The madwoman in the attic by Janet Gezari

ThemadwomanintheatticbyJanetGezariSandraM.GilbertandSusanGubar'sTheMadwomanintheAttic1.JanetGezari+AuthorAffiliations1.ConnecticutCollegeNextSectionITTOOKABOUTacenturyfortheangelinthehousetojoinforceswiththemadwomanintheattic.AccordingtoSandraM.GilbertandSusanGubar,evenwhenthisangeloccupiedtheforegroundinnineteenthcenturynovels,shewasshadowedbyherdarktwin.Beneaththeplacidbrook,theturbulentwhirlpoolchurned.Thissplitimagehadalonghistoryinromance,andafamousnineteenthcenturyversioninThackeray'sbitterpictureofBeckySharpasa‘fiendishmarinecannibal’towardstheendofVanityFair.ButGilbertandGubarwerethefirsttounitetheangelandthemadwomaninasinglebeing,applaudherexpressivetransgressions,andidentifyherwiththewomanwriter.Whenthemonster-womanrosefromthedepthstotheattic,mostlybecauseCharlotteBrontëhadlocatedherthereinthenovelthatgaveGilbertandGubartheirtitleandprovided‘aparadigmofmanydistinctivelyfemaleanxietiesandabilities’(p.xii),shestakedanewclaimtoherlegitimateshareofthehouseoffiction.1Femaleliterarycriticswerejustlininguptomakethisclaimgoodin1979,whenTheMadwomanintheAttic:TheWomanWriterandtheNineteenth-CenturyLiteraryImaginationwaspublished.ElaineShowalter'sALiteratureofTheirOwn:BritishWomenWritersfromBrontëtoLessinghadappearedayearearlier,precededbyEllenMoers'sLiteraryWomen:TheGreatWriters(1976).Allthesebookssignalledfeministcriticism'sturnfromwhatShowalterwouldlatercall‘feministcritique’–theanalysis(andcorrection)oftherepresentationofwomeninliteraturebymen–to‘gynocritics’,whichfocusedonliteraturebywomen.2ThewordthatShowalterinventedisawkwardpartlybecauseitlooksasifitshouldbereferringtothecriticsthemselvesratherthantotheirdiscourse.Infact,anewinterpretativecommunityofreaders,aswellasanewcommunityofwriters,wascomingintobeing.Womenwereestablishingaconsiderablylargerpresenceintheacademy,andtheyweredoingthiswithouthavingtogiveuptheprospectofchildren.Literaturebythewell-knownwomenwriterswhofirstfiguredinthenewstudieshadattractedattentionbefore,butnotinthecontextofthefemalecultureorsubculturethatfeministcriticswerenowidentifying.Womenaswriters,andthegroundtheyshared–biological,psychological,linguistic,historical,andcultural–werenowthefocusofattention.AconcordancetothemostfrequentlyusedwordsinMadwomanintheAttic(availableatAmazon.com)revealsthatthethreethatappearmostoftenarefemale,women,andown.Definingandcelebratingthedifferenceinwomen'swritingpoweredthenextphaseoffeministcriticism.GilbertandGubarrestrictedthemselvestofamiliarnames–JaneAusten,theBrontës,MaryShelley,GeorgeEliot,ElizabethBarrettBrowning,ChristinaRossetti,andEmilyDickinson–butthenewinterestinwomenaswriters,combinedwiththeperceptionthatsomewomen'swritinghadbeendismissedbecauseitfailedtoconformtodominantmaleparadigms,ledtotheimportanteffortsofthenexttwodecadestorecovertheworkofpreviouslyneglectedwomenwriters.MadwomanintheAtticwasimmediatelyapopularaswellasanacademicsuccess.IntheUnitedStatesitwasarunner-upforboththePulitzerPrizeandtheNationalBookCriticsCircleAward.Itsoldwidelyandheldoutthehope,howeverbriefly,thattherewasanaudienceoutsidetheacademyforliterarycriticismofthesortthatacademicratherthantradepressespublish.Itsunusualsuccesshastobeunderstoodinrelationtothetimeofitspublication,especiallyintheUnitedStates,aswellastoitsmethod.Women(andmen)werebeginningtobeseenasdifferentlygendered,withdifferentlysocialisedexperiencesanddifferentculturalcontextsforreadingandwriting.Foralargenumberofreaders,GilbertandGubar'saccountofhownineteenth-centurywomen'swritinghadbeenshapedby‘genderstrife’broughttheemergenceofgenderasacategoryofanalysistofullconsciousness.3Moreover,MadwomanintheAtticrepresentedwomenwritersashistoricalbeingsengagedinasearchforidentity,equality,andauthoritythatmirrored,andwasintendedtomirror,thatofmanywomen,notjustwriters.GilbertandGubarwerecommittedtotheideathatwomenweresubstantialselvescapableofexercisingsomecontrolovertheirchoices,andthatexperienceor‘life’hadsomepresencepriortoitsarticulationinlanguage.Theseviewsstillhaveenoughtruthinthemtobeheldbyalmosteveryoneexceptpost-structuralists.ThemomentumofMadwomancarrieditsauthorsthroughthenextdecadeandahalf:theycontinuedtotellthenineteenthcenturystorytheyhaduncoveredinthethreevolumesofNoMan'sLand:ThePlaceoftheWomanWriterintheTwentiethCentury(1988-95),andin1985theyeditedTheNortonAnthologyofLiteraturebyWomen,designedtomeettheneedsofinstructorsteachingthemanycoursesinliteraturebywomenthathadbythenbeenestablished.Thesubtitle–TheTraditioninEnglish–suggeststheconsolidationofanewcanon.InMadwomanintheAttic,GilbertandGubarexposed,withmoreauthority,amplitude,andenergythananyonehadyetbroughttothesubject,thepowerofthemetaphorsthathadmade,ortriedtomake,writingamen'sclub.Theiropeningquestion–‘Isthepenametaphoricalpenis?’–ledthemtotheobviousnextquestion–‘Withwhatorgancanfemalesgeneratetexts?’Somefeministreadersobjectedtotheserhetoricalquestions.NinaAuerbach,forexample,pointedtoan‘equallytimeless’andpotentially‘moreoppressive…equationbetweenliterarycreativityandchildbirth’.4Sexualanalogiesarealwaysreductive,buttheoneGilbertandGubarchosehadarichhistoryandeffectivelyevokedthecontestbetweenmalehavesandfemalehave-notsmostlikelytoproduceenvyandanxiety.Themetaphorswereonlypartofthepicture.Althoughplentyofwomenweretakingupthepeninthenineteenthcentury,theyexperiencedadistinctkindofdiscouragementaswomen,despiteevidence(notalwaysincludedinMadwomanintheAttic)thattheyexperienceditinradicallydifferentways.GilbertandGubarquoteRobertSouthey'sfamousletterofadvicetoCharlotteBrontë,whohadsenthimsomeofherpoemstoread:‘Literatureisnotthebusinessofawoman'slife,anditcannotbe’(p.8).OnewonderswhathewouldhavesaidifBrontëhadsenthimapassagefromJaneEyreinsteadofearlyworkinagenreillsuitedtohergenius.ButtheycouldjustaswellhavequotedG.H.Lewes'sreviewofShirley,evenmorepunishinginitspublicrevelationthat‘theauthoressisthedaughterofaclergyman!’,5ortheycouldhavecitedBrontë'sownsufferingandangerwhenLewes‘socruellyhandledthequestionofsex’.6GilbertandGubar'saccountofhowwomenrespondedtothesystematicattempttodisablethemfrombecomingwritersisthefirstthoroughgoinganalysisofthesubjectwehave.Inuncoveringplotafterplotagainstwomen,theyretellthestoriesofmanynovelsandpoemsandofthelivesofthosewhowrotethem.MadwomanintheAtticoffersaversionofbiographicalcriticism.Itis‘literary’withoutbeinginaccessibletoageneralreaderwho,whateverelseshebelievesin,believesinlives.AnnetteKolodnyspokeformanywhenshedescribedGilbertandGubar'sreadingsas‘nothingshortofbreathtaking,uncovering–ineventhebestknownofthesetexts–shapesandstrategieswehadneverseenbefore’.7Intheirversionof‘SnowWhite’,forexample,aplottheysummariseintheirintroductorychapter,thewickedQueenandSnowWhitearenotenemiesbutsisters,theangelinthehouseandthemadmonsterintheattic,eachseekingtokillorrepresstheother.MaryJacobussummarisedthisnicely:Yearningforalifeofsignificantaction,stories,andstorytelling,theQueenplotstokillherangelicstepdaughter.Tothisend,shedevotesthetraditionallyfemaleartsoftightlacing,cosmetology,andcuisine,butherthree‘plots’succeedonlyintransformingherrivalintoaneternallybeautiful,inanimateobjetd'artpreservedintheglasscoffinofpatriarchalaesthetics.JustasthewickedQueenstrugglestoridherselfofthisstaticcreation,soherstepdaughterattemptstorepressthecreativeQueenortaletellerinherself.Onceprovedtobepatriarchy'sidealwoman,however,theAngelisrestoredtolooking-glasslifeinherFather'srealm(andthere,presumablytoaplotofendlessrepetitionassheinturn‘falls’intofemalesexuality).Meanwhile,thewickedandnarcissisticplotterwhomshehasousteddancestodeathinherred-hotshoes,doingthe‘deathdance’ofAnneSexton'spoem,‘TheRedShoes’–amad,monstrous,andalienatedwomanartist.8Hereandinthebookasawhole,howwomenwriterstellthisstoryneverfiguresaslargelyastheirmotivefortellingitanditsoutcome:theproductionof‘amad,monstrous,andalienatedwomanartist’.InsofarasMadwomanintheAttichasatheoreticalargumenttomake,itisanargumentaboutinfluence.In1973HaroldBloomhadpublishedhisbookaboutthe‘anxietyofinfluence’,theOedipalstrugglebetweenfathersandsonsthat,accordingtoBloom,expressesitselfincreativeachievementandproducestheneworiginaltalent.GilbertandGubarrejectedbothBloom'sideaofpoeticinfluenceas‘arelationshipof“sonship”’andhisideaofthefilialrelationshipascombative.Theyproposedthatafemalewriternotonlyexperiencesananxietyofinfluencedifferentlyfromamalewriter;sheexperiencessomethingfarmoresignificantforher.Theycalledthisan‘“anxietyofauthorship”–aradicalfearthatshecannotcreate,thatbecauseshecanneverbecomea“precursor”theactofwritingwillisolateordestroyher’(p.49).Becauseawomanwriterfightsagainstthemaleprecursor'sreadingofher–notjusthisreadingoftheworld–sheseeks(andfinds)afemaleprecursorwho,‘farfromrepresentingathreateningforcetobedeniedorkilled,provesbyexamplethatarevoltagainstpatriarchalliteraryauthorityispossible’(p.49).Itisthisargumentaboutprecursorswhich,morethananyother,datesGilbertandGubar'sbook.Thegermofthebookwasacoursetheyteam-taughtatIndianaUniversityin1974.Oneofseveralnewcoursesdesignedandtaughtatthetimeinresponsetothewomen'smovement,itledthemtodiscoveracoherenceofthemeandimageryintheworkofwriterswhoweregeographically,historically,andpsychologicallydistantfromeachother.Inotherwords,theywereteachinginanEnglishdepartmentwhich,likemostothers,hadorganiseditscoursesintermsofnationality(therewereonlytwo:AmericaandGreatBritain),history(period),andsometimesaccordingtothemeorgenre.Thesenseonegetsfromtheiraccountisthat–withthisnewwayoforganisingknowledge,thisdiscoveryofanewkindofcoherencebasedonsexorgender–GilbertandGubarwerebreakingoutoftheframesthathadsofarconfinedthemasstudents,teachers,andwriters.Thecoherencetheyfoundintheworkofwomenwriterswasofapiecewiththecoherencetheyfoundintheirownreadingsofwomenwriters:theydescribetheircollaborationinwritingMadwomanintheAtticasnotjusta‘dialogue’buta‘consensus’(p.xiii).Icanremember,thoughIcan'tdate,aspecialsessionattheMLAConventioninwhichGilbert,laterelectedPresidentoftheMLA,andGubardeliveredapapercollaboratively.Ihadneverbeforeseen,andhaven'tseensince,aperformancelikeit:eachofthemreadpartsofthepaper,notoneaftertheother,butinsuccessive,mutuallyenablingexchanges.Recently,GarrisonKeillor,thelong-timehostofapopularweeklyPublicRadioshowcalledThePrairieHomeCompanion,offeredaversionofthefamiliarethnicjokeaboutscrewinginalightbulb.Keillor'shumourhasacharacteristicallyold-fashionedformandfeeling;itbelongstothe1970s.Question:‘Howmanywomendoesittaketoscrewinalightbulb?’Answer:‘Onetoscrewinthelightbulb,andninetoformasupportgroupagainstthedark’.Thejestbringstogetherafriendlyacknowledgementofthecompetenceofwomen(onlyoneisneededtodothejob)withanostalgicglanceathowthewomen'smovementonceorganiseditself.Whentheycametogethertoteachandwrite,GilbertandGubarformedthecoreofasupportgroupwhichwouldincludeotherfeministcriticssimilarlycommitted.Whentheytravelledbackintimetothenineteenthcentury,theysawthehistoryofinfluenceinthesameterms:‘farfromrepresentingathreateningforcetobedeniedorkilled’,theprecursorwomanwriter‘provesbyexamplethatarevoltagainstpatriarchalliteraryauthorityispossible’.Ithardlyneedssayingthatthisaccountofrelationsbetweenwomenwriters,womencritics,andwomeningeneralwithin,aswellasoutside,thewomen'smovementwasatthattime,asatanyother,asimplification.Feministcriticismhasshifteditsgroundsince1979,andsomeofusaregratefulthatsupportgroupsarenowmorecloselyassociatedwithmentalhealththanwithfeminism.Nevertheless,SusanGubarwassurprisedtofindherselfthetargetofattacksfromfeministsinthe1990s.Shestruckbackinatalkwiththetitle‘WhoKilledFeministCriticism?’,giveninpursuitofajobshedidn'tget,apparentlybecauseyoungerfeministsinthedepartmentwereopposedtoherwork.Later,withitstitlesoftenedto‘WhatAilsFeministCriticism?’,shepublisheditfirstinCriticalInquiryandtheninacollectionofheressays,CriticalCondition:FeminismattheTurnoftheCentury(2000).AllthreetitlemetaphorssuggesttheviolenceorvirulencewithwhichfeministcriticshavedisputedoneofMadwomanintheAttic'sfoundationalideas:thedreamof‘acommon,femaleimpulsetostrugglefreefromsocialandliteraryconfinementthroughstrategicredefinitionsofself,art,andsociety’(p.xii).InCriticalCondition,Gubaridentifiestwoenemiescampedinsidethehouseoffeministcriticism.OneismadeupoffeministcriticswritingaboutwomenofcolourandThirdWorldwomen.TheyinsistonthedifferencesthatseparatethemfromwhiteEnglishandAmericanwritersandseektounmaskany‘common,femaleimpulse’asafalsehoodandanimposition.Theyareasmuchopposedtoaprivilegedwhitewomen'smovementastheyaretopatriarchy,andtheyhavenotalwaysbeenasgraciousasAudréLordewaswhenshesuggested(backin1980)thatitwasn'twomen'sdifferencesthatseparatedthemfromeachotherbuttheirrefusaltorecognisethesedifferencesandexaminethedistortionsproducedbynotrecognisingthem.9Theotherhostilegroupismadeupofpost-structuralistfeministcriticswhocondemnanynotionof‘woman’thatclaimstobetranshistoricalortotranscendcultureasessentialist.Accordingtothisstandardofjudgement,awholegenerationoffeministcriticsdeservesderision.AsNancyK.Millersuggests,thisconflictpullstherugoutfromunderbookslikeMadwomanintheAttic:‘betweentheindictmentofthefeministuniversalasawhitefictionbroughtbywomenofcolorandthepoststructuralistsuspicionofagroundedsubject,whataretheconditionsunderwhichasfeministsone(nottosay“I”)cansay“we”?’IagreewithSusanGubar,whoquotesMillerinCriticalCondition,10thatany‘commonundertaking’byfeministslooksunlikelyattheturnofthetwentiethcentury.Whetherthisisadevelopmentthatisthe‘hazardtothevitalityoffeministliterarystudies’thatGubarthinksitisremainstobeseen.11GayatriSpivak'sclassicessay,‘ThreeWomen'sTextsandaCritiqueofImperialism’,publishedin1985,throwsthecontestbetweentheolderfeministMadwomanintheAtticandthenewerfeministpoliticsoflocationoridentityintostarkrelief.Spivakbeginsherattackonthe‘highfeministnorm’(the‘basicallyisolationistadmirationfortheliteratureofthefemalesubjectinEuropeandAnglo-America’)andonJaneEyre(a‘culttextoffeminism’)withtheassertionthatit‘shouldnotbepossibletoreadnineteenth-centuryBritishliteraturewithoutrememberingthatimperialism,understoodasEngland'ssocialmission,wasacrucialpartoftheculturalrepresentationofEnglandtotheEnglish’.12AccordingtoSpivak,thenineteenthcenturyfeministindividualismsoablypursuedinJaneEyreisnottheambitionofThirdWorldwomen.TheyseethemselvesinBerthaMason,notinJane.GilbertandGubar,however,notonlyseethemselvesinJanebut,byseeingBerthaasJane's‘truestanddarkestdouble’,nevercanseeherasapersonwithherownhistoryandexperience.Instead,sheisJane's‘avatar’or‘theangryaspectoftheorphanchild,theferociousselfJanehasbeentryingtorepresseversinceherdaysatGateshead’(pp.359-69).TheyalsoneglecttomentionthatBerthaisaCreole;herdifferencesareelidedwhentheycomparehertoBlancheIngram,thethirdwomanonthescene.Asa‘figureproducedbytheaxiomaticsofimperialism’,BerthaoccupiestheplaceofAfricainChinuaAchebe'sfamousattackonHeartofDarkness:‘aplaceofnegationsatonceremoteandvaguelyfamiliarincomparisonwithwhichEurope'sownstateofspiritualgracewillbemanifest’.13InGilbertandGubar'sallegoricalreading,Bertha'sdeathexorcisesJane'srageandmakesherjourneybacktoRochesterpossible.InSpivak's,the‘womanfromthecolonies’iscoldly‘sacrificedasaninsaneanimalforhersister'sconsolidation’.14IamsympathetictobothofthesereadingsofJaneEyre,althoughbothleavesomethingoutofconsideration.Whatkindofwrong,exactly,isconstitutedbyGilbertandGubar'streatmentofBerthaasanaspectofJaneinsteadofafullydevelopedcentreofbeinginherownright?Itmusthavesomethingtodowithtreatingheraslessthanfullyhuman.ButBerthaisacharacterinaworkoffiction,notahumanbeing,andGilbertandGubarare,ofcourse,literarycritics.InCriticalCondition,Gubarbemoansthetoneoftheattacksonherbyyoungerfeministcritics,asconveying‘contemptforthosewhosespeculationsdidnotconformtotheprevailingnotionoftheproperlyradicalpositioninthefieldspilledoverintoself-righteous,routinizedposturing’.15InhisreviewofCriticalCondition,K.AnthonyAppiahpointsoutthatthepoliticalinvestmentsofliterarycriticshaveinevitablychanged‘therhetoricaltenorofacademiccriticism’ingeneral:Trilling,thoughhemighthaverejectedWilliamK.Wimsatt'sapproachtoliterature–whichwastext-centeredandshowednointerestintheauthor'spsychologicalprocesses–wouldnotforthisreasonhavethoughtWimsattwicked.ButifAfrican-AmericanliterarycriticismwasanadjunctofBlackLiberation–which,asamatterofdignityandjustice,wasobviouslyabusinessofthehighestmoralimportance–thenacademicdisagreementscouldeasilyspilloverintoconflictsmorevulgarlypolitical;andthedisseminationofintellectualerrormightnotonlyunderminethemovement,itmightalsoreflectbadcharacter.16WhatAppiahcallsthecurrent‘academicmoralisminthehumanities’proceedsdirectlyfrom‘theallianceofliberationmovementsandliterarystudies’.Thisalliance,hepointsout,‘hasn'tmadecriticismpoliticallypotentorpoliticscriticallyinformed’,butithas‘raisedtheheatofliterarydebate,withoutalwayssheddingmorelight’.Ithasalsoproducedapoliticallitmustestforworksofliterature,whichmoreandmorefrequentlyarejudged(bycriticsandinclassrooms)accordingtothepoliticalgoodtheydoorfailtodo.AsGilbertandGubaracknowledge,EmilyDickinson,thebook'sculminatingexample,presentsparticularchallenges.Dickinsonproducednoextendednarrativepoem,apparentlyneverattemptedaprosetale,novel,orromance,andwrotelyricpoemsthataredeterminedlynon-narrative.GilbertandGubar'sstrategyfordealingwithheristotreatherlifeasafiction:Thefantasiesofguiltandangerthatwereexpressedintheentrancedreveriesofthefiction-makerbywriterslikeRossettiandBarrettBrowningandbyallthenovelistswehaveconsidered,wereliterallyenactedbyDickinsoninherownlife,herownbeing.WhereGeorgeEliotandChristinaRossettiwroteaboutangelsofdestructionandrenunciation,EmilyDickinsonherselfbecamesuchanangel.WhereCharlotteBrontëprojectedheranxietiesintoimagesoforphanchildren,EmilyDickinsonherselfenactedthepartofachild.Wherealmostalllateeighteenth-andnineteenth-centurywomenwritersfromMariaEdgeworthinCastleRackrenttoCharlotteBrontëinJaneEyre,EmilyBrontëinWutheringHeights,andGeorgeEliotinMiddlemarch,secretedbitterself-portraitsofmadwomenintheatticsoftheirnovels,EmilyDickinsonherselfbecamethemadwoman–became,asweshallsee,bothironicallyamadwoman(adeliberateimpersonationofamadwoman)andtrulyamadwoman(ahelplessagoraphobic,trappedinaroominherfather'shouse).(p.583)IquotethisaccountofDickinson'slifeasthemadwomanintheatticatlengthbecauseitshowsthehighpriceGilbertandGubararewillingtopayforanarrativecoherencethatcomesincreasinglytoseemnotjusttyrannicalandmisleadingbutareinscriptionoffamiliarstereotypesaboutwomenwriters.Oneofthesestereotypesisthatthefictionsofwomenwritersareclosertotheirownexperience–lessartfulandmoreinvoluntary–thanthoseofmen.OnceEmilyDickinson'slifehasbeenrecastasaGothicromance,herpoemscanbetreatednotaspoemsbutasepisodes,confessions,orexercisesin‘impersonation’,awordthatfiguresofteninthebookasawholeandveryofteninthechapteronDickinson.Forinstance,CharlotteBrontë'screationofamalenarratorinherfirstnovel,TheProfessor,isanactof‘maleimpersonation’,connectedtoa‘female’proclivity'for‘trance-writing’.ThetheatricalperformanceofVashti,acharacterinVillettewhoisforgedfromeverythingCharlotteBrontëknewaboutbeingawomanartist,issaidtobe‘confessional,unfinished’,andevenakindofstripshow,aformofthefemalesuicidalself-exposurethatpornographersfromSadetothenamelessproducersofsnufffilmshaveexploited,sothathercostlyself-displayrecallsthepainedironiccryofPlath's‘LadyLazarus’:‘Iturnandburn,/DonotthinkIunderestimateyourgreatconcern.’Atthesametime,Vashti'sperformancealsoinevitablyremindsusofthedanceofdeaththeQueenmustdoinherfieryshoesattheendof‘SnowWhite.’(p.424)ClassicalFrenchtragedy(whatVashtiperforms),striptease,pornography,apoembySylviaPlath,andastoryfromthebrothersGrimmarethrowntogetherlikeasalad.MadwomanintheAtticdiscoversauthenticconnectionsbetweenthestorieswomenwriterstell,butitistooreadytoexploitdistortingones.Althoughitcelebratesthepsychologicalachievementofwomenwriters,italsodiminishestheirliteraryambitionandaccomplishment.PreviousSectionFootnotesl↵1SandraM.GilbertandSusanGubar,TheMadwomanintheAttic:TheWomanWriterandtheNineteenth-CenturyLiteraryImagination(NewHaven,1979).l↵2ElaineShowalter,‘FeministCriticismintheWilderness’,inShowalter(ed.),TheNewFeministCriticism:EssaysonWomen,LiteratureandTheory(NewYork,1995),pp.243-69.l↵3Thisphrasecomesf