While reading the selection for this week I took a lot of notes and these are the most interesting of them.
P. 90. “This was the beginning of my being called Old Woman, and Little Old Woman, and Cobweb, and Mrs. Shipton, and Mother Hubbard, and Dame Durden, and so many other names of that sort, that my own name soon became quite lost among them.” What do you think about this? Are they appropriate, degrading, anything? From the foot note we learn that these names refer to ‘folklore mother figures’. She is a mother like figure in this book but is it all she is? What do you think about her name being lost? Is she loosing her identity now that she will no longer be called by her real name but by one of these nicknames?
From all the women we see in this selection, who is a better mother? Mrs. Jellyby and Mrs. Pardiggle are like the anti-heroes, the bad mothers, bad women. Esther is portrayed as the opposite of that, the hero. She is the embodiment of Dickens’ version of what a woman/mother should be like. What about Jenny? What about the woman that came to comfort Jenny? Which side, do you think they belong on? Are they good mothers, bad mothers, somewhere in between, etc? Personally I think that Jenny, even though she is poor and her home and family are not in a good condition, is considered to be a good mother by Dickens. At the very least I think she is a better mother than Mrs. Jellyby and Mrs. Pardiggle. I think that Dickens is showing us a scale of what kinds of mothers exist. Mrs. Jellyby completely ignores her family and her kids, its like she carries them for nine months and once they are out they are on their own. Mrs. Pardiggle is a bit more involved with the kids but still ignores their desires, its as if she only sees to their basic needs and the rest of her time, energy and everything including the children’s allowances, are devoted to the causes. I think Jenny should be somewhere higher on the ladder than the previous two but I do not think Dickens intended her to be as good as Esther. Isn’t it curious that the only woman that does not have kids is the best mother?
Who do you thing Nemo really is? Who killed Nemo? Why is he even called Nemo (no one)? Remember some chapters ago Lady Dedlock saw legal papers with his hand writing and fainted? What kind of history do they have? Mr. Guppy recognized a painting of a younger Lady Dedlock when he visited her house. Could the painting have reminded him of Esther? Could Nemo and Lady Dedlock be Esther’s biological parents?
As to the question of which narrator I liked better my answer is Esther. She talks to us like her equals, the same way she talked to her doll. The Dickensian narrator, on the other hand, talks down to us. I understand him trying to make a point, but saying something once or twice is enough for me to understand what someone is trying to say. He tells us the same thing, by restating the question, ten times or more. As if he thinks that if he does not say something over and over, and over, and over again, we are so dense that, we will not understand.
Good Luck,
ILONA
I think it's very interesting that Esther's name eventually gets lost between all these nicknames. Maybe it is a refelction of what happens to some women in general? Perhaps women's indentities get lost and they merely become categorized as good women/mothers, bad ones, or somewhere in between. It seems as if we can fit a lot of women in Dicken's novel into categories, and their actual names may at some point take a back seat to their actions and characteristics. Mrs. Pardiggle and Mrs. Jellyby fit into the "telescopic philanthropy" category, and both women ignore their homes and children in a quest to help people far away. Jenny and her friend may, as Ilona mentioned, fall into the category of women who try their best, but do not have the model characteristics of the Esther Summersons of the world. Perhaps as we meet more families, more women will be identified by their characteristics and accomplishments and will fit into one of these three categories. Maybe, ironically for a book that has so many named characters, names will become less important?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree to your opinions on that of Mrs. Jellyby and Pardiggle, though I'm surprised you used such strong terms such as anti-hero and hero to define them. In my opinion I'd sort of think that Dickens would make an anti-hero who is more recognizable for their efforts... like, while this is far of topic, when you look at Riddick from the Chronicles of Riddick movie series, he is a criminal who can be very self-serving but he generally goes for the greater good out of all the bad options he usually has to choose. Mrs Jellyby and Pardiggle seem to be just bad mothers who make bad actions and Dickens takes no effort to really make them all that sympathetic I'd think. He more satires these kind of women then show you what honor lies beneath their surface of bad motherhood.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think he means to make Jenny sympathetic, sticking it out in a horrible marriage, horrible life, and most likely a horrible end. She's in a world of poverty which has no greener grass so far but she sticks by her family through it all because it's all she's got.
As far Esther and her lost of identity goes, I think it is something to be concerned about, for her sake, that she's having these perceptions of her conceive new names into her identity while she begins to slowly lose hers. But I think that the fact that everyone is giving her names allows her to not allow one to take more control than another, and so keeps her aware of the fact that they are just names others are giving her.
That may have been a written rant just now, but to clarify, it makes me think of when a foregin person goes to a new land, and maybe is given a local name since the locals don't want or know how to use their given name. If everyone were to call you "Tom Doe" instead of "John Doe", you may forget or just stop caring about the name John because everyone uses Tom. If one person calls you Jerry, another George, another Larry, you'll keep in mind that these are just different things you're known by in different circles, and for you John remains strong because I think you realize the other names are just options rather than a replacement for identity.
So I think all it really ultimately does is show us that Esther is beginning to enter different circles and be different things to different people (although still generally perceived as the same good-natured motherly person) and it shows she's leaving a mark with all of the characters who keep weaving their way into the web of Bleak House's narrative.
Sorry... this was a random rant... I'm going to go now... my thoughts are a little too fluid right now...
I would also like to agree with Ilona about her thoughts on the way the mother figures are being portrayed. I believe that Esther although she is not really a mother, is the best mother figure because she shows more concerns for the children than the women who do have children. We can see that Mrs. Jellyby does not really show any kind of concerns for her children and that Mrs. Pardiggle shows concern but not about the children. She seem to only show concern about the charities that she donate to and also about the wrong ways that the other mother's treat themselves and their families. Although Mrs. Pardiggle believe that she is helping Jenny and making her better I don't believe that she is helping at all. It seems that Jenny knows more about being a mother than Mrs. Pardiggle although she lets herself get abused by her husband.
ReplyDeleteTo the idea that Esther is losing her identity I do not believe that she is. I believe that some not all of the names that were given to her were appropriate;Old Woman, and Little Old Woman, adnd Mother Hubbard where some of the names of fairytale characters who were actually great mothers. The stories about them showed how they cared about their children and these names show how Ester cares also.
I agree with what everybody says, and Ilona, that passage also struck interest within me and I also noted it. While I was reading it over I couldn't help but think that maybe Dickens was trying to make a reflection, or a comparison rather, between Esther and Miss Flite. The only reason why I started to think in this direction was because of the names. "Old Woman" and "Little Old Woman" is a good description of what or who Miss Flite is.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is still a mysterious comparison that we have to uncover between both Esther and Flite, and I think that Dickens is telling us in the passage there is one waiting to be uncovered.
As for the subject of Nemo's past, I do believe that him and Lady Dedlock knew each other before, like I said in class, maybe they were lovers before, I'm not crazy! Or there is some history behind them, I feel that they did know each other somehow, but I guess all will be uncovered in due time.
I'm glad to see some new bloggers here -- thanks for your thoughtful comments everyone. Ilona's post reminds us of the complicated question of Esther's identity -- one that will continue to be complicated by things that happen later in the novel. On a very basic level, as we've said in class and in the blog, her identity is complicated because there is a mystery surrounding her birth (who were/are her parents?), her narrative style is shaped by a paradoxical "noticing way" about others and yet a reluctance to talk about her own feelings or even to offer a physical description (we know she is good looking, but not much else). Sara is right to point out that such identity trouble could have to do with her being a woman at a time in which that identity is strictly tied to one's identity as a mother (or daughter, or sister -- roles defined by one's relationship to a man). But as you all have pointed out, Dickens offers so many mothers and mother figures that that itself becomes a very complicated identity. For example, Esther is naturally nuturing we see, but so is Nemo, "the dark young surgeon" (who we'll know as Woodcourt later), and, of course, John Jarndyce. I'd ask you to consider that perhaps everyone's identity is fluid in BLEAK HOUSE, not only because on its very basic level it is a mystery about who everyone is and who he/she is connected to, but because this is the condition of modern existence that Dickens wants us to ponder. In the old days of small village life (as we've said before in class), one's identity -- however unsatisfactory that might have been -- was known: Joe the farmer, whose dad was a farmer; William the blacksmith, whose dad and granddad were blacksmiths and who all are buried in the same plot down the road, etc. One of the characteristics of modern, urban existence is that who you are is left up to you -- and the countless social forces that are at work in a busy city. Any individual is a work-in-progress as he/she navigates his/her own unique self and the social world in which he/she lives. Where else do you see signs that people/places/things are having a modern "identity crisis"?
ReplyDeleteThe downplay of the women that i see in BLEAK HOUSE so far is that the women take up a significant role in society by helping others (well at least Dickens makes it seem that the characters believe that they are) but disregard their own responsibilities and makes the women look like hot messes as seen by Mrs. Pardiggle, Mrs. Jellyby. I also so after being flirted with by Guppy, Esther some how reverts back into a child state of mind " it reminded her of her doll"(at end of the chapter where Guppy is attempting to romance Esther but instead he is making her uneasy or at least the dialogue seems that way), and blah blah blah. Sorry i do not have my book at hand. also by making esther revert to this feverish little girl makes her look simplistic and shows how she had not matured because she relates the feeling with Guppy to her feelings with a doll.
ReplyDelete**IDk im just saying!!!** that is just my interpretation.
Nemo is the same as nimrod or at least it was for mrs. snagsby, that was said by mr snagsby. And he probably killed himself Heroine ain't no JOKE!!! If Nemo would be esther's father that would turn out to be highly disappointing!!
oOoO... and i believe that Esther fails to mention her physique because she realizes the world around her is so fascinating. In fact so fascinating that she cant help but to just speak about the people and occurrences in her life. There are so many things happening that it does not allow her to think past these things and focus on something so minuscule as her features in such a busy city.- once again i'm just sayin'...
ReplyDeleteA couple questions based on Christian's comments:
ReplyDeletewhy would it be disappointing if Nemo turned out to be Esther's father? Who would you want it to be? What if we never find out -- would that be better?
Do you agree with Christian's "I'm just sayin'" point that Esther neglects to tell us about herself because she is distracted by the wider world she chronicles? Why can/can't we accept that?
I think that it would be more interesting if we don't find out who Esther's parents are until the very end. There would always be that question in the back of our minds, "is she," "is he?" With the amount of mystery that clouds her birth, to have it all given away even mid-way through is just disappointing. If Nemo turns out to be the father, we can never really know what happened except through other characters.
ReplyDeleteI think the point you made about Lady Deadlock and Guppy being her biological parents is very interesting. It would explain why Guppy was so fasinated with the painting.
ReplyDeleteI think Esther is Dicken's idea of what a woman should be like. Though she has no children she demonstrates mother-like traits and though she has no parents she is able to nurture others. She is humble and is always a positive figure in every environment. Dickens is obviously very fond of Esther and creates her as an example to the other characters and the reader.
Esther having all these motherly nicknames is actually a compliment and I do not think she will be losing her identity, since she was always portrayed as someone motherly. Everyone trusts her and loves her since she is so kind to everyone, and although she has no children, she can be viewed as a motherly figure to anyone around her.
ReplyDeleteJenny is a better mother than Mrs. Jellby and Mrs. Pardiggle since she was actually very attentive to her new born baby (although dead in her arms). Neither Mrs. Jellyby nor Mrs. Pardiggle pays attention to their children which makes them a bad mother and Jenny a good mother.
The comment about Lady Dedlock and Nemo being Esther's biological parents made me re read some chapters because I completely missed that. It actually can happen, but I do not want to know until the end of the book.
Why would it be disappointing if Nemo turned out to be Esther's father?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Nemo is dead; therefore, it would make no difference in Esther's life if he happened to be her father. This incident would not change Esther's life in any way. Besides, Nemo is such a flat and insignificant character that it would not make any sense if he turned out to be the father of the main protagonist. This would seem like a mistake made by Dickens because the event would not cause any meaningful change in the plot.
Who would you want it to be?
It would be interesting if Mr. Skimpole turned out to be Esther's father. Because Skimpole is really a child in a middle-aged man's body and Esther is, in a sense, a mother at heart, it would be very ironic if they are indeed father and daughter.
What if we never find out--would that be better?
I think the novel would have no purpose if we never find out who Esther's biological parents are. In essence, one motivational point in the plot is to discover what Esther's origins are. Because she is the protagonist, and one that does not reveal much about herself, it is very important that at least this one, very significant peice of information be traced. I would be very disappointed if Dickens did not disclose this part of Esther's life.
Do you agree with Christian's "I'm just sayin'" point that Esther neglects to tell us about herself because she is distracted by the wider world she chronicles? Why can/can't we accept that?
I do not agree that Esther neglects to tell us about herself because she is distracted by the world around her. I think the whole point of the third-person, Dickensian narrator is to report what is happeneing in the world, while Esther's limited role as a first-person narrator is to tell the readers what she sees. Furthermore, she is the narrator specifically because Dickens wants to inform his readers about Esther's character more than he does the other characters in the novel who are spoken about in the third-person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteinsignificant character?? we are only on chapter 13 out of... and who knows he might just pop back up somewhere. If he is mentioned and has his own chapter i do not believe that the nimrod could be so insignificant.
ReplyDeleteand its always better to hear a story from a person in the story not just a 3rd person narrator because a first person narrative gives so much more insight to what life is like, Not just splatters from a third person who is simply impersonal with the audience- I'm Just Sayin'