The woman with no name

One of the things I noticed that Harriet Jacobs does in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is that she consistently chooses to elaborate on the personalities of harsh, cruel white characters in the book. Mr. and Mrs. Flint, for example, are discussed in such great detail that the reader becomes as paranoid as Jacobs, which simultaneously causes the reader to feel a sense of outrage and anger towards the town. I can see where Jacobs is going with this--she wants to ensure that the reader has little chance of defending slavery after reading the book. Unfortunately, however, I feel that this method of listing grievances is often too potent for the average reader and may cause some people to put down the book before considering Jacob's argument.

What I would really like to know, however, is why Jacobs diminishes the importance of the woman who decides to hide her in her house? The woman is taking a huge risk hiding Jacobs from Mr. Flint yet Jacobs not to provide the woman a name in the book. Instead, Jacob refers to her as one of "the ladies who were acquainted with my grandmother . . . and [had] always been very friendly to her" (80) and "the mistress" (81). Yes, the woman's family participates in slavery and is therefore wrong; however, at the same time, if it were not for this un-named woman's generosity, Jacobs would not have made it out of the situation alive. The mistress is the only character in the book thus far who does not have a name. The only reason I can think of for Jacobs to diminish the mistress' importance in planning her escape is to ensure that the reader focuses solely on the perils assocaited with her struggle for freedom.

Any thoughts about why this happens? I'm curious.

Horrors of Slavery

Quite a few of the passages in Incidents in the Life are similar to passages in Uncle Tom's Cabin. These books were written just about 10 years apart, with Incidents being the later book. Uncle Tom's Cabin is studied in school, but some in literary authority think that it is not well written enough or too sensationalistic to be included in the category of classic literature. Since Incidents is coming from the perspective of a slave, that might be the reason that it is viewed as being more realistic. As far as I am concerned the negative criticism that is given to Uncle Tom's Cabin is baseless considering that Stowe depicts the life of a slave as factually and with as much detail as Jacobs. Another criticism about Uncle Tom's Cabin is that it is Sentimental. Jacob's book is truthful, but I think it also verges on being Sentimental. Both books depict the lives of slaves and both were written to tell people about the truth of slavery. Any book that shares the horrors of slavery so that the average reader can see the truth should be praised.

How to be Alone

Ann's question about loneliness and being alone made me remember this lovely youtube video that makes me feel better about the things I allow myself to think when I am alone and no one is distracting me. I don't think it's very much related to Cranford, but it is related to everyone who has ever lived and has felt lonely and not okay with that. It's important to not only be okay with being alone sometimes, but to be ecstatic for it. I'm going to go take a walk by myself and think about my dad and how much I miss him and how lucky I am to have ever known him and be ecstatic about it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X7sZzSXYs

Through the looking glass...

After reading Cranford, I start to think of evolution of culture, customs and societies. The evolution of Cranford is obvious, the female taking on independent and dominant roles. The ability to be both insider and outsider is gray and fuzzy. Mary Smith, however; is not truly a Cranford woman anymore. Mary has passed through the looking glass and is independent in a way the Cranford woman will never know. Mary is the narrator, yes, but she holds a insider decoder key no one else does. Mary also posses the ability to tease the Cranford horde, because she is no longer one of them. Mary's actions and opinions remind me of Skeeter from The Help.
Skeeter is both a insider and outsider. She is privileged to luncheons, gossip and fancy dress parties but is viewed under suspicion constantly. The fact that both Skeeter and Mary Smith have left their hometown and have returned to the horde yet both mock the horde and their customs shows the changing of the tide or times.

Not all good literature must be depressing

     I really enjoyed Cranford's lightheartedness and humor. There were sad parts, such as the death of Captain Brown and the heartbreak that Peter caused both his parents, yet Gaskell didn't overwhelm her readers with depression and angst with these passages. And then this got me thinking: Why are books that  are primarily full of gloom, despair, and suffering (think Dostoyevsky) more highly regarded and popular than lighthearted and easygoing novels such as Cranford?
    A former boyfriend of mine would have hated this book, claiming it to be dull and not very thought provoking. (The only female writer he's every really liked was Virginia Woolf, so go figure)
     Maybe it is because some readers believe that "simple" books illustrating the lives of simple people cannot possibly deal with dark themes such as death, love lost, and regret. I, however, think all three of these themes have been addressed and beautifully illustrated throughout this book.

Killing Us Softly response

I recently attended the Program Board event "Maybe She's Born With it... But More Likely It's Photoshop." All of four people showed up, myself included. That was a disappointment, of course; why weren't more people concerned about the misconstrued societal image of women? The silver lining, though, was that we were able to have a more intimate discussion revolving around our own personal feelings toward the media's unnatural portrayal of women. And did we ever.

We watched the first 30 minutes of Jean Kilbourne's documentary, "Killing Us Softly," which mainly dealt with photoshopping techniques, sexist advertisements (old and new!), disgusting/depressing statistics about plastic surgery, and was just about to unfold into body image issues within both sexes, male and female. I loved the documentary most for Killbourne's unabashed, steel ovaries, for declaring the dehumanization of women through the media. That is what it all boils down to.

Once a human being is dehumanized, she/he becomes an inanimate object created for use... not for thinking thoughts, feeling feelings, playing sports, reading books, going to work, etc. No, the person is no longer seen as a person... therefore, she/he is subject to violence. What type of culture are we setting up for ourselves, for little girls... for the little boys who are subconsciously being told that it's okay to hurt girls, to not think of them as equals?

Here's the documentary on youtube, in two parts. I strongly recommend watching it!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujySz-_NFQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4-1xCf3I7U&feature=relmfu

Final thought on Cranford

The ladies of Cranford resist love. They live in a world in which they try to isolate themselves from the problems that may happen in relationships. This is almost the opposite thing that the ladies of Middlemarch do. Quite a few of the relationship in Middlemarch end in some kind of a problem.  Maybe the ladies of Cranford have a point. Maybe life is better if they do not get hurt by love. What is better, a life of no pain or the pain that is sometimes caused by love? It seems like both of these choices are flawed, maybe love has to do with a compromise of both.