Yellow Wall Paper Biography
I'll get back to that later. I was thinking about the story some more, and considering the various topics which have to be included and I got to thinking, What is The Yellow Wallpaper really about? The general concensus being reached in class is that the story is a social commentary about womens' rights, the social inequalities between men and women, and the suffocating nature of the heteronormative lifestyle in the Victorian era.
But for me, there were always a lot of metaphors and story elements that didn't add up. For example, a chunk of people in class agreed that Jennie, in the story, was meant to represent the ideal Victorian woman. While she may or may not have been that, the story didn't treat her ideal status if it was important, and that didn't add up to me. If this is a social commentary, and Gilman meant to be taking shots at the prim and proper housewives of the period, Why didn't she further examine the character that is the ideal housewive? The character of Jennie ought to have been picked apart in a social commentary, but Gilman doesn't do that.
Another example, the presumed 'Writing metaphor' in the story. If the story were a feminist social commentary, then I should expect those actions which somehow further a woman's independence-like writing, even when told not to by your husband- should be extolled as virtuous. But writing isn't really extolled as anything. It's just there. There's an assertion made by Jennie in the story that writing causes the narrator's sickness; If 'writing' was meant to serve as a sort of code-word for independence, you would expect such an assertion to be clearly refuted, but it is not. In fact, in line 16, "I did write for a while in spite of them; but it does exhaust me a good deal..." In the words of our reverant Commander in Chief, there's some mixed messages here.
Finally, there's gender roles. If the story were a social commentary about women being dominated by their husbands, then it would logically follow that John, the narrator's husband, should be villified. But John is not villified. In fact, the more vocal elements in class seem to agree that he means well. Furthermore, if the story were feminist social commentary, you might expect the main character to develop a feminist mindset. The narrator, at one point, would have to come out and make some motion for her own independence. But the end result of the story is that the narrator just goes crazy. It seems to me that at no point does the author attempt to espouse any feminist mores.
Now, I'll get back to that "why I wrote the yellow wallpaper" thing. It's pretty clear that Gilman intended her story to be an attack on the Rest Cure, and not on the mores of her society. She mentions in her article that the story was considered to have some value amongst Alienists, (psyhologists) and then says: "But the best result is this. Many years later I was told that the great specialist had admitted to friends of his that he had altered his treatment of neurasthenia since reading The Yellow Wallpaper. It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked."
That pretty much seals it for me- The Yellow Wallpaper was intended, and more importantly, IS, an attack on the rest cure. Now, I don't mean to say that it can not be interperted as social commentary; readers may interpert stories as they please, but to me interpertations of stories are of secondary importance to True Meaning. When I set forth to read a book, story, or article, it's the least I can do to try and understand what it is the author is truly attempting to convey.
-wallpaper.jpg)
I'll get back to that later. I was thinking about the story some more, and considering the various topics which have to be included and I got to thinking, What is The Yellow Wallpaper really about? The general concensus being reached in class is that the story is a social commentary about womens' rights, the social inequalities between men and women, and the suffocating nature of the heteronormative lifestyle in the Victorian era.
But for me, there were always a lot of metaphors and story elements that didn't add up. For example, a chunk of people in class agreed that Jennie, in the story, was meant to represent the ideal Victorian woman. While she may or may not have been that, the story didn't treat her ideal status if it was important, and that didn't add up to me. If this is a social commentary, and Gilman meant to be taking shots at the prim and proper housewives of the period, Why didn't she further examine the character that is the ideal housewive? The character of Jennie ought to have been picked apart in a social commentary, but Gilman doesn't do that.
Another example, the presumed 'Writing metaphor' in the story. If the story were a feminist social commentary, then I should expect those actions which somehow further a woman's independence-like writing, even when told not to by your husband- should be extolled as virtuous. But writing isn't really extolled as anything. It's just there. There's an assertion made by Jennie in the story that writing causes the narrator's sickness; If 'writing' was meant to serve as a sort of code-word for independence, you would expect such an assertion to be clearly refuted, but it is not. In fact, in line 16, "I did write for a while in spite of them; but it does exhaust me a good deal..." In the words of our reverant Commander in Chief, there's some mixed messages here.
Finally, there's gender roles. If the story were a social commentary about women being dominated by their husbands, then it would logically follow that John, the narrator's husband, should be villified. But John is not villified. In fact, the more vocal elements in class seem to agree that he means well. Furthermore, if the story were feminist social commentary, you might expect the main character to develop a feminist mindset. The narrator, at one point, would have to come out and make some motion for her own independence. But the end result of the story is that the narrator just goes crazy. It seems to me that at no point does the author attempt to espouse any feminist mores.
Now, I'll get back to that "why I wrote the yellow wallpaper" thing. It's pretty clear that Gilman intended her story to be an attack on the Rest Cure, and not on the mores of her society. She mentions in her article that the story was considered to have some value amongst Alienists, (psyhologists) and then says: "But the best result is this. Many years later I was told that the great specialist had admitted to friends of his that he had altered his treatment of neurasthenia since reading The Yellow Wallpaper. It was not intended to drive people crazy, but to save people from being driven crazy, and it worked."
That pretty much seals it for me- The Yellow Wallpaper was intended, and more importantly, IS, an attack on the rest cure. Now, I don't mean to say that it can not be interperted as social commentary; readers may interpert stories as they please, but to me interpertations of stories are of secondary importance to True Meaning. When I set forth to read a book, story, or article, it's the least I can do to try and understand what it is the author is truly attempting to convey.
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Yellow Wall Paper
Tim Burton Master Class: YELLOW WALLPAPER by Anne Koizumi (York)
Tim Burton Master Class: YELLOW WALLPAPER by Anne Koizumi (York)
The Yellow Wallpaper: An 18th Century Account of Bedrest
The Yellow Wallpaper: An 18th Century Account of Bedrest
No comments:
Post a Comment