HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE HO2070 11/13/02 "RECENT FEMINIST CRITICISM" ============================================================== From: Carrie Bolte Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:07:26 -500 Subject: Recent Feminist Criticism Hello! Let me first introduce myself--My name is Carrie Bolte, and I am a Masters' student in North Carolina. I've recently fallen in love with Hardy, and am currently writing a paper on Tess for a graduate student conference. I've been lurking on the list for a few months now. I would like to become as familiar as I can with the most recent criticism, with feminist criticism being of most interest to me, on Hardy's novels. I thought if any group of people would know of some good books, articles, or other resources that might be of help to me in my search, it would be the members of this list. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I am enjoying listening in on your great conversations! Carrie Bolte ========== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:58:37 -0800 From: Betty Cortus Subject: Re: Recent Feminist Criticism Dear Carrie, A good place to start would be to look up "Women" in the _The Oxford Reader's Companion to Hardy_ (2000). Two excellent books on the topic are Rosemarie Morgan's _Women and Sexuality in the Novels of Thomas Hardy_ (1988), and Penny Broumelha's _Thomas Hardy and Women: Sexual Ideology and Narrative Form_ (19820. Good luck with the paper, Betty Cortus hardycor@owl.csusm.edu ========== From: "Richard Nemesvari" Subject: Re: Recent Feminist Criticism Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:04:25 -0400 Along with the books recommend below by Betty, you should probably have a look at *The Sense of Sex: Feminist Perspectives on Hardy*, ed. Margaret R. Higonnet, 1993. As well, you might read Kristin Brady's essay "Thomas Hardy and matters of gender" in *The Cambridge Conmpanion to Thomas Hardy*, ed. Dale Kramer, 1999. Richard Nemesvari (Chair) Department of English St. Francis Xavier University rnemesva@stfx.ca ========== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:01:00 -0500 From: Robert Schweik Subject: Re: Recent Feminist Criticism And, could I also suggest you take a look at the "Criticism" section of the Oxford Reader's Companion to Hardy. There, under "Feminism" Peter Widdowson provides a splendidly detailed survey with *many* other suggestions. Bob Schweik schweik@fredonia.edu schweikr@localnet.com ========== Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:30:25 +0000 Subject: Hardy and Women From: Angelique Richardson Dear Carrie, You should also look at two recent, and excellent, titles, Shanta Dutta's *Ambivalence in Hardy: A Study of his Attitude to Women* (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000) and Jane Thomas's *Thomas Hardy, Femininity and Dissent: A Reassessment of the 'Minor' Novels* (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999) (if you like, see too my reviews of these books in Victorian Studies (Autumn 2001) and the Thomas Hardy Journal 14 (October 1999) respectively) All best Angelique -- Dr Angelique Richardson Lecturer in Victorian Literature and Culture School Admissions Tutor School of English University of Exeter Queen's Building The Queen's Drive Exeter EX4 4QH UK Email: A.Richardson@exeter.ac.uk Telephone: ++(44) (0) 1392 264354 www.ex.ac.uk/english/staff/staffinfo/richardson.htm ========== Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:11:55 -0500 From: Rosemarie Morgan Subject: Re: Hardy and Women After reading some of the titles proffered this week on "Feminist" criticism I'd be interested to hear what Carrie, originally, had in mind. Should the term "feminist" include anything & everything which has "Women" in the title? Should it include all and any topic which touches on the human condition of women? The "feminist" in Hardy might have been comfortable with the latter category, or with any radical feminist camp of the Mona Caird brigade. But he was not a "feminist" of the Millicent Garrett Fawcett camp which also worked for the franchise but held marriage and motherhood to be woman's sacred mission. Hardy himself felt that the enfranchisement of women would, of course, empower them and, with John Stuart Mill, held that this empowerment was long overdue. One of the benefits of enfranchisement, he told Garrett Fawcett, would be to extend to women certain legal rights over the care and custody of their children, and of this he approved. But that he accorded to the female in his fiction many of the weaknesses accorded to the male was regarded as outrageous by yet another "feminist" camp who was less interested in parity than in the idealisation of women. This last camp, committed to keeping women "on a pedestal," (a form of alienation) still exists today -- and in some of the authors cited this past week who regard Hardy's attitude to "women" as ambivalent rather than egalitarian (I use the word "attitude" inadvisedly & oversimplistically, to follow usage -- he, of course, employs a variety of narrators with varying and often purposefully inconsistent perspectives). I read in Bob Schweik's & Richard Nemesvari's work a deep understanding of the human condition of women. But I don't necessarily find this in the authors they recommend. *The Sense of Sex: Feminist Perpsectives on Hardy* contains a good deal of "masculinism" not to mention a patriarchal hostility towards women (and Hardy). But the title of the book does lead us to expect a "feminist" stance in general. With the exception of a few --Langland & Knoepflmacher certainly-- I find this stance questionable and regret the indiscriminate bandying of the word "feminist" in relation to Hardy. Surely we should take into account the kind of feminism Hardy was interested in, as opposed to the kind of feminism we, ourselves, adhere to. I would like to hear Carrie's thought on this. With every good wish, Rosemarie ========== Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:11:30 -0500 From: Robert Schweik Subject: Hardy and Feminism Rosemarie Morgan's reminder that there are many different "feminisms" is well taken. And Hardy's "feminist" views-- however one might define them--certainly varied over the course of his long life. But one point of view he took is a particular favorite of mine, and I ask your indulgence to quote it in its entirety here. Millicent Garrett Fawcett asked Hardy for his views on women's suffrage in a letter of 22 November 1906 for a pamphlet to be published on the views of eminent men on the subject. Here is what Hardy replied on 30 November of that year. The quote is put between horizontal lines to make it more distinct: ------- "I have for a long time been in favour of woman-sufferage. I fear I shall spoil the effect of this information (if it has any) in my next sentence by giving you my reasons. I am in favour of it because I think the tendency of the women's vote will be to break up the present pernicious conventions in respect of manners, customs, religion, illegitimacy,the stereotyped household (that it must be a unit of society), the father of a woman's child (that it is anybody's business but the woman's own, except in cases of disease or insanity), sport (that so- called educated men should be encouraged to harass & kill for pleasure feeble creatures by mean strategems), slaughter- houses(that they should be dark dens of cruelty), & other matters which I got into hot water touching on many years ago. "I do not mean that I think all women, or even a majority, will actively press some or any of the first mentioned of such points, but but that their being able to assert themselves will loosen the tongues of men who have not liked to speak out on such subjects while women have always been helpless dependents. "You may disapprove of many of these reasons for woman-suffrage, or think them mistaken, but I am sure you will forgive my stating them." ------ Millicent Fawcett replied by thanking Hardy for his letter but saying that "John Bull is not ripe for it at present." That Hardy emphasized the "first mentioned of such points"-- the tendency of the women's vote will be to break up the present pernicious conventions in respect of manners, customs, religion, illegitimacy,the stereotyped household (that it must be a unit of society)"--with the idea that it would encourage *men* as well as women to "speak out on such subjects"--captures, I think, something his view on the subject. That *he* was willing to write such a letter for publication--and Millicent Fawcett decided John Bull wasn't ripe for it--suggests something of the difference between them that Rosemarie Morgan alluded to. Bob Schweik schweik@fredonia.edu schweikr@localnet.com ========== From: Carrie Bolte Subject: Re: Hardy and Women Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:10:11 -500 When I think of "feminist" criticism (and perhaps I use that word too loosely), I think of work that analyzes the place that women have within a text--whether those arguments advance the idea that Hardy characterized his women as participating in/supporting the patriarichal structure or as women who work, in whatever way, against that structure--and the effect that placement has on the reader's interpretation of that character. I, in particular, am especially interested in Hardy's ambivalence towards women, simply because I see that in my own readings of Tess. Your question, Rosemarie, brings up an interesting point, though. Perhaps the term feminist is too easily attached to an argument. Is it necessarily feminist simply because it discusses women? I really hadn't ever thought about that issue before. If I haven't clearly answered your question, I apologize. Carrie ==========