Authors and readers - Lund University Publications



1270-317500Centre for Languages and LiteratureEnglish StudiesTransformative literature transferring power: An analysis of authorial control in Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys, Circe by Madeline Miller and Hag-Seed by Margaret AtwoodKajsa ReinholdssonENK01Degree project in English LiteratureHT 19Centre for Languages and LiteratureLund UniversitySupervisor: Kiki LindellAbstractBy analysing three different works of transformative literature, this thesis aims to explore the different ways in which power may express itself in the context of literature. Wide Sargasso Sea, Circe and Hag-Seed are three novels that, while remaining similar in that they are rewrites of canonised literature such as Jane Eyre, The Odyssey, and The Tempest, are different enough to provide a wide array of examples of rewrites. In order to perform this study I have opted to use a diverse set of theoretical perspectives as this specific category of literature has not been studied explicitly before. This means that there is no previous research dedicated to this specific subject, and as such using different sources of information has been necessary to properly investigate the phenomenon of transformative literature. So as not to allow this to become disorienting, the perspectives are divided into sections of four: the first discussing authors and readers; the second the anxiety of influence; the third narrative power in the context of society; and the last narrative power in the context of the novels analysed. Table of contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc29331628 \h 1Authors and readers PAGEREF _Toc29331629 \h 4The anxiety of influence PAGEREF _Toc29331630 \h 7Narrative power in society PAGEREF _Toc29331631 \h 10Narrative power in literature PAGEREF _Toc29331632 \h 12Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc29331633 \h 17Works cited PAGEREF _Toc29331634 \h 18IntroductionMore and more of contemporary media is not strictly contemporary – that is, it is often a reworking or rewriting of a canonised work of art. That is not to say that this is a newly invented phenomenon that has never existed before. A statement as such could quickly be disproved by the mere existence of the field of studies in intertextuality. However, the focus of this essay is not just intertextuality in the sense of references or allusions to other texts or cultural events; rather it is about texts that are explicitly based upon important works in the Western literary canon. The works I have chosen to analyse in this essay are Circe by Madeline Miller; Hag-Seed by Margaret Atwood; and Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys. They are based, respectively, on the following works: The Odyssey by Homer, as well as parts of Metamorphoses by Ovid, Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodius and (what little we know of) Telegony; The Tempest by William Shakespeare; and Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bront?. Circe is a feminist retelling of the story of the witch-goddess who bears the same name as the novel. The novel is from her perspective, and re-frames some well-known events in ancient Greek mythology. Hag-Seed is not set in the original context of Shakespeare’s play, but rather in modern day Canada. The novel is like a Russian doll – it is about a play within a play within a play. The story tells of Felix Phillips, a Prospero-like character who lives out the story of the original play whilst also setting up a rendition of The Tempest in a prison. Lastly, there is the novel Wide Sargasso Sea, which tells the story of Antoinette Cosway, who is later renamed Bertha Mason by her unnamed husband (a man similar to Mr. Rochester of Jane Eyre), and it brings forth a complex, perhaps uncomfortable, postcolonial perspective to the original novel. Analysing texts in terms of them being reworkings of older texts is nothing new; adaption studies have long investigated the adaptations of literature into film. However, not as much material can be found when it comes to literature that has been adapted into literature. There is plenty of material on feminist or postcolonial works that ‘write back’ to patriarchal and colonial literature, as well as on fans rewriting different forms of media, but none that combines these perspectives explicitly. I have opted to focus on three distinctly different works, both in terms of the source material, the literary styles and the interactions between the source material and the novels. This allows for more general findings on rewritings than if the focus had been on three highly similar works. However, despite the novels being very different from one another, they all share some key components. They are all written by women, and they all rely heavily on a narrative of (the loss of) power over storytelling. This overarching theme of power and voice is thought-provoking when considering that they have all ‘borrowed’ older stories, which is why these are the novels which will be analysed, rather than any others. Isolation is another similarity between these novels, as the main characters are all suffering from loneliness in a physical as well as a psychological sense. They all live on small islands (Felix may not actually live on an island, but he is based on Prospero who does; the small cottage he moves to and the prison where he works function very much as metaphoric islands) where mystery and detachment from the rest of the world rules their lives. There is also something magical in all of their environments; in Circe Circes’ witchcraft might be the most literal, but Felix’s ghostly daughter in Hag-Seed seems eerie and otherworldly, and the Obeah practices of Jamaica have a big and important presence in Antoinette’s life in Wide Sargasso Sea. The seclusion of the environments contributes heavily to the sense of there being something uncanny in the atmosphere in the novels.These works have an interesting and dual part in the literary canon as they are, in a sense, two works at the same time – one part of it is new and contemporary, while the part tied to the first text is as old and well-known as the original work. Wide Sargasso Sea could arguably be said to be canonized by its own merits now, but at its core it is still based on another novel, in some respects changing the readers’ view of the original. I believe that investigating the functions of rewritten canonized works of literature could prove to be very fruitful in terms of both the effect that culture has upon literature, and vice versa. Analysing what is changed or maintained by the authors can also give insight into how literary and societal values have changed over time. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to look into the role of the author in a highly intertextual society, as well as how power comes into play when creating art based upon earlier works.Theories of intertextuality will be an important tool in order to investigate how the texts interact with their precursors. Feminist and postcolonial discussions of the term the anxiety of influence (from Harold Bloom’s book by the same title) will also be central, both in analysing the female authors’ interactions with the texts, and in analysing the theme of agency and voice found in the novels. Much of the critique of Bloom’s works is summarized in Graham Allen’s Intertextuality, and a suggestion for a ‘female version’ of the anxiety of influence, the anxiety of authorship is presented by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar in The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. Despite the fact that the focus of their book is on 19th century authors, I have found that the ideas presented regarding the way female authors interact with patriarchal literary traditions are still applicable to the more recent novels I am working with.Another, perhaps unorthodox, perspective that will be used to investigate the novels is that of the studies of fan fiction. Authorial intent, and how much it matters when interpreting the authors’ work is a highly relevant question when dealing with works such as these and it is something that fan fiction studies investigates. The particular process of creating literature that is heavily based on previous works is at the centre of this field of study, making it useful for my analysis despite the fact that conventionally published novels rarely qualify as fan fiction. I will argue that the works I am analysing might, to some extent, be categorised as fan fiction, but it will not be the main focus of my essay. Rather, the theories surrounding fan fiction will provide an interesting perspective that allows me to analyse the works in the context of rewriting. The purpose of this study is thus to investigate how rewritings of canonized literature function in a larger literary context. I will also argue that the authors’ awareness of their works’ and their own place in a literary context is an important aspect when analysing the novels. The difference in how the authors have worked with the original works in their novels will be analysed, using several tools such as feminist and postcolonial studies, as well as fan fiction studies. In doing this, one can find that using these universally known works makes the rewritings, and the social commentary found within them, more powerful than a similar work that did not make use of canonised literature like they have. Connecting the past to the present in this way both allows for a comfortable distance and facilitates the understanding of the author’s message to the reader.The first section will begin by examining the roles of authors and readers in the context of the novels. Reader-response theory as well as fan fiction studies are utilised in this discussion, along with some post-structuralist lines of thought. Next, the concept of the anxiety of influence as formulated by Harold Bloom is introduced. It is used in an allegorical manner to analyse the characters’ power struggles within the novels, and concludes with some criticism directed toward Bloomian poetics. The third section discusses storytelling as an exercise of power in society. It provides an exploration of how texts may be used by groups with different social interests as a way to promote their interests, and uses this as a way to partially explain why some parts of the original texts were altered in the rewrites. The fourth section lastly examines how narrative power is used within the novels as allegories or metaphors for the phenomena previously discussed. Authors and readersThe distinction between the roles of ‘author’ and ‘reader’ intuitively seem reasonable to most but, if one examines this division further, it begins to fall apart. When does a text truly become literature? It could be, and has been, argued that this does not happen until it is interpreted in the mind of the reader, or the critic. Reader response criticism is a theoretical framework in which the analytical focus is placed on the reader’s perception of the text, and what goes into this process. The lines between ‘reader’ and ‘author’ become blurred, and the roles are merged with one another.Placing the reader at the centre of meaning-creation might lead to accusations of falling prey to the affective fallacy, but this would ignore the potential multiplicity contained within such a system of analysis. There is always a danger associated with interpretation, but rejecting the concept that there is any objectively true reading of a text is a step on the way to opening up the text to its full potentiality. Interpretative communities, meaning conventions and norms steering the way societies read and construe content, are the entities that perform the activity of reading. These are, however, in their turn also created by the process of establishing substance in texts. Paradoxical as it may be, the reader is itself a text open to interpretation (Freund 106-9). Author and reader are not separate beings, one of whom creates while the other is an inactive recipient of content. Rather they are an ouroboros – a snake eating its own tail, symbolising an infinite cycle of life and death, consumption and creation in unity – of constant interaction with one another/itself. As Foucault questioned both the unity of a work (of literature) and the idea of the author as an individual (144), the mere existence of these rewritings seems to do the same. Rhys, Atwood and Miller all started as readers; not just of literature in general, but concentrated especially on Jane Eyre, The Tempest and The Odyssey. In order to write transformative works such as Wide Sargasso Sea, Hag-Seed or Circe one must possess a thorough knowledge of the original text, as well as some dedication to it. Thus, the readers have been transformed into authors through vigorous reading. They occupy a particular space where they are simultaneously readers and writers of the same story, but in a more direct way than implied by most reader-response-theorists. As the reader is itself a text open to interpretation, might the three novels analysed in this paper be the results of adding their own textuality, as well as the readings performed by interpretive communities, to the original works? Since the initial release of each of the original texts, their place within the literary canon has made them widely analysed and examined by many individuals throughout the years. Vast numbers of interpretive communities have come into contact with said texts, but considering the fact that the Odyssey was written during Classical Antiquity, and Jane Eyre during the 19th century, there is a significant discrepancy in their respective interpretive communities. The older the work, the more diversity may be found among these communities, something that may lead to them being considered more distinguished. Indubitably, this is a simplification of the process of literary creation that discredits not just the authors of the works discussed in this essay, but all authors who have written transformative works or rewrites. However, while it may not be the plain, somewhat mathematical, process of addition implied above, the implication that rewriting a work of literature adds something to the original while simultaneously being built upon its foundation is worth considering.Feminist authors have not shied away from infusing a feminist narrative in the gaps left behind in ancient mythological stories. This has not been without controversy, as this type of writing uses the products of a patriarchal society rather than creating an entirely new feminist or gynocentric literary tradition (Zajko, Leonard). The merits or disadvantages of transformative literature in a feminist context is not the topic of this essay, but it is worth pointing out that transformation as a literary theme is one that is highly relevant in literature concerning women. Change has long been a quality intimately associated with women in what is often a very corporeal sense, while men have been identified with stability and constancy. Using the myth of Daphne and the modern feminist poetry written about her, Fowler argues that the theme of metamorphosis has been important when bringing forth the feminine already within the original story. Circe’s magical powers are explicitly stated to be especially concentrated on transformation (Miller, 60, 74). Rather than, as in the myth of Daphne, Circe being transformed, she is the one who transforms others. Whether she is turning the nymph Scylla into a terrifying sea monster because of her (Circe’s) jealousy, or transforming rapists into pigs, this shows her to be an incredibly powerful and potentially dangerous character. Framing a feminine trait such as change or transformation as something this threatening may be perceived both as a way for men to vilify women in positions of power, and as a way for women to retaliate the various ways in which women have been oppressed in literary traditions (and society in general). Circe’s transformative powers may also be seen in the meta-context of the novel in question itself being a work of transformative literature. Additionally, it can be seen as an allegory for a reader being transformed into an author; someone who is passive turning herself into an active participant in the world and her own fate.A more literal version of the idea that readers are authors is when the reader (or, consumer) actually does become the author of a text – when they write fan fiction. Defining what, exactly, fan fiction is as a genre may depend on the person providing the definition, but the most common one used in fan fiction studies is “rewriting of shared media” (Hellekson, Busse, 6). While the term “shared media” might indicate most (if not all) forms of media, what is meant is a specific culture of amateurs creating stories about, usually, TV-texts since the 1960’s. This definition leaves a lot to be desired, as it, while being vaguely formulated, effectively excludes many subgenres that share characteristics with fan fiction. Transformative works, or rewritings, have existed for such a long time and in so many different ways that formulating a proper definition for it may prove difficult. One that would include all works that one would intuitively call fan fiction, while also excluding all texts that would not be termed as such does not seem to exist.Sheenagh Pugh presents the dichotomy of ‘wanting more from’ and ‘wanting more of’ as two opposite motivations behind writing fan fiction (19-20). This points to the difference between, one the one hand, works that simply look into the “empty spaces” in the original works and continuing from there, according to the rules set up by the original author(s), and on the other hand those that actively defy these. As fans engage with the source material more than the average person they are also likely to discover the flaws (or, perceived flaws) in it. The same can be said for academics, who may study the very same source material, but the approach to resolving the issues is vastly different compared to how a fan fiction author would do it. Fan fiction writers turn to rewriting the material found dissatisfying, changing the aspects of it that left them wanting more from it, whereas an academic critic is more likely to write a scholarly paper on the issues found in the text. In the case of the fan fiction writer, the reader seems to be an eager participant in the killing of, rather than the death of, the author.Circe, Wide Sargasso Sea and Hag-Seed have challenged the original texts while also providing further depth to the characters and events of the stories. This is not to say that challenging the original text means that the author(s) automatically imply that this is a flawed text, but there might be more nuance to the dichotomy of wanting more of and wanting more from, as presented above. A text is infinitely plural, and the thoughts and ideas presented by another version of the text do not necessarily contradict the original, even if it seems as though they do. For instance, even though Wide Sargasso Sea explicitly challenges the colonial context of Jane Eyre, the two novels may just be seen as different perspectives on the same story. The character Jane Eyre would not have fully known or understood the plights of Bertha Mason, and certainly knew nothing of the Antoinette Cosway presented in Rhys’ story. The only indomitable difference between the texts is the time they take place in, as Bront?’s Jane Eyre takes place much too early for the events of Wide Sargasso Sea to have happened in the 1830’s. Nevertheless, the differences in the texts do illustrate how a reader might be induced to suggest alternatives to the original texts, and thus become the new author of the text (or at least a version of it).The transformative part of fan fiction is not always merely wish-fulfilment on the part of the author – more often than not, a part of the culture surrounding fan fiction demands careful examination of the source text. Such examinations usually lean toward misreadings (as discussed further under the next heading): “fans often appropriate and redefine the empty spaces and read the text against its industrial and historical context.” (Hellekson, Busse, 76). Using the inevitable gaps left behind as room to investigate, challenge and create new literature is, I would argue, precisely what Rhys, Miller and Atwood have done in their respective novels. While it is impossible to say exactly what motivated each author, it is notable that the gaps in question were indeed utilised in each of the texts. Whether it is providing a background and a depth to a previously diminished characters like Bertha Mason, confronting the patriarchal characterizations of the ancient world or providing further psychological and literary exploration of Shakespeare’s characters, the rewritings provide answers for questions about the gaps left behind in the original stories. In-depth scrutiny of characters, their motivations and relationships with others is a central part in fan fiction, as well as in other rewritings (Jones, 124-5).The anxiety of influenceIt is impossible to avoid imitation and influence in literature, but despite this such influences or imitations are still a controversial topic that has met many different attitudes in the academic community throughout the years. Beginning with the Romantic era, the idea of the author has remained much the same in the Western eye; a lonesome, talented genius who is able to create something new and original by himself. I say “himself”, because the role of the genius has rarely, if ever, been granted to women despite there being many instances of female authors exhibiting the same abilities as men who have been labelled as geniuses. This ideal artist should thus be the creator of something that has never been seen before, and certainly not imitate his predecessors. While this image remains in our culture even today, the discipline of intertextuality has partly led to the perspective on the role of author being changed within academia.Despite the idea of the solitary genius having been denounced, its legacy still, however, lies upon contemporary culture as a yoke. Bloom argues in his book The Anxiety of Influence that poets such as Milton and Wordsworth inhabit such immensely influential place in the poetic field that they affect all subsequent poets. Bloom further claims that all poetry is a misreading of previous poetry, in an unconscious attempt to precede the originator. The idea here is that one might, by writing a great work, manage to influence the view of the poetry used as inspiration so much that one would, in a sense, ‘precede it’. This incessant desire to be early, rather than belated, is according to Bloom what motivates all writing. Seen from this perspective, the authors’ motivation behind the changes made to the original works by Miller, Rhys and Atwood would be a desire to overcome the canonicity of the original works by creating changes compelling enough to influence their originators.Anxiety, and perhaps also the anxiety of influence, is prevalent in Wide Sargasso Sea. While Antoinette has come to terms with what her husband calls the “wild, untouched, above all untouched, […] alien, disturbing, secret loveliness” (Rhys 54) of Jamaica, her husband is filled with dread at the thought of it. He is unacquainted with the idea of there being something, or someone, that he cannot completely fathom. This inability creates not just feelings of inferiority, but also a knowledge that he can never, in a non-literary sense, be the ‘early poet’ of which Bloom speaks. Consequently, he turns to not only misreading reality, but also forcing reality to conform to his ideas of what is, or should be, real. By re-naming Antoinette Bertha and treating her as insane, unwomanly and monstrously sexual he makes her become what appears to be a completely insane and violent beast in the end. Fleeing the environment of Jamaica itself is the final step of this process of enforcing his reality upon the unfathomable world and unfathomable woman he has come upon; England, at least, he is able to understand.As Artistic Director, Felix in Hag-Seed is known for pushing the boundaries when producing Shakespeare plays, and while it is part of what makes him so successful it is also part of what makes him lose everything. Doing the unconventional is nearly a must in contemporary productions of Shakespeare, because every original or innovative interpretation of Shakespeare has already been done – or so Felix seems to think. Shakespeare is one of the strong poets Bloom speaks of; he is the antecedent that later authors always fail to attain. Therefore, the misreading of him is a must, in order to eventually become one of the early poets. However, while there are unconventional elements in Felix’s production of The Tempest, the most interesting part of it is that it is also re-enacted in reality. The prisoner-actors rap, they use Disney dolls to play the goddesses and Ariel has ski goggles and a raincoat adorned with ladybugs in the very first scene of the play. These unconventionalities, however, pale in comparison to what is also the most literal interpretation of the original text possible. Felix becomes Prospero, the prison becomes the island, and the visitors become the shipwrecked as Felix arranges his revenge in the same way as Prospero does. It is not necessarily that which diverges from the precedent that makes the work distinct. Circe in Circe is plagued by her inability to be like the other gods around her in the beginning of Miller’s novel. Being surrounded by the casually cruel gods and goddesses of the ancient world, she has been pointed out as different from the very beginning of her life. The other gods candidly make her aware of how a daughter of the sun-god Helios ought to be more powerful, beautiful and agreeable. It is not until she is faced with Prometheus while he is being punished for giving the humans the gift of fire that she realises that she is not just different, but someone with an agency of her own: “The thought was this: that all my life had been murk and depths, but I was not part of that dark water. I was a creature within it.” (Miller, 19). This realisation sparks the chain of events that leads her to discovering her witchcraft and eventually being exiled to the isle of Aiaia. There, where she is alone, she can hone her powers free of the restrictions of the expectations put upon her by her divine society. For while divine, it is still a patriarchy, and Circe’s initial journey from the halls of Helios to Aiaia might be likened to that in which a female author escapes the anxiety of authorship, as named by Gilbert and Gubar in The Madwoman in the Attic (49). Women do not have the male luxury of the anxiety of belatedness in relation to a literary ‘father’ – they must suffer the more primal anxiety of not even having a literary tradition to look back to. Before a woman can become an author, she must first combat her own image: woman as written by man. Circe rejects her divinity, the male idea of her, and instead works on her powers as a witch, and thus creates something new: a symbol for a female literary tradition.Bloom portrays literary influence as an eternal struggle for power, one where the winner emerges having either remained unchanged by a later poet or having managed to recreate an earlier poet “in [their own] colors” (141). Such a perspective on literary influence would seem to ignore the plurality inherent in all literature. Iser’s analogy of a night sky being viewed by two people, seeing the same stars but conceptualising different constellations among them (Suleiman, Crosman 23) may be used as a counterargument to this view of intertextuality in literature. One constellation cannot invalidate another, change it or be inherently better than another, and nor can one literary interpretation eliminate another. Rather, every text may have within itself an infinity of possible readings, especially a text that has maintained a major role in the literary canon as The Odyssey, The Tempest and Jane Eyre have. This perspective would allow for rewritings adding to, rather than competing with, the original works. Seeing intertextuality as a collaboration of artists contributing to, questioning and honing others’ and their own literature seems to be more gratifying than Bloom’s theory, as it does not require one to value or devalue literary works by discussing the intertexts within them.Narrative power in societyThe struggle for the power of determination and the right to interpretation in literature is a pervasive one, at the centre of literary criticism. Whether it is the author, the reader, or “that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost [sic]” (Barthes 2) that has the final say over the true meaning of a text is a question that will likely not cease to be asked in the foreseeable future. The same could be said about the various power struggles in society; whoever controls the narrative of a collective story also possesses the power. Translated back into a literary context, this would indicate that works that are part of the literary canon are the ones with the most power over the production and reproduction of literary culture. Indeed, the Western literary canon is an important part of the apparatus reinforcing social structures such as patriarchy, and especially white European hegemony (Mukherjee 9).Narratives may be formulated in many different ways in order to make them conform to what is necessary for the maintaining of the social structures in question. Certain stories may thus be told in order to legitimise wars, or redirect the public’s attention from what might lead to a social upheaval (Mumby 78). The stories told about the mythic character of Circe are very varied, and one may find tales in which she is a dangerous, evil witch or ones where she is but a weak woman, always defeated by a man. This may be explained by how stories are used to uphold societal structures as different ideologies have required sustaining from stories such as hers. Patriarchal notions about female sexuality have fluctuated widely over the centuries, and thus the attitudes toward Circe as a character have as well (Yarnell 134). While Circe, in The Odyssey, was depicted as a balanced character with both positive and negative characteristics (McClymon) this portrayal became unsuitable in medieval times. In the age of strict Christian sexual morals and the persecution of witches, Circe became the ultimate character to place these vices upon. As such a scapegoat-esque character she could effectively function as a warning against what was perceived as immoral behaviour while she was also eventually defeated by the male hero Odysseus. This image of her as a wicked witch has remained in many ways, perhaps also acting as a motivation for many feminist authors (Miller included) to redeem her. Feminist rewritings, such as Miller’s Circe may also use narratives in order to perpetuate ideologies though. Using well-known canonical works in order to challenge long-held doctrines in favour of one’s own (e.g. feminist, or postcolonial) views is a very effective tool in order to gain control over not just literary storytelling, but societal storytelling (Ashcroft et al. 97).Changing the plot, characterisation, and environment of the original works is in itself a comment on the content of the original works. While Circe is the novel that stays the closest to the context of the original works compared to Wide Sargasso Sea and Hag-Seed, there are modifications that enhance the dissimilarities between the texts. Traditionally, the depiction of the character of Circe has been that of an immoral, insatiable temptress who serves as a warning of sexually liberated women or excessive consumption of alcohol (). In Miller’s version she is cast as the underdog and an outsider in the divine world; even though she embodies what mere humans would call godly power, she is decidedly powerless when she is among the other, stronger, gods. It is not until she is exiled to the island of Aiaia that she is truly able to achieve self-fulfilment and recognise her power as an individual and a witch. In Circe’s interactions with the other gods, goddesses and other well-known characters such as Medea and Odysseus, Miller shifts the age-old patriarchal script of the myths and reflects upon how others will tell the stories of her. Circe contemplates this in one of her meetings with the god Hermes, as she asks him to tell her about how Scylla, the nymph she in her jealousy transformed into a fearsome sea monster, fares: “He was waiting for my reaction. Would I be skimmed milk for crying, or a harpy with a heart of stone? There was nothing in between. Anything else did not fit cleanly in the laughing tale he wanted to spin of it. […] He smiled. A bitch with a cliff for a heart.” (Miller, 86) Later, after Circe’s meeting with Odysseus, she reflects further upon the simplistic depiction of women in stories: “Later, years later, I would hear a song made of our meeting. […] I was not surprised by the portrait of myself: the proud witch undone before the hero’s sword, kneeling and begging for mercy. Humbling women seems to me a chief pastime of poets. As if there can be no story unless we crawl and weep.” (Miller, 181) This is not only the character Circe hinting at the misogynistic literary depictions of her, but also seems to be Miller’s justification for writing the novel.Using one’s authority of interpretation in order to transform reality, as Antoinette’s husband does in Wide Sargasso Sea, is not uncommon among the characters representative of imperial power within postcolonial literature. The ascension of one civilisation necessarily involves the destruction or suppression of another, and for one truth to properly flourish all other truths must be denied – no matter what is factually true. Imperial control is maintained by violence or the threat of violence, as well as a strategic duplicity in meaning creation. Any and all threats to the imperialist worldview will be rationalised and profited upon (Ashcroft et al. 97-100). Antoinette’s husband thus becomes the author of her life, just as England has been the metaphorical author of the fates of their many colonies.Equating literacy with power is, according to Ashcroft et al., a mistake. While literacy contains the key to communication, it does not mean that one controls the means of communication just because one can read or understand the cultural cues of the oppressor. While colonised subjects may become knowledgeable and have the ability to wield their education as a defence, this education can never become a truly dangerous weapon against the empire without having control over the system itself (85-7). The prisoners depicted in Hag-Seed do not have societal power; they have never had the political influence that Felix once had, nor have they (most of them) the privilege of being white or belonging to the middle or upper class and all that this entails. Thus, whatever empowerment they have gained is rendered inadequate by the more powerful societal structures ultimately controlling them. In the end of the novel, only one of the inmates seems to have actually gained substantial profit from partaking in the play, and it mostly comes down to the help he gets from Felix. The inmates still do not have the power to fully tell their own stories on their own conditions, but through the ability to recognise themselves in the characters of the play they have been given the ability to think in terms of storytelling and power.Narrative power in literatureThe tension between author and reader is present within the world of the texts themselves, and the works I am analysing are examples of this. The distinct relationship between the authors of these novels and the authors of the original works inherently leads to the question of who really is the author-ity of the story. This question bleeds into the themes and characters of all the novels, while however being represented in different ways. The characters all subtly address their place within/in between the works they are in and pose the question of how they ought to be viewed to the reader in an indirect way. While they are not explicitly aware of being “being[s] on paper” (Barthes 211), meaning that they on some level maintain the readers’ illusion that they are real individuals with thoughts and feelings, there is a discourse addressing their roles in literary history present in all novels. Commonly held beliefs surrounding their characters, the ways in which different social interests might have distorted the stories throughout the ages and the functions of the original works in society are all addressed in varying levels of forthrightness.Truth, as the European hegemony would have it, is challenged by Ashcroft et al.: “There is no centre of reality just as there is no pre-given unmediated reality. If language constructs the world then the margins are the centre and may reconstruct it according to a different pattern of conventions, expectations and experiences.” (91). The colonial space is defined by its lack of place, reality and order; but if one disregards the conception of ‘the centre’ (for example, Europe or white people) as the norm, both of these entities become the margin (90-91). Antoinette’s and the English man’s views of the others’ homelands illustrate this point clearly; they both refer to the other person’s country respectively as “unreal and like a dream” (Rhys, 49), indicating that they are not places at all but rather figments of the imagination. While the man is very annoyed by Antoinette making such a suggestion, (thus, her daring to imply that England is not the norm or measure of all things) she seems merely to express her incredulity at such diversity existing in the world. The inherent conflict between these worldviews eventually proves to be insurmountable and the previously coherent Antoinette is transformed into the madwoman Bertha by her husband. In this process it is her mind that lacks order or a sense of reality, and thus she becomes a personification of what her husband deems the colony to be.In Circe we see how gods and humans alike tell stories about Circe, casting her as different stereotypical depictions of women (either as a weak weeping woman, or as a stone-hearted hag) both as a reaction to her being different and as a means to make her less likely to realise her power. While this does mainly seem to be pointing to the way Circe has been depicted in other literary interpretations of the myth of her, it also effectively makes her less powerful in the context of the novel. It takes a lot of time for her to realise that she has any powers at all (as she is an immortal being it is difficult to tell exactly how long, but several centuries would not be an overstatement) and when she does, it takes more time still for her to realise that the powers are hers to control and that they make her powerful in a real way. Her initial lack of reputation among humans, as well as her having a human voice rather than a godly voice, lead her to appear less frightening and awe-inspiring to the humans she encounters. The first human she meets, Glaucos (who is later transformed into a god by Circe) treats her with less respect or reverence than he shows to Helios or the other gods when he is later welcomed into their world. Even later, when Circe is visited by sailors, her being relatively unknown in the human world leads to them daring to rape her, being unaware of her divinity and powers of witchcraft.Using storytelling as a way to subjugate others is not only limited to what happens in ‘the real world’, but it is central to the ways in which the main characters in the novels in question interact with power. In Wide Sargasso Sea, several rumours are postulated by Daniel Cosway, Antoinette’s biracial half-brother, for instance about her having been in an incestuous relationship with her other biracial half-brother, Sandi. He struggles to make sure that Antoinette’s paranoid husband finds out what he calls “the truth” (Rhys 59-62) about his wife and her unacceptable behaviour and apparent hereditary insanity. His actions effectively lead to Antoinette’s husband losing whatever affection he might have had for her, and his subsequent treatment of her is implied to have led to her mental health issues. Rumours and stories told about her affected Antoinette negatively even in her childhood. The black inhabitants of the community in which they live gain power over the previously wealthy, slave owning Cosway family by their mere knowledge of them being poor. This is epitomized in the oft-used term “white cockroach” to describe the Cosways and other white creoles, and the child Antoinette is so affected by this indignity that it leads to her fractured identity and her attempting to, rather than be a failed white person, become a superior kind of black person.Antoinette Cosway/Bertha Mason of Wide Sargasso Sea is made to face issues of how the story about her has been misconstrued by a patriarchal and colonial narrative. She is, throughout her life, at the mercy of how she is viewed. Her not belonging to either the white or the black community results in her general lack of a sense of identity. The only character whom she is able to trust and relate to, however little, is the servant Christophine, who herself is an outcast standing between two different cultures. While Antoinette, like Circe, at first glance seems like she would be in a position of power as a white young lady, the unstable social conditions of Jamaica in the 1830s put her at a disadvantage. Her family has, in the very beginning of the novel, lost their wealth and slaves as a consequence of the emancipation, and they are as creoles viewed as ‘lesser’ white people compared to the ‘real’ Europeans. As a child Antoinette has realised this, and attempts to become one with the black community as she will never be able to properly partake in the upper-class white society on equal terms. However, her clumsy attempts toward a friendship (and identification) with her only childhood friend Tia fail miserably. She suffers similar results when, as an adult, she attempts to show her husband her true self; once again the stories that other people tell about her lead to her ruin. The only time she is to some extent able to control her own story is when, in her madness, she wreaks havoc upon her husband’s house (presumably Thornfield) and commits suicide. She states “[n]ow at last I know why I was brought here and what I have to do” (Rhys 124), just having woken up from a dream about the final moments of her (Bertha Mason’s) life. This indicates that, in her state of insanity, she is able to see through the fictional world she lives in and realises her role in Jane Eyre as well as in colonial society. While it may seem like this is her most powerless moment - trapped in an attic among people who do not understand her, about to commit suicide – it is also the only moment in which she seizes the author’s quill and writes her own story, even if it does lead to her imminent death.Not all knowledge is considered equal in a colonial context. Antoinette, and Christophine in particular, both possess a deeper knowledge and understanding of the Caribbean (specifically Jamaican, in Antoinette’s case) cultures and social conventions than Antoinette’s husband or Mr. Mason do. Despite this, their concerns or suggestions are rarely taken into consideration even though they later prove to be right in what they say. Mr. Mason is completely oblivious to the fact that, as white people and previous slave-owners, they are not invulnerable. In spite of being warned about the violent acts they would experience at Coulibri several times, he is convinced that the black inhabitants of the island are devoted to and reverent of them as white people. At the other end of the scale of suspicion toward Jamaica and its inhabitants is the paranoid husband of Antoinette, who is quick to believe any and all negative rumours about his wife. Her attempts to expand his understanding of the world is only met with disdain. Any and all knowledge that does not confirm or reproduce the European hegemony is simultaneously regarded as untrue and worthless, requiring the white European man to put an end to anyone claiming it to be true.The Tempest and Hag-seed both are about using storytelling as a means of power, and of magic. Prospero uses actual magic, and communicates with ethereal spirits; Felix uses trickery, charm and bribery to get his way to vengeance. What is interesting about Hag-Seed is that the position of power that Felix loses before the beginning of the novel is that of Artistic Director – he literally loses the power to tell his story. When he has fought his way back to the position of Director (of a theatre course at the local prison) he is, however, again in the position of power over the inmates, his actors. When preparing for the play the inmates are the ones who are compelled to fight to make their voices heard, rather than Felix. Initially, they all instinctively sympathise with Caliban and dislike Prospero:“[…] ‘Then, seven individuals are imprisoned in events in which the jailer is Prospero. He would seem to be the top jailer in this play.’‘Plus he’s a slave-driver,’ says Red Coyote.‘Not just with Caliban, he’s got his foot on Ariel too,’ says 8Handz. ‘He threatens him with that oak tree. Permanent solitary. It’s inhuman.’‘Plus he’s a land stealer,’ adds Red Coyote. ‘Suckin’ old white guy. He should be called Prospero Corp. Next thing he’ll discover oil on it, develop it, machine-gun everyone to keep them off it.’” (Atwood 126-7)As the locus of the story is Felix – the stand-in for Prospero – the narrator is sympathetic with Prospero. Felix (and Prospero) view Caliban and the inmates (a collective functioning as a representation of Caliban in the ‘real world’ of the novel) with a demeaning benignancy. There is a sense that he sees himself as the superior and saviour of the inmates, and that he sees their thoughts surrounding the play and the characters as inherently intellectually inferior to his own. In Circe and Wide Sargasso Sea the main characters perform a lot of the literary criticism toward the original works themselves, by actively questioning the discourse surrounding their characters. In Hag-Seed, however, all of the actors are made to advocate for their own characters’ interests, something that is made all the more interesting as they are very similar to the Shakespeare characters they play. This becomes especially clear in the post-play scene, where they all discuss what they think would happen to their characters after the end of the play. The actress playing Miranda stresses Miranda’s under-appreciated strength and gives the character superpowers in order to have her defeat the male characters who attempt to rape her. Meanwhile, the rest of the actors suggest alternate endings for their own characters, all showing signs of sympathising with them. This allows for a wider perspective on the characters in Shakespeare’s play. By having the characters in Atwood’s novel, all corresponding to one or more character(s) in The Tempest, explicitly discuss their motivations in a different fictional setting, Atwood provides the reader with a deeper understanding of The Tempest and Hag-Seed both. The inmates as well, in acquiring knowledge about Shakespeare, have been empowered to understand their place in society through identification with the characters of The Tempest.Hag-Seed’s Felix losing his job as Artistic Director is brought about by, among other things, the stories told about him and his plays. Tony (corresponding to the usurper Antonio of The Tempest) utilizes the fact that people find it difficult to understand Felix’s extravagant and eccentric Shakespeare productions, and amplifies people’s doubts about him in order to conspire against him. Felix’s thoughts and actions directly after having been usurped by Tony reveal that he is profoundly aware of the media and their potential ramifications for him. He quickly goes into hiding and remains there until he finally achieves his revenge at the end of the novel. Being as isolated as he is severely affects his mental health, and his delusions about his dead daughter being present become more and more real to him as time passes. His obsession with revenge is in large part due to a feeling of embarrassment in response to having been so easily outmanoeuvred, as well as the idea of his art not being considered worthy. Felix is prone to mood swings and struggles with creative insecurity and feelings of complete and utter creative superiority throughout the novel, a duality that may in part be caused by the lack of nuance in mainstream media’s coverage of culture. His intense identification with Prospero might also be to blame, as Prospero also shifts a lot between seeing himself as a sort of puppeteer to everyone else, while also deep down wondering whether what he does is right, or good. When describing how his productions led to praise and criticism both, he seems elated when thinking about even the most severe of reviews (Atwood, 13). Even the reactions to the production of The Tempest in the novel tend to be either extremely positive or extremely negative, the prisoners often switching between these opinions depending on what ideas or concepts Felix introduces to them. It does not seem to matter to Felix whether he receives praise or judgement for his work, because he feels that he knows he is in the right, always. His moments of insecurity appear to be more closely tied to his personal life rather than as a creator, but as these issues are severe enough to make him question his grip on reality (specifically in regard to his hallucinations of his dead daughter) it leads to him doubting even his own creativity.ConclusionThe aim of this study has been to investigate how authorial power, expressed in control over narratives, is present in transformative literature. This was done by analysing the novels Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys; Circe by Madeline Miller; and Hag-Seed by Margaret Atwood. Significantly, this essay shows that there is a link between the ways in which fictional characters convey power and control and the ways in which authors do the same in their works. This may be exhibited in my use of the anxiety of influence and the discussion surrounding the relationship between authors and readers, found in the first section. To summarise: the main characters in the novels all experience the loss of power, and the discourse surrounding this loss clearly echoes that of the struggle for power between authors in an intertextual context. This study also identified a link between how narrative power is exhibited in the real world, and how it is exhibited within the world of literature. Whether this narrative power is utilised by the imperialist state, patriarchy or characters representing these entities, it is a powerful yet unrecognised tool when asserting oneself. Using transformative literature, or rewritings, to examine these power relations is highly rewarding. It allows one to see inequality expressed in various different ways and on different levels, both literary and societal. It also reveals how canonised works of literature may be used to further different ideologies, as well as how they are used to work against those very same ideologies. The use of canonised texts is particularly effective when doing so as the literature is well known and the sheer amount of interpretative communities allows for such diversity in reimagining the texts. Such texts, being socially powerful by the merit of being so well-known and highly regarded, give other texts derived from them some of that. This does not mean that any novel based on a famous literary work will be well regarded or achieve renown, but rather that using something recognizable allows the text to use the devices already created without having to re-create them, and perhaps use them in a new way instead.Works citedAaron J. Atsma, ”Kirke”. Titan/Kirke.html. Allen, Graham. Intertextuality, 2nd edition. Abingdon, Routledge, 2011.Ashcroft, Bill, Griffiths, Gareth & Tiffin, Helen. The Empire writes back: theory and practice in post-colonial literatures. London, Routledge, 1989.Atwood, Margaret, Hag-Seed: the Tempest retold, London, Hogarth Shakespeare, 2016Barthes, Roland, S/Z, Miller, Richard, Blackwell, Oxford, 1990Barthes, Roland. Death of the Author, Howard, Richard, UbuWeb, tbook.wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf. Gilbert, Sandra M. & Gubar, Susan. The madwoman in the attic: the woman writer and the nineteenth-century literary imagination. 2. ed. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000.Hellekson, Karen & Busse, Kristina (red.). The fan fiction studies reader. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 2014.McClymont, J. D. “The Character of Circe in the Odyssey.” Akroterion, vol. 53, Dec. 2008, EBSCOhost, search.login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=41774637&site=eds-live&scope=site. Miller, Madeline, Circe, London, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019Mukherjee, Ankhi. What is a classic?: postcolonial rewriting and invention of the canon. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2014Mumby, Dennis K. (ed.), Narrative and social control: critical perspectives, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif., 1993Pugh, Sheenagh, The democratic genre: fan fiction in a literary context. Bridgend, Seren, 2005.Rhys, Jean. Wide Sargasso Sea, Smith, Angela. London, Penguin, 2000Yarnall, Judith. Transformations of Circe: the history of an enchantress, Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1994, books.google.se/books?id=75rcKJQ6X-MC&pg=PA152&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true. Zajko, Vanda & Leonard, Miriam (red.). Laughing with Medusa: classical myth and feminist thought. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download