their eyes were watching god

"their eyes were watching god" is an intense, feministic, coming-of-age book. I relate so much to Janie and her journey of self-discovery through many different relationships; besides her grandma and Pheoby, I think Janie's three marriages had profoundly impacted the road she traveled to find herself. Some may view the idea that Janie needed these men to find herself as sexist-it is showing the world that women need a man if they want to become something. But I disagree; I think Hurston just proves what I already know, that everyone needs close, passionate relationships with lovers in order to grow and evolve into your own. It is in these personal relationships that people see themselves through the eyes of someone else-you notice your reactions, responses, what you like and dislike, your level of patience and tolerance, and what you're willing to put up with and what you're not.

It is arguable that Janie's reaction, or lack thereof, to Teacake's abuse is inviting further oppression of women. I certainly don't condone Teacake's behavior or that of the towns-people afterword, "It aroused a sort of envy in both men and women. The way he petted and pampered her as if those two or three face slaps had nearly killed her made the women see visions and the helpless way she hung on him made men dream dreams" (Hurston, 147). It's not just offensive, it's repulsive and immoral. But I think there is an alternate interpretation to be recognized here, if you were to focus solely on Janie's feelings and lack of response, and compare them to the same incidences in her other marriages. And also pay attention to Teacake's reason for hitting her, keeping in mind the era this was written. When the other men make their jealously of Teacake's power over Janie known, Teacake explains why he felt forced to hit her, "Ah wouldn't be knockin' her around. Ah didn't wants whup her. . .Ah didn't whup Janie 'cause she done nothin'. Ah beat her to show dem Turners who is boss" (Hurston, 148). The narrator also explains that his jealously wasn't justified by any kind of behavior from Janie, it just reassured him and removed the fear of losing her.

However, Janie was nowhere near submissive and quiet when Jody became verbally and physically abuse. After Jody insulted Janie's looks in the store, in front of everyone, she vengefully retaliated with a sharp tongue, much the same way I would've, "Naw, Ah ain't no young gal no mo' but den Ah ain't no old woman either. Ah reckon Ah looks mah age too. But Ah'm uh woman every inch of me, and Ah know it. Dat's uh whole lot more'n you kin say. You big-bellies round here and put out a lot of brag, but 'tain't nothin' to it but yo' big voice. Humph! Talkin' 'bout me lookin' old! When you pull down yo' britches, you look lak de change uh life" (Hurston, 79). This utterly destroyed Jody and, therefore, is my favorite part of the book. Janie does become quiet after a while, but of her own choosing-she isn't afraid of Jody, just empty of any feeling at all towards him, which is the complete opposite of what happened in her relationship with Teacake. After Jody slapped her, "She stood there until something fell off the shelf inside her. Then she went inside there to see what it was. It was her image of Jody tumbled down and shattered. But looking at it she saw that it never was the flesh and blood figure of her dreams. Just something she had grabbed up to drape her dreams over" (Hurston, 72).

I think you could argue that the book doesn't force the idea that women need men to find their identity. The difference in Janie's response to each man's abuse is the difference of the man, himself, and also herself; each man meant something different to her and also had an influence on her quest to find her own voice. As I've already mentioned, these relationships helped Janie realize her likes and dislikes, her ideals, goals, aspirations and eventually who she was to become. Had she not experienced these alternate relationships and their opposing power dynamics, she would not have grown emotionally or found her "horizon" as Hurston puts it. Our encounters, associations and relationships with others is the foundation on which we build our character and personality-it is what makes us grow as individuals, as women.

The Awakening

Kate Chopin's, "The Awakening," undoubtedly stirs controversy, which is indeed the point. Motherhood, although not the only controversial topic depicted, is the most heated in the novella, in my opinion. And maybe it is only because I can relate to Edna's personal struggle as a woman and mother trying to find herself.

The difference is, my struggle is/was nowhere near as difficult in today's society, as it was for Edna in the late 1800's. Motherhood was, and still is to a degree today, forced upon you in those times and came with unspoken, but also written, rules that had real and damaging consequences if you didn't conform. Much like slavery and just like Lily Bart in " The House of Mirth," women are not looked at as individuals with autonomy. We were looked at as property, just like slaves(and Lily Bart).

What's interesting is, if you were to ask anyone today if it were okay, or at least politically correct, to say that African American's are property and not individuals who deserve a free life, you would be shunned. Because we have learned that it is not okay and immoral. And the thing is, if you were to ask that same question regarding women, you would receive the same response.

Therefore, with this insight, why does it appear to be okay for people, especially women, to take from this book, that Edna was selfish, bad, immoral and being a terrible "mother," as if she had no rights as a human being to live her life as she saw fit? It was perfectly okay for a man to act in this manner and also African Americans, who were legally(and I stress legally only)allowed, according to the written law to be "free" and not property. Slaves, technically, had more rights than women.

So people at that time, since then, and still today, criticize Edna's character as acting inappropriate, immoral and wrong in every way, because she was the "mother" of the children she never wanted and was forced(due to lack of birth control and the role society forced upon her)to have. But these same people, and much more so today, are more than happy to declare their feelings that African Americans should be free, have the same rights and/or at least should not be "property."

That is completely contradictory and very ignorant and disturbing, for women especially, to say that it's okay to be property and forced to follow social rules, but not slaves. I could almost understand that kind of ignorance then, but certainly not now, after all we've learned through history.

The House of Mirth

In Edith Wharton's novel, "The House of Mirth," Warton reveals Lily Bart as the incredibly beautiful, main character. She describes Seldon's take on the breathtaking Lily, "He had a confused sense that she must have cost a great deal to make, that a great many dull and ugly people must, in some mysterious way, have been sacrificed to produce her" (Wharton, 7). I really feel like this beauty was Lily's curse and played a large role in her demise.

Lily was very indecisive, in particular, when it came to relationships with men and whether or not to follow the social norm, which is to find a wealthy husband who can support you and your leisurely lifestyle. However, that is only if a life of wealth and leisure is your one and only goal(which society deemed to be in that time); I don't think that's the case with Lily. Being socially accepted is something almost everyone wants and Lily is no exception but, for her, that meant to give up her freedom as a woman-her independence-and the chance of ever having true love. This just seemed too hard for Lily to overcome: "She would not indeed have cared to marry a man who was merely rich; she was secretly ashamed of her mother's crude passion for money" (Wharton, 30). I think this is the reason she makes such reckless decisions throughout the entire novel-again, mostly when it deals with encounters with the opposite sex. Men give her exactly what she leads them to believe she wants, only to turn down and/or completely sabotage the offer and sometimes the entire "relationship." I think Wharton says it best, ". . .but she had a fatalistic sense of being drawn from one wrong turning to another, without ever perceiving the right road until it was too late to take it." (Wharton, 101)

Lily knows she has envious beauty that most of her peers only conceive as a "gift," and if she were any less attractive she would not have these great advantages, which I do think she wanted. It seemed Lily wanted to have her cake and eat it too. However, towards the end I think she realized what she truly desired was a true, loving relationship and family. This is evident as Wharton describes how Lily thinks about Nettie and her family:

                     "The poor little working-girl who had found strength to gather up the fragments of her life, and build herself a shelter with them, seemed to Lily to have reached the central truth of existence. It was a meagre enough life, on the grim edge of poverty, with scant margin for possibilities of sickness or mischance, but it had the frail audacious permanence of a birds nest built on the edge of a cliff-a mere wisp of leaves and straw, yet so put together that the lives entrusted to it may hang safely over the abyss." (Wharton, 248)

I think she felt almost ungrateful(of her "god-given" beauty)if she did not perform in the same way as all the other "privileged" women of her time. Knowing that any woman would die to have her looks and the opportunities they supplied her with, made it all the more difficult to step out of the box. And the fact that she would be ostracized for it added additional pressure to conform as well-this is why her beauty is like a curse. If she was unattractive the decision to go against society's rules probably would've come much easier to Lily and maybe she would still be alive. Unfortunately, Lily would never overcome her one fatal flaw; even as the most stunning of her society, she was lost and utterly depressed with a life she felt no control over: "If only life could end now-end on this tragic yet sweet vision of lost possibilities, which gave her a sense of kinship with all the loving and foregoing in the world!" (Wharton, 249)

The Color Purple

The book, The Color Purple, is a great portrayal of multiple societies and cultures, both past, present and(what could be) future. Alice Walker(author) leaves no stone unturned as she describes life in, what seems to be, 1920's America, as well as Africa. She describes several lives of African-Americans and oppressed women in America; she also describes both in same day Africa. Although there are several important aspects to this novel, since I'm writing for a class focused on feminism in literature, that's what I'm going to focus on. However, make no mistake, this novel expresses not only a feministic viewpoint, but also a world-wide cultural view that I fear is being unrecognized.

I digress, main character, Celie, was raped by her "father" whom she had children by; she was then forced into marriage to an older man who beat her religiously. She was un-educated, because it was frowned upon for African-Americans(especially females) to have any kind of education. Celie was not only an un-educated, African-American female, but also had strong feelings toward another female...Shug. This is basically the epitome of the minority; unfortunately, not only then, the same holds true everywhere, to this day(although the severity of the stigma seems to have decreased some).

Celie drastically changes her view of men, their position, her position, and herself in general when she observes the behavior of other women(Shug and Sofia) toward men. Celie recalls Shug yelling at Albert: "Turn loose my goddam hand, she say to Mr._____. What the matter with you, you crazy? I don't need no weak boy can't say no to his daddy hanging on me. I need a man, she say. A man." Sort of like Tashi in Africa begins to "change" as she spends more time with Olivia. Nettie states in a letter to Celie, "Tashi's mother and father were just here. They are upset because she spends so much time with Olivia. She is changing, becoming quiet and too thoughtful, they say." (p160)

Walker describes a lot of similar behavior in Africa; that is, the women already belong to a much older man the day they are born. Just as Celie in America, the women in Africa are oppressed by their male counterparts and treated as less than equal. They are also not allowed to educate themselves and have the role of wife/mother already chosen for them to play. Nettie writes to Celie: "The Olinka do not believe girls should be educated. When I asked a mother why she thought this, she said: A girl is nothing to herself; only to her husband can she become something. What can she become? I asked. Why, she said, the mother of his children." (p 157) And I love this quote from Olivia that Nettie tells Celie about, after she talked to that mother: "Why can't Tashi come to school? She asked me. When I told her the Olinka don't believe in educating girls she said, quick as a flash, They're like white people at home who don't let colored people learn." (p 157) There's even the same camaraderie among all the women in both Celie's make-shift "family" and the women of the Olinka tribe in Africa. When Sophia was in jail and even after she got out and came home, Squeak took care of Sophia's children as her own; not to mention, she was living and sleeping with the father of these children, Sophia's husband. Sophia's sisters were living there and helping with the kids too. And Celie, her "husband" and his mistress Shug(who is also her lover)live under one roof as well. We see this very same picture in Africa. The women share a husband; they are friends with each other and will do almost anything for one another. They "giggle and gossip and nurse each other's children." (p 166) To me, Walker is telling us that even though our cultures seem drastically different, they are not at all.

The Handmaid's Tale

Shirley Neuman is the author of a scholarly article titled, "Just a Backlash": Margaret Atwood, Feminism, and The Handmaid's Tale." (via Salem Literature) In it she analyzes Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and also argues against the interpretations of other critics as well as those of most readers. What Neuman tries to convey is that there is a significant relationship between our society, both past and present, and the society Atwood creates in her novel(also both past and present). And with that, I think she is trying to say(or what she feels Atwood is trying to say)that we can learn from the novel, take a lesson away from this. If we pay attention we can see our own fate, as a society, in this very story. 

Neuman explains that the Gileadean government-represented as a dystopian state-resembles our own 'fundamentalist' government, when it was established by the Puritans. There are many biblical references in the novel as well, which our presidents have been known to repeat; Reagan, who was president when Atwood wrote this, was one of them. Also, at the time-1980's-there was a feminism backlash that included the bombing of abortion clinics, planned single motherhood, sexual assault increase, etc. There seemed to be an overconfidence in young women, as they felt they didn't need feminism; these same women, ironically, were the product of 1970's feminism. As Neuman points out, we see this all taking place in the novel as well. Offred is the daughter of a 1970's feminist and when she talks about "the time before" she describes it as if it took place in the 1980's: sexual assaults, abortionists killed, etc. (Neuman) Of course, not everything is the same since events in the novel are actually taking place in the future, but I think Nueman makes a clear connection in her article. 

What Neuman really gets at is that Atwood's novel implies some kind of utopia outside of the novel entirely. Neuman states, "But also implicit in every dystopia is a utopia. As Atwood herself observed, ’we the readers are to deduce what a good society is by seeing what it isn’t (Neuman)." She goes on to explain that, in "The Handmaid's Tale," Atwood is making it clear that neither Gileadean times nor "the time before" in the novel represent a utopia and neither does our real and present world.

Neuman argues that other critics and many of the readers are-especially when it comes to the "so-called" romance between Offred and Nick-misinterpreting the book. She says the common mistake among readers(and critics alike) is thinking Offred wants everything back the way it was(and that "the time before" is the implicit utopia); that's not so according to Nueman. She refers to all of the times Offred would think back to "the time before" and makes a valid point that Offred was often very critical of her former self and looks at both past and present negatively. Neuman explains this somewhat, while quoting Offred:

          "Remembering this past, the novel’s Offred concludes that ’I took too much for granted; I trusted fate, back then’ (27). As her story unfolds she becomes tougher on her earlier life: ’We lived,’ she says, ’by ignoring. Ignoring isn’t the same as ignorance, you have to work at it… . There were stories in the newspapers, of course, corpses in ditches or the woods, bludgeoned to death or mutilated, interfered with as they used to say, but they were about other women, and the men who did such things were other men… We lived in the gaps between the stories’ (53). Her willed ignorance anaesthetizes any impulse to resist the increasingly repressive actions leading to the coup that establishes Gilead. Willed ignorance, Offred learns, is sister to victimization and to passive acceptance of blame for what is done to one." (Neuman)

Neuman concludes that Offred gained political awareness and has reassessed her former-and current-life. Since Offred believes she was "willfully ignorant" she became crucially attentive in her current life in Gilead. But as Neuman points out, that all changes when she meets Nick and begins their affair. She has no interest in escaping or helping Ofglen anymore; that, as Neuman reveals, is when Offred "relapses into willfull ignorance." And Offred realizes her enormous mistake-her slip back into the past-as events snowball right up to the end. As Neuman puts it, "She has ceased, she realizes as she sees the dreaded black van arrive for her at the end of the novel, ’to pay attention' (Neuman)." 

There is, however, and interpretation in this part of her article, regarding their romance, that I disagree with. Nueman boldly states, "Atwood is, I would argue, telling us something else. There is no evidence in the novel that Nick’s ’rescue’ of Offred is motivated by anything other than self-preservation. In the world of sexual relationships, after all, his final words, ’Trust me’ (275), are as clichéd and unreliable as the Commander’s explanation that his wife doesn’t understand him or as Serena Joy’s final reproach as Offred is hustled out the door: ’After all he did for you’ (276) (Neuman)." I understand that we have no proof of whether Nick did this entirely out of self-preservation, but I would not go so far to say there is no evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is more evident that Nick did do this out of love or, at the least, for more than just himself. Nick could have exposed her and/or the commander at any time, but he never did. He did the opposite of that by helping her see the commander at night for scrabble and the night they went out. It was also made clear in the novel that their affair was more than just a job to both of them. Even before the affair started, Nick was obviously upset with what the commander was having Offred do and wear the night they went out; he couldn't bare to look at her. 



This next article comes from the website Sparknotes. There isn't just one analysis for "The Handmaid's Tale" in this article; there's one for almost every chapter. So I am going to focus on the analysis they gave for chapters 41-44, which talk about the relationship with Nick. In this author's interpretation it mirrors some of what Neuman was saying. The author states, "As soon as she begins her affair with Nick, Offred slips into complacency, showing how it is that oppressive regimes like Gilead come to power and survive unchallenged when their subjects become listless (Sparknotes)." She explains that this relationship-the romance-gives Offred a small glimmer of hope, a reason to keep going on and for this life to finally be bare-able. But this makes her so content that the idea of change is now too hard to handle. However, the salvaging and Ofglen's disappearance wakes Offred up. And just as Neuman says as well, she has come to a realization and is once again reassessing her former and current life. The author also goes on to make additional comments similar to Neuman's, about Offred's willingness to turn a blind eye to what was going on around her.

What I find interesting is that the author of this article does not agree with Neuman's opinion that Nick was only interested in self-preservation. The author states this: "By telling us that The Handmaid’s Tale was transcribed from tapes found in an “Underground Femaleroad” safe house, the epilogue undercuts the powerful ambiguity of the novel’s ending, letting us know that Nick was a member of Mayday, and he did attempt to get Offred out of the country. Offred’s final fate remains a mystery, but the faithfulness of Nick does not (Sparknotes)." Of course, as I've already mentioned, I completely agree with that interpretation. 

This article is quite different from the scholarly article, in the way it was laid out and the style it was written; it's obvious that it's geared towards a different (and maybe not as knowledgeable in this area) audience. They do both go into great detail and end up with very similar, if not identical, interpretations. Neuman's article does have many references that include other scholars and she also refers to times in history and historical events that play a huge role in deciphering this novel. However, even without those references, the Sparknotes article was able to produce a deep and thorough analysis that-in my opinion-interpreted the "romance" correctly.

I would like to focus on how Katniss is characterized in The Hunger Games; clearly, she defies the stereotypical female in this book. I, particularly, like that she is portrayed as cold-hearted and guarded. Her demeanor is quite similar to mine, so I relate to her trust issues, as well as her survival instinct. However, it is not as if she were raised as a boy or to be masculine in any way-her personality and character is all a response to her childhood and the environment around her. Katniss, in fact, IS the "typical" girl. And when I say typical I mean what society deems as the quintessential female gender role. As far as we know, Katniss grew up with a loving mother and father that dressed, treated and raised her as such, up until her father died of course. Because of such a traumatic tragedy, Katniss had to grow up quickly, taking on the role that her father had played. Her mother's incapacity forced her to fend for herself and her little sister, but this is also a "mothering" role. Katniss seems to do a very calculated balancing act of gender behavior throughout  the book, to please the audience, in my opinion. And I don't mean just the Gamemakers; this includes everyone reading the book. She uses her intelligence, wit, perseverance, and hunting skills as a means to defeat her opponents--although never truly stepping out of her female gender role. Those attributes have been attached to only men or "masculine" women--only recently has that line between society-based gender roles begun to dissolve. And this book is a great example. I do admire that fact, however, I feel there is still quite a way to go in erasing the lines that separate us based on gender. Katniss, seemingly, takes on this incredible, death-defying challenge by herself, with no help from another, especially a man. She is all on her own, in unknown territory, fighting for her own survival, and does a pretty damn good job doing it. She fights terrifying weather and terrain, not to mention people trying to kill her; yes, I'd say that's very admirable. Unfortunately, in swoops a man(Peeta)to-at the very least-help and/or protect her. Why? Why couldn't Katniss do this all on her own? In fact, she had an alliance with Rue, why did she need more help? Because there needed to be a romantic involvement. Well, that is one answer anyway. I guess another answer could be that there needs to be a man involved in the winning of this story, which brings me back to the first answer: romance. I think, for some reason, it is necessary for there to be a budding romance in all coming-of-age novels, because somehow that is what captures the attention of ALL ages. I wonder why that is though. Is that why everyone is preoccupied with gender characterization? Because that is what we all yearn for? To find love with the opposite sex(or same sex if homosexual)? And so, in order to do so, we need a clear definition of gender; this is because anything other than heterosexuality is frowned upon, or considered taboo. And although we are further than we have been in the past, regarding homosexuality, society has not accepted it as a whole. Therefore, it remains an issue, and obviously something that can't be disregarded when writing a novel aimed at pleasing the present-day audience. I have a feeling that is why Collins has this romance between Peeta and Katniss included in her novel. Almost everyone wants to fall in love; this is something everyone can relate to. But why isn't the romantic part of this story between two men, or two women, or a transgender and a man, or woman? All questions point back to our societal view.