Crime and Bleak House

Charles Dickens' fictional novel Bleak House was originally published in serials. It explores both social and legal crimes, appearing to set them up in conflict with one another. This allows him to pose the question to the reader: which type of crime is worse? Do we see (spoilers, but it was written quite a while ago) Esther's bastardization as a result of Lady Dedlock's youthful sexual liberty as something inherently more immoral than Mr Tulkinghorn's murder? My answer is no. Dickens is known for his exposés of the physically and metaphorically filthy state of London in the nineteenth century. This novel appears to occupy a similar strand of argument, which means that it examines the implication of social crimes upon legal ones. Thus, Lady Dedlock's sexual activity cannot be viewed in a light which puts all other plot strands to darkness: all other crimes are in some way involved with it, to the extent that Mr Tulkinghorn's murder could even be said to be caused by it. 

Lady Dedlock's sexual crime, by which she decides to engage in premarital sexual intercourse with Captain Hawdon, is also a domestic crime. This crime is inextricably linked to the haughty mask of secrecy which controls Lady Dedlock's domestic life. Although at first it appears that her aristocratic snobbery allows her to occupy this position of aloofness, it is eventually revealed that it is crippling shame which induces this facade. She maintains this cool exterior by flitting from place to place, refusing to fully engage herself in her life. Lady Dedlock continues to live in this manner for a number of years until Mr Tulkinghorn invades her domestic sphere with a vicious sting of truth: her past. Tulkinghorn's revelation to Lady Dedlock of his knowledge of her youthful sexual affair is central to the criminal strand of the novel's plot. Once this invasion has occurred, the social order which the reader experiences at the beginning of the novel can never be restored. Thus, this indicates that the theme of this Victorian fictionalisation of crime is the secrecy of the home's problematical relationship with the public sphere. Indeed, Lady Dedlock is not initially aware of the long-lasting consequences of her affair: Esther, her daughter, is alive! Once this is revealed, her life becomes fraught with tension. Lady Dedlock is no longer able to feel "at home" in her stately mansion because her sexual "crime" has made her unworthy of such a high social position. 

Furthermore, questions surrounding Mr Tulkinghorn's murder are at first seemingly unanswerable because of the number of enemies he has made by collecting peoples' domestic secrets. Indeed, his own secrecy is involved in the seemingly impossible nature of the inquest as nobody knows to whom he was attending on the evening of his murder. Mr Tulkinghorn's death, in parallel to his life, is shrouded in mystery. His death, and life for that matter, is, moreover, at the heart of all of the criminal strands of the complicated plot of Bleak House. He represented the watchful eyes of the public social sphere upon Lady Dedlock's life. His invasion of the secrecy of her home led to his murder. In addition, the death brings a number of minor criminal figures out from the shadows of crime-ridden London. Mr Smallweed, Hortense and Mr George are all characters with questionable moral qualms, and all have committed some crime, whether it be legal or moral, in the novel. In this way, Mr Tulkinghorn's murder ironically results in the invasion of the secrecy of his home by representatives of the public sphere.

Moreover, there is an interesting link between women and crime in the text as it is Hortense and Lady Dedlock who arguably commit the greatest crimes. In Victorian culture, women were expected to occupy the domestic sphere: this provides another (albeit tenuous) link between domestic life and the fictionalisation of crime. Hortense is a maid, which means that her role in society is to invade the secrecy of the home. She occupies a peripheral position in the house as she is both integral to its pragmatical functioning and unnecessary to the family emotionally. Hortense's lack of understanding of the position which she occupies is revealed in her childish indignance at losing her place as Lady Dedlock's favoured female companion. Hortense's vengeful plan which she enacts as a result of this is incredibly detailed and cunning. This shows that if the secrets of the house are revealed to the public sphere, serious crimes can abound in Victorian London. Moreover, Horetense's plot to frame Lady Dedlock would have been successful had she not been residing with Mrs Bucket - the detective's wife - at that period of time. A crime can therefore only be successful is it remains hidden from other members of a household. 

Furthermore, Mrs Pardiggle's unmannerly invasion of the brickmakers' homes reveals the presence of domestic abuse to both the naive wards of Jarndyce and the reader. The black eye which Liz sports and her husband's drunk, aggressive behaviour are designed to imply that he beats her. Had Mrs Pardiggle not have entered the house, this awareness would not have been made public in the novel. Indeed, Liz and her friend Jenny, a fellow brickmaker's wife, suffer from a great deal of physical and emotional abuse from their husbands to the extent that they are made penniless, voiceless and powerless to do anything about it. 

What are your thoughts about crime in Bleak House?

A Review of Lady Chatterley's Lover

D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover is not only an important book in terms of its literary merit, but also its socio-historic impact upon England's publishing world. Although the novel was written in the 1920s, an uncensored version was not published here until 1960. Even then it caused a great deal of scandal: Penguin, the publishing house for the text, was forced to undergo an obscenity trial due to the explicit erotic language and themes the book contained. they fought for the literary merit of the book and the case was concluded with the verdict "not guilty". This makes Lady Chatterley's Lover a key implement in British authors' attempts to discuss erotic concepts in modern texts. 

The story commences with the tale of a sexually licentious girl who marries Sir Clifford briefly before World War I. He returns from the war paralyzed from the waist down. This allows Lawrence to broach the the uncomfortable and forbidden question at the back of everyone's minds: "does it work?". Unfortunately for Sir Clifford, the answer is no. 

Connie, or Lady Chatterley, becomes depressed as a result of their sexless, joyless marriage and begins to seek a lover to satisfy her maternal cravings for a child. This plot is ensconced in a Hardy-esque condemnation of the industrialization of England, as well as a self-conscious examination of class differences.

Despite hearing mixed reviews for the book, I don't regret picking it up (or rather downloading it to my kindle) at all. The book is a pastiche of genres, which I believe is a reason why it doesn't sit well with many readers. It has a great focus on man's connection with nature, which is emblematic of Romantic writing, whilst displaying the futility of human life, terse vocabulary, and lack of sentimentality of modern writing. 

The first portion of the novel seems rather dry and hard to digest. Yet, this appears to merely be a stylistic mirroring of Connie's sexually barren state: once she secures a lover the writing becomes more poetic and much more enjoyable. Though Connie is hardly a likeable figure, doesn't modern fiction often strive to teach us that people cannot be labelled as being good or bad, but rather are more complicated?

So if you want an easy to read, yet important piece of fiction to add to your "To Read" list this summer, pick up Lady Chatterley's Lover​ and give it a shot!

Love, Stephanie 

Review of Grimm's Fairy Stories

I decided to pursue Jacob Grimm's "Fairy Stories" because, again, having finished my second year of studying English Lit at uni I really wanted something fun and simple to read. In the end, if offered me a chance to relive my Disney-crammed childhood.
Published in Germany in 1812, these fairy stories aren't exactly as gentle as, for example, my generation's The Very Hungry Caterpillar (Eric Carle). With Cinderella's sisters mutilating their feet in order to fit the glass slipper, these tales have evidently been toned down in the media for modern audiences.
Though there are a multitude of stories collected in the book, they all largely traverse through one of a limited number of themes. There are ones pertaining to a young beautiful and diligent girl being abused by her mother or (more commonly) a step-mother and siblings. Eventually they are swept off their feet by a handsome and rich Prince, much to the chagrin of their abusers. This raises a lot of questions about gender stereotypes, but is symptomatic of its time. A modern author would (largely) be far more inclined to show the complexity of female characters, rather than having "good" beautiful girls who are often rescued because of this and their ability to cook and clean sufficiently. To contrast this, there is another type of woman in these stories who is categorised as being "bad". She is ugly, lazy, and often jealous of the beauty of and attention that the female protagonist recieves. Interestingly, this figure is always the corrupting force in the tales. This indicates that, although men can be grumpy and stubborn (like Rumpelstiltskin or the seven dwarfs), they are effectively harmless in comparison to the wiley vindictiveness inherent to some women.
Personally, I enjoyed reading the original stories for the films and tales that influenced my childhood. Why do you think these stories have been censored in modern times?
Any comments always welcome.
Stephanie :)

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/12481873/?claim=qf9esskbh5v">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>

Cross-dressing in Shakespeare's Plays

Cross-dressing in Shakespeare's plays is often inextricably linked with times of carnival. Although the rituals associated with modern-day carnivals developed from this concept it was obviously incredibly different during the early seventeenth century. Carnival was a period of license in authoritarian England which involved masquerade balls (which are themselves a form of cross-dressing), bouts of drinking, and a general inversion of social hierarchical order. Shrove Tuesday, the May Games and Misrule - the period extending from Christmas to Epiphany - are key dates associated with it. Carnival is followed by a period of lent or fasting.

Shakespeare highlights that Twelfth Night is going to be associated with carnivalesque themes through the very wording of this play's title. Twelfth Night is the last day of the period of Misrule, the most extravagant period of carnival in the year.the tension between carnival life and lent is evident throughout the play, and is potently explored through a multitude of characters' cross dress. the most obvious example of this is Viola who not only re-configures herself physically, but gives herself a man's name: Cesario. Viola subverts the natural hierarchical order of her position in society through this disguise. She recognises that in order to survive the shipwreck socially she must become a man; in this respect she saves her life to a greater extent than the Captain does. Here, to occupy the space of a woman onstage is to render oneself powerless. There is also a great deal of humour created through this disguise as the actor playing Viola in this play would have been a boy playing a woman playing a man. Humour and laughter are tropes of periods of carnival. Moreover, the layers of cross-dressing here hyperbolises the chaotic confusion of social hierarchies which carnival induces. 

It is interesting to see how cross-dressing creates an interplay with one's sexuality. Viola must engage in the language of courtship with Olivia on behalf of Orsino, which results in Olivia's acquisition of a homosexual attachment to Viola. This can evidently never be satisfied. Moreover, Viola's disguise renders the sexual boundaries of her and Orsino's relationship into a state of confusion. When he believes that Viola is a man he recognises the beauty of Viola/Cesario's red lips. Moreover, Orsino continues to call Viola Cesario even after she has revealed her female nature. Perhaps Shakespeare characterises these characters in such a way as to indicate that all genders and sexualities are performative. This allows Olivia's love for Cesario, as well as the homosexual relationship between Antonio and Sebastian, to evade negative connotations. There is a certain fluidity inherent to all gender relations in the play.

Similarly, in As You Like It Rosalind alters her gender in a performative manner in order to evade social ruin. She escapes her town and secures the man she loves as a result of her cross-dressing, This indicates that perhaps socially it is safer to be a man in Elizabethan England rather than a woman. Men, according to psychological theories of this period, were more rational creatures than woman, which may be a reason for Rosalind's success at manipulating her situation and keeping calm whilst she performs as Ganymede. the inverse of this is explored in Titus Andronicus when Titus dresses up as a female cook to enact his bloodthirsty revenge upon Tamora and her sons. The frantic bloodbath which follows highlights the chaotic nature of a woman's hysterical passions. Conversely, In Macbeth Lady Macbeth masculinises herself in order to conduct cold, efficient revenge.

What are your thoughts?

Stephanie

A Review of "Twenty Eight-and-a-Half Wishes" by Denise Grover Swank

After a hectic period of second year English Literature university finals and getting a new kindle for my birthday I really wanted to chill out with a simple chick-flick on holiday. As a student I obviously instantly started scrolling through the reams of (largely awful-looking) free books in this style on Amazon. Coming across "Twenty Eight-and-a-Half Wishes" I didn't expect much and the opening chapters held out to this expectation.
The book is set in a modern Southern style landscape. Its protagonist is a 24-year-old girl who lost her father at a young age and is controlled by a wicked mother. This Cinderella-esque storyline was waiting for a Prince Charming to arrive, but, akin to most other romantic novels of this era, Joe McAllister is a rugged, mysterious figure. This generic outset initially jars with the magic realism that Rose's visions imbibe the plot with. Her blunt reaction to (not giving any spoilers) certain tragic incidents in the novel heightens this; in my opinion making this protagonist and the book itself too unrealistic.
However, after the disappointment of these first few chapters the novel improves greatly. It develops into a mystery-romance novel rather than a mere romance one, which allows it to offer much more to the reader in terms of plot and interest. Moreover, Rose's visions no longer seem to jar with the main plot, but cohere with it and enhance it, allowing the reader as well as Rose to have a stronger grasp of the mystery at hand than most other characters in the text.
By the end of this book I realised it was just what I needed as a break from all the Dickens and Shakespeare-esque texts I had studied throughout this year. I'm even contemplating branching out to buy the sequel ...

If you've read this book or have any questions please comment.

Is the greatest downfall of Shakespeare’s male tragic figures the fact that they underestimate the power of women?

The “heroes” of Shakespeare’s tragedies are often said to have a “fatal flaw” which leads them to their ruin. This fatal flaw could be hubris, jealousy, greed, or a variety of other emotions or drives. However, in many of Shakespeare’s tragedies the protagonist’s ruin is inextricably linked with the impact women in the play have upon his life. This appears to be true of Othello, Macbeth, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra. All of the eponymous men of these tragedies are thwarted because they neither see the plots women are constructing nor do they appear to believe them capable of such a thing.

            Firstly, in Othello both Othello himself and Iago are doomed because they underestimate the power of the women in the play. Othello underestimates the power of Desdemona’s chastity. This leads him to believe Iago’s empty “evidence” for her infidelity and thus kill his newly-wed bride. In a sense Desdemona is powerless because she cannot control the manipulative lies spun by Iago, but the fact that Othello is driven to murder because of her sexual power shows that she has a great deal of this type of power simply because she is a woman. Moreover, the power women have to undermine the power of men in the play is highlighted in the fact that the volta of the play occurs when Emilia hands Iago the handkerchief; this piece of evidence is vital to the construction of his case for Desdemona and Cassio’s affair. Thus, without Emilia Iago may never have had the power to cause Othello’s downfall. Othello could never fathom the idea that Emilia may have stolen the handkerchief from Desdemona and given it to Iago because he is irrational and acts rashly rather than considering other possible ways in which Iago may have ended up with the handkerchief. Iago never acknowledges the help that Emilia gave him and appears to believe that his plot functions purely because of his own brilliant cunning. However, when Emilia exposes Iago to Othello at the end of the play as having constructed the plot which lead to Desdemona’s death Iago appears to realise that he has underestimated her. He underestimated the love that Emilia had for Desdemona, and for this he is ruined.

                        Similarly, the work of Macbeth in his eponymous play is driven forwards by his wife Lady Macbeth. Macbeth never truly appears to recognise to what extent he is controlled by his wife; this underestimation of her power causes his downfall. The murders of his intimate friend Banquo and the King he ought to respect are orchestrated by her. As soon as she latches on to the hope of him gaining power she becomes obsessed with it and drives him to seek more power. For this reason I believe that ambition is Lady Macbeth’s fatal flaw, not Macbeth’s. From the point at which she can see a powerful future, Macbeth becomes somewhat of a puppet for her bidding. Likewise, Antony in Antony and Cleopatra becomes a powerless man when he falls in love with the ambitious Cleopatra. Unlike Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra does not encourage Antony to do anything; he merely does what he thinks she would like him to do because he is so utterly besotted with her. To see a martial man so weakened in this way makes him a figure of ridicule; even his suicide is carried out for such a trivial reason that it is almost laughable. His death is directly caused by the hold that Cleopatra has over him, which even she underestimates. He never appears to understand that she is manipulating him, which allows him to underestimate the power she has over him and thus for her to cause his ruin.

            Lear on the other hand is not ruined by a lover but by his daughters. He does not believe that there could be untruths behind Regan and Goneril’s professions of love for him and thus hands over all of his lands to them. This makes him a powerless figure from very early on in the play as, without his lands, he has lost all of his authority as King. Moreover, he underestimates the fact that Cordelia could be wise and thus disinherits the only daughter who truly loved him. The further plotting of the two landed sisters results in both Lear and Cordelia being imprisoned which is closely followed by their deaths. Finally, by underestimating the power of all three of his daughters Lear not only causes his own ruin, but also that of the country.