Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Of Flesh and Stone An Ovidian Reading of Wide Sargasso Sea - Literature Essay Samples
In Jean Rhysââ¬â¢ Wide Sargasso Sea, there is a shift in Part Two of the novel as Antoinetteââ¬â¢s narrative voice is traded for that of her unnamed husband, presumably Mr. Rochester of Jane Eyre. As he chronicles the events of their honeymoon leading up to Antoinetteââ¬â¢s confinement in the attic of Thornfield Hall, there is a distinct change in his perception of his new wife, in which indifference gives way to lust, which gives way to suspicion, before completely surrendering to paranoia. To formulate an analytical understanding of these moments of transformation and transfiguration, I will reference Ovidââ¬â¢s tale of Pygmalionââ¬âspecifically, the animation and the naming of his statue Galateaââ¬âas the foundation upon which my analysis of Wide Sargasso Sea will be built. In comparing the two texts, I aim to answer the following question: How does an Ovidian reading of Wide Sargasso Sea impact its depictions of language, power, and narrative? Edith Hamiltonââ¬â¢s rendition of ââ¬Å"Pygmalionâ⬠presents Galateaââ¬â¢s animation as a miracle so unbelievable that sculptor briefly doubts his own reality: ââ¬Å"Was it self-deception or did she really feel warm to his touch? â⬠¦ Venus, he thought. This is the goddessââ¬â¢s doingâ⬠(Hamilton 9). Yet, beneath the initial shock of realization, he grounds himself in attributing the feat to the otherworldly capabilities of Aphrodite. Using this moment to frame a similar occurrence in Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette is likewise changed by Daniel Coswayââ¬â¢s words. In presenting Rochester with the purported truth of his wifeââ¬â¢s upbringing, a different version of her is called to life. However, contrary to Pygmalion, the pairââ¬â¢s love is not brought to fruition. Instead, Daniel manipulates Antoinetteââ¬â¢s narrative and, with the language of trickery, successfully sours Rochesterââ¬â¢s impression of her, inverting Ovidââ¬â¢s tale into one o f apprehension and bitterness. Danielââ¬â¢s unscrupulousness is reinforced when he coolly asks Rochester, ââ¬Å"What is five hundred pounds to you? To me itââ¬â¢s my life.â⬠(Rhys 76). This scene stands in stark contrast against an earlier moment when Antoinette seeks counsel from Christophine, and the latter denies the formerââ¬â¢s offer of money in exchange for obeah. In Rochesterââ¬â¢s case, money serves as a method of protection and keeping his reputation intact, whereas Antoinetteââ¬â¢s ââ¬Å"ugly moneyâ⬠(Rhys 71) inadvertently taints Christophineââ¬â¢s potion. Additionally, given that Rochester had married Antoinette to commandeer her wealth, Danielââ¬â¢s query becomes a taunt, a sneering insult aimed to attack Rochesterââ¬â¢s status (or lack thereof) and manhood. Hence, the language of powerââ¬âtangible wealth in the form of moneyââ¬âovertakes the power of languageââ¬âspiritual practices in the form of ritualsââ¬âand becomes the breeding ground for deceit . Similarly, Rochesterââ¬â¢s understanding of Antoinetteââ¬â¢s climactic outburst in the house later on is overshadowed by the influence of Danielââ¬â¢s duplicity. As Rochester recounts, ââ¬Å"Then she cursed me comprehensively, â⬠¦ and it was like a dream in the large unfurnished room with the candles flickering and this red-eyed wild-haired stranger who was my wife shouting obscenities at meâ⬠(Rhys 89). This description of a ââ¬Å"red-eyed wild-haired strangerâ⬠(Rhys 89) conjures up an image of something monstrous, something so ghastly that Rochester is no longer able to recognize Antoinette. In this case, the power of her performative language is so overwhelming that it transforms Antoinette into something akin to a beast, stripping her of all humanity. Unlike Aphrodite, who breathes life into an object of beauty, Daniel and Rochester reduce Antoinette to a nightmarish banshee, doomed to perish alongside her familyââ¬â¢s failures. As for the naming of Galatea, Hamiltonââ¬â¢s ââ¬Å"Pygmalionâ⬠notes that, ââ¬Å"Venus herself graced their marriage with her presence, but what happened after that we do not know, except that Pygmalion named the maiden Galateaâ⬠(Hamilton 9). The return of Aphrodite establishes her role as a figure significant to the pairââ¬â¢s relationship, making it comparable to the resounding authority Daniel held over Rochester and subsequently Antoinette. That being said, Rochesterââ¬â¢s attempts at forcibly renaming Antoinette must be acknowledged in how they seem to parallel ââ¬Å"Pygmalion,â⬠though Antoinette is much less receptive of this change. This not only calls attention to the intertextual bond between Wide Sargasso Sea and Jane Eyre, but also, as pointed out by a footnote in Rhysââ¬â¢ novel, sheds light on the ââ¬Å"ritual of Anglo-American marriageâ⬠(Rhys 88) in the changing of surnames and its linguistic power over self-identity. Antoinette is noticeably discomfited and outraged by Rochesterââ¬â¢s cries of ââ¬Å"Bertha,â⬠insisting that, ââ¬Å"Bertha is not my name. You are trying to make me into someone else, calling me by another name. I know, thatââ¬â¢s obeah tooâ⬠(Rhys 88). Despite Rochesterââ¬â¢s belief that changing Antoinetteââ¬â¢s name will sever her ties to her ââ¬Å"sly-bootsâ⬠(Rhys 74) mother and separate her from her family history, she fights back. This inherently rejects Ovidââ¬â¢s portrayal of a subservient woman who lays her life down at her loverââ¬â¢s feet, who was created by a man for his own pleasure and enjoyment. Whatââ¬â¢s more, Antoinette comprehends the power of her name and its intrinsic links to her personhood. In recognizing the ways in which Rochester is distorting her sense of reality, she speaks out against his usage of obeah, decrying his appropriation of this verbal ritual, and denies him the satisfaction of expropriating and appropriat ing her narrative. Admittedly, Antoinetteââ¬â¢s resilience does not change the fact that her matrimonial bond to Rochester granted him full reign over her worldly possessions, thereby both figuratively and quite literally boxing her in: ââ¬Å"Vain, silly creature. Made for loving? Yes, but sheââ¬â¢ll have no lover, for I donââ¬â¢t want her and sheââ¬â¢ll see no otherâ⬠(Rhys 99). Rochesterââ¬â¢s mocking remark of Antoinetteââ¬â¢s purpose hearkens back to Ovid once more, in which he depicts himself as a Pygmalion, who rejects his Galatea and attempts to turn her back into stone. In denying her the option of a life beyond his ostracism, he cements her fate of misery and despair. Again, Rochester returns to the language of dehumanization, addressing her as though she were a hapless ââ¬Å"creatureâ⬠(Rhys 99) ensnared by his carefully-laid trap. This tips the scales within their power dynamic in his favor, as he pairs his words with the intent to further subjugate Antoinette. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to note that perceiving Antoinette as Galatea and Rochester as Pygmalion does not erase the fact that Rhysââ¬â¢ narrative does provide the former with much agency and the latter with a shaky grasp of power. For example, Rochester is never addressed by name throughout the novel and is referred to only as ââ¬Å"the manâ⬠(Rhys 67). While the argument can be made that there was no need for Rochesterââ¬â¢s name to be explicitly stated, it does effectively show the literal narrative denying him of his identityââ¬âtying in his lower placement on the rungs of the social hierarchy. And, Antoinetteââ¬â¢s visit to Christophine serves as a literary disruption, as it interrupts Rochesterââ¬â¢s narrative halfway through Part Two, showcasing Antoinetteââ¬â¢s control over the textual domain in spite of Rochesterââ¬â¢s given dominance, usurping his place and temporarily reinstating herself as the primary voice of the novel. Much like Hamiltonââ¬â¢s Pygmalion, Rhys gives Antoinette a name beyond what was available in the pre-existing canonical text. As exhibited by Antoinette herself, the transcendental power of altering a narrative exists both within and beyond the text, shedding further light on how our perspectives on Antoinette, Rochester, and Jane Eyre can change. By conducting an Ovidian reading of Wide Sargasso Sea, the unpredictable and occasionally volatile effects of language, power, and narrative are revealed, particularly in conjunction with truth and identity. It problematizes Brontà «Ã¢â¬â¢s Bertha and Mr. Rochester and reflects the complications of their relationship through how they are empowered and disempowered by each otherââ¬â¢s words. Ultimately, it equally inverts and subverts the tale of Pygmalion, as it questions the impact of love gone wrong and control being placed in different hands.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment