![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 18th, 2007 08:08 pmI decided to read the bit of the Lit & Gender book about Louisa May Alcott.
I found it just as annoying as I thought I would.
She wrote to get money for her family (sibs and parents) and put her life on hold to support her family and learned to write with both hands so she could write more (for the good of her family) and died bitter and lonely two days after her father did. And some idiot said at her funeral she'd gone to look after her father in heaven. Does not sound like heaven to me.
It's another one of this book's "tensions between art and domestic" examples, because clearly she could only have writing and not a life.
Bloody stupid.
Am very glad to live in this century.
There's a story they were analysing that was written under a pen name. The main character starts off looking like a MarySue, all quiet and fainting and everyone's going to like her, but then by the end of the first chapter it turns out she's an actress who set out to be a MarySue, distorting all the relationships so it's all about her and then marrying the rich old guy. There was something about the emergence of the 'fallen woman' type in writing, and some theory that if you take some stereotype like manipulative women and push it far enough it's subversive. Because then she's powerful. With a woman's power, which you see is all about making men love her.
*makes ick noises*
So, blah. The only subversive thing about the story is she earns good result by sneaky lying. That doesn't usually be allowed. But aside from that it's just all annoying. I don't care about romance when the people involved mean it, I certainly don't care at all when even the characters think it's all made up! I mean, okay, yes, revealing the constructed nature of the thing and revealing the roleplaying and performance that goes into so called natural femininity and all that. All very well. But *boring*. I know all that stuff! Now I want to study books where women make things go boom and also raise babies. Much better.
Nearly finished this book, then I don't got to be annoyed at it any more.
I don't think studying gender necessarily equals studying women who go mad and kill themselves.
There is interesting bits in the section about madness on how rationality and reason are somehow perceived as masculine and emotionality and hence unreason are seen as associated with the feminine. Which irritates. But... There was a thingy I read today that told fan campaigns to stop being so emotional in letters and make calm reasoned appeals. Stop expressing physical admiration for the male stars and stop saying squee and instead make some logical 'I watch your channel more' statements. And it struck me as instructions on how to take the girl out of fangirl. Which irritates on two levels, that emotional reactions should be considered irrelevant or counterproductive, and that I'm sitting her associating it with women still. Brains is odd.
I found it just as annoying as I thought I would.
She wrote to get money for her family (sibs and parents) and put her life on hold to support her family and learned to write with both hands so she could write more (for the good of her family) and died bitter and lonely two days after her father did. And some idiot said at her funeral she'd gone to look after her father in heaven. Does not sound like heaven to me.
It's another one of this book's "tensions between art and domestic" examples, because clearly she could only have writing and not a life.
Bloody stupid.
Am very glad to live in this century.
There's a story they were analysing that was written under a pen name. The main character starts off looking like a MarySue, all quiet and fainting and everyone's going to like her, but then by the end of the first chapter it turns out she's an actress who set out to be a MarySue, distorting all the relationships so it's all about her and then marrying the rich old guy. There was something about the emergence of the 'fallen woman' type in writing, and some theory that if you take some stereotype like manipulative women and push it far enough it's subversive. Because then she's powerful. With a woman's power, which you see is all about making men love her.
*makes ick noises*
So, blah. The only subversive thing about the story is she earns good result by sneaky lying. That doesn't usually be allowed. But aside from that it's just all annoying. I don't care about romance when the people involved mean it, I certainly don't care at all when even the characters think it's all made up! I mean, okay, yes, revealing the constructed nature of the thing and revealing the roleplaying and performance that goes into so called natural femininity and all that. All very well. But *boring*. I know all that stuff! Now I want to study books where women make things go boom and also raise babies. Much better.
Nearly finished this book, then I don't got to be annoyed at it any more.
I don't think studying gender necessarily equals studying women who go mad and kill themselves.
There is interesting bits in the section about madness on how rationality and reason are somehow perceived as masculine and emotionality and hence unreason are seen as associated with the feminine. Which irritates. But... There was a thingy I read today that told fan campaigns to stop being so emotional in letters and make calm reasoned appeals. Stop expressing physical admiration for the male stars and stop saying squee and instead make some logical 'I watch your channel more' statements. And it struck me as instructions on how to take the girl out of fangirl. Which irritates on two levels, that emotional reactions should be considered irrelevant or counterproductive, and that I'm sitting her associating it with women still. Brains is odd.