In response to Jennifer's post, I want to investigate the opposite view of women in Old Mortality. While Porter does spend a great deal of time describing the seeming perfection of these women, there are ironic undertones in these descriptions. For as much as Amy is glorified for her beauty and her "eighteen-inch waist," she, herself, does not value these qualities. Society is boxing her into a category; trophy wife. However, she refuses to be perceived as such. When a suitor, such as Gabriel, comments her on a feature, such as her hair, she destroys or "mutilates" herself in and act of defiance. Further more, at the Mardi Gras ball, Amy dresses provocatively in order to demonstrate how women are viewed as objects, rather than people. In this scene, Amy's father becomes very upset at his daughter for her manner of dress to which Amy replies, "Why, Papa...what's wrong with it? Look on the mantlepiece. She's been there all along, and you were never shocked before." Thus asserting that society says it is fine for women to be seen and not heard, viewed as aesthetically pleasing objects, but when they dress in a suggestive way, it is looked down upon. While by today's standards, Amy's suggestive costume would have been considered "slutty," for her (and in her time) the act was one of total rebellion and liberation. Another example of how society categorizes people is in the example of the "Old Maid" Eva. Because she lacks physical beauty, she is condemned to a lonely life amongst beautiful women. An active "feminist," she is made fun of by her relatives, one of which even refers to her activism as a substitute for a "bed partner."
Though these observations are few among many, I think that the underlying message in this story is that society, of which we as humans are undoubtedly a part, are highly susceptible to categorizing people, whether or not we are aware of this act. I feel that the title of this short story, Old Mortality, tries to describe that we are, after all, mortal and that looks are fleeting, yet we categorize entire races of people based on physical appearances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with most of what you're saying here, but I think some of the details muddle the notion of this as an entirely feminist text. For instance, you mention Amy's cutting here hair off when Gabriel compliments it as evidence of her rejection of male standards. I would agree, except that it is said immediately before this occurs that Amy constantly adjusts her appearance for her brothers' tastes. This would seem to imply that she does strive to please men, only not Gabriel. Also, I'm not sure where it is stated that Amy wears a revealing Mardi Gras dress "in order to demonstrate how woman are viewed as objects", to the contrary, this action seemed simply congruous with her character's vanity and independence rather than a grand statement on objectification. Still, an interesting reading of this story.
I think the feminist themes in this story can be read with Foucault's panoptic prison in mind. Amy is watched from every direction, and even after her death, she is clearly displayed--literally in a portrait, and figuratively in the family's gossip. Though her father does want her to cover herself up for the dance, he is the only one who seems to be troubled by the fashion (even Amy's mother isn't too concerned until after the dance). But Amy's major act of transgression occurs when she absents herself from the disciplining and controlling panoptic gaze of her male escorts (suitor and brother), to leave the dance hall with another man. Her transgressions, therefore, are hidden ones--which touches on the epistemological themes mentioned in other posts. Nothing that could have passed out in the open would have captivated the family's interest--only a hidden act (or, at least, acts removed from the reach of the family's vision as in New Orleans) could be transgressive because, by its very nature, it subverts the Panoptic circle of the family.
Daniel, I entirely agree that I'm muddling the details of the story to squish it into the category of a feminist text. I sort of did so just to contrast/play devil's advocate to the post before mine. I think a good question to pose is how do the two readings of the text overlap? How can we find a middle ground between the two? Finally, how does this middle ground contribute to the grand-scheme of the story?
I'm glad that you brought up Foucault because I totally agree with that perception of Amy she tends to change how she want to be precieved depending on whom she is around at that time. While she is around Gabriel she cuts her hair and tries to make herself seem unattractive and with her family she tries to be unconventional as well but she evitablly gives up these unconventional ways when marrying Gabriel and giving up the panopticon version of herself.
Post a Comment