Author: Victoria

Alice in Wonderland is a fanciful tale about a girl who dreams about falling down a rabbit hole into a magical realm of nonsense and curiosities (because to say wonder seems to nondescript). Once there, she encounters many situations in which standard phrases in which readers may think themselves familiar until they are re-imagined with different social interpretations or meanings. The constantly changing nature of social meaning through language instills in readers the opportunity, if not the obligation, to be more liberal in their interpretations and understandings of social situations and questions.

Language in Alice asks readers to become aware of their own social preconceptions through the use of seemingly familiar phrases and the presentation of opposing interpretations. Alice is told to “take some more tea,” during tea time with the March Hare, Mad Hatter, and the Doormouse, to which she replies that she’s had none yet, therefore, cannot take more. The Hatter refutes the point by stating, “You mean you can’t take less… it’s very easy to take more than nothing.” In this instance, we see Alice’s conception of more and less and the Hatter’s. Alice interprets “more” as adding to an already existing value (a previous cup of tea) while the Hatter presumes that zero is a reasonable value on which to start adding more tea. There is a social judgment placed on the interaction by both Alice and the Hatter yet the text does not seem to take sides in order to guide a reader towards the “correct” assumption. Rather, the text seems to ask the reader to consider their own understanding of the situation. Which interpretation is more familiar, which is more reasonable, or if both are reasonable, how does it change a reader’s concept of what is being asked of them? If the reader agrees more with the Hatter they may begin to question their sanity. If they agree with Alice perhaps they might question their adulthood. No matter which character they agree with the reader must reflect upon the effectiveness of the question itself.

The language in Alice in Wonderland plays with the variety of means a word or phrase can have, depending on the manner in which a person chooses to interpret it. Interpretation can stem from many sources such as learned social cues and a standardization of linguistic patterning. However, when the aforementioned expectations change or become ambiguous misunderstandings abound. This post will investigate briefly the effectiveness of Alice in Wonderland as a text that exposes readers’ social preconceptions and their ability or inability to adapt in an environment with different or changing expectations.

Christina Rossetti seems to imply in her poem In the Artist’s Studio, that women are portrayed in art they are no longer themselves but a projection of the male fantasy that surrounds her. Her accusation of art as a means to deprive women of their individuality will be examined here through the portrayal first of Laura from the Women in White, as described through Walter’s painting.

Laura is described first through the lens of Walter’s watercolor of her. He asks readers to “Think of her, as you thought of the first women who quickened the pulse within you that the rest of her sex could not stir.” (Collins 52). This description is the most potent in demonstrating the uniformity of women through the eyes of male art. Laura is not her own person but rather a conglomeration of all the aspects of a woman that bring out “sensations” in men. He describes Laura as “matchless, music[al], and airy” even going so far as to say, “Take her as the visionary nursling of your own fancy; and she will grow upon you…as the living woman who dwells in mine.” (Collins 52). Christina Rossetti would likely roll her eyes to this romanticization of a woman to the point of potentially falsifying her appearance and almost certainly falsifying who she is as a person.

Walter’s initial portrayal of Laura becomes problematic as the story continues. As Laura becomes more ill “with sorrow dim” rather than shining “hope… bright[ly].” (Rossetti 12-13). Walter’s love for her seems to become less certain for her. There seems to be a shift in his unyielding romantic language surrounding Laura at the beginning to an almost piteous treatment of her towards the end of the novel. This shift almost seems to imply that Walter would rather be in love with his own painting of Laura than Laura herself, the thing which Christina Rossetti seems to be critiquing. Christina Rossetti, though critical, does not seem to imply a consequence to standardizing female figures in paintings. Could we, as readers, use the outcome of Laura’s changed relationship with Walter and Walter’s altered perspective of Laura as examples of consequences?   

The Woman in White ends with Laura Walter and Marian all living together at Limmerage without scandal. William Greg would likely argue that Marian is the “redundant” woman in this relationship as she is single and the other two characters are married to each other. This essay will attempt to refute the argument of Marian’s redundancy in the story though the examination of how Wilkie Collins deals with the three issues proposed by Greg regarding women’s redundancy and Marian’s complex role in the narrative that makes her appear both “redundant” and not redundant in comparison with other female characters.

Greg argues that English women remain “redundant” because of three factors: the lack of women who immigrated during the colonization period, men’s preoccupation with prostitutes, and women never being asked by a man to get married. Wilkie Collins deals with two of the three problems Greg proposes through the characters of Madame Fosco and Laura. Madame Fosco immigrates to Italy to marry the Count, solving issue one. Laura, in her marriage to both Sir Percival and Walter deals with men’s fascination with prostitutes. Sir Percival has an obsession with Anne before and after his marriage to Laura. Anne, while not a prostitute, becomes similar to a prostitute in the sense that she is a woman who distracts men from their marriage. This problem is fixed by his death and Laura’s remarriage to Walter. The third issue which Gregg points out is an issue, and potentially holds weight when we consider Marian’s status as a single woman.

Marian is one of the few, if not the only, female to remain single (and alive), throughout the entirety of the novel. No one asks Marian to marry her. However, there a few sentences on page 621 when Walter clumsily asks whether Marian intents to get married and she responds that, “…there can be no parting between [the three of] us” and “I will teach the children to speak for me in their language; and the first lesson they will say to their mother and father is – we can’t spare our aunt.” (621). In this case, Greg might argue that Marian takes on a role of governess for her sister and Walter and “while a noble profession” should still obtain a husband. Carolyn Dever would likely argue back that Marian does find a husband in Walter and a wife in Laura, but its likely Greg would not accept this. However, Marian also falls into the category which Greg allotted for, a woman who chooses to remain single rather than is forced to be single by circumstance.

Marian is redundant because she is a single woman but is also not because she chooses to be single. We can take on alternative perspectives like Dever, or call Marian a proto-feminist because she’d rather have children speak for her rather than a husband. Marian’s complex character complicates Greg’s overly deconstructed reasons as to why Victorian women were single.

Wilkie Collin’s The Woman in White expresses the three personality traits described by Freud, id, ego and superego, through the characters of Sir Percival, Count Fosco, and Laura respectively. Freud’s theory was not published during the publication of The Woman in White. However, critics can retrospectively notice patterns in characters, determine if they become increasingly simplistic like Freud’s model and begin to ask whether Freud drew his simplistic model of the conscious and unconscious from the observations of simplistic Victorian characters or whether the model demonstrates something innately human that many Victorian writers hyperbolized in their writing. This post will focus on mapping Percival, Fosco, and Laura based on their discussion of murder on page 231 in terms of id, ego, and superego. 

The id is described by Freud as being the unconscious, primitive mind. The id only wants to fulfill its own desires without delay or interference. Percival represents the id. During the scene, he speaks and reacts emotionally to the situation. When Fosco tells him the lake is a terrible place for a murder Percival gets defensive and says, “it would take to long to explain” (231). Likewise, when Laura says she believes that crimes cause their own detection he scornfully laughs at her and feels angry when Marian comes to her add. His explosive emotions increase as the book goes on. It is most notable in the following scene when Percival yells at Laura to sign the document that will only serve his interests.

Fosco, who acts as realistic council to Percival, represents ego. He his calm, collected, and looks at the realities within situations. Fosco’s practicality can be seen when he says the lake is too shallow and the sand would leave the murderer’s footprint behind if a murder were to take place. Likewise, Fosco interferes between Percival and Laura, the id and superego if you will. He follows the most rational path, though it may not be the most desirable nor the most moral.

Laura as the superego defends the ideality of humanity by claiming “wise men are truly good men and thus have a horror of crimes.” (231). Her willingness to believe and support “copybook morality” as both Fosco and Percival accuse her of believing. Fosco “admires” her optimism in humanity however, admonishes her for her naivety. Percival laughs at her naivety also, but more from his own disgust with her ideals than for any “rational” reason. The superego is considered the moral voice which speaks for the ideals of society. Laura, then, speaks to the moral notion that murder is wrong and all wrongs will be righted. 

We could say Marian acts as society and comes to the aid of her sister. Madame Fosco, having been identified as the same person as the Count himself, can be considered ego as well. The appearance of Freud’s model in a novel before the publication of his work begs the question, how did both novel and Freud come to a similar distillation of the human psyche.