After mildly scrubbing Mrs. Fairlie’s tombstone, Anne Catherick transforms from a peaceful, innocent girl to a ferocious creature at Walter Hartright’s insinuation that she may belong in an insane asylum after all. The change is witnessed on her face, which before was characterized by “nervous sensitiveness, weakness and uncertainty” (Collins 104). These descriptions paint Anne as harmless and helpless, as a Victorian woman is expected to be. However, this softness morphs into “an expression of maniacally intense hatred and fear” (104). Both feelings alter the woman’s passive emotional state in an unfeminine way, making her dangerous. The word “wild” is used twice, as well as “unnatural,” emphasizing Anne’s departure from traditional feminine nature (104). She is specifically described as a “wild animal,” separating her from humanity entirely (104). This description is especially notable since animals are typically associated with the masculine, perhaps suggesting a subversion of gender roles. Lastly, Anne uses her “convulsive strength” to “crush” the cloth she had been using to clean the tombstone, “as if it had been a living creature she could kill” (104). The ferocious violence of this action is emphasized by each descriptor, once again comparing Anne Catherick to an animalistic predator. I think this passage shows a dark side of Anne Catherick lurking beneath her meek demeanor, which is agitated by Hartright’s insult to her mental stability. With this scene, Collins subtly aligns unfemininity with insanity, or mental illness at the least. Here is also an image of a woman overcome by sensations—dark sensations of fear and anger—who is thus transformed into something unnatural, masculine, and frighteningly powerful.
3 thoughts on “Don’t Poke the Anne Bear”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great interpretation! Your post deftly highlights the influence of the Gothic on this novel. I’m reminded of other ferocious women in texts like “Jane Eyre,” “Dracula,” and “Carmilla.” What is it about female agency that frightened Victorian writers so much? I recommend checking out Gilbert and Gubar’s “The Madwoman in the Attic.” Their book, like your post, deals with the concept of the feminine monster in Victorian literature. I’d also love to know what you make of Madame Fosco’s description as “a faithful dog” (Collins 216). Do you think there may be some rabies left in her yet?
Anne being described as a “wild animal” definitely reminds me of the madwoman in “Jane Eyre” who is also described as animalistic and violent (even physically acting like an animal — growling and biting). This similarity across Victorian novels seems suggests that when women are locked up (be it in asylums, attics, or bedrooms) and are treated as less than human, they revert to animalistic states (maybe as a defense mechanism). As Laura as already been locked up once, I wonder if it will happen again, and if so, will she also develop these wild traits?
I love this interpretation of the passage! It reminds me of our conversation in class, where she was originally viewed as the “picturesque Victorian woman” but then changed on a dime. This goes back to gender roles in this novel, where men are painted as “unnatural” for being unmarried and women (Anne, for example) are beast-like creatures. Colins then reinforces this idea with the Count’s wife, describing him as taming a lion. This idea of lion, tigers, and bears (Oh my!) is something that has really stuck out to me this novel, so I love what you wrote!