|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(continued) I do not know the films you all have been talking about on women in Joyce. So cannot say much about it. It is also too early to talk about women in Ulysses. But in one of the books I am reading on Ulysses contains an essay on Feminism in Ulysses. One of the reasons for this essay is that the majority of the students who study literature are women, and that most of them do not like male writers!! Was surprised at this attitude. In what I have read about women characters in Joyce's writing, what has remained with me is The Portrait. (Read Dubliners quite some time ago, so cannot say much about it now.) It has one interesting character - Dante, but she disappears with the childhood of the artist. The mother, though she was obviously a very important person in Joyce's life, is not a well developed character. The other women who come in fleetings are the prostitutes whom he visits. Can one say based on this that Joyce neglects women? Should one raise the feminist banner? My answer to both are "no". At least in The Portrait, the main thing is to show the deveopment of the personality the artist, and not to develop the other characters. In this sence it is a ego based book,every other person is on the edge of experience - of necessity. That is how I understand it at least. As I have said earlier, I am too much of a novice as far as Joyce is considered, so admit that my thoughts could be "naive". Chandra Chandra I think your analysis of A Portrait is very good. One of the things that we noticed in our just concluded reading of Ulysses was Joyce's use of Emma Clery. In Stephen Hero she is a fully developed character and comes through - despite the author's prejudices against her - as a competent and complete person. In A portrait she is E.C. or even just 'she,' and in Ulysses she is a mere blip in the end of the library scene (9.1123). As for Joyce and feminism, I have seen attempts to rehabilitate Joyce in feminist terms. I don't think these attempts work. From a feminist point of view, Joyce on women is simply not edifying. Best Bob Williams Bob, you wrote: "As for Joyce and feminism, I have seen attempts to rehabilitate Joyce in feminist terms. I don't think these attempts work. From a feminist point of view, Joyce on women is simply not edifying." I wanted to sure of the meaning of the last word, and so looked it up in my Oxf.ref.dictionary. The meanings given are 'to benefit spiritually' and 'to improve morally'! So, I understand that you mean that from a feminist point of view reading what Joyce has to say about women is simply not of great use. Because his main concern was not the status of women, or the unchaining of the bonds which hold women back. Is that the problem the feminists have in your view? That they are kind of frustrated (angry) that he does not care about their problems? Just wondering. Chandra Hi, Chandra Some feminists have little trouble with Joyce's unreconstructed attitude on women. He sees women as not only beyond comprehension but scarely worth the effort to comprehend. And yet we know that his relation with Nora was one of great intensity and that she was a constant marvel to him. Despite their mutual eccentricities they enjoyed, needed and respected each other. Karen Lawrence can write a balanced account of Joyce and women (Cambridge Companion to Joyce) but Jane E. Miller who tries to make a heroine out of Mrs Kearney (Dubliners: Viking Critical Library) has attempted something for which she will surely receive no reward in this life. Joyce is full of observations about women that are simply awful and would have been so at any time, even before feminists. Bob
|