he mentions “I should like to stroke it” while the Devil is truly indifferent and leaves Laura to collect more souls. Although Laura’s “escape” from the expectations of femininity is through a traditional male rescuing female dynamic, it is still rather effective since they do not have a traditional relationship.
After reading father and seeing how the whole town was involved in witchcraft and there was an actual Devil in charge of them, I realized I was imposing too many of my own thoughts on the text. Just as many of us wanted a larger feminist stand that the beginning of the book prefaced with Caroline, I expected more subversive tones of witchcraft and the supernatural after seeing such blatantly stereotypical figures on the cover (I suppose I thought they were going for irony). While just reading it at face-value, I found it hard to discover the meaning of the novel after our original idea of feminism is somewhat shattered by Laura’s liberation coming from her subservience to a male Devil.
The Devil however is “chill” as Danielle said. He is “undesiring” and has “indifferent ownership” of her creating a striking contrast with how Titus viewed his ownership of the land (symbolizing men’s ownership and “way of loving” in general). He wants to control and create it through his illustrations while the Devil allows Laura to make her own decisions. Titus also shows his desire for it when he mentions “I should like to stroke it” while the Devil is truly indifferent and leaves Laura to collect more souls. Although Laura’s “escape” from the expectations of femininity is through a traditional male rescuing female dynamic, it is still rather effective since they do not have a traditional relationship.
Passivity in Lolly Willowes
The problem with Lolly Willowes is that I was never able to reach beneath the surface of the novel. The writing is very sparse, as we discussed, but I feel like there is also very little character development. Lolly herself remains very static, from her life in the city to that in Great Mop; even as exciting and interesting things happen in her life, that is all they do: happen in her life. She barely reacts, and when she does, it is with almost unfailingly simple acceptance. Even when she considers taking a more active role, such as when she is trying to find a way to remove Titus from her life, it is from a very removed standpoint. She assumes the Devil will do the job for her, and even if he does not, her thoughts on Titus are not those of a relation or even an acquaintance. She simply thinks he should be gone, and in a very distant way wonders how that might come about.
I had a hard time actually liking Laura. It wasn't that she did anything I disliked, or that she bored me, exactly, it was just that there never seemed to be anything there to like. Following her life was interesting, and I was fascinated by the character of Satan (who strikes me as the only one really worth looking closely at, considering how different he is from the stereotypical Milton-esque Satan we see everywhere in literature), but Laura herself just came off like a tour guide, there only to be our way around a novel that does not really need her. Everything happens to Laura, except for her move to Great Mop, which is the only real initiative she takes.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Feminism in Lolly Willowes (or lack thereof?)
Jumping off of the discussion we had about how Lolly Willowes fits into a feminist framework, during the first section of the book, I thought that the novel seemed to have a bit of a feminist theme running through it. The most salient piece of evidence that I can point to in support of that idea is the total ambivalence that Lolly shows toward the idea of marriage. She is not eager to marry, though her family may be eager to see her married, and she continually rebuffs any potential husband candidates that her family sends her way. Still, she was largely passive, letting herself be shuttled around from family member to family member, and when she made the decision to move to Great Mop, I thought that the development of the novel was going to show Lolly moving from passivity to activity, from allowing things to happen to her to making things happen (which fit in with my idea of a contemporary feminist theme). However, that is not what happened at the novel’s end. Instead, Lolly is finally free from her familial obligations, but she has been freed by a man (Satan).
At first, when I read the ending, I was a little frustrated. I had wanted Lolly to take on a more active role, instead of passively letting things happen to her. I wanted, in short, a story with a contemporary feministic bent. But when I thought about it more, I realized that I had pushed my own, contemporary reading on a book written over 80 years ago, and that probably wasn’t totally fair. In 2009, our ideas are very different from the prevailing ideas of the 1920s, and sometimes it’s hard to remember that. In fact, looking back at some of the things that Lolly says at the end of the book, it does seem somewhat progressive for the time period. When Lolly is talking to Satan, she says that she (and others) want to be witches not because they want to do trivial things like black magic or fly on brooms, but because they want to have a life to themselves, separate from everything else. She says that they want to be able to have their own thoughts, and do whatever they feel like doing day in and day out. Essentially, they want to have their own identity, not an identity that ties them to someone else (so-and-so’s aunt, so-and-so’s mother, so-and-so’s wife). I’m not too well-versed on the state of women’s rights in the 1920s, but to my understanding, women during that time were largely defined by their relationship to others, so in that respect, Lolly Willowes could be seen as possessing some feminist ideals (at least, for the time). Of course, the idea that women had to sell their soul to Satan to get this separate identity doesn’t lend as much support to a feministic reading of the novel.
At first, when I read the ending, I was a little frustrated. I had wanted Lolly to take on a more active role, instead of passively letting things happen to her. I wanted, in short, a story with a contemporary feministic bent. But when I thought about it more, I realized that I had pushed my own, contemporary reading on a book written over 80 years ago, and that probably wasn’t totally fair. In 2009, our ideas are very different from the prevailing ideas of the 1920s, and sometimes it’s hard to remember that. In fact, looking back at some of the things that Lolly says at the end of the book, it does seem somewhat progressive for the time period. When Lolly is talking to Satan, she says that she (and others) want to be witches not because they want to do trivial things like black magic or fly on brooms, but because they want to have a life to themselves, separate from everything else. She says that they want to be able to have their own thoughts, and do whatever they feel like doing day in and day out. Essentially, they want to have their own identity, not an identity that ties them to someone else (so-and-so’s aunt, so-and-so’s mother, so-and-so’s wife). I’m not too well-versed on the state of women’s rights in the 1920s, but to my understanding, women during that time were largely defined by their relationship to others, so in that respect, Lolly Willowes could be seen as possessing some feminist ideals (at least, for the time). Of course, the idea that women had to sell their soul to Satan to get this separate identity doesn’t lend as much support to a feministic reading of the novel.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Lollygagging Pipsqueak
The differences writing style and character develpment in Great Expectations are obviously quite numerous. This is my attempt to pinpoint some of them.
The most mentioned difference has been the way in which Dickens and Miller describe the events and circumstances of the story. This distinction is commonly made in the form of observation that Dickens delves in great depth into careful depiction of a scene while Miller minimizes the words she uses for the purposes of just description and focuses instead on moving the story forward.
However, what has not really been mentioned is that both authors use their techniques not to make the novels "easier reads", but rather to hide information from the reader until they choose to have it revealed. In Great Expectations for instance, Dickens will often introduce a questionable situation to the reader, yet because he effectively distracts the reader from questioning what is going on by providing a mountain of lengthy descriptive language. For instance, Miss Havisham is introduced for the first time in page after page of description about the yellowness of her room, the broken clocks, the cake, the cobwebs on the walls, the dust covering everything, and so on. It is not until (what feels like) two hundred pages later that we actually learn why the house is the way it is; before Herbert explains the story, the reader merely takes the state of the house and its inhabitant at face value, assuming they had always been as they are. In another example that was pointed out in class, when Pip receives news in London that his sister has died, our reaction was to realize that we had forgotten she was alive, even though she had been of pivotal importance in the first twenty chapters of the book.
In Lolly Willowes, on the other hand, Miller uses the opposite approach. Although she uses only one word where Dickens might use a hundred, it is still incredibly easy for the reader to forget information, even while they are reading it. For example, when we were asked in class what was laid down for Lolly at her birth, and how it was different from what was laid down for her brothers, we had to look back in the book just to remember that the information was given. The same was true for the question of what exactly Lolly had said to Mr. Arbuthnot in conversation with him, and what Caroline and Henry's reaction had been.
Whether it is Dickens burying the reader with pages of description to hide the lack or existance of one sentence of vital information, or Millers using only a single word from which the reader must draw an entire scene, the effect is the same, and the resulting mastery of control that each writer has over their readers is truly astonishing.
The most mentioned difference has been the way in which Dickens and Miller describe the events and circumstances of the story. This distinction is commonly made in the form of observation that Dickens delves in great depth into careful depiction of a scene while Miller minimizes the words she uses for the purposes of just description and focuses instead on moving the story forward.
However, what has not really been mentioned is that both authors use their techniques not to make the novels "easier reads", but rather to hide information from the reader until they choose to have it revealed. In Great Expectations for instance, Dickens will often introduce a questionable situation to the reader, yet because he effectively distracts the reader from questioning what is going on by providing a mountain of lengthy descriptive language. For instance, Miss Havisham is introduced for the first time in page after page of description about the yellowness of her room, the broken clocks, the cake, the cobwebs on the walls, the dust covering everything, and so on. It is not until (what feels like) two hundred pages later that we actually learn why the house is the way it is; before Herbert explains the story, the reader merely takes the state of the house and its inhabitant at face value, assuming they had always been as they are. In another example that was pointed out in class, when Pip receives news in London that his sister has died, our reaction was to realize that we had forgotten she was alive, even though she had been of pivotal importance in the first twenty chapters of the book.
In Lolly Willowes, on the other hand, Miller uses the opposite approach. Although she uses only one word where Dickens might use a hundred, it is still incredibly easy for the reader to forget information, even while they are reading it. For example, when we were asked in class what was laid down for Lolly at her birth, and how it was different from what was laid down for her brothers, we had to look back in the book just to remember that the information was given. The same was true for the question of what exactly Lolly had said to Mr. Arbuthnot in conversation with him, and what Caroline and Henry's reaction had been.
Whether it is Dickens burying the reader with pages of description to hide the lack or existance of one sentence of vital information, or Millers using only a single word from which the reader must draw an entire scene, the effect is the same, and the resulting mastery of control that each writer has over their readers is truly astonishing.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Folly of Being Lolly Willowes
Sylvia Townsend Warner shows her skill in the deep understanding of human nature in the creation of Lolly. In the first third of the book, the reader understands that Lolly will have to overcome her family's expectations and those of society to find her true self. Warner's knowledge of human nature and their behaviors reveal that a woman raised in such extraordinary circumstances would turn out to be nothing less that extraordinary, which isn't desired by society during this period in history. Warner clearly details why someone like Lolly would have difficulty fitting into society and would not be marriage material.
Until her father dies, Laura had leads a relatively unsupervised existence. Neither of her parents or caregivers insured that she was educated. Her mother being 'invalidish' and generally unavailable, could not have posed has a suitable role model for Lolly. "Everard was a lover of womankind: he greatly desire a daughter, and when he got one she was all the dearer for coming when he had almost given up hope of her." (Warner, 15) Being so prized by her father permitted her the privilege of experiencing certain freedoms that not many other women of that period enjoyed, but some of those privileges were detrimental.
Laura was not raised in the typical fashion for wealthy women born in the late 1800's, in rural England. Laura was taught to throw and catch by her much older brothers. She was often included in their role-playing games, although she generally played the damsel-in-distress role. Laura learned early that there were different options in life for men, than women. Laura lived in relative freedom on the grounds of her family home until her father's death. What she didn't not learn were the much needed social graces of the privileged class.
The conversations at the tea parties and balls in which Lolly had little to contribute had given others the impression that she was not very bright. Her tendency to remain quiet at gatherings and a physical appearance that made her look older than she was also contributed to her spinster status. At a time where very fair-skinned women were valued, Laura coloring was not so agreeable. "Laura was of a middle height, thin, and rather pointed. Her skin was brown, inclining to sallowness; it seemed browner still by contrast with her eyes, which were that shade of gray...(that) seems only a much diluted black." (Warner, 25) Only Lolly's father and her brothers would have considered her pretty. She was never taught to feign interest in subjects that truly did not matter or how to catch the attention of a young man. Unskilled in such social graces in a very proper and antiquated England would have been social annihilation.
Until her father dies, Laura had leads a relatively unsupervised existence. Neither of her parents or caregivers insured that she was educated. Her mother being 'invalidish' and generally unavailable, could not have posed has a suitable role model for Lolly. "Everard was a lover of womankind: he greatly desire a daughter, and when he got one she was all the dearer for coming when he had almost given up hope of her." (Warner, 15) Being so prized by her father permitted her the privilege of experiencing certain freedoms that not many other women of that period enjoyed, but some of those privileges were detrimental.
Laura was not raised in the typical fashion for wealthy women born in the late 1800's, in rural England. Laura was taught to throw and catch by her much older brothers. She was often included in their role-playing games, although she generally played the damsel-in-distress role. Laura learned early that there were different options in life for men, than women. Laura lived in relative freedom on the grounds of her family home until her father's death. What she didn't not learn were the much needed social graces of the privileged class.
The conversations at the tea parties and balls in which Lolly had little to contribute had given others the impression that she was not very bright. Her tendency to remain quiet at gatherings and a physical appearance that made her look older than she was also contributed to her spinster status. At a time where very fair-skinned women were valued, Laura coloring was not so agreeable. "Laura was of a middle height, thin, and rather pointed. Her skin was brown, inclining to sallowness; it seemed browner still by contrast with her eyes, which were that shade of gray...(that) seems only a much diluted black." (Warner, 25) Only Lolly's father and her brothers would have considered her pretty. She was never taught to feign interest in subjects that truly did not matter or how to catch the attention of a young man. Unskilled in such social graces in a very proper and antiquated England would have been social annihilation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)