Gilman, Melville, and Houston Short

Gilman, Melville, And Houston Short Stories

It would seem appropriate to evaluate the foundations of three pieces of differing literary works of women through the eyes of feminist literary criticism. Furthermore it is important to define the theory of feminist criticism in its various forms and determine the direction of analysis that will be taken to create a clearer understanding of the works read and analyzed here, the Yellow Wallpaper, written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, How to Talk to a Hunter, written by Pam Houston and the Sparkling *****, written by Pauline Melville. A feminist literary critic, Kaplan discerns what she sees and the two divergent and very different focuses of feminist literary critical theory. "For some of us, feminist criticism originated in a recognition of our love for women writers. (Kaplan 37) the emphasis on the value of the literary pursuit as apposed to the analysis of works based on the context of a repressive society;

In this we diverge from many of our sister critics whose awakening was hastened by their urge to reveal the diverse ways women have been oppressed, misinterpreted and trivialized by the dominant patriarchal tradition, and to show how these are reflected in the images of women in the works of male authors. (Kaplan 37)

According to Kaplan an others the value of the second, more common demonstrative system of feminist literary critical theory is innate, as there is clear evidence of the subversion of women in their works and in the broader society.

Moi 91) "The latter approach is important and necessary, but it should be apparent that it has its roots in suffering and anger, while the impetus for the first is passion and identification." (Kaplan 37 www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109129497"-38) This work will attempt to meld the two basic preconceptions of feminist literary criticism by seeking to explore each work independently through first its expression of value and love for form second through its expression of the oppression i.e. disconnections of women from the broader society.

In the highly acclaimed and oft analyzed work the Yellow Wallpaper there is a clear sense of the value of self-expression, as the narrator, slowly going crazy in an environment non-conducive to health and healing and with an undercurrent of historical oppression of the helpless outlines her disconnection from all those who control her life. The value placed upon the protection, well intentioned by her husband and brother is made obvious by the wordplay that Gillman utilizes to narrate the unrecognized need of self-expression on the part of the narrator. The work is forever moving no matter how many times one reads it. The language of the work serves as a stark warning to both men and women of the dangers of placing more emphasis on protection than on the basic needs of individuals to be recognized for their insight and knowledge. "Paula Treichler argues that the heroine's madness at the end of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's 'The Yellow Wallpaper' is the beginning of a language of resistance. These analysts see illness not as a fulfillment of sexist stereotypes but as a way to resist them."

Herndl 6)

Body:

In this work the reader is closely attuned to the struggles this woman, made helpless by disconnection, encounters through her increasingly solitary existence. The protection of the masculine, no matter how well intentioned serves as a conduit for the dissolution of sanity, as a result of the complete contradictions that the narrator senses exist but cannot seem to articulate in any way but to reject her human form. Oppression is woven through the entire work, as the woman is frozen by the expectations of her highly logical husband, who is in many way in denial of the fears the narrator cannot articulate. When the narrator speaks of the let mansion with the room of the yellow wallpaper, she speaks of its greatness, through the eyes of those who deny the spiritual and its queerness through her own naive feelings about the place.

Still I... declare that there is something queer about it. Else, why should it be let so cheaply? And why have stood so long untenanted? John laughs at me, of course, but one expects that in marriage. John is practical in the extreme. He has no patience with faith, an intense horror of superstition, and he scoffs openly at any talk of things not to be felt and seen and put down in figures. John is a physician, and PERHAPS -- (I would not say it to a living soul, of course, but this is dead paper and a great relief to my mind) -- PERHAPS that is one reason I do not get well faster. You see he does not believe I am sick! (Gillman 1)

The character shows intense regard for her own health but an inability to seek the answers to it the best way she knows how, by self-expression that must be concealed from the man of the house. This work has been well received by feminist literary criticism as it fulfils both of the seemingly divergent theories of it, the value of the work in its insight and creativity and also its obvious expression of the patriarchal society in which the character lives.

Within the second work to be discussed here is the development of dual communication, utilizing an interesting wordplay through what one critic calls unmarked future tense.

Fludernik 199), where the writer separates the characters from the scenes of the obviously deeply felt relationship to attempt to universalize the message. The work is both touching and funny as the character juxtaposes her own historical knowledge, such as the quips she learned in college, graduate school and from pop psychology with her comical though heartfelt assessment of how to interpret the actions and words of a perpetually non-committal man. The character finds herself in a love relationship with a man, who is contrary to her knowledge of the man she really wants and needs. She interprets and reinterprets his actions and words through various eyes, including her own, her dog, her best female friend and her best male friend. The result being a touchingly funny expression of the thoughts of a woman as she analyses meaning in a man,

The hunter will talk about spring in Hawaii, summer in Alaska. The man who he was always better at math will form sentences so carefully it will be impossible to tell if you are included in these plans. When he asks you if you would like to open a small guest ranch way out in the country, understand that this is a rhetorical question. Label these conversations as future perfect, but don't expect the present to catch up with them. (Houston 14-15)

There is the touching expression in all these interactions that choosing to trust and love on the part of the women is something she should no better not to do and that the hunter in the story is an archetypal expression of the non-commitment that is inherent in the independent man. There is also a strong sense of the modern, in that the woman seeks to reconcile her own strength as an individual and the fear of being the object of the chase rather than a coveted member of the future. The feminist critical analysis seeking to explore the oppression inherent in this work would explore the idea that feminist principles associated with personal progress, knowledge, independence may have served to further the disconnect between men and women rather than making them equal partners in relationships.

In the final story the sense of the disconnected is cemented through a distant marriage relationship that allows the narrator (in this case a man, written by a woman) to separate himself so completely from his wife, obviously chosen for public impact rather than love, that he does not recognize her nearly deadly bout with anorexia. In the Sparkling ***** two very incongruent individuals marry and then fall into a relationship of convenience that allows them to spend nearly full years without speaking to one another in person. The narrator has a better connection with his business and the city of London, which he characterizes as a sparkling *****, for its new beloved modern architecture and seemingly unethically dark business practices, than he has with his wife. His wife in the mean time is physically and emotionally disturbed by an encounter in Nigeria, with a stark expression of the extreme depletion that results from the business, which her husband does in the world. He does not see this expression, as he has completely dismissed the encounters in Nigeria as he moves on to the next frontier and as he has conveniently set up his sometimes embarrassing wife in an austere cottage in the country and ignored neighbors phone calls about her deteriorating well being, when she reassures him over the phone that she is fine and continually cancels amiable plans to meet. For the realization of the situation to actually meet Charles head on Susan must actually appear at a very important public function, as a nearly dead skeletal form who has completely neglected her appearance, which does not raise concern in her husband but instead raises anger. "We're leaving,' he hissed. "I'm taking you straight to the hospital." When Susan rose shakily to her feet, uncontrollable diarrhea had stained her dress and dripped from the chair. White with fury, Charles Hay took her by the arm and led her slowly from the hall." (Melville 134)