Category: QCQ’s (Page 2 of 2)

“Two years hence you will be as calm as I am now—and far, far happier, I trust, for you are a man, and free to act as you, please.”(290)

“Once I heard him pause and throw something out of the window with a passionate ejaculation; and in the morning, after they were gone, a keen-bladed clasp-knife was found on the grass plot below; a razor, likewise, was snapped in two and thrust deep into the cinders of the grate, but partially corroded by the decaying embers. So strong had been the temptation to end his miserable life, so determined his resolution to resist it.” (293)

Lowborough seems to be more saddened by his wife’s betrayal than Helen. He is in such pain that he even tries to take his own life. Death seems so far away and this pain seems like it will last forever. The perspective/lives of most of the people in the story revolve around marriage. There is nothing else more important in the world to them. They seem more consumed by their reputations and marriages than anything else. It is interesting to think about women’s power in all of this. They seem to have all of the pull up until they are married. They get to decide who is a viable suitor or who will love them the best. The men just beg to be chosen and show how masculine and protective they will be as husbands. Yet, marriage is clearly a huge commitment economically. If a woman has the chance to be “free” and live within her own wealth and ambition, why would she marry? Maybe it is because of the same she may feel being alone and “unloved”. The way Gilbert describes Jane emphasizes both of these thoughts. Because she was ambitious and had the self-respect to not settle and reject any proposals that did not seem worth it she is described as “a cold-hearted, supercilious, keenly, insidiously censorious old maid” (372).

Why did Bronte use this parallel in the story? Would the story be better if Arthur didn’t just conveniently die?

Helen says that Lowborough is a man and is free to act as he pleases. Yes, he can divorce his wife. But the shame he would feel of the failed marriage could be too much. Is love more so the enemy in this circumstance?

In-class discussion:

• Are there different standards for infidelity between women and men?
• Status?
• Children?
• What should marriage be?
• How does the novel clear Helen’s name? And wrap up the smaller characters?
• What can marriage now mean to Helen? (Still, a marriage plot even though marriage seems to be miserable)
• “an old journal of mine”
• Giving and taking property…
• Laws, norms, and customs

In chapter 16 Helen describes her experience of being courted by men and the burden of choosing the right man to marry. There are many sensible men to choose from but that does not mean they are worthy of her love. Her family doesn’t necessarily believe that she should follow her heart but more so her head. She feels that it is more important to love rather than make the act of marriage a transaction. When Boarham becomes infatuated with Helen he asks her family if he can marry her. Helen is disgusted that he didn’t consider her feelings in the matter. This experience seems to highlight the way society and men view marriage. It was less about love and more so about sensibility. Many women would be lucky to marry this man because he is “successful” and can provide for her. I think my remaining questions after this chapter were more about how he could have fallen in love with her. Are there no consequences for rejecting marriage? Men seem to carry the most power in the world and while he begs her to agree she still says no and even though he is upset nothing really comes of it. Annabella has a different vision for herself and only wants to marry for the provision that her husband can bring her and not for love. Society seems to revolve around the idea that women need a man to gain any power and to some, that means sacrificing the possibility of real love. How scary is it to know that you could marry a man who would use his power and the laws against you? If you choose love are you losing more in a bad marriage than if you married for security?

Class Discussion:

• Progress=less external restraints (reform)
• Property- working women (wages, land, personal)
• What about possession? Gaining protection is essentially the loss of freedom…
• To reform, you have to re-educate

Laws Concerning Women

I think it is evident that women have suffered from over-legalization and have been treated as property. Even if the laws did not address women specifically they still fell under the restraints and control of the law. A single woman had to pay the same taxes and could own the same property as a man, but did not have the right to vote. There is a list of rules for what a woman could and could not do under marriage. Her person and everything she owned belonged to her husband, even her earnings during marriage. She no longer had control over her life and the things in it. I think that this definitely gives us a greater understanding of how a woman must have felt during a marriage, in particular, an unhappy one. She could burn down her husband’s house and still be under the control of her husband with no legal consequences. There was little to no escape. As a woman, you are trapped in a box of how you should be and your value according to society.

The idea that a wife is the property of her husband is really expressed a lot within the writing. The married couple is “one person”, yet one owns the other and one has little freedom. To me these ideas are conflicting. What does this mean?

She clearly is opposed to this “protection” and security that a man has in the marriage. I think it would be interesting to explore how other women felt within a marriage. And how pressured a man may have felt about his role within a marriage.

In-class questions to remember:

• What positions and power could women hold?
• Influence-social status
• How much of a necessity is marriage?
• Protection- what does it imply about the protector and the person in need of protection?