I had not blogged in quite a while, and there were several interesting discussion topics that came up in Wednesday’s class that I wanted to address with some of my own interpretations.
Among the topics discussed, I thought that the question of names was an intriguing one. I liked how Mr. Rochester is not given a name in Rhys’ novel, for two reasons. One reason is that, by being nameless, Rochester becomes a completely different character from the one portrayed in Jane Eyre. Essentially, he is not Rochester at all, but a confused man in a foreign land who is both completely entranced yet oddly repulsed by Antoinette, the woman he will marry. His descriptions of what he sees and how he feels towards Antoinette is that of an outsider trying to make himself comfortable with the unknown, all the while knowing that this will probably be impossible.
The other reason it was a nice touch to take out “Mr. Rochester” was because, in doing so, the novel no longer needs to be compared to Jane Eyre. It is its own entity, and critics have even mentioned that a reader does not need to have read Jane Eyre in order to appreciate Wide Sargasso Sea. It is not a prequel; it is a different angle. With Rochester left nameless, the story of Antoinette can be told, as though she always had a story and was not a nameless character herself to begin with.
Still on the subject of names (the last comment, I promise), the fact that Antoinette and her mother Annette have such similar names goes back to what was mentioned in class, how Antoinette seems to be haunted by her mother’s destiny. As much as Antoinette wants to escape the talk and the slander that has been said about her mother, she cannot hide from it once it becomes the main problem within her marriage. If I remember correctly, it is after Rochester receives Daniel Cosway’s letter about Antoinette and her mother that he begins calling her Bertha, a name he enjoys and prefers. I read this as Antoinette’s ties to her mother being cut purposely by Rochester himself, as a way to be rid of the madness once and for all. By changing his wife’s name completely, Rochester might believe that Annette’s supposed curse could not touch them. This might be a very far-fetched interpretation, but it was something that came to my mind when I looked it over after class.
I would comment more on other elements mentioned, but I’m afraid I have already written too much for this one blog. I may return and comment again next week on the notion of the land in gothic novels as its own character, for it is another subject that greatly interested me.
- Stephanie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteStephanie i think you brought a number of interesting points and i have to say that the idea of the novel as Gothic with all that Gothic implies was indeed very intriguing.
Through out the novel Antoinette is constantly speaking of her mother even after she has died (first there is the spiritual death and then the physical)which leads us to imagine that she is being haunted by her past. By her past i mean her traumatic childhood and further still, her ancestral past as slave owners. At one point in the novel Mr. Rochester himself says that Antoinette looks almost dead and like a ghost when she stands holding her wrist with her hand in acertain way. Although, Rochester also seems haunted as he hallucinates at certain times and is constantly fearful for his life, obessed as he is about obeah.
The way in which Rhys was able to develope an eerie feeling of the Gothic set against the backdrop of the lush green beauty of the Caribbeans is strangley refreshing. Yet, i would be interested to exploring the novel further from a post-colonial perspective.
Madeeha
I agree, looking at this novel's gothic elements was very interesting to me too. I don't think what you've said about Rochester calling her Bertha to distance Antoinette from her mother and her mother's destiny is far fetched. Antoinette herself suggests that names have power when she tells Rochester to stop calling her Bertha, saying that what he is doing is a kind of obeah too.
ReplyDeleteI think the power of naming goes beyond simply the names of people: Wide Sargasso Sea seems to depict or use language itself as something almost uncanny, as we assume language reflects the truth but in reality it is untrustworthy. Because, in a novel, all we have to rely on to establish the novel's whole world is language, we usually expect it to be clear and stable, so that we can tell whose point of view is "true". But Wide Sargasso Sea presents us with so many opposing viewpoints, and they are not easily untangled into the "truth". Gossip, slander, and name-calling are threatening; Annette and Antoinette are seemingly at the mercy of slander, they can't ignore or get the better of it (being called 'white cockroach' for instance), and the power of description (whether "true" or "untrue") is proven in Daniel Cosway's letter to Rochester. A few written words --the way Cosway has named things --influence Rochester's view of the world and ultimately influence the world itself.
For the reader, the whole world of any book is created solely by language, but in this book i feel that power is taken into the story itself. Even the characters experience their world as being created and destroyed by what words people use. their world is constantly being re-shaped and obscured by the way people name or describe it.
So, Stephanie, I agree with your excellent points --naming is very powerful in the book, and to take that farther I would say language in general is granted a kind of uncanny power. Do you name something to reflect the truth, or does your naming it shape the truth?
Hope that wasn't too convoluted.
Hazel