Class Blog

“The lady’s complexion was almost swarthy, and the dark down on her upper lip was almost a moustache. She had a large, firm, masculine mouth and jaw; prominent, piercing, resolute brown eyes; and thick, coal-black hair, growing unusually low down on her forehead. Her expression—bright, frank, and intelligent—appeared, while she was silent, to be altogether wanting in those feminine attractions of gentleness and pliability, without which the beauty of the handsomest woman alive is beauty incomplete.” (Wilkie Collins Project Gutenberg)

The Victorians love phrenology almost as much as they love tea and biscuits. The idea that the way a person looks determines who they are is an insidious idea that is inherently racist because it holds traditionally white features in higher esteem and demeans and dehumanizes everyone else. This pseudoscience can be seen here as Walter Hartright demeans the woman’s features for not being European and Aryan enough. Large features as well as coarse black hair are seen as signs of ugliness. Additionally, this passage shows just how invested Walter is in the traditional ideas of masculinity. The intelligent features, which again is simply phrenology and there is no such thing as looking intelligent that isn’t built off of societal stereotypes that are built around the idea that rich white men are smart and capable which leads us to the ideas of social Darwinism which while I don’t believe has been put into explicit terms yet the idea of “the rich are just better” has been around since forever, are unbecoming to a woman because a woman’s role, in the mind of this fucking jackass, is to be silent and submissive which we see as he says, “while she was silent, to be altogether wanting in those feminine attractions of gentleness and pliability,” a woman’s role is to be silent, pretty, and most importantly, to fit into the cishet white patriarchy.

So long and thanks for all of the fish,

Carmine

Throughout the narratives of both Walter Hartright and Vincent Gilmore, Limmeredge House is shown to have a profoundly transformative effect on those who visit. Particularly in these cases, Wilkie Collins introduces the narrator as an upright man whose appearance at the house pertains to a specific undertaking. However, as Mr. Gilmore demonstrates during his account of his visit, the expectation-defying natures of the house’s inhabitants have a way of altering the perspectives of its visitors. “In the case of any other client,” Mr. Gilmore writes, “I should have acted on my instructions, however personally distasteful to me,” (Collins 154). From his introduction, Mr. Gilmore is presented as a man of business and refinement. When it comes to Miss Fairlie, on the contrary, “[he cannot] do with this business-like indifference,” (154). Interestingly, the word “cannot” is chosen rather than one suggesting any level of agency. In a rare moment where Mr. Gilmore is denying that which is asked of him, the writing implies an unusual lack of personal involvement or choice. Collins immediately shifts into an uncharacteristically-emotional recollection of Mr. Gilmore’s longtime relationship with the fairlies. Though Mr. Gilmore has mentioned, in passing, his long relationship with the family, it has never been in such depth or length. Mr. Gilmore’s reverie ultimately leads him to the conclusion that “writing a second time to Mr. Fairlie was not to be thought of” (154). For the time, Mr. Gilmore’s choice to go behind the eyes of his client’s male guardian is very much subversive, and hallmarks an important change in his thinking that culminates in his argument with Mr. Fairlie.

Wilkie Collins regularly explores binaries in The Woman in White. During Walter Hartright’s initial encounter with Miss Marian Halcombe, one such exploration is depicted as Miss Halcombe lists the ways that she and her sister, Laura Fairlie, differ from each other:

My father was a poor man, and Miss Fairlie’s father was a rich man. I have got nothing, and she has a fortune. I am dark and ugly, and she is fair and pretty. Everybody thinks me crabbed and odd (with perfect justice); and everybody thinks her sweet-tempered and charming (with more justice still). In short, she is an angel; I am—Try some of that marmalade, Mr. Hartright, and finish the sentence, in the name of female propriety, for yourself. (37)

The picture that Marian paints of herself is admittedly bleak. She is “dark and ugly” while her sister is “fair and pretty.” She grew up “poor” and remains so now while her sister “has a fortune.” Unlike Laura, Marian is thought to be “crabbed and odd” and decidedly unpleasant while Laura is “sweet-tempered and charming.” Marian even goes so far as to say that Laura “is an angel” while intentionally refusing to outwardly state what Laura’s presumed “divinity” would make her based on the binary that she has presented thus far: a demon. The negative way that Marian views herself when placed up against her sister seems to suggest that she has internalized society’s views of what it means to be the perfect lady (as embodied by Laura), and she has found herself decidedly lacking according to society’s standards. Marian’s internalized negative self-image is emphasized by the asides she includes in her speech, where she argues that the dispositions that she and Laura have been labeled with are perfectly justifiable. However, what I find so interesting about Marian’s introduction is that she does not attempt to share this view with Hartwright to garner sympathy; rather, she treats her perception of herself and her sister as fact. Here, Collins seems to present the tension between the complexity of feelings and the narrative structure that he has chosen for his text (that of a strict recording of facts, much like a court document). Marian elaborates on this tension, explicitly stating that despite the reason for it appearing to be “unaccountable,” she and Laura “are honestly fond of each other” (37). Thus, Marian makes clear that despite the way that she and her sister seem binarily opposed to each other, they are in fact as close as two people can be. Therefore, I would argue that implicit in Marian’s assertion is the notion that perhaps the binaries that Collins presents in The Woman in White are not as clear-cut as they seem, and by extension, neither are the characters that they attempt to categorize.

“Does my poor portrait of her, my fond, patient labour of long and happy days, show me these things? Ah, how few of them are in the dim mechanical drawing, and how many in the mind with which I regard it! A fair, delicate girl, in a pretty light dress, trifling with the leaves of a sketch-book, while she looks up from it with truthful, innocent blue eyes—that is all the drawing can say; all, perhaps, that even the deeper reach of thought and pen can say in their language, either. The woman who first gives life, light, and form to our shadowy conceptions of beauty, fills a void in our spiritual nature that has remained unknown to us till she appeared. Sympathies that lie too deep for words, too deep almost for thoughts, are touched, at such times, by other charms than those which the senses feel and which the resources of expression can realise. The mystery which underlies the beauty of women is never raised above the reach of all expression until it has claimed kindred with the deeper mystery in our own souls. Then, and then only, has it passed beyond the narrow region on which light falls, in this world, from the pencil and the pen” (Collins). 

This passage highlights the stark difference in the way Mr. Hartright describes Laura Farlie versus his original description of the woman in white, Anne Catherck. I find this passage interesting in sensing this connection because this is before Miss Halcomb reveals to him that they look so similar. He describes Miss Farlie as, “A fair, delicate girl, in a pretty light dress…with truthful, innocent blue eyes” (Collins). In his first description of the woman in white he says, “ All I could discern distinctly by the moonlight was a colourless, youthful face, meagre and sharp to look at about the cheeks and chin; large, grave, wistfully attentive eyes; nervous, uncertain lips; and light hair of a pale, brownish-yellow hue….and her dress—bonnet, shawl, and gown all of white” (Collins). He describes the two women so similarly: their fair skin, their youth, their light/white garments, but differs when describing their eyes. Laura’s are truthful, while Anne’s are attentive.

Despite highlighting their similarities, Laura is idealized by Mr. Hartright and he sees her as passive, etheral, and pure, while Anne is seen as mysterious and almost uncanny. Laura represents perfection, while Anne represents the unknown. I find this description interesting when we think of the way Mr. Hartright perceives women throughout this novel. Until this point, Anne has had more agency than Laura. She was the one that approached Mr. Hartright and asked for directions and denied his requests for more information about her. Her ability to approach a man shows her independence, whilst Laura has been more passive, and reflects innocence and what Mr. Hartright might see as what should be the expected nature and norms from women at the time. Anne’s agency reflects her mysterious nature, while Laura’s passive nature shows her dependence on others. Mr. Hartright’s contrasting views of Laura and Anne reflect the way he typically romantacizes women and his reflection on women as a whole throughout the novel.

Walter Hartright introduces Anne Catherick to the reader with an almost obsessive lens of modesty and infantile descriptions. This is continued when he reencounters her at Mrs. Fairlie’s grave, where he treats her the way one might treat a small child. He reassures her constantly throughout their conversation, speaking slowly and gently to her (Collins 95). One may think that Walter’s love for Laura Fairlie, who so resembles Anne, may cause him to see Anne in a different light than he did on his first encounter with her. However, when he observes Anne more carefully, he finds all of her dissimilarities to Miss Fairlie, referring to her “worn, weary face” (97). This makes clear to the reader that Walter is still viewing Anne in a patronizing light. Walter’s idea of Anne as a chaste being, however, is unfounded, in my opinion. To look at page 105 and Anne’s reaction to hearing about Sir Percival Glyde, it is clear that she has had unfavorable encounters with him. Walter uses this to conclude that Sir Percival is responsible for locking Anne up in the asylum. While this makes sense and seems to be the correct conclusion for Walter to draw, he also does not seem to ruminate on what may have caused this series of events in Anne’s life. Based on the striking resemblance between Anne and Laura Fairlie, who is to be married to Sir Percival, my immediate assumption of Anne’s hatred of him was that he had forcefully expressed interest in her.

The gaze is central to The Woman in White.  In the first section, Collins frames a supposedly objective testimony through a drawing master’s narrative, someone whose job is primarily looking.  Walter Hartright frequently affords his reader extensively self-indulgent visual descriptions, but in his relationship with Laura, these descriptions take a turn:   

“Not a day passed, in that dangerous intimacy of teacher and pupil, in which my hand was not close to Miss Fairlie’s; my cheek, as we bent together over her sketch-book, almost touching hers. The more attentively she watched every movement of my brush, the more closely I was breathing the perfume of her hair, and the warm fragrance of her breath” (Collins 63). 

Because Hartright is first and foremost a painter, it makes sense that he is alarmed at the literalized foreshortening of his life’s picture plain: Laura is much closer to his than he initially realized. He describes his experience first through negatives: “not a day,” “not so close,” when he is in control of the action, perhaps to emphasize the extent of his restraint in this “dangerous” relationship with (the formally addressed) “Miss Fairlie.”  However, when they act “together,” or when Laura is the actor “watch[ing]” him, he more freely admits his desire. Though he cannot see her, as he is focusing on his work, he gages her “attentive” gaze by her proximity, her smell.  Hartright assumes their equal attraction in the next parallel phrase: the “more” attentive she is, the “more” intensely he breathes her in. They are close enough to equally exchange air, but Laura’s “perfume” and “fragrance” dominates the space (I will note, uncontrollably) at the culmination of this multi-clause, breathless phrase. 

Even when Laura is “attentive” to Hartright, she is watching “every movement of [his] brush,” not him.  The brush undoubtedly has sexual or phallic connotations for both parties which extend to another moment of gaze.  As Hartright prepares to leave Limmeridge House,  

“She turned her head away, and offered me a little sketch, drawn throughout by her own pencil, of the summer-house in which we had first met. The paper trembled in her hand as she held it out to me—trembled in mine as I took it from her” (Collins 126). 

While Hartright is allowed to express his desire for Laura in his retrospective account, Laura cannot do the same.  Without looking at him (and without touching him), she gives him a “little” (note Hartright’s diminutive) “drawing” which can yield a few interpretations.  First, that her desire cannot be voiced, and is therefore only communicated through another object, (the paper).  Second, that that the pencil in a woman’s (“trembling”) hand will never be as mighty as the brush in a man’s, we take it, steady one.  But if we lean into the phallic interpretation, just like Hartright’s drawing, she has independently drawn on the canvas and given it to Hartright – perhaps she is voicing her own mirrored desire for Hartright.  However, I would suggest that another reading is possible here: Laura’s trembling hand and inability to meet Hartright’s gaze hints at her insincerity.  Painting from Hartright’s perspective is often linked with heterosexual desire, so (it might be crazy but) could this moment also allude to how Laura is merely mimicking heterosexual desire as she mimics Hartright as a painter?   

 

Works Cited: 

Collins, Wilkie. The Woman in White. Edited by John Sutherland, Oxford, Oxford University Press, [1860] 2008. 

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.

William A. Cohen’s “Sex, Scandal, and the Novel” describes the Victorian connection between Victorian concepts of sexual forbiddenness, other elements of socially unspeakable acts, and the style in which authors wrote. He explains, “Like other restrictions upon expression, the conventions of sexual unspeakability serve writers as a productive constraint, contributing to a certain historical formation of the literary”. The Woman In White, particularly the narrative of Walter Hartright, contains a number of paragraph-long descriptions that are winding and detailed, especially surrounding the novel’s women. Using this aspect of Cohen’s thinking as a lens, Hartright’s descriptions of the titular Woman in White become less curious, and more scandalous, regardless of any actual sexual intent. Now known to be Anne Catherick, she is further linked to the social undesirability of mental illness, as upon first meeting her, Walter discovers that she has escaped from an asylum. 

The most prominent rumination here is that of scandal rather than sex when thinking about Cohen. Whether she is the mysterious and ghostly Woman in White, or the tormented Anne Catherick, the woman is permanently linked to socially complex topics. Upon meeting her for the first time, Walter’s “restrictions of expression” produce a fascinating description, a long paragraph that takes great pains to deemphasize the sexualization of the woman. “The one thing of which I felt certain was,” he says, “that the grossest of mankind could not have misconstrued her motive in speaking, even at that suspiciously late hour and in that suspiciously lonely place”. Despite her wandering out late, Walter makes clear to readers that the woman is not a prostitute—however, instead of saying it outright, he politely states that her motives were pure, and that they could not have been “misconstrued” as promiscuous. Instead, her social unconventionality is linked to her rank, her social standing. Part of why the descriptive paragraph Walter embarks on is so long is because the woman defies categorization, being dressed in fabric “certainly not composed of very delicate or very expensive materials”. Additionally, her manner is inherently scandalous in that she hardly displays conventional femininity, according to Walter’s description. The “first touch of womanly tenderness” he hears from her is in the middle of their conversation, and he is unable to tell the nature of her “manner,” whether it is that of the noble lady or “the manner of a woman in the humblest rank of life”. All this from Walter is, in short, to say that the woman in white is more than a little strange, phrased in the politest way possible. On top of this inherent societal nonconformity (what we might call scandalous, even if not the exact “scandal” Cohen refers to), the woman in white is an escapee from a mental health institution, which Walter discovers after their first meeting.

However, the societal conventions of unspeakability that Cohen mentions guide Walter’s continual fascination and confusion with her in the text. Not even a day after they part, Walter is distracted by her: “I sat down and tried, first to sketch, then to read—but the woman in white got between me and my pencil, between me and my book.” He then asks a series of vague questions: “Had the forlorn creature come to any harm? That was my first thought, though I shrank selfishly from confronting it. Other thoughts followed, on which it was less harrowing to dwell”, he begins. Calling the mysterious figure a “forlorn creature,” especially, solidifies the image of her as something potentially scandalous in nature, even if not always sexual. In fact, Walter goes on to call her a “creature” rather than a “woman” more than once, throughout the novel. Late in the novel, when the obsession with unraveling the mystery consumes him further, he internally thinks, “Again, and yet again, the woman in white. There was a fatality in it”. This vaguely-stated “fatality” in question refers to his unconventional fascination, to the idea that this woman haunts him in a way greater than any other average lady—entirely due to her societal unconventionalism, the very thing that makes her ghostly other than her pale face in the moonlight. 

Walter’s fascination with the woman as unconventional is important in the formation of the novel because his point of view is the majority of readers’ exposure to this ghastly character. Readers only perceive Anne Catherick as so haunting due to her scandalous placement in Walter’s mind. These descriptions provide structure to the mystery, forming as a literary staple of the novel on a smaller scale than the way Cohen describes a historical formation of the literary. In addition, perhaps the mystery of the Woman in White has connections to the scandal-story that Cohen describes. 

Bibliography:

Cohen, William A. “Sex, Scandal, and the Novel.” From Sex Scandal: The Private Parts of Victorian Fiction, Duke University Press, 1996. The Victorian Web, www.victorianweb.org/gender/wac.html. 

Collins, Wilkie. (1996). The Woman in White. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved February 5, 2025, from https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/583/pg583-images.html.

 

(I just have the online version, so I copied the section I wanted to close read because there are no pages!) “Sad! To remember her, as I did, the liveliest, happiest child that ever laughed the day through, and to see her now, in the flower of her age and her beauty, so broken and so brought down as this!”

 

Although the passage above seemed insignificant as just a passing thought by Mr. Gilmore, it stood out as it demonstrates the contrast of Laura Fairlie. Throughout Mr. Gilmore’s narration, he often talks about, or to, Laura as if she were a child. Innocent, and unable to make her own decisions with the need of an older man to guide her through her impending marriage. His exclamation of “Sad!” paired with “and now” is a dismal view of Laura. By assuming “and now” it insinuates that she is unable to change and is now stuck in this cycle of childhood purity, unable to be the woman she is. He then goes on to say that she is “broken” and “brought down” to who she is yet again reaffirming that she is no longer a woman but a shell of one. “Broken” followed by “brought down” sounds as if she is unable to be put back together like glass shattered. And if she were to be able to be rebuilt, she would still have pieces missing as it’s difficult to put together a glass broken.

Mr. Gilmore then uses the “flower of her age and beauty” to describe her. He could be using “flower” to depict her beauty like a flower; or, in the way that flower is used in a sexual manner. Not that he is viewing her as a sexual object, but that she is at the age to be “deflowered”. This view then contrasts his previous observations, viewing her as the “child that laughed the day through”. This again insinuates the young characteristics that Laura embodies, and that Mr. Gilmore looks down on her as a woman and a child, whether that be implicitly or explicitly.