I always wondered why there were never any interesting female characters in world literature. Male characters are always complex and easy to identify with while female characters are brainless, whiny, and only interested in selling themselves to the highest bidder. Now that I have started reading more second-tier British and Spanish writers of the XIXth century, I have come to realize that interesting female characters abound. The only problem is that the novels they protagonize are not nearly as popular as the ones whose female heroines are boring and pathetic.
Take Jane Austen and George Gissing. Austen’s female characters are interested in absolutely nothing but selling themselves profitably. Her novels always end with a wedding because once the bargain is struck and the contract is signed, nothing else of interest can happen in a woman’s life. If married women appear in her novels, their only goal is to sell their daughters, nieces, or friends. Austen’s women think of nothing, talk of nothing and dream of nothing but handing themselves over to a man for a good price. Austen’s most popular novel Pride and Prejudice is the most unapologetic hymn I have ever encountered to the only legalized form of prostitution.
George Gissing, on the other hand, realized that making even the most profitable marriage imaginable cannot fulfill a human being. The idea that women can be happy only serving the needs of their families and having no lives, no careers, no interests of their own was invented by men who don’t see women as fully human, Gissing suggests in his novel The Odd Women. Gissing believes that women should have the right to receive the same kind of education as men do, practice all of the same professions, and have the same rights and freedoms as men because there are no differences between men and women save for the purely physiological ones. Gissing’s Monica Madden is far less educated and intelligent than Austen’s Elizabeth Bennett. Yet she manages to realize that a patriarchal marriage – be it as profitable as it may – can only make a woman miserable. And men, Gissing points out, are as unhappy as women in a patriarchal society. Women who reduce themselves to the state of complete idiocy in order better to fit the image of an Angel in the House can cause nothing but suffering to men who choose them as life companions.
Gissing’s female characters work towards the liberation of women and create clubs to help each other. They study, engage in political activism, try to achieve financial independence and professional success. They even have conversations that do not revolve around or even mention any men.
In spite of all this, nobody knows Gissing (save for a few lucky nerds here and there) and everybody knows Austen. Why do you think that happens? Why is Austin’s favorite (and only) idea that all a woman has to do to be successful in life is to get married to a wealthy man so popular? We all know who always was and still is the main reader of novels, so I think the answer is obvious.
I’m discovering such great writers through my Classics Challenge that every time I read a novel from my list, I want to set everything aside and read everything else by the author. I think I will probably reach the conclusion that the secondary classics that populate my list are better than their more famous peers.
Clarissa's Blog 
People don’t understand feminist irony. That is for sure. They take irony to be whining about one’s allotted female role, when irony is a renunciation of that role. I particularly enjoyed something I read in Marechera’s shamanistic novel, Black Sunlight. He opens a chapter by introducing us to an entirely new female character. This woman had chosen the profession of makeup artist, a conventionally feminine choice. Her deeper instincts, however, took over when she was practicing her art. She’d draw the lines incorrectly on the face and then have an overwhelming desire to destroy the face and her art. It made her realize she wanted to be a revolutionary.
The strong feminist message in this is that when a woman is filtered into a typical female occupation, she may find it so limiting that she starts to go mad and become a revolutionary.
An interpretation is always a choice, however. One can read the story this way, as I think Marechera intended it to be read, for he was also a cultural revolutionary. Or, one can read a patriarchal message into the text. Perhaps the character became a revolutionary because she was incapable, emotional, or ugly.
The attribution of a whiny nature to a female character is typical of patriarchal ways of making sense of a text. I don’t mean you are taking such a line, Clarissa, but I have found that the less compliant a woman is, the more conservatives will view her character as inherently negative or deficient. Because predominant patriarchal readings give such interpretations to texts, it is difficult to discover books about strong women.
LikeLike
It is my profession to create my own readings of texts, and I’m pretty good at it. 🙂 Austen’s characters are the opposite of revolutionary. They just want to sell themselves and hybernate until the time comes to sell their daughters. And so on.
LikeLike
Yes, yes. I wasn’t suggesting that you were wrong about Austen, but I was taking issue, slightly, with your attribution of her characters as being “whiny”. They’re kind of boring, not whiny. Whiny is a patriarchal term for women who are, in fact, not patriarchal. Mrs Mitt Romney would not be considered “whiny” but those further to the left are often represented by right-wingers in that way.
LikeLike
Yes, “whiny” is not a good term for Austen’s characters. With “whiny” I was thinking more of Anna Karenina and Emma Bovary. Brrrr…. They are a typical male fantasy of women.
“Mrs Mitt Romney would not be considered “whiny””
– I totally consider her whiny. But I agree that I’m quite alone in this feeling.
LikeLike
Yes, and you are perhaps using the term in an accurate way with regard to Mrs Mitt. Despite this, what I have found is the term, “whiny”, is a code for not being interested in accommodating patriarchal mores, and saying so. If you are a feminist, you will almost certainly be considered whiny by conservatives, because you seem to be uncomfortable with the way things are. In Western culture, “whiny” is a code for militant feminist woman.
This accords with the patriarchal pattern of seeing everything as the opposite to what it is. Someone who addresses the problems of social injustice directly, without hiding from them, is deemed “whiny”.
LikeLike
What a relief. I thought I was the only one who felt that way about Austen’s characters. I was sure I was missing something profound.
LikeLike
She has a good turn of phrase, does Austen, but her topics are quite boring. Unfortunately, I can’t read any books these days with a feeling of benefit or gratitude, since analysis tends to predominate over enjoyment. None of the hundreds of books in my house make any sense to me, anymore, post PhD. I remember what they used to say, but I can’t remember my original reactions.
LikeLike
I’m also very grateful for your support! People always look at me as if I were some sort of a criminal for saying these things. 🙂
LikeLike
George Gissing wrote his novels some 80 years after Jane Austen had published her novels. There was a market for realistic novels in the late 19th century, but not in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. What sold in Austen’s time were romance novels and horror novels. Furthermore, Austen lived in the country all her life, and wrote about people like those that she observed in her daily life as a clergyman’s daughter. I think that you underestimate the understated satire in Austen’s novels. She is master of the sly dig.
LikeLike
“George Gissing wrote his novels some 80 years after Jane Austen had published her novels. ”
– Thank you, I’m aware of that. 🙂 Still, today’s readers prefer Austen by far.
“I think that you underestimate the understated satire in Austen’s novels. She is master of the sly dig.”
– I’ve seen many readings that try to find hidden feminism an Austen. They did not convince me. The uninterrupted succession of Cinderellas begs the conclusion that the author said precisely what she wanted to say.
LikeLike
I think women are free not to relate to Austen’s world. She left so much out. Her concerns were moral and very conservative. But I get a lot of pleasure out of reading her work. She is shrewd and subtle. Emma is a brat and a know it all who has some lessons to learn. Yes it’s all so she can become the wife of an older man of property but
still…
LikeLike
I have not read anythiung by Gissing. But I have read all of Austen’s novels. In my opinion, Austen is world famous because she is one of the best ever novelists in terms of almost perfect English English prose. Also, to understand her female characters, one must understand the times. Outside the major cities women would have little opportunity to seek independent lives of their own. They were not stupid. So they focussed on what they could achieve and worked skillfully to those ends. The male/female sex ratio was adverse to females because of high death rates among infant boys (also the Napoleonic Wars). So the choice set was restricted. Austen sketches superbly across that restricted canvass.
One should not impose 21st century perspectives back more than two centuries in time when evaluating the behavior of characters.
LikeLike
I know Gissing through Orwell, who described New Grub Street as his masterpiece. He concerned himself more with the class issues depicted in the novels. He wrote:
In The Odd Women there is not a single major character whose life is not ruined either by having too little money, or by getting it too late in life, or by the pressure of social conventions which are obviously absurd but which cannot be questioned.
His essay on Gissing is pretty good and can be found online.
LikeLike
This quote made me remember why I dislike Marxist readings so much. 🙂 It’s been a while since I’ve seen such a blatant massaging of a novel into a predetermined mold of a rigid theory.
LikeLike
I thought that Austen was engaged in sustained, subtle satire of her social class, and therefore the shallowness and boxed vision of so many of her female characters was in service to that satire. (I especially get this impression from Mansfield Park.) If “Austen’s female characters are interested in absolutely nothing but selling themselves profitably,” couldn’t that be part of Austen’s commentary and criticism of her class?
For that matter, does it matter that most of Austen’s male characters are not much better? Their views of the world, their range of opinions, and their patterns of thought are all bounded by fairly narrow constraints. (And they never seem to do anything. I understand that, as a class, they didn’t hold jobs in the modern sense and so forth, but honestly, what did the landed gentry do all day?)
LikeLike
Nobody can no what Austen did or didn’t want to do with her writing. Tell me, however, do you believe that all those women who today swoon over the 110th film adaptation of and sequel to Pride and Prejudice do so because they despise the characters? Or for some other reason?
LikeLike
Does satire require that one despise the subjects being satirized?
LikeLike
Does it require that one admire them?
I know I have no sense of humor but I have never seen even a shade of irony in the popular worship of Elizabeth Bennett. Have you?
LikeLike
do you believe that all those women who today swoon over the 110th film adaptation of and sequel to Pride and Prejudice do so because they despise the characters? Or for some other reason?
OK, fair enough. But one last thought: the fact that some readers do not plumb the depths of a novel or narrative does not mean that other readers cannot gather more from the work.
LikeLike
” But one last thought: the fact that some readers do not plumb the depths of a novel or narrative does not mean that other readers cannot gather more from the work.”
– Believe me, I don’t need to be persuaded of the value of literary criticism. 🙂 But I still don’t believe that the majority of readers has any interest in anything else in these novels but the Cinderella aspect. And that is what bothers me.
LikeLike
I suppose Evelina Anville downthread has said what I was about to say, only better.
LikeLike
I feel the need to say that present day female science fiction and fantasy authors write interesting female characters. I suggest especially Nalo Hopkinson, Nnedi Okorafor, and Marian Zimmer Bradley (her later works, although the Darkover series are not bad in this regard.) Also I should include Nora K. Jemisin. (Maybe she publishes as N. K. Jemisin.)
LikeLike
I personally find it interesting that Austen never married and to me that adds a bit of complexity to her “marriage plot” novels. In some ways her novels seem to suggest that women are more interesting when they are single. Marriage ends a woman’s story. So I think that Austen’s novels have some interesting gender elements (and I personally find them fun to read.) Having said that, I think the 20th and 21st century “cult of Austen” is profoundly conservative. Whether Austen meant to celebrate or wryly critique marriage, her contemporary fans, (who are inevitably young women), read her novels to fantasize about marriage and fairy tale romances.
But, I also wanted to say that I love _The Odd Women_! It’s depressing but really quite fabulous. I like a lot of the New Women novels. Have you read Sarah Grand’s _The Heavenly Twins_? I think you would love it! 🙂
LikeLike
Having said that, I think the 20th and 21st century “cult of Austen” is profoundly conservative. Whether Austen meant to celebrate or wryly critique marriage, her contemporary fans, (who are inevitably young women), read her novels to fantasize about marriage and fairy tale romances.
Maybe I’m hoping against hope, but it is possible that at least some of those women, in the process of consuming the brain candy, will also swallow some tidbits of edifying and intellectual value, and these tidbits could become the seeds of future ideas.
LikeLike
“and these tidbits could become the seeds of future ideas.”
I think that this could happen too! I grew up reading _Little Women_ and _Anne of Green Gables_ and swooned over the romantic elements in them. I started reading Jane Austen novels in Junior High and similarly swooned over Darcey and Knightly. But though I didn’t read with a critical eye, those types of books really started me on my intellectual journey. Jane Austen’s books are witty and smartly written and I think they can develop someone’s intellect and sense of aesthetics. So I agree with you on that note. 🙂
LikeLike
“Whether Austen meant to celebrate or wryly critique marriage, her contemporary fans, (who are inevitably young women), read her novels to fantasize about marriage and fairy tale romances.”
– That’s exactly what I’m trying to say.
“Have you read Sarah Grand’s _The Heavenly Twins_? I think you would love it! ”
– No, but now I definitely will!
LikeLike
I read Little Women very late in life and decided that if this is what children had to read in American schools, that was one good argument against having children. 🙂
LikeLike
Sarah Grand’s _The Heavenly Twins_ is available on Kindle for free. AND the book is 700 pages long.
I have a feeling that a very enjoyable weekend awaits me. Thank you, Evelina Anville for the recommendation!
LikeLike
I’m excited to hear about what you think of the Heavenly Twins. It’s such a great book. I thought it was so beautiful and amazing and engrossing. I hope you like it!
On a side note: American children actually don’t read Little Women in schools. Sadly many American children simply don’t the reading capability to get through it. I know why you think it’s problematic though. But I passionately loved that book and read it over and over again. The pages were stained with my tears! It’s one of those books that me me realize how dearly I loved to read. So good things can come out of problematic books. 😉
LikeLike
” But I passionately loved that book and read it over and over again. The pages were stained with my tears! It’s one of those books that me me realize how dearly I loved to read.’
– I’m sure I would have had a different response to it if I read the book in childhood. But at 33, one is way too old and grumpy for something like this. 🙂
And, of course, it’s better to read Little Women than the Twilight series and other vampire-zombie stuff that today’s children read. If they do read at all, of course.
LikeLike
Can an author not be judged from outside the myopic scope imposed by literary theory? Perhaps if you weren’t so intent on inflicting feminism upon Austen, you might have learned something from her books. As it is, you seem determined to hold her in disdain, finding edification in your rejection of what we lesser souls adore. As Elizabeth Bennet said, “It is such a spur to one’s genius, such an opening for wit to have a dislike of that kind.” Feel free to be appropriately appalled by your resemblance to the heroine you so deride.
LikeLike
“Can an author not be judged from outside the myopic scope imposed by literary theory”
– I have not shared my analysis of Austen from my position as a literary critic. I simply wrote about her as a blogger and a reader.
“Perhaps if you weren’t so intent on inflicting feminism upon Austen, you might have learned something from her books.”
– You are trying to dispute my right to read books through any lens I choose and share those readings on my blog?
“As it is, you seem determined to hold her in disdain, finding edification in your rejection of what we lesser souls adore. ”
– What compels you to retell my post in your own words?
” Feel free to be appropriately appalled by your resemblance to the heroine you so deride.”
– Do you realize that offering unsolicited advice to strangers is extremely rude?
LikeLike
“I have not shared my analysis of Austen from my position as a literary critic. I simply wrote about her as a blogger and a reader.”
– Yet you couched you entire criticism of Austen’s work in feminist concerns. Regardless of how formal your analysis is, the notions that inform it are transparent.
“You are trying to dispute my right to read books through any lens I choose and share those readings on my blog”
– Not at all! Just offering more unsolicited advice.
“What compels you to retell my post in your own words?”
– I have done nothing of the sort. My statement refers to your motives, not your content.
“Do you realize that offering unsolicited advice to strangers is extremely rude?”
– When you announce your opinion to the world, you invite commentary. Most people would be honored to find themselves compared to Elizabeth Bennet, and it is that irony I was playing with in my concluding remark. If you cannot perceive it, it’s no wonder you don’t understand Austen.
LikeLike
““I have not shared my analysis of Austen from my position as a literary critic. I simply wrote about her as a blogger and a reader.”
– Yet you couched you entire criticism of Austen’s work in feminist concerns.”
– I have no idea what the word “yet” is doing here. My analysis is, indeed, feminist. But it has nothing to do with literary theory. Feminism and literary theory are not synonyms.
“Not at all! Just offering more unsolicited advice.”
– People usually feel compelled to offer unsolicited advice to me on Saturdays but I guess you had an early weekend. 🙂
“My statement refers to your motives, not your content.”
– Motives of what? Writing blog posts? I revealed them a long time ago, so there is no mystery here.
“Most people would be honored to find themselves compared to Elizabeth Bennet,”
– Avoid making strange generalizations. “Most people” in the world have no idea who this vapid prostitute is. Tell me, what makes you so angry? Do you identify with Elizabeth Bennet?
“If you cannot perceive it, it’s no wonder you don’t understand Austen.”
– The only person who doesn’t understand Austen in this thread is you. I suggest you analyze what upsets you so much about a post that criticizes women who want to sell themselves to a higher bidder.
LikeLike
This is what happens when you say anything that is not wildly enthusiastic about Jane Austen. I don’t know any other author who provokes this obsessive protectiveness.
LikeLike
I really like Austen, mainly for her graceful prose, gently witty dialogue, and characterization. Her characterization doesn’t have the psychological depth of, say, George Eliot’s (who might be my favorite writer in terms of characterization), but I like the degree to which she can portray odd little idiosyncrasies. Like Mary, one of the younger sisters in Pride and Prejudice — she absolutely cracked me up.
About what Austen thinks of patriarchal society, and her use of marriage plots, I guess I fall into the “she’s being gently satirical” camp, which makes her endings less happy than “oh, well, I’ve avoided a life of poverty and I my husband-to-be is someone I can tolerate spending the rest of my life with.” But I agree 100% with you that she is not a revolutionary writer — resignation, which is the sentiment I most detect towards the whole marry-or-die-poor-and-alone dilemma, is actually a very conservative sentiment.
I will definitely check out George Gissing, though, if I can ever find one of his books!
LikeLike
I only like Emily Bronte. I don’t like civilization very much, but wild nature intrigues me. I would not be able to read Austen after Bronte.
LikeLike
Oh, I know exactly what you mean! Emily and Charlotte Bronte and vastly superior to Austen. Anne Bronte, not so much.
LikeLike
I loooooooooooooooovvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee _Wuthering Heights._ LOVE it. 🙂
LikeLike
http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/gender-dies-hard.html
LikeLike