You're on your own for blog credit this weekend.
Do the reading. Finish the novel. Ask a trenchant question. Offer a thoughtful answer.
You can get credit for up to three posts on this one.
Deadline: Monday (5/2), 1pm. Whether a response counts for Week 14 or Week 15 depends on which side of midnight Saturday it appears.
14 comments:
The preface to the first edition claims that the book was found "in the library of an ancient Catholic family." What can we say about the role of religion in the novel? Some things to consider include Friar Jerome's role in the novel and the role of what could be understood as "divine intervention" (e.g., the bizarre helmet incident).
A good place to start may be Jerome's speech to Manfred in the beginning of Chapter 3 and the scene at the very end of Chapter 4.
OKAY- so i just wrote this really awesome response and stupid wireless internet at the undergrad didn't load it and lost it so i'm writing it AGAIN but probably a little more rushed b/c i'm annoyed. Blah. the blog has also become a great place to vent... so here we go..
This is half answer to RS's question and half further inquiry about religion in the novel.
I like the concept of relgion in the novel because I was intrigued with the relationship between Father Jerome and the family. It seemedd as though he was a mentor and a confidant for Hippolota moreso than merely a priest. When he found Isabella in the church, he immediately went to Hippolota and Manfred to find out what was wrong and if they needed support or someone to lean on. It was interesting how he acted as more of a friend rather than pushing "God, will save you from your anguish" mentality. He also was used more rational arguments to talk Manfred out of divorcing Hippolota and marrying Isabella, opposed to a religious argument. Also, I'm not sure how "religios" this catholic pries could be when he had a son.
So, are there any other specific instances you can find where Jerome acts more as a friend rather than a priest? Or any instances where he acts in rebelion to his priestly duties to the Church?
Another question to the class-
I thought it was SUPER cheesy when Jerome found out that Theodore was his son. When Theodore was about to be executed and Jerome suddenly found a scar on his foot/leg and just miractlously realized that was his son after all these years had gone by, was too incidental and too convenient.
There's a difference between the helmet falling on Conrad which adds to the gothic surreal element to the story. But, the father -son reunion was just too much to handle.
What other moments did you find in the story that were not gothic, but were cheesy and solely functioned solely to complicate the plot??
To answer PMV’s question, another moment in the story that was included to solely complicate the plot is when Theodore and Matilda so unrealistically fell in love. They literally had one encounter and that did it; they were head over heels for one another. Right after their first meeting, Theodore was “struck with horror” and “wished earnestly to know the meaning of the words he had heard relating to the princess ” when he hears that Matilda fainted (50). Their immediate concern for one another is really not believable and their love at first sight thing is completely cheesy as well. I think their love story was included to complicate the plot and add more drama especially since Matilda ends up dying at the end and Theodore ends up marrying Isabella. From the audience point of view, Matilda’s death becomes sadder with the two of them in love than it would be if they weren’t because you are then concerned with what will happen to Theodore. Overall, I think that their love story was a ploy for the author to further complicate the plot of the story.
One more thing. Why do you guys think that Matilda and Hippolita are so forgiving of Manfred? Matilda blindly forgives him for killing her, and Hippolita not only doesn’t care that he mistreats her by wanting to marry Isabella but also forgives him for killing her daughter. What’s wrong with these women? Are they simply a product of a patriarchal society or can their actions be justified by some other means?
JTA brings up a good point. In previous discussions during class we talked about the quote on page 37 when Bianca says that "a bad husband is better than no husband at all." One question that was brought up, which I think has to do with JTA's point, is how much of a critique is that on the gender dynamic during this time vs. how much is it marginalizing towards women and empowering for men? Matilda, the paragon of virtue, talks about how faithful she is to her family and how selfless she is towards others. However, she lacks autonomy and any sort of control in her own life. And as JTA said, she doesn't hold anything against Manfred for killing her. Also, she seems to be so emotional in the second half of the novel, not very rational. So, let's consider everything we've read so far and the points that were brought up and pose the question again: How much is Bianca's statement a framework for Walpole to make a critique of misogynist thinking versus how much is it empowering for a patriarchal society?
I love JTA's question about Bianca and her insightful perspective on the characters of this story. She also says a great quote: "a bystander often sees more of the game than those that play" (70). SHe seems to be quite insightful in seeing how this family is interacting and how they are mistakenly acting without thought or rationale.
Bianca, as a maid/attendant to Matilda, sees that having a husband might be more helpful to society than having none at all. I think Bianca brings a great perspective as a working class character to the story more-so than Diego or the other servants. Bianca seems to complicate the plot in a constructive way and aids conversations with Matildda in a constructive way and does not simply exist just to drive the plot.
What does Bianca specifically represent in this novel? Could you compare her to any Shakespearian characters?
In response to PMV's earlier question, I hold to the fact that Hippolita was not bothered, and was almost encouraging, the relationship between Manfred and Isabella. This exceeded the "cheese" factor, as it was so completely unrealistic that I couldn't find any truth or substance in that moment. Her behavior and nonchalant attitude toward the whole situation complicates the plot in an understated way because it jars the reader. Hippolita's actions give Manfred validity in his actions, which throws off the normal course of what a human reaction would be assumed to be. The whole situation, for this reader, does not drive the plot but merely is an unnecessary component--Manfred would have done what he wanted with or without Hippolita's consent.
In response to PMV on Bianca:
I respectfully disagree with your analysis of Bianca. While she is insightful towards the family, and is able to reflect from an outsider's position, she gives little more to the novel. Especially regarding the scene we saw acted out in class last week. Her only responsibility as a character is to provide oppositional perspective. While she is, and functions, as a middle class character, her ideas are nothing but plot devices meant to move the story forward, or reveal more intimate information about more important characters like Matilda.
I think JTA is right. These women are unfortunately products of a patriarchal society. But, why are these women unable to break the molds? Do they ever stand up for themselves, or are they doomed to repeat this cycle of folding to the wills and moods of these men?
I will take the neutral zone (sort of) between PMV and Lauren. While I feel Bianca serves as a character with an outsider’s perspective or a "rational" voice in an otherwise chaotic, melodramatic, narrative I feel her main purpose is to ease the tension within the plot. I think someone mentioned in class the other day that this concept could be applied with Jacquez and Diego. That is, their purpose in the novel is to provide some type of relief to an otherwise "tense" novel. (Going crazy with the quotes, sorry). While she serves a similar purpose, I feel that Bianca is represented as slightly less comedic and more grounded because she is a woman. Going along with Lauren's question, I don't think these women will/can break the mold set up for them. Bianca adopts the role of a motherly figure, giving Matilda advice and knowledge (because Hippolita is useless. I apologize for the digression, but I just don't like her). I don’t believe they can break from this role because this is the dominant expectation of women during this time. No one in the novel, even Bianca, provides an alternative female perspective in the novel. Bianca and…dare I say Hippolita…are they only other women who can provide knowledge to young, naïve, Matilda and Isabella against the oppressive forces of men or provide an alternative viewpoint that women can manage without a husband. In short, it’s a never ending cycle (as constructed by the novel). Without that “other” voice and women who reinforce the idea that men are supreme, how can the cycle be broken?
A basic question that I can pose to the class is what is Hippolita’s purpose? If she willingly roles over and submits to her husband, what does she offer to the novel? What is her purpose beyond playing wife to a controlling husband (if there is one)?
In repose to PMV
I have to disagree with the analysis of Bianca just as Lauren does. I think Bianca is a great attribute to add to the story and characters. She makes for some variations in opinions and asks questions that the audience or readers may want to know. She also shows a difference in opinion that could and seems to be related to her class status. She is of middle class and maybe that is why she is more aware and seems to be reasonable when asking questions in contrast to Matilda. I also like her character because she expresses more thought and concern rather than what would be expected if she was of higher class like Matilda.
Gberry has a good question. Hippolita just appears to be an enabler. She is willing to sacrifice all her thoughts and feelings in order to make Mansfred happy. Does she have a more meaningful purpose other than being a door mat? I would say yes. All the women are a driving force in the book, that cause the plot to develop. Isabella runs away, Matilda makes a love triangle when she falls in love with Theodore...and Hippolita's door mat personality encourages the plot to move along faster. Had she wanted to argue with Mansfred about divorcing, he would be more preoccupied with his to be ex-wife. But, because she lets him off the hook easily, he can continue his pursuit for Isabella and the plot moves along faster.
Plus, as Molly said, her reaction to Mansfred's desire to marry Isabella was too timid and complicates the plot. Her reactions make it more intriguting because it goes against the typical reaction and provokes the reader's curiousity to keep on reading as the plot continues to unfold.
After reading what has I have been contemplating the most about the story are the Shakespearean tones that it has. When I am reading the ending it seems as though it is a mixture of Shakespeare's problem comedies and tragedies mixed together. Also I find correlations between character names and names of some Shakespeare's characters, such as Hippolita? I am just curious about what point this may be making and if he is referencing Shakespeare in a satirical manner or if the author has composed a large parody of Shakespeare's work?
Well I think it's apparent from just about every comment offered there is an issue here regarding women and their function within the novel, specifically with regard to their tendency to cater to the male figure. It seems that at every moment a male figure needs support from a female counterpart, a woman is there to validate (justify?) his actions. I think it's fairly obvious a commentary is being made here relative to the state of the patriarchy, and the more difficult question is how exactly that commentary should be represented, and conveniently enough I don't know if I have an answer.
I think another way to look at this "problem" we have with the role of women here could be reviewed through the quote offered by Bianca "a bad husband is better than no husband at all." One angle by which to discuss it could be that these women (Hippolita, Matilda, Bianca) want to place these men on a pedestal, in effect "idolizing" them, not only as an object they must have, but also as an item with which they cannot do without. (Granted, Hippolita only is too content to dispose of her husband, but she does so only because her first priority is the happiness of her husband, and in this instance, leaving him would hold consistent with this goal). Men in this situation are just as guilty as their women counterparts as they obviously have no issue with the attention (and submission) they get from the female characters. Manfred and Theodore both pursue female companionship with a detached and self-serving vigor, not too far removed from the perspectives displayed by Matilda and Bianca, for example.
Jerome ("divine intervention") complicates this interpretation a bit. He almost is the only individual here advocating for Manfred (and others) to return to their old lives and to stop the nonsense they continue to create. I might suggest the divine influence wanting to kill off the trend of women enabling men, but it is safe to say that this effort might be partially successful only.
Post a Comment