Class Blog

The Woman in White follows appears to follow a variation of “the marriage plot” from the Victorian Era. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the novel only echoes the marriage plot, leaving room to question the institution of marriage itself, therefore almost entirely dismantling the marriage plot. When Laura and Marian are reunited, after Laura had been away with her new husband Sir Percival, Laura exclaims to her sister, “How often you have made me mock-speeches of congratulation on my wealth! Oh, Marian, never laugh again. Thank God for your poverty- it has made you your own mistress and has saved you from the lot that has fallen on me” (Collins 258). Laura very clearly denounces marriage because of her own misery, expressing her opinion that it would be better to be a mistress than to be married, or, at least, married to Sir Percival. This is particularly interesting given that there was a common sentiment that there was an overabundance of women who were unmarried in England at this time, as expressed by William Rathbone Greg. Laura’s distress in her marriage causes her to believe that it would be better to not be married, even though it there was a perceived societal notion that being a single woman was a horrible thing to be. This inherently questions the institution of marriage by showing a woman in an unhappy marriage, wishing she could be released and envying her sister who remained unmarried. The rest of the novel continues to question conventional marriage as Sir Percival’s motives are revealed, and later, when Laura and Walter get “married” even though no one knew she was still alive at that point. This begs further questions of what exactly constitutes as a marriage, further challenging the conventional “marriage plot” and the institution of marriage.

“She was between ten and eleven years old then, slow at her lessons, poor soul, and not so cheerful as other children – but as pretty a little girl to look at as you would wish to see” (Collins 494).

This quote refers to Anne Catherick and was said by her mother when she describes her daughter. Not only does it touch on mental illness and physical appearance but also about gender and the perception of women in the Victorian Era. A trope that I recognize in the character of Anne is the beautiful-but-crazy woman. Throughout the novel, it is emphasized multiple times that Anne does look pretty (because she looks so much like Laura) but that she is also not mentally healthy. This reminds me of other “mad” female figures in Victorian novels, such as Lady Audley’s Secret or Jane Eyre. Gilbert and Gubar’s essay about The Madwoman in the Attic explores this in greater detail but it is striking that the women who are put into asylums in these stories are usually attractive. The quote underlines that attractiveness is of great importance when it comes to women in the Victorian Era. Negatively connated adjectives, such as “slow”, “poor”, and “not so cheerful” seem to be balanced out by prettiness. It also underlines that the wellbeing of the child is unimportant, as long as it is pretty. While this passage seems to be about mental illness and beauty, it is also about the superficiality of Victorian society.

This raises the question to me why that is and which effect attractiveness in incaptured women causes in the reader. Is it because the reader would be intimidated by “crazy” femme fatales and happy when they end up in an asylum? Comparing the sensation novel to contemporary forms of entertainment, maybe they share the feature that they often use very attractive characters because it is more appealing for the recipients.

Another aspect that bothers me about the “madwoman” trope in Victorian literature is that it reproduces the idea that there are many women who are legitimitally crazy and who belong in an asylum. As we discussed in class, many women were sent to mental institutions for a variety of reasons, including what was known as “hysteria” and I am under the impression that sensation novels use that trope only to bring a shocking factor into the story. Since the female characters in the stories are often portrayed as crazy, they do not feature those women who are falsely accused of madness and sent to asylums. I was positively surprised when Collins incorporated it in The Woman in White.

However (unfortunately, I could not find a second source to confirm this, but)…

… I read online that Wilkie Collins was strongly inspired for The Woman in White by the case of Louisa Nottidge who was the blue print for the character of Laura Glyde. She was sent to a lunatic asylum by a man named Henry James Prince who would financially profit very much from the situation. With the help of others, Nottidge was freed and she successfully sued Prince for sending her to the asylum. It was very scandalous at the time and the online article said that Collins tried to profit off of the attention this case received by incorporating it in his novel. If this is true, his intentions maybe were not of the feminist kind.

 

*Penguin Classics Version from 1974

The Woman in White includes countless characters who are not as they seem. For example “Sir” Percival Glyde reveals many layers of his identity throughout the story. First the reader is led to believe that he wants to marry Laura and that his intentions are in the right place. However, very quickly it becomes obvious that he is not in it for the right reasons, aka only for the money. Furthermore, the reason why Glyde is so desperate to marry Laura and obtain her money is because he does not have any. He is a fraud, an illegitimate child who created a fake identity in order to appear better than he actually was in society’s standings. Percival’s desire to keep his identity a secret reveals how dependent he is on his reputation and social status.

Who could wonder now at the brute-restlessness of the wretch’s life; at his desperate alternations between abject duplicity and reckless violence at the madness of guilty district which had made him imprison Anne Catherick in the Asylum, and had given him over to the vile conspiracy against his wife, on the bare suspicion that the one and the other knew his terrible secret? (pg. 510)

Hartright had no idea that this would be the reason for Percival’s paranoia. His desperation to keep his identity a secret destroyed the lives of two women solely based on suspicion. Percival looked and acted like a member of the nobility and therefore no one asked questions. His performance is so strong that he fools everyone until Hartright starts digging for answers. Perhaps the novel is suggesting that status does not necessarily mean all that it is built up to be but is rather all an act in order to compete in society.

Looking at how class was so closely tied to one’s life during the Victorian Era can be found in the Victorian Web readings as scandal and gossip were integral parts of society. ” Inthe Victorian period, scandals of all sorts proliferated in the popular press. In part as a result of the repeal of the stamp tax in 1855 and the paper duty in 1860, the number of newspapers in Great Britain multiplied, and they became cheaper, more widely available, and more national in scope.” Anything exposed from one’s private life was immediately absorbed into the public sphere.  Therefore Percival did all that he could to keep his secret, even if it meant destroying the lives of two women.

Count Fosco in every sense is a villain and master manipulator. He habitually controls everyone and everything conceivable in his environment. In Freud’s terms Fosco is himself under a compulsion to repeat. Marian’s primary impression of him upon their first meeting is of “a man who could tame anything” (Collins, 217). Fosco certainly seems to have that mission, given that he has already “transformed her [Madame Fosco] into a civil, silent, unobtrusive woman” (Collins, 216) and has trained mice, a cockatoo, and canaries all to do his absolute bidding. Essentially, Fosco engages in mesmerism to control and manipulate those around him. Even Sir Percival is forced to succumb to Fosco’s will, calming when Fosco tells him too and adhering to a schedule based on Fosco’s “absolute will and pleasure” (Collins, 314).

Freud theorizes that the repetition of a certain action or habit is the result of repression and states that “the repetition is a transference of the forgotten past…onto all the other aspects of the current situation” (Freud, 151). Using this idea, we can theorize about Fosco’s character and his past. Freud believes that this form of compulsive action is the result of repressing and forgetting a memory and situation until the person “reproduces it not as a memory but as an action; he repeats it” (Freud 150). We can then ask why Fosco repeatedly seeks to control those around him and what fear or past he represses.

There is certainly an intense desire or need for control as Count Fosco will go out of his way to control anyone in his environment. His interaction with Percival’s dog indicates that need as he actively seeks out that interaction to bully the dog into submission. He declares that the dog is an “infernal coward” and that the dog won’t hurt him as “I’m not afraid of you” (Collins, 221). In the end, the dog fears Fosco. While fear is not necessarily Fosco’s primary mode of control, he certainly uses it, and seems to enjoy using it more than his other tactics of mesmerism. When Marian is the victim of his intimidation tactics, she notes that “There was something horrible – something fierce and devilish in the outburst of his delight at his own singing and playing, and in the triumph with which he watched its effect upon me” (Collins, 314). Fosco is then, perhaps much like the bloodhound he bullies: a coward who represses his own constant fear, seeking instead to transfer it to others.

“Upon the whole, he had a frail, languidly-fretful, over-refined look – something singularly and unpleasantly delicate in its association with a man, and at the same time, something which could by no possibility gave looked natural and appropriate it had been transferred to the personal appearance of a woman.” (p.42)

A note on language used in this piece: I use disabled not as an insult or pejorative term, but as the most commonly preferred descriptor for medicalized peoples. It is important to note, however, disabled as a term was not popularized until the 1990s, so it could be said my use is anachronistic, however I’m trying to employ modern disability theory to my work. Words that were used in the Victorian era include handicapped, affected, idiot, and so forth.

The Victorian era witnessed the simultaneous birth of modern conceptions of gender and disability. This was no coincidence – ideas of health and gender performance went hand in hand with each other. If we understand gender through a performative lens – a process which requires people to exhibit certain behaviors and mannerisms to be “read” a certain way, we can extend that to disability as well. While an Victorian example of gender performance may be a woman covering much of her skin through layered petticoats and dresses, a performance of disability may be a poor disabled person begging on the street. Disability and the medicalization of difference often overlapped with conceptions of gender, especially as it came to body hair, skin color, and body size. One needs only to look to Victorian circus history to see performers labelled simultaneously as medically different (disabled) and gender variant.

In Wilkie Collin’s novel, the gender and ability of all characters are examined through his extremely long and detailed descriptions. Perhaps the most striking example of the gendering of disability is the paragraph introducing Mr. Fairlie. Through the perspective of Mr. Hartright, the reader is inundated with minute descriptions of Mr. Fairlie’s body hair, weight, skin color, and dress. The tone of Mr. Hartright’s description shifts from curious to disgusted. He begins by guessing at the Mr. Fairlie’s age, one of the most important markers for disability. In these modern conceptions of disability born out of the Victorian era, a young body is equated with health, whereas an older body is more likely to be sick. Next, he catalogs Mr. Fairlie’s body hair, which he describes as “beardless”, specifically denoting the lack of something (the beard) which men are expected to have. Mr. Fairlie’s hair is then further described as “scanty” and “soft to look at”. Softness is not typically associated with men. His feet are described as “effeminately small”, wearing “womanish” shoes, perhaps Mr. Hartright’s most transparently stated frustration with Mr. Fairlie’s conflicting gender and gender presentation.

In his conclusion, Mr. Hartright remarks that Mr. Fairlie is womanly, but in a way that would not translate if transferred on to a woman. This is one of the most revealing remarks, I believe, because Mr. Hartright reveals that he sees Mr. Fairlie not as a woman, not a man, but an effeminate (queer) man. His conclusion is directly tied to Mr. Fairlie’s disabilities, and therefore, his anger and frustration with his failure to conform is as well.

One day before dinner Hartright comments on how Miss Fairlie is dressed compared to Miss Halcombe and Mrs. Vesey. She wore a simple white dress which was a complete turn off for Hartright as he states “It was spotlessly pure: it was beautifully put on: but still it was the sort of dress which the wife or daughter of a poor man might have worn; and it made her, so far as externals went, look less affluent in circumstances than her own governess” (pg. 56). While the color emphasizes her purity and cleanliness both literally and figuratively, he is upset that she does not show off her status as a rich woman through her clothes. In fact he insults her by saying that her governess is dressed better than she is. Furthermore the passage supports the notion that Hartright is very materialistic and cares primarily about class and the presentation of one’s status. By wearing a white muslin dress Hartright feels that she is not presenting herself in alignment with her class status. I think he wants her to dress up because he finds it more attractive while also visually proving to anyone that sees her that she is rich.

I find it ironic that he says “as far as externals went” considering he judges Miss Fairlie solely based off of her external features and looks. When he finds out more about her character he does not agree with her opinions and seems to swat them away as if they do not exist. Hartright is so in love with the idea of Miss Fairlie because of the way she looks, her class rank, and her dainty mannerisms that he chooses to ignore the parts of her that he opposes.

All of these characteristics that Hartright acknowledges and becomes obsessed with align with Victorian ideals of beauty among women. He believes that looks and status are more important than character and personality. While this looks shallow to the modern viewer, no one would have blinked during the Victorian Era at this behavior.

At the time that Mr. Gilmore comes back to Limmeridge to meet with Mr. Fairlie to write up the marriage settlement, the weather helps to indicate the tone of the scene. This is quite typical, as weather is the easiest element of a scene to put a reader ‘in the mood,’ but it was particularly interesting the way that the weather and tone of this scene played out. During the night of Mr. Gilmore’s arrival, “The house was oppressively empty and dull…The wind howled dismally all night, and strange cracking and groaning noises sounded here, there, and everywhere in the empty house” (Collins 156-7). However, what was both interesting and revealing was that the servants and other workers of the house matched the tone of the weather. They “were so surprised at seeing [Mr. Gilmore] that they hurried and bustled absurdly and made all sorts of annoying mistakes. Even the butler, who was old enough to have known better, brought [him] a bottle of port that was chilled” (Collins 156-7). Without a doubt, this section of writing set the tone for the rest of Mr. Gilmore’s narrative—he goes on to write away all of Miss Fairlie’s money and property in her marriage settlement, leaving a dark cloud over both Miss Fairlie and Miss Halcombe. However, this small piece of writing also marked a turning point in the entire novel. It created the feeling that nothing will ever be the same as it was before. Mr. Hartright is gone, Miss Fairlie’s money is about to be taken away from her (and given to Sir Percival Glyde, of all people), and a potential relationship between two budding young lovers has been lost. The servants, unable to perform their duties, represent Mr. Gilmore—who is about to be unable to perform his own for the young women—and the weather, hanging over the house threateningly, represents Sir Percival, who seems like he is about to come in and tear through the family when they least expect it.

The relationship between Miss Halcombe and Mr. Hartright is amicable from the beginning of their time together. Although Miss Halcombe expresses her feelings for Mr. Hartright, he is in love with her sister and so their relationship remains a friendly one and nothing more. However, their relationship is more complex than that, as Mr. Hartright relies on Miss Halcombe for support, particularly once she tells him that Miss Fairlie in engaged. Once she tells him that her sister is engaged, Mr. Hartright is devastated as her felt a, “dull numbing pain” (Collins 72). Both Mr. Hartright and Miss Halcombe, who can see the pain on his face, express that the pain has momentarily wiped Mr. Hartright of his masculinity. Miss Halcombe says, “Crush it […] don’t shrink under it like a woman. Tear it out: trample it under foot like a man” (Collins 73). Interestingly, Miss Halcombe challenges Mr. Hartright’s masculinity by insinuating that if he lets his pain persist, he will be feminine. This is interesting because Miss Halcombe, as a woman, is reinforcing gender stereotypes throughout the book thus far of feminine weakness, while acting as a strong, more stereo-typically masculine character. By telling Mr. Hartright that pain is feminine, she buys into and promotes the stereotypes of feminine weakness and masculine strength while simultaneously portraying a woman who does not uphold very feminine stereotypes. Miss Halcombe’s language violent demands of Mr. Hartright when she tells him to “crush” and “rip out” come with a connotation of destruction and violence, followed by the insistence that if he “crushes” his pain, he will be a man. Here, manliness is associated with violence and overpowering/ destroying weakness (pain). This adds to the concept of gender roles which runs throughout the book. It gives us insight into what the characters believe masculinity and femininity look like.  Mr. Hartright agrees with Miss Halcombe’s sentiment saying, We both waited for a minute, in silence. At the end of that time, I had justified her generous faith in my manhood” (73). Interestingly, Mr. Hartright almost admits to not being as masculine as Miss Halcombe gives him credit for because he describes her words to be “generous” implying that he may not believe them entirely himself. However, he did gather himself enough to “justify” her confidence in his masculinity. This exchange between these two characters both emphasizes and challenged gender stereotypes, adding to the complex dynamics of gender roles throughout the novel.

“You see, I don’t think much of my own sex, Mr Hartright […] no woman does think much of her own sex, although few of them confess it as freely as I do” (Collins 60*).

This quote was said by Marian Halcombe, shortly after she met Mr. Hartright. There are a few things that we can gather from this quote. We have learned about Mariam’s appearance which, in the novel is described as “masculine” and “ugly” (58). Therefore, as we discussed in class, she can be friends with Hartright because there is no risk of him falling in love with her.

In this passage, it seems as if she wanted to elevate herself from other women by bringing them down and generalizing that other women dislike each other but she talks “freely” because she is not like the other women. It seems as though Wilkie Collins wanted her to be more likable than other female characters because she is “just like one of the boys”. It also stands out to me that she is “natural” (60), “confident” (60), and generally quite quirky which none of the feminine women in the novel seem to be. Are these tributes that are reserved for “masculine” characters?

But why would women dislike each other? One reason could be that they see each other as competition. Taking William Rathbone’s writing and The Norton Anthology into account, there was a “surplus” of women and they were “redundant” (Rathbone 157, Norton Anthology 992). Because there were significantly more women than men in Great Britain, many women remained unmarried. There must have been a huge desire for women to marry, thus they stood in direct competition with each other. Maybe they were taught from early on to dislike other women. This could especially be the case with the Darwinist idea of “survival of the fittest”. “If you want to survive as a woman you must hate other women”. This leads to an internalized misogyny that (sub-)consciously accompanies them their whole lives.

Another reason why women dislike each other in the novel could be that “The Woman in White” is written by a male author. Nevertheless, it is directed at a predominantly female readership. It is an interesting reflection of the Victorian gender roles that a male author would make so many generalized assumptions about what women think, desire, and feel. In modern language, we might use the term “mansplaining”, here. Other examples from Collins’ “mansplaining-through-Mariam”-collection:

“Women can’t draw – their minds are too flighty, and their eyes are too inattentive” (61).

“I am as inaccurate as women usually are” (60).

“I will give you some tea to compose your spirits, and do all a woman can (which is very little, by-the-bye) to hold my tongue” (60).

 

 

*Penguin Classics edition from 1974

 

“Don’t shrink under it like a woman. Tear it out; trample it under foot like a man!”

The Victorian Era was one of strict gender roles (although, some may argue little has changed). There was a very particular way a man must act and a very particular way a woman must act. No one strayed from it, at risk of being ridiculed. Willkie Collins’ The Woman in White portrays male and female characters, both in physicality and in what they say, in such a way as to emphasize the importance of this. In particular, the interactions between Miss Halcombe and Mr. Hartright show what strict standards both men and women were held to.

Much of Miss Halcombe and Mr. Hartright’s interactions appear to be Miss Holcombe, who is described in a rather masculine manner, telling Hartright to, in no short terms to man up. After Miss Halcombe tells him to leave the house as it is clear Hartright is in love with Miss Fairlie, Hartright is visibly upset. Miss Holcombe immediately comes in with “Don’t shrink under it like a woman. Tear it out; trample it under foot like a man!” (Collins). It, in this case, is emotions of heartbreak and distraught brought on by Miss Holcombe insisting it is for the best that Hartright leaves Limberidge House. In Miss Holcombe’s, and the Victorian audience’s, mind to succumb or “shirk under” emotion is to make one more feminine. To be a man is to crush them, “tear it out; [and] trample it under foot”. This is just one of many times we the reader see Miss Halcombe remind Hartright to be a man. To be repeated so many times goes to show what a strong influence societal expectations and gender roles held on the Victorians. To have Miss Holcombe, a masculine woman, remind Hartright of his role as the actual man minimizes and furthers the reading that Miss Holcombe is not a “real” or “proper woman” and that Hartright is not quite to the standard of a Victorian man.