Silly Old Biddy

Ms. Pole is, as Jeannie puts it, "cray-cray!" While Cranford contains many elements of comedy, I find Ms. Pole to be the most ridiculous and amusing character in the book. Is it possible to have a comic relief character in a comedy? I love her descriptions of the robbers. As Mary Smith says, " I noticed that every time she went over the story some fresh trait of villainy was added to their appearance" (ch. X). The tall robber keeps getting taller; the other sprouted a hump on his shoulder; etc. Of course, many of us are inclined to embellish the details to a story to make it all the more impressive, but something about this older woman going on and on about these crazy details makes me laugh. The section with the ghosts is equally as amusing, especially since afterwards she acts like she wasn't scared to go through Darkness Lane.

Continued from class...

To return to the topic I brought up in, I'm curious as to how "Cranford" would have been received by the public if Cranford were occupied my mostly men, with a distaste for women. I instantly assume the book would be pegged as misogynistic, as it should be. Women have clearly always been treated terribly, especially in literature, and in my opinion deserve a book like "Cranford". I think the reason the book is seen as humorous in first place is because it's so out of the ordinary from the rest of the books written at that time. After so many years of being treated as inferior, I believe women deserve to be able to have a story where they are unquestionably superior.

But on that same note, does that not make "Cranford" quite sexist? Although I personally view the book as appropriate, does it not break the same rules as misogynistic book? From a equality stand point, one could make the argument that "Cranford" is just as responsible to stalling equal rights as some other book with a reverse plot line?

Furthermore..

Elaborating more on my discussion questions from Wednesday, I've come to a revelation. yes it took me the entire book to figure it out, but better late than never! This entire book is a satire, turning all the other books we've read this semester upside down.  Instead of women living in the shadow of a man's society, Cranford is a woman's town.  Any less men, and they could have painted everything pink.  Because men play such a small role in this setting, we as readers are able to see a more humorous side to how ladies conduct themselves. (seriously, eating an orange in private?) I think Ms. Gaskell was trying to poke fun at how serious people took such ridiculous social expectations seriously, like frivolous hats, for instance.  Again, I might be way off, or way late, but that's my theory.

Killing Us Softly

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending Program Board's screening and discussion of Jean Kilbourn's fourth film in the documentary series "Killing Us Softly: Advertizers' Images of Women." The original Killing Us Softly aired in 1979 and in Killing Us Softly 4, Jean Kilborne describes how even after 30 years of social activism-- which entails the birth of media studies and the women's movement--even after the discovery of sociological evidence linking violence against women, epidemic eating disorders, and the ever increasing number of plastic surgeries performed in the United States in the last ten years (it's an over 100% increase) the media's relationship with women, while in some ways improved, is still in dire need of help.
Like Katy's post detailed, the argument of Kilbourne's documentary is laid out in her pictures. Ads frequently turn women's bodies into passive objects, trivializing their personalities and desires, as well as those of men. However, unlike men, women are almost universally put into positions of vulnerability-- childlike poses, sexualized poses-- while men most often remain dominant, stable, and aloof. Their bodies are more often cut up. Like a pair of legs in a print ad to sell Budweiser. Or breasts for a videogame. I've noticed this "cutting up" thing at lot-- even in the editing of equally progressive documentaries, like MissRepresentation. The segment of the film talking about domestic violence I remember had image after image of half of a face, or a body with no head, bruised and disfigured. Now, maybe in doing that, the editors of MR are trying to make a progressive point in an edgy way, that the abuse itself objectified and dehumanized those women, but I remember feeling uneasy about that segment without being able to put my finger on why. Does more dismemberment make that condition better?
Finally, Killing Us Softly 4 isn't making an argument that advertising itself is bad or that capitalism and commercialism are bad, or inherently sexist. Kilbourne is making a much simpler argument: that these images don't exist in a vacuum. They effect everyone.It also isn't about saying "this is what men do to women" because obviously, women are doing this to women too. And women are doing it to themselves.

I love old ladies, but...

Maybe someone can help me, because I am having a little trouble understanding the women in this book. In general, I love old ladies-they are hilarious and don’t have a care in the world about what other people think about them. My grandma, for example, just says whatever is on her mind (no matter how rude or out of place the comment may be). The ladies in Cranford, however, seem obsessed with their appearances and reputations.  For example, when the ladies hear of Lady Glenmire’s visit, “each one rapidly review[s] her wardrobe” (68). In another example, Mrs. Matty has to practice how she will address Lady Glenmire. I love when she says, “I shall feel so foolish and hot, saying it the first time to lady Glenmire” (70). Mrs. Matty cares so much about how she will look in front of Lady Glenmire. I would rather have a woman character that doesn’t care how she looks!

Now that I think more about it, I suppose it comes down to the fact that these women are so preoccupied with being proper! Properness is why they care so much about what cap they are wearing and why they care if tea is served in a timely manner. I am still not sure if I am satisfied with this answer though. Again, I would rather have a character who didn’t care about being proper.

In addition to appearance, the role of gossip troubles me in this novel. Gossip seems to be a key theme to the Cranford women, as they “collect all the stray pieces of intelligence in the town” (82). What else are the women going to do, but sit and talk about Cranford? Their excessive discussions make me wonder about the role of stereotypes in Cranford.  In today’s society at least, women are very much stereotyped to be gossipy. Was the same true in Gaskell’s time? If so, is Gaskell reinforcing this womanly stereotype through her women characters?  Or is Gaskell pointing out the absurdity of gossiping women? I suppose I am just not sure what Gaskell’s point is with these old women. I love them, but I do wish they would do something more than just have parties.

03/28 Discussion Questions

1. Was Peter flogged publicly by his father for dressing as a woman, for disrespecting Deborah's virginal sanctity, or a bit of both? If it's the first, what's so bad about dressing as a woman? What does this say about the male role in Cranford? Is it better, held to more prestige? We've seen that women are allowed to wear hats, as are men. It seems fishy.

Also, this is the image I mentioned today in class:
https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/I-m-not-ashamed-to-dress-like-a-woman.jpeg

(So, it was Iggy Pop, not the lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Oops!)

 2. Is the male role within Cranford defined by everything that women are not, mainly being vulgar?

Questions for whatever day today is.

1. Is there more to cross dressing in this section than boyish tomfoolery? Are Peter and the robbers of Ms. Pole's imagination more of a threat to Cranford society than we realize?

2. What's up wit dah CAPZ? Post to follow.

Questions 3/28

1. How are the stereotypical gender roles shown in this novel? Which characters exemplify these roles and which ones deviate from them?

2. There is a ridiculous amount of gossip in this book. Why do you think that gossip is such a big part of the story?

Questions for 3/28

1) The Ladies in this book are determined to hide any action that might seem "inappropriate" to the public and gossip ALOT.  At what point is it considered "inappropriate" to infringe your opinions on other people?  Why is peeling an orange considered taboo, but talking about other people's lives not?

2)This book seems to take a lighthearted stance on gossip and how small towns seems to involve themselves in everyone's lives. Would this be the Author's way of poking fun at how meddlesome women/everyone get when they are without jobs?  Is this her way of showing how detrimental women can be to each other when they have too much free time?

Questions for 3/28

1. How far have women come in their freedom to express things to each other? I feel like the characters in Cranford refuse to convey their true feelings; why is that?

2. How much has the female view of men changed? Or vice versa? The women (and few men) of Cranford seem to have settled into their opinions.

Questions for 3/28

1. Wow! These women love to gossip. Do you think Gaskell is drawing attention to the cattiness of idle women or the cattiness inherent to small towns? Or both? Neither?

2. Do you think if the ladies of Cranford had something more productive to do, that they would gossip less?

Giggles

I am finding many humourous things in this book.  One example is that Mrs. Jamieson prefers Dr. Samuel Johson's work to that of Charles Dickens (the author touted by Captain Brown).  Mrs. Jamieson is a sort of role model to her society; it seems all the other women look to her as the person to follow when it comes to edicate and rules and such.  Mrs. Jamieson is so bound to doing things the "proper" way that she represses herself (and the other ladies) when it comes to the proper way to behave in public; what can be said, what shouldn't be said, etc.  This said, it has been noted (in Dr. Shurbutt's class) that due to Dr. Johnson's mannerisms he was believed to have Tourette Syndrome.  Tourette Syndrome is a disease that causes uncontrollable physical movements and vocal sounds.  I think the irony in the fact that this author is the author that Mrs. Jamieson admires is very humorous and I'm wondering if anyone else picked up on this, and if anyone else finds "laugh-out-loud" humor in this irony?

Values?

In Cranford it seems as if the ladies are hesitant about doing anything that is out of the ordinary or doesn’t fit their status. Dr. Hanrahan mentioned on Monday that in Cranford, Gaskell “explores the framework of meaning where the juxtaposition of dissonant codes of belief leads to a more tolerant understanding of the values that unite humanity” (x). I guess that is apparent in the incident in chapter 8. The ladies are trying to figure out what to call Mrs. Jaimeson’s house guest. Lady Glemire. Mrs. Jaimeson tells them not to worry about it because the ladies are not going to be talking to Lady Glemire anyway. The ladies of Cranford decide to snub Mrs. Jaimeson because they didn’t like her attitude. But later, their intolerance is forgotten when they attend the get-together held by Mrs. Jaimeson. It is not clear if the ladies are going to the party just to be nosy, or if they really want to be tolerant of the other person. I am having a tough time understanding this dialogue and getting to the heart of the different matters, I guess I just don’t get British humor. There are a lot of subtleties and innuendos that go right over my head. In the end, it seems they all got along just swimmingly.

questions

Cranford is a town with few wealthy men, but plenty of lower-class men, thus providing tension among the maids of the town. Discuss the appearance of “followers” in the novel. How is Miss Matty’s opinion changed toward her maid’s relationships? What role do the few men that appear in the novel have?

Gaskell’s work is a snapshot of small-town Victorian life. Is her work limited at all by her narrow focus? Though it depicts a very specific time and place, can this novel be considered timeless?

A proper way to eat an orange?

After today’s discussion on the sister’s inability/unwillingness to eat an orange in front of other people because of propriety, I looked up some information on etiquette. Much to my surprise, there is a proper way to eat an orange. There are pages upon pages of information on the proper way to eat an orange, and much to my surprise, I have been doing it wrong my entire life. Here are just a few examples of how you are supposed to eat an orange properly.

How to peel an orange quickly yet pretentiously

Equipment: one orange, one sharp knife, one metal tablespoon

1. Have an orange of your choice ready for peeling.

2. Briskly roll it around on a flat surface to loosen the skin and make it easier to peel.

3. Make a small incision into the side of the orange with your sharp knife. Do not pierce the flesh, as you'll get juice everywhere and become a tangerine or blueberry convert.

4. Insert a metal spoon beneath the peel through the gap made by the knife.

5. Slide the spoon around under the peel and remove the peel in several large sections.

6. Eat orange

How to peel an orange in one piece (amaze your dimmer colleagues and young children with this little-known technique)

Equipment: one orange, one relatively sharp thumbnail

1. and 2. As before.

3. Dig your thumb about an inch below the little button where the stalk used to be. When your thumb has penetrated beneath the peel, rotate your thumb in a counterclockwise downward spiral.

4. Don't rush, or you'll botch it.

5. Think of your thumb as a crank-operated potato peeler.

6. Continue until the bottom of the orange then pop the flesh out from the peel.

7. Eat orange.

(Some people like to show off their ability to to peel an orange in one piece by using the peel as a decorative item. You may do so only if it is Christmas time and you are Amish.)

How to peel an orange (traditional)

Equipment: one orange, one sharp knife

1. and 2. As before.

3. Score the orange into quarters with a small sharp knife, just through the skin. Then peel off the quarters. (If you've been to finishing school and want the world to know, prepare for step three by ostentatiously chopping off your orange's “nipple” and “navel” with your knife).

4. Eat orange

Ranting

My post isn't so much a question, as it is my frustrations with Fern. As much praise as I believe Fern should receive for how public and straightforward she presents her feelings regarding women's rights/societal roles, I am also somewhat disappointed in her. As other people from class also pointed, at times, Fern does seem to end a serious issue on too light of a note. For example in Independence, Fern is very straight forward, and obviously angry, with her feelings regarding women on Independence Day, but ends her paragraph with "Humph!". In my opinion, Fern using the word "humph" as the very last word completely killed all emotion she had built up during her column. Fern was in such a powerful position as a writer, and could have (and in my opinion, should have) used her social influence to be much more proactive to bringing about women's equal rights. I really believe that Fern never took a strong enough stance on her beliefs towards women.

Fern's situation reminds me a lot of Eleanor Roosevelt, when she was also campaigning for women's rights. Before FDR was president, Eleanor was very proactive in the women's suffrage movements. Once FDR was elected, Eleanor began to take a backseat in public activism, when her becoming the First Lady was one of the best things that could have happened to the suffrage movement. Wielding great power really does mean wielding great responsibility, and I believe Fern did not take full advantage of the power she maintained as a public figure.

Religion vs. Spirituality

     In Fern's article Soliloquy of a Housemaid, I found it really interesting how the housekeeper holds her master and mistress responsible for the upkeep of her own soul. She says, "If I own a soul I have not heard how to take care of it for many a long day. Wonder if my master and mistress calculate to pay me for that, if I lose it?"
     It seems to me that Fern may be poking fun of religion. Or maybe she's making a case for the differences between "religion" and "spirituality". To me, being spiritual is very private and involves a lot of self-reflection. Anybody can be spiritual. I think Ruth in Ruth Hall  was a very spiritual person. From the book, it didn't seem as though she attended church regularly yet she still prayed and believed in a higher god. Religion to me seems very full of rules and regulations and guidelines. And I think this is what the housekeeper in Soliloquy of a Housemaid wants: she wants to be told specifically how to care for her soul. She thinks that she cannot accomplish this without attending church on a regular basis. Its sad how she feels due to the circumstances of her busy job, that she is almost "soul-less".

Hungry Husbands...NOM NOM NOM

While we read, Hungry Husbands in class on Friday it made me think of my brother, and guy friends because I cook for them constantly; if it's a meal or brownies they go crazy! While back home I live with my brother, and he always asks me to make him something..but he won't say it straight up!!! It's like trying to dig for gold to get him to ask! But it's amazing to see how food can impact someone's mood. I've seen them go from grouchy, to a hulk "better not touch my biscuit", then to satisfied. I've come to the conclusion that they have more mood swings than a woman PMS'ing. You know when a guy enjoys something to when he does not...it's all in the attitude! Last night I made my own dinner in the dorm and this guy didn't like the smell of what I made so very loudly he expressed his lovely opinion to his friend.."Yo dude it smells like burnt grilled cheese in this joint!" Let's just say I went on a rant and told him off, but also reminded him that he never had anything negative to say about my brownies other than "NOM NOM NOM in ma belly!" It's amazing to see how people respond to what they receive. A meal on the table is something so many people live without and would be grateful for.

I just hope when I do get married my husband won't be as crazy as the way Fern depicted the guys in Hungry Husbands, or even be so demanding and have terrible mood swings...(whew that won't be a pretty sight nor would fly in my house!)

I found this journal on google, in which they talk about Fanny Fern and Hungry Husbands. In one of the posts, she describes Hungry Husbands as an article to poison your husbands!! I might (totally!) have laughed out loud for that one. (http://caseyhorby89.livejournal.com/4680.html.)

Oh and which Hulk should we use?!?!?!?
Love this!

Give me Liberty!

I still love Fanny Fern's "Independence." Although women today may be able to go out without a man or have "masculine" occupations, we are still fighting for equality in everything. So many years after Fern wrote this article, and we still haven't had a female president. Male and female pay scales are still vastly different from each other in many professions. Many women are still automatically thought of as lesbians if they learn to weld or work on cars or even join the military. Fern's rant was trying to playfully show the injustice in the lives of women. She was considered a rebel in her day just for thinking those things much less publishing them. Fern also had a lot riding on the copyright act that she couldn't even promote or vote for. Women have made leaps and bounds toward equal rights since Fern's time, but Fern's sentiments in "Independence" still ring true. Women are still denied many of the rights that men have even if it's just at the risk of being made fun of. Some day women will have equal rights as men and have the opportunity to run this country. Until that day, I echo Fern's wise words: "Humph!"

The Hunger Games

Did you know that The Hunger Games took in an estimated $68.3 million on Friday alone? I'm sure some of you already know this, as you may be been standing in line for an hour or more anxiously awaiting the moment for the cinema doors to open. I did not go see The Hunger Games; however, I did read Fanny Fern's "Hungry Husbands" this week and I feel that the article could easily be re-named The Hunger Games. In many ways, Fern's argument can be interpreted as a witty, intellectual game. The winner of the game is the person who best understands and knows how to use the rules.

In terms of this article, Fern implies that the opponent with the greatest prize to win is women. If a woman takes the time to make her husband happy and serve him food, the results will be positive: "He [a woman's husband] is never so amiable as wen he has discussed a roast turkey" (263). Victory, women! In contrast, when a woman fails to understand that food is a weapon, the results will be negative: "There's nothing on earth so savage--except a bear robbed of her cubs--as a hungry husband" (263). Striking defeat, women!

I think that one of the reasons I like Fern is that she possesses the ability to depict characters accurately through negative capability. Fern considers all sides of an argument and presents the reader with multiple points of view. As seen in "Hungry Husband's," Fern has the experience necessary to point out that although men and women co-exist in the world, sometimes the differences make the sexes seem worlds apart; however, if one acknowledges the differences, they can take appropriate steps to restore order and balance.

Soliloquy of a Housemaid

I don't think we talked a lot about this article in class and after rereading it, I have some thoughts about, surprise surprise!, religion!

What does the voice of the housemaid mean when she says, out of frustration, "I wish I never been baptized at all?" I think it suggests that her belief in God is what forces her to continually be of service, to hold tightly to loyalty, much like Tom's religion did for him in Uncle Tom's Cabin. There seems to be a theme in Fanny's writing, both in Ruth Hall and a few other articles, that suggest her distaste for religion. I think Fanny empathizes with the housemaid and her resentment toward God because it so closely resembles the patriarchal system Fanny lives under and tries to resist while simultaneously working within the system, trying to beat it with its own weapons, so to speak.

To further back up my belief that Fanny doesn't like religion is a scene in Ruth Hall I'm too lazy to look up in order to cite in which Ruth reflects on how religion must not be all that great if her parents are supposedly abiding by it and yet cruelly and evilly taking Katy away from her.

A Lady of Science and Social Conscience

Bitches.

It is very common to see women portrayed as a bitch. They nag, the complain, and they harp on others simply because they were cursed with ovaries. Well, women are not the only ones who act this way. Men can also be rather ridiculous, but it is never seen as "bitching." Today we read Hungry Husbands, and it showed that bitchiness comes not only from ovaries, but from appetites as well. A hungry man can be terrifying, maybe even more terrifying than a woman whose PMS is raging. The story we read today describes a hungry man like a savage animal or monster. I picture a gigantic, ferocious bear, or even the Hulk, destroying everything in sight, ripping things apart, crushing anything that comes between his mouth and his food. Once his meal hits his palate, assuming it's delicious, he calms down and transforms back into a normal human. Most women experience PMS once a month, but men experience hunger several times each day... so tell me, why are women considered the bitchy ones?

More Mothers

Over Spring Break, I travelled to Les Cayes, Haiti. One day while I was there, a family approached our bus. They had three little girls with them. The father gave one little girl to my friend and just started walking away. We were confused and started saying, “No, no, no.” Our translator told us that the family could no longer take care of the little girl. They wanted us to take her home. This story absolutely broke my heart. How can a family just give away their child? I can’t imagine how hard that must be on the girl’s parents. My experience in Haiti reminded me of some of the issues that occur in Ruth Hall, as well as other books that we have read this semester.  

One theme of Ruth Hall that really sticks out to me is motherhood. Like in Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, we see women who are desperately trying to be a “good mom” (whatever that means!). Obviously, Ruth Hall’s struggles to protect and care for her children are at the center of the novel. Ruth is willingly to work and live anywhere so that she can be with her children. In Ruth Hall, there is one other mother that I cannot stop thinking about. Mary Andrews, the woman who asks “Floy” to take care of her baby when she dies. It baffles me that a woman could place her baby in the care of a “stranger, and yet not a stranger” (213).  What courage that must take!  Mary Andrew’s situation reminds me of Cassy in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Both women are in unfortunate situations. Both women have to decide what to do for their baby. Both women must act boldly and bravely for their children.

This book has called my attention to the fact that being a mother is an act of bravery! If a woman chooses to keep her child in hard times, like Ruth, she is taking a risk. If a woman chooses to give up her child in hopes that the child will have a better life, like Mary Andrews, the woman is also courageous.

A Thanksgiving Story

I have my favorite articles, (Hints to Young Wives, and Soliloquy of a Housemaid), but after seeing that everyone liked Thanksgiving Story, I reread it in case I missed something, and I still am not a huge fan of it.  Yes it's heartbreaking, but to me, I didn't care for it because the little girls were discussing their father, and were afraid to let their mother hear lest they hurt her feelings.  WELL, it is in my opinion that regardless of how the mother feels, she should be emotionally supportive of her daughters, and help them grieve about their father.  She should have heard them, repressed her feelings, and spoke to them about him, instead of cowering in the next room and allowing her daughters to feel guilty about wanting to talk about their father.  maybe I'm reading these from the wrong perspective, I do appreciate the emotions in this passage, I just don't agree with how it played out.  I feel that Fanny Fern jumps from one side of the track to the other.  She is big on doling out advice on how things should be done, yet her own life doesn't exactly mirror what she preaches.  My advice to Ms. Fern is, stick to what you know, and let the rest of us decide what type of people to be. 

Questions for 3/21

1. Do you think it was intentional that Fanny Fern's notably un-romantic advice column "Hints to Young Wives" came out on Valentines Day?

2. Is Fanny Fern making an argument about the social construction of gender in "A Law More Nice Than Just?"

3/21 Questions

1) After reading "Hints to Young Wives", I vehemently disagree with the statement " Just so long as a man isn't quite sure as if he knew for certain, whether nothing on earth could ever disturb your affection for him, he is your humble servant, but the very second he find out (or thinks he does) that he has possession of every inch of your heart, he will turn on his heel and march off whistling".  Isn't the point of being in love to equally be invested in each other?  I will agree that the woman who runs around coddling her husband is a fool, but I think that it's a give and take.  Grabbing his favorite slippers or making him a sandwich doesn't make you subservient, nor does him mowing the grass or fixing a leaky faucet.  There's certain things I hate doing, like loading the dishwasher. He loads it, and I empty it.  To avoid making him aware of how much you care is manipulative; being is love means trusting the person to hold your heart and not break it, otherwise your just wasting your time.

2) Soliloquy of a household was poignant and true.  A few nice words NEVER hurt anyone.  I believe the point Sally was making goes far beyond the relationship between employer and employee.  Everyone wants to feel appreciated sometimes. Telling someone "thank you", or "good job" is a lost art.  Being appreciative gets overlooked, and it takes a writing such as this one for people to remember to be nice.

3/21 Discussion Questions

1. In "A Law More Nice Than Just," Fern continually alludes to the natural world and connects the lives of women with the seasons. Do you think that connecting the weather and the moods of women is a suitable comparison? If so, why?

2. Why do you think that the thought of a Thanksgiving meal is so troubling to the young children in "Thanksgiving Story?" How does "Ruth Hall" compare this this short story? Which do you think is more effective in terms of creating sympathy in the reader?

Discussion Questions for 3/21

1. I loved Fanny's articles! They made me laugh a lot. My absolute favorite is, "A Law More Nice than Just." It made me laugh and it made me think. She writes about a woman being arrested for wearing men's clothing, her own liberating experience of wearing men's clothing, and most intriguing, how inopportune traditional feminine clothing is in bad weather. This particularly intrigues me because the feminist author doesn't reflect on how dehumanizing it was to be made to wear only aesthetically-pleasing clothing as a woman, to be viewed constantly as an object, a figurine, rather than a practical human being who can dress themselves in whatever they please. (To be fair, though, she does mention the health risk of having to dress prettily instead of practically during bad weather, which is consumption.) Why do you think Fanny's argument relied mostly on the hassle of having to lift your skirt when walking over/around rain puddles, etc.?

(Also, do you believe that she actually dressed up as a man and went on an evening walk? This article was published, and so why wasn't she arrested, or at least closely watched?)

2. In a class prior to today's, we briefly discussed the semantics of the word, "scribbling." Fanny uses this word throughout Ruth Hall. She uses it again in "A Law More Nice than Just." What connotation do you think she takes when using the word?

and 3, because I can't help but observe my behavior (and I believe the rest of you have been doing this as well): there are few authors we as readers refer to simply by their first name. Fanny is one of the few whose names I don't automatically resort to the last name. Is it because "Fanny" is such a lovely, fun name, or because Fanny's casual, humorous writing makes us feel closer to her?

Questions for 3/21

1) Fanny Fern seems to be acting as a voice of the oppressed (women, servants, widows). Many of the novels we have read this semester also are the voice for the oppressed. How does Fern’s style of writing compare to other books that we have read this semester? Which are more subtle about their intentions? The novels or Fern’s articles? Do both have the same influence?

(For example, even in the short creative pieces, Fern seems to be pretty “in your face” about her opinions)

2) In Ruth Hall, Ruth’s articles are widely read and praised. Is it true that even men enjoyed her work? From the excerpts from Fern Leaves, I am surprised that men would read and praise Fern. Wouldn’t they be offended by articles like, “Hints to Young Wives?”

Discussion Questions for 3/21

1. In Fern's article Hints to Young Wives, she writes: "I have seen one or two men in my life who could bear to be loved (as a woman with a soul knows how), without being spoiled by it, or converted into a tyrant."
Do you think Fern would still hold this view in regards to today's husbands?

2. And what do you think Fern would say of Cosmopolitan-esque articles such as How to Please Your Man and 10 Ways to Keep Your Man from Straying?

Simple Popularity

Obviously one of things readers liked about Fanny Fern was her candor. She said it like it was, no beating around the bush. Fanny Fern was frank and probably a refreshing change from the writings that women (and men) were used to . Ruth Hall was quite a change from George Eliot's Middlemarch. We see the difference in the writing, no flowery writing in Ruth Hall, and no flowery writing in Fanny Fern's "Fern Leaves." Women were just beginning to demand their rights to be educated as men were educated, but there were probably still a lot of women who had very little formal education. This type of writing surely appealed to these women more so than the very descriptive novels like Middlemarch."Fern Leaves" most likely had mass appear because it was easy to understand. The information contained in the stories was practical too! The type of advice that Fern gives, like being careful that your husband doesn't think of you as simply a "upper servant or housekeeper" (2102). If you feel like he is treating you like his maid,  just keep your "strings and buttons and straps on," and treat him like he is your employer. That is women's liberation! These women were probably starved for this kind of advice. From reading Ruth Hall, the men obviously thought it was refreshing too.

IN BEFORE 5!

What really fascinate me in this novel are the villains. More specifically, I'm fascinated by the villains who shock me most: Katy's grandparents. They refuse to help Ruth but gladly take her children when she's unable to efficiently and therefore financially care for them. This behavior suggests societal discrimination to me, to the fullest.

The Grandmother, or "old lady" as the narrator refers to, reveals her capitalist nature in chapter 57: "...now is the time to apply for Katy again; for, according to all accounts, Ruth is getting along poorly enough." She doesn't think to aid Ruth with money, or shelter, or, I don't know, advice? Instead, she wants to take Katy. She goes on to say that, "old Mr. Flake" approached Katy and asked her intrusive questions such as, "what business her father used to do, and what supported them now that he was dead, and if they lived all the time on bread and milk." She describes them as, "a few such little questions." These questions were very insensitive and incredibly intrusive, and therefore, would easily intimidate or frighten a young child like Katy. Still, the old lady just wants the dirt; she isn't worried about her grandchild's well-being. When she goes on to say that Katy replied to old Mr. Flake, "dignified as a little duchess," telling him, "Mamma does not allow me to talk to strangers," leaving with only a half loaf of bread, the Capitalist grandfather says, "Like mother, like child... proud and poor, proud and poor; that tells the whole story" (149). Katy wasn't being proud and poor, proud and poor, proud and poor; she was listening to her mother and buying what little she could.

Sentiments, Symbolism, and the Hall House.

“On one side of the room hangs a piece of framed needle work, y the virgin fingers of the old lady, representing an unhappy female, weeping over a very high and very perpendicular tombstone, which is hieroglyphicked over with untranslatable characters in red worsted, while a few herbs, not mentioned by botanists are struggling for existence at its base... It was principally to preserve this chef-d’oeuvre of art, that the windows were hermetically sealed to the entrance of vagrant flies” (165).

By the time this passage occurs in chapter 58, Fanny Fern has given us ample opportunities to conclude that the Halls are utterly despicable, hypocritical, and ridiculous people-- shallow and unfeeling in their Christianity as they are in their familial obligations and the doctor’s business. However, Fanny Fern takes so much time with this image, that it must prove something even more fundamental about the Hall household, and I would posit in particular, the character of Mrs. Hall.
The tightly closed room is mentioned first in this chapter-- nothing goes in and nothing comes out, even on a day as hot as the one mentioned. This characteristic alone would be enough to set up the scene of Katy’s captivity in this emotionally arid, hostile environment, but we continue to the contents of the livingroom table-- the place where articles of daily, practical concern are trafficked in a household. In my own case, this surface on any given day could be populated by bills, boardgames, newspapers, catalogs, birthday cards, keys, pet supplies, and the remains of breakfast. In the Hall household, we are given four items of probable significance-- “the Pilgrim’s Pilot, last year’s Almanac, the Directory, and what is the likely equivalent of a tabloid story of a miraculous escape from scalping. 
 I think the point here is that what you keep in your house says something about how you live. We create special places for the things which are important and general spaces for everything else. There is nothing of Ruth or the children in this house (Katy is told to be seen and not heard, ironically making her into the ornament that the couple falsely criticizes Ruth for being). Farming, religious conversation, and common gossip all occupy an equal, mundane place here. There are no religious icons on the bare, white walls-- a place for images and items of which a household generally wants to make an example-- wants other people to see. There is mentioned only Mrs. Hall’s needlework, the preservation of which against all of nature, we are told the windows are so tightly shut.
This needlepoint is its own icon-- a cartoonish elevation not of self sacrifice within the Christian model but of Mrs. Hall’s own childish grief. Badly conceived, poorly executed and static, this is an image of self-pitying bitterness that not a thing in the world is permitted to touch or criticize-- not even a fly. This sentiment controls the house and everyone in it and makes the place an unconscious tomb from which no one can ever be reborn.

Questions 3/9

1. Do you agree with the quote, "No happy woman ever writes"? How is this concept illustrated in Ruth Hall, and how was it illustrated (or not) in the other novels we have read?

2. How can the personalities or attitudes of Katy and Nettie be compared to those of children from the previous novels? (Adele, Eva, etc)

Questions for 3/9

1. Do you think there is a connection in the text between the writer/publisher relationship and a spousal relationship?

2. Comparing Ruth Hall to Middlemarch, do you think these texts are making different points about the consequences of earned money vs. inherited money? How does the point of view of a working woman vs. a woman of inheritance set us up for differing interpretations of societal inequality? Or does it not?

Questions for 3/9

1) Why do Harry’s parents want Ruth’s children? If they complain about money all the time, wouldn’t the children be an extra burden? Does reputation have anything to do with it?

2) Compare and contrast the role of gossip and reputation in Ruth Hall with Middlemarch. Are women writers in the 19^th century trying to tell society something? Have things changed today?

Poor kids

In Chapter 38, when Katy and Nettie are questioning whether their papa will take them away from their horrible situation, I am reminded of Fanny Fern's short story "Thanksgiving Story." The two little girls in the story are remembering a time when their father was alive, and they had food, clothing, and warmth. The mother in "Thanksgiving Story" never has the opportunity to talk, but in Ruth Hall that conversation ends with: "'Papa has gone to heaven, where there is no more sickness, no more pain. Papa is happy now, Katy.' 'Happy? without me, and you, and Nettie,' said Katy, with a grieved lip?"
The fact that Fern repeats these situations leads me to believe that these conversations were had between Fern and her own small children many times, and they weighed heavily on her heart. We need to remember that Fern was not the only one suffering through poverty, loss, and bad relationships. Her second husband may not have been kind to her daughters either.