A Fan or Foe?: Emily Dickinson on Marriage

Old Fogey and I had a bit of a debate about Emily Dickinson a while back about her attitude to marriage (see here). Her feelings towards marriage vary from poem to poem offering a controversial and a confusing narrative, which means it is difficult for the reader to get a definitive answer on whether she was a fan or a foe of marriage. Dickinson's "I'm 'Wife'" poem, which sparked the debate has already been discussed, so check out the OF's blog on it! Needless to say it seems this poem portrays Emily as unfavorable to the idea of marriage, that it confines women to a title, but she also intimates that after girlhood, what else is there for a woman but marriage? OF believes behind this bitterness there is an element of accommodation, that she would not have minded being married

Now, to further Emily Dickinson's confusing narrative further on the state of marriage I will look at a few of her other poem...

So to commence: -

Wild nights! Wild nights!
Were I with thee,
Wild nights should be
Our luxury!

Futile the winds
To a heart in port,
Done with the compass,
Done with the chart.

Rowing in Eden!
Ah! the sea!
Might I but moor
To-night in thee!

This I think has more to do with love, passion and sex rather than marriage, despite it rarely being distinguished separately in Emily's era from marriage. For a woman to describe these sentiments is not unique but definitely rebellious!

This poem, an extended metaphor of sex, is relatively easy to get to grips with. "Might I but moor//To-night in thee!" cannot be mistaken for anything that talking about carnal knowledge. Still, I think the shortness of it shows passion, and of course it is Dickinson's passion. The short outburst of longing for it shows a regret of a sort. Dickinson's 'feminist' stance, so often against marriage, here shows that she is not against men or about the 'luxury' of love. In fact she is rather for love, shown by her mimicking Keats and the themes of Romanticism in "I died for Beauty-but was scarce".

I think for Dickinson marriage was not desirable, but the idea of love she seems to regret more than anything in her poetry.

In her poem "How many times have these low feet staggered-" the image of the "Indolent Housewife" dying in a state of drudgery does not show the role of women as housewives positively and in turn sneers at marriage for confinign women to this role.

How many times have these low feet staggered-

Only the soldered mouth can tell-

Try- can you stir the awful rivet-

Try- can you lift the hasps of steel!

Stroke the cool forehead- hot so often-

Lift- if you care- the listless hair-

Handle the adamantine fingers

Never a thimble- more- shall wear-

Buzz the dull flies- on the chamber window-

Brave- shins the sun through the freckled pane-

Fearless- the cobweb swings from the ceiling-

Indolent Housewife- in Daisies- lain!

I love the imagery of this poem- the typical imagery of sewing to define a domestic setting and housewifery: "Never a thimble-more-shall wear-". The creepiest image Dickinson uses throughout her poetry is the fly (or flies) in this case. They seem to represent death (see "I heard a fly buzz- when I died"). Here they also help to show the house as falling in disrepair after the death of the housewife- the flies at the window, the window dirty or "freckled" and the cobwebs boldly dangling from the ceiling. It almost shows the limits of her work but also that the man won't or can't do the work she did.

He put the Belt around my life-

I heard the Buckle snap-

And turned away, imperial,

My Lifetime folding up-

Deliberate, as a Duke would do

A Kingdom's Title Deed-

Henceforth, a Dedicated sort-

A Member of the Cloud.

Yet not too far to come at call-

And do the little Toils

That make the Circuit of the Rest-

And deal occasional smiles

To lives that stoop to notice mine-

And kindly ask it in-

Whose invitation, know you not?

For whom I must decline?

This triples up almost on themes; it encompasses marriage, class and also possibly a commitment to God. In the case of the first and last idea, patriarchs at the helm controlling what the woman should do. It is ending the woman's life : "My Lifetime folding up-" by marrying for a "Kingdom's Title Deed" and also for religious reasons her life would fold up, the "Kingdom's Title Deed" being instead for heaven rather than actual material wealth. The sharp violent sound of snap on the second line after "He put the Belt around my life" is jolting and draws attention to the woman being controlled, inferior and unable to escape. I prefer the primary idea that thios poem is more to do with marriage than religion, though a dual meaning is rather more likely.

The "He", the first word, the condemning word illustrates where the blame lies, who is being discussed and sets the tone for the rest of the poem. The woman must meekly follow his lead and do as her social status requires ("make the Circuit of the Rest").

Another more disturbing poem Emily Dickinson penned was: -

He fumbles at your Soul

As Players at the keys

Before they drop full music on-

He stuns you by degrees-

Prepares your brittle nature

For the Ethereal Blow

By fainter Hammers-further heard-

Then nearer- Then so slow

Your Breath has time to straighten-

Your Brain- to bubble Cool-

Deals- One- imperial- Thunderbolt-

That scalps your naked Soul-

When Winds take Forests in their Paws-

The Universe- is still-

This poem is again about sex, but I think this time it definitely more violent than the soft passionate lulling of the sea imagery in "Wild Nights! Wild Nights!" This poem is about rape crafted by the aggressive vocabulary selected: "fumbles", "Drop", "stun", "Ethereal Blow", "scalps" and also the line "Deals-One-imperial-Thunderbolt-". The dashes aid the dramatic effect and adds to rather unpleasant reading I think. Again this poem starts with a "He" and deliberately shows the culprit: of course, a man. In this case I am unsure whether it is a husband, but it seems likely. It was typical for this 'without love sex' to be considered within marriage. "Wild Nights!" mentions no "He" in the poem. It infers that a man is present to be "moored" in her harbour, but the lack of presence of a gender allows Dickinson to praise passion, romance and love of its own accord rather than marriage and the conjugal duties accorded to the husband.

So, to conclude... Emily Dickinson is a fan of love and passion but a foe of marriage. Her circumastances in her own life had obviously made her bitter but at a time when she was socially graded by her status, married or unmarried, she would have felt keenly that she had no role in society. Unlike today where women can have a role within and without marriage shows how time has changed. It also makes it hard for us to understand Emily, but essentially we can summise that Emily missed to closeness and happiness love and romance gave but was not sorry to be unmarried. Marriage, she thought, would not allow her to conceive of her passionate ideals of love. Whether she was right, I am unsure, but she penned some fabulous poetry!

How things change... and faster than I thought!

SJ AND ME
ME, BRADDERS AND JENAH
HATTY, ME, JENNY BURT, JENAH, SJ, RACHEL, NATALIE, BRADDERS... THE BALL...
ZARA, KIRSTY AND LEANNE

ZARA, JENAH, KIRSTY, ME, SJ, HATTY... BEACH AT TORREMOLINOS

TOM, CLAIRE, ME AND LIZ

HATTY, SJ, LEANNE, ZARA BEFORE THE DRUNKEN NIGHT!

So, university will be officially declared over on Friday as I don the regulatory mortar board, robe and hood and walk up the steps to receive my degree. Sad really. All it takes is a probable hand shake, an acceptance of a piece of paper and an exeunt then the best three years of my life are over. They have not been smooth sailing for sure, but they have made me. I am a confident young woman, probably too confident, but a damn sure better than the trampled youth of school, beleagured by bullies and friends alike, though of course in two totally different ways. Still, it is the end. And already I fear friendships are breaking up. Saying goodbye is something I hate but I am wondering whether, if we were to drift apart, it is better to draw the line somewhere and pinpoint the moment when contact failed rather than let it peter out...

hum... I am still deciding. I have got an entire day off tomorrow to ponder the situation, probably talk it over with a mate I am meeting tomorrow night in a pub- much drunken ramblings to ensue I would imagine-and then settle down, grit my teeth and finish off what I set out to do. The void however is unfulfilled. Many of my friends say I have a job, what more do i need at the moment? Indeed this is true (especially since many do not have a job at all), but the fact that I could earn more money in Tescos on the checkout than I do working where I am is depressing, but in truth I would love to stay where I am!! I enjoy it! History and people combined. 'Tis ideal! The idea of working in an archive, although I would love it in its own way, would kill me slowly. I need people and to enthuse them... some say teaching, but I am not entirely sure that that isn't another form of slow death either. Never mind, I have until October and further if I need it, but my own deadline is October... anyways getting back to times gone by and things lost...

Sad times... just want to upload to photos of me and my uni gals enjoying what was our last term together...

I'm "Wife"- I've finished that-

I'm "Wife"- I've finished that-
That other state-
I'm Czar-I'm "Woman" now-
It's safer so-

How odd the Girl's life looks-
Behind this soft Eclipse-
I think that earth feels so
To folks in Heaven- now-

This being comfort-then-
That other kind- was pain-
But why compare?
I'm "Wife"! Stop there!

This is a really good example of Emily Dickinson really digging her heels into the side of the proverbial social stallion. The labels and titles given to women ("Wife") and to contrast it to what a woman can never be and a man can ("Czar") demonstrates this with the sharp puncturing dashes, capital letters and exclamation marks at the end. The unequality of man and woman is clearly shown as well by the change the woman goes through from childhood: "girl" to womanhood: "Wife" characterised by an "Eclipse". The sarcasm is very obvious and the last line "I'm "Wife"! Stop there!" almost sounds like a man's voice ordering her.

Not a very upbeat poem, I am sorry... but it is the one I can almost say from the top of my head. Gawd love A-Level English; one of the classes where I felt I really truly learnt the most (she was a great teacher to was Miss Watson!!) See? You can sometime remember what you were taught in school!

Civilisation-spurns-the Leopard!

Civilisation-spurns-the Leopard!
Was the Leopard- bold?
Deserts-never rebuked her Satin-
Ethiop- her Gold-
Tawny- her Customs-
Spotted- her Dun Gown-
This was the Leopard’s nature- Signor-
Need- a keeper-frown?

Pity- The Pard-that left her Asia-
Memories- of Palm-
Cannot be stifled-with Narcotic-
Nor suppressed-with Balm-

What is it about? Good question. In my opinion, not that it always counts for much, I think it is on the first level about nature and obviously a caged leopard, but the fact that 'the Pard' is a her is ver revealing. Dickinson wrote many poems about women being confined to roles, labels and by men so it seems ideal that the 'Signor' be the keeper and the Leopard be the woman. On a more positive note, the last stanza states that she will never be 'suppressed- with Balm'. Indeed. Keeper watch out!

Because I could not stop for Death

Because I could not stop for Death,
He kindly stopped for me;
carriage held but just ourselves
And Immortality.

We slowly drove, he knew no haste,
And I had put away
My labour, and my leisure too,
For his civility.

We passed the school where children played,
Their lessons scarcely done;
We passed the fields of gazing grain,
We passed the setting sun.

We paused before a house that seemed
A swelling of the ground;
The roof was scarcely visible,
The cornice but a mound.

Since then 'tis centuries; but each
Feels shorter than the day
I first surmised the horses' heads
Were toward eternity.

I truly love Emily Dickinson; a wacky half feminist, half doubting religious nut who became a recluse and wrote poetry of love, death, nature and womanhood (all the things that are important of course!!) and I completely fell in love with her. Trust me, if there ever was a poet for every occasion, this woman had it! This one is a bit more morose and serious, but I promise the next one will be demonstrating the wackier side...

REVIEW II: The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

I was given some money (thanks by the way :D) specifically to buy books I wanted to read. This book was one, although technically it comes under the child to adolescent category, was not only a bloody amazing book, but rather mature and I really question whether pre-teens and even young teenagers would be suitable to understand the emotions and the frequent casual references made to events that I don't think many would really know about (i.e Holocaust).

Well, let's give you a summary to start, shall we? The Book Thief is narrated by Death, but the plot revolves around Liesel Meminger (the book thief) in Germany during World War II. On the way to her foster parents house with her mother and brother, her brother dies, and it is at his funeral that she steals her first book. Her illiteracy forms a bond with her new 'Papa' Hans Hubermann when he proceeds to teach her how to read. Liesel comes to understand the power of words. Being able to read them empowers her, but it also empowers others: "Without words, the Führer was nothing." After learning how to read she begins to gather more books. She saves books from book burnings and steals some from the Burgermeister's wife's library. Books became the channel through which a closeness to her 'new' family and a Jewish fistfighter, who is hidden in their basement, is formed. It is essentially a story about a girl's perspective of literally surviving Nazi Germany. You will experience titters and tears, trials and tribulations but it is all worth it.

Through Liesel, who never looses her innocence although gathering an understanding far greater than many an adult, we the readers come to the same understanding. Reading provides an escape for her, wither by stealing the book (an act of revenge often) or actually delving into the depths of the book. She helps other like the Jewish fistfight Max and Ilsa Hermann and Frau Holtzapfel. On this small scale, it seems she is undoing the damaging and dividing words of Hitler and his followers. Max calling her the word shaker, like he termed Hitler, highlights this. She has the mastery of words but used them for good. It provides us with an eloquent contrast, especially ironic when he whitewashes the words of Mein Kampf to write his story of the word shaker (Liesel).

The words of Death quietly guiding us through the story are sheer mastery. They guide but do not intrude and the insight we gain alongside the quips and jokes and irony... truly... it is beautifully and delicately written.

There is no judgement towards the end, only acceptance. There is no explanation by Death. That is not his role. He accepts the past and so must we. The narration of Death turns our perception of death upside down. He is not heartless, cruel and uncompromising. He cares and avoids human contact for fear of getting attached. He sees deaths in terms of colours 'coloured' by emotions. He carries off the souls carefully and lovingly. It perverts our typecasting of death. We face the possibility of our death, or at least I did. If death was like this, I would not mind. In the end, he is mainly the cleaner, the janitor, the housekeeper of the world; he is just tidying up after the mess the humans made:"Forget the scythe, God damn it, I needed a broom or a mop."

Well, I think you can guess I enjoyed this book and made me pause for thought. Perhaps too deep. Read it if you ever get a chance. Just make sure you don't have to do anything important in the mean time because Death will get its claws into you and ensure your hooked with hints at what the future holds chapters before it actually occurs making you read on until you know how it happens!

For now, adieu...

History will be kind to me...

George Orwell once penned that "he who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past", and since discovering Winston Churchill's statement: "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it", the two seem to coincide. Control of history seems paramount to success, power and strength.

It made me wonder, as a now ex-history student, what was the moral obligation of the historian. We cannot be objective entirely as we all have lived through different experiences, have been taught different things and believe in different things to make this impossible, as it often makes it impossible for people to agree on everything, most notably politics and religion; the two things, incidently, my mother told me never to talk about when I was little- something to stop me causing a small riot no doubt with my impertinent questions!! I never did understand why. Anyway, I am deviating. So, as I was saying the moral obligation of the historian. Since it is nigh on impossible to be objective, how do we decide what to write? How do we decide what to include? How do we portray the historical situation and context? Is it the victor of any war that commands history? Is it in fact true what Orwell said?

It is a troubling issue for me, even if I did have any answers to these questions. Today we have ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who will tell the story of the people who live in these countries? Do they have a voice that we can hear? And I suppose some may ask what is the importance of history anyway? (I'll leave this last question for another time.) It makes me wonder whether we really do know what goes on in wars in other countries. It is always a problem in history to anaylse sources for their worth and decide whether this one account (often in a form of a novel found on a bookshelf of Waterstones narrating the life of a bullied woman, a desperate family in Iraq, etc) is experienced by the whole nation (unlikely).

In the past, who wrote the history of World War One and World War Two? Even at Essex University, a rather liberal university as it goes, and with prominent members of the History department were in fact German, little was told really of their experience and knowledge of what thier people went on in the war. They focused instead in the aftermath and the Cold War.

There was one instance, however, that provoked this debate separate to the two quotes at the beginning. Reiner Schulze, the History Department topdog, hosted an out-of-hours lecture on his current work of the Berlin air raids and the devastation caused by Allied bombings, something we British pretend never happened only believing the Blitz to have occured here. The contentious issue that Germans should have suffered in the war is a very little touched upon subject as far as I am concerned. Tis troubling indeed...

But at least finally their history is being recorded alongside (again controversially) with the Holocaust.

The woes of the past will never leave us and the woes of the past to come will be no different I fear.

just a moment to show off... DEGREE RESULTS

Name: WORKMAN, LEANNE MARIE
Scheme: BA History

Dissertation: 75.0

HR336-3-FY Death and the Undead in Britain and Ireland, 1450-1750 (Special Subject)
Coursework: 71.1
Exam: 75.0
Aggregate: 73.1

HR200-2-FY The Great Depression: Popular Culture, Politics and the People
Coursework: 70.9
Exam: 63.7 (whoops!!)
Aggregate: 67.3

HR253-2-SP Deviance, Law and Social Order in England 1750-1914
Coursework: 75.0
Exam: 73.0
Aggregate: 74.0

HR460-2-AU Imagining London, 1660-1820
Coursework: 74.0
Exam: 74.5
Aggregate: 74.3

HR492-2-AU Medicine and Society in Britain and France 1700-1860
Coursework: 64.6
Exam: 78.0 (hahaha, didn't think I had done very well on this one!)
Aggregate: 71.3

Result: BA with Honours Class I

Windsor Castle I

Oh yes, in my spare time not only have I decided to write a blog about my work, but I frequently try and catch people out who may have taken somewhat illicit photographs inside the castle and put them on the internet, which is sadly not a lot... or they have just tagged it wisely from such freaks as me :D anyway telling people off for taking photos is one aspect of my job: acting like the English cultural heritage version of the gestapo!!

Still Antonio Verrio who was employed by Charles II to paint ceilings and such like in Windsor is truly marvellous. Spending many days in rooms darkened to protect such artefacts as painted ceilings I have time to stand and observe. And Admire...

The first caption on the left is the King's drawing room and I think the less impressive of the two captions. The second caption, which is unfortunately misses a great deal of the ceiling off is the best... it is in the Queen's Presence chamber. The room was designed for Catherine de Braganza, the unfortunate wife of Charles II (somewhat of an adulterer installing a mistress downstairs under his bedroom and another in a separate house in the grounds of the castle). The ceiling hosts Catherine in the centre surrounded by an array of classical and biblical figures blurring Greek, Roman and Christian together. We have the red faced devil and winged angels, we have the two-faced Janus and Justice with her sword and scales, and also Zeus with his lighting bolts and Herakles with his lion cloak.

The jollyness of the painting really pleases me. Standing all day today starring at it I finally got asked what on earth it was all about. I stood with an American couple and together we began to piece together a generally overlooked artefact of the castle. Justice, Cerberus the three headed dog being riden by two cherubs, Hera, Aphrodite, etc etc. Of course, it was just a piece of royal propaganda. The aristocratic nobles, who had to wait in the presence chamber for the queen to deign to see them in her audience chamber (the room next door), had in the meantime time to observe the ceiling as I have and been awed by the magnificence of it and hopefully if it worked well, Catherine de Braganza would be awed too; as a spurned wife, no doubt she had a chip on her shoulder and something to prove. Poor lady.

Sometimes it just is worth taking an interest in your work...

Next I will be talking about tapestries!! And for the many that have asked are they paintings.... NO!

"Over and out."

REVIEW I: Charlotte Gray, by Sebastian Faulks

Right, this is possibly the only time I may well say this so prick up your ears accordingly- the film was better than the book.

I was so utterly disappointed with the book that I think I may well have been in shock after reading it because I couldn't work out if I liked it or not and sat pondering it for while. I decided after a glass of wine, or rather more accurately I would wager, a bottle of white Spanish plonk whilst sitting on the balcony of the villa we were staying in on holiday, that I came to the conclusion, I most definitely did not like it. Unfortunately I did see the film first, something I rather hate doing, mainly because I do know what films can do to books like the Da Vinci Code (though Tom Hanks did play a lovely Robert Langdon), Harry Potter (traversty- all but the fifth!), Persuasion (the latest tv version- TRAVERSTY with capitals my friend!), The Golden Compass, Eragon, oh and many a film besides.

However, first let's start with the positives...

Faulks convincingly sets the story in a time, place and situation. Charlotte's contension with her parents is portrayed brilliantly and the resolution of this subplot is satisfying, and the film is all the poorer for missing this whole plot out. The characters are very real and you can really relate to them. On the other hand, this can be a weakness in the form of the protagonist. Charlotte Gray as the protagonist was disappointing.

Not wanting to compare to the film, but intending to anyway, she appeared in the book weak, unsure and so dependent on others I wondered on what the scriptwriter for the film (Jeremy Brock) used as a basis for Charlotte, so stark was the contrast between the book and the film.

As I said, having watched the film first, I expected Charlotte to be this strong woman who, ok has to rely on others, but in the end makes a stand, and a very poignant one, that I was literally devastated not to have been in the book. I howled at the film's gait towards the ending and when it finally reached the climax I cried at the happy ending possible at such a time....

This could not be further from the book. I couldn't believe the ending... the airman called Richard Cannerly so did not deserve her, even though as much as I came to despise her inert attitude throughout the developing plot. I suppose it would have been realistic, but at the same time, the war did create many heroes. She seems an unknown anti-hero and at one point during my night of pondering I wondered why on earth write a book about it... then I calmed down and did begin to see the good side to the novel. So back to the positives...

Yes... well, Faulks understands men very well, but not women. Faulks writes very compellingly because I did finish the book, but I did dislike it....

Ok, ok, I can't be entirely positive about it, but no surprises there it seems! Julien and his father were constructed in a way that makes us like them, but then Charlotte disregards them so the reader is in constant confusion as to whether we want Charlotte to be with the airmen Cannerly or with Julien. The airmen is portrayed in a very mixed light, tainted more on the side of dislike or so I felt, so we are so unsure of where we stand. I actually wondered whether she was wasting her time searching for cannerly and whether she felt duty bound rather than feeling true love. When she fell in love with Julien, she was a different woman, she had changed, she had other dreams, other plans, another way to see the life. When she went back to Britain, she realised that. Now, she loves Julien and not Richard Cannerly.

The blurb of the book says she will find her true self during the story but in the book she doesn't. She chooses to stay fundamentally the same. Going through something like this would have changed her more dramatically than the book showed.

So in conclusion, watch the film leave the book... get your hankies ready and enjoy!

SYNOPSIS: Set in World War Two, Charlotte Gray falls for an airman who takes a stupid mission, crashes in the region of France and Charlotte wants to help with her excellent French. She gets recruited by the Allies to aid the French Resistance movement against the Vichy government and goes to France where she involves herself with the country's turmoils and its suffering people.

P.S. Cate Blanchett plays Charlotte Gray in the film; she is awesome, despite some critique on her Scottish accent in the film.