An Inside Job

Now feminism is one literary theory I can tell you about from the inside. Of course, if you've been reading my blog all semester, you'll know what I mean. You see, Harriet Vane in the Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries is certainly a study in feminism. Let me explain....

I wasn't always part of the story, you know. In the beginning, it was just Lord Peter and his butler, Bunter, going around solving impossible cases, leaving a trail of awed and grateful English citizens in their wake. Of course, Dorothy Sayers knew this couldn't go on forever. Lord Peter was dashing, of course, but it did seem a bit cliche to expect him to go on playing the superhero forever, in a world devoid of significant female presence.

That's when I got my chance. Now, this was 1930, so I think it's safe to say that, historically, we were still dealing with first-wave feminism. So it was pretty avant-garde for me to be an author and a graduate of Oxford, to boot. (In both respects, I have a lot in common with Sayers herself). Of course, I was still the "damsel in distress" and Lord Peter's new love interest. To my credit, however, I resisted being reduced to these labels.

I'm sure you're going to check out the series once the semester ends, so I hate to give any spoilers, but suffice it to say that if and when I decided to "give in" to Lord Peter's brains and charm, it was to be on equal terms: a meeting of two human beings on an equal footing. If I was to be reluctantly rescued by a would-be knight in shining armor, there would be no suggestion that I was simply swept off my feet. (I've often reflected since, however, that it's curious that readers would see Peter being swept off his feet as something noble and touching, whereas for me it would have been a sign of weakness. He had to assure readers of his sensibility, while I had to prove my good sense.)

Dr. Krouse notes that in traditional masculine discourse, women "may be 'honored' or 'cherished' or 'adored'--even loved--but they are not, necessarily, respected." And this is where I drew the line. I insisted on respect--mutual respect--in my relationship with Lord Peter.

Dr. Krouse goes on to say that "what we think of as 'feminist theory' or 'feminist literary criticism' emerges out of [a] deep ambivalence between a desire to celebrate women’s literary production and a desire to critique the ways in which gender inflects not only that literary production but also literary representations of women."

My own approach to feminist literary criticism has a lot in common with Sayers'. Less concerned with the discovery of differences between genders, Sayers focused on commonalities. And the primary issue seems to come down to mutual respect, the foundation of true equality. In an article discussing Dorothy Sayers and feminism, Susan Haack writes:

Sayers defends two main positive themes: that women are fully human beings, just as men are; and that, like all human beings, women are individuals, each one different. These are so closely interrelated that disentangling them is close to impossible—but probably, as this passage [by Sayers] reveals, also undesirable:

"What," men have distractedly asked from the beginning of time, “what on earth do women want?” I do not know that women, as women, want anything in particular, but as human beings they want, my good men, exactly what you want yourselves...."

Until next time,
H.

P.S. If you're up for a good read that blends mystery and first-wave feminism, check out Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers--starring yours truly!