In “A Novel without a Hero”, Cather’s strong female characters are recognized, but ultimately, the text states that the tale is not a feminine one, and that “Miss Cather had nothing so inartistic in mind.” Does the writer believe a feminist novel would be inartistic because it would lack nuance, and thus miss the breadth of Cather’s arguments regarding the American dream? Is the term “inartistic” a function of the early 1900’s misogyny? Or, is it merely a reflection of Cather’s own pronouncement that the novel was not, in essence, feminist?
4 thoughts on ““A Novel Without a Hero” Response”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think you make a great point. To one of which, I would have to say there is no “right” answer. However, using contextual clues, some of which you have eluded to, I think it can be generally more agreed upon that there this is a misogynistic review. Firstly, the author brings up idea of fertility. He then “throws us a bone” by noting the fact that the 2 women are “cleverer and better balanced than their husbands and brothers.” This is where I believe it is easy to confused by what he is saying. Nonetheless, the next half of the sentence reveal his real intention. He uses the “BUT” phrase. In my experience this word either adds on to (usually use in conjunction with “but also”) or takes away from the value of a previous assertion. In this case it detracts what he just said and tells us instead that despite the fact that the women are indeed “cleverer and better balanced than their husbands and brothers”, Miss Cather could not have been so primitive, artless and crude (just to name a few synonyms of inartistic) that she would write a feminist novel. You’d like to think he stop there but nope! Rather he says “feminine because it is only an expansion of the very essence of femininity.” Which is of course is his way of saying that yea, sure, there’s a lot of female power or what have you, but that is only because Cather is talking about birth (something specific to only women). In this sense, when he suggests that the novel should be more accurately called a novel with 3 heroines, he is referring not to the stronger and cleverer aspect but rather the trait of giving birth that is associated with them. A novel with 3 heroines who save the land because of their maternal powers (Whoohoo!). Despite this however, it must also be recognized that maybe Cather’s novel wasn’t intended to be feminist. And that despite his illogical way of coming to his answer, he was right (assuming that is it a he who even wrote the review).
I really like what both of you have said here; I also felt a strong sense of misogyny in this review. I especially am caught up in the author’s initial description of Alexandra as “the splendid blonde farm-woman”. When I think of Alexandra, I think of an intelligent, determined, powerful woman. I certainly do not think of a woman who is “splendid” (typically used to insinuate something that is revered for its appearance) nor do I think of her hair color. I find it quite interesting that the author highlights such superficial aspects of Alexandra when the novel seems to avoid that almost entirely.
I think these are all really interesting points. To add on, I think that the reviewer diminishes the novel as well as Cather by saying that the novel is “indirectly, perhaps, an embodiment of the feminist theory” (357). It’s portrayal of both the fortitude and tragedy of two strong women is directly and intentionally feminist.
All of you make great points. That being said, I think it is also important to consider the time in which both the novel and the review were written. As we learned in class, Cather would not even classify her own work as “feminist”. On one level, this could harken to the misogynistic era in which the book was written. Cather, however, may also shy away from the label as, in her novel, she addresses many themes, from social mobility to the American Dream. Thus, the book, I believe, should not solely be classified as feminist. Perhaps the narrowing effect of labels, along with the era’s sexism, is the problem here