Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Toward A Feminist Narratology-S Lanser
Toward A Feminist Narratology-S Lanser
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Style.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Susan S. Lanser
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 Susan S. Lanser
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a FeministNarratology 343
desire to say yes to both these questions that this essay has been conceived.
It is in the suppositionthatthe readersof thisjournal are more involved with
narratologythan withfeminismthatmy emphasis will be on the second ques-
tion ratherthan the first.
There are compellingreasons why feminism(or any explicitlypolitical
criticism)and narratology(or any largelyformalpoetics) mightseem incom-
patible. The technical,oftenneologistic,vocabulary of narratologyhas alien-
ated criticsof manypersuasionsand may seem particularlycounterproductive
to criticswith political concerns.Feminists also tend to be distrustfulof cat-
egories and oppositions, of "a conceptual universe organized into the neat
paradigms of binarylogic" (Schor ix)8- a distrustwhich explains part of the
attractionof feministtheoryto Derridean deconstruction.But there are (at
least) threemore crucial issues about which feminismand narratologymight
differ:the role of genderin the constructionof narrativetheory,the status of
narrative as mimesis or semiosis, and the importanceof context for deter-
mining meaning in narrative.
The most obvious question feminismwould ask of narratologyis simply
this: upon what body of texts,upon what understandingsof the narrativeand
referentialuniverse,have the insightsof narratologybeen based? It is readily
apparent that virtuallyno work in the fieldof narratologyhas taken gender
into account, eitherin designatinga canon or in formulatingquestions and
hypotheses.This means, firstof all, that the narrativeswhich have provided
the foundationfornarratologyhave been eithermen's texts or textstreated
as men's texts.Genette'sformulationof a "Discours du récit" on the basis of
Proust's A la recherchedu tempsperdu, Propp's androcentricmorphologyof
a certainkindof folktale,Greimas on Maupassant, Iser on male novelistsfrom
Bunyan to Beckett,Bartheson Balzac, Todorov on the Decameron- these are
but evident examples of the ways in which the masculine text stands forthe
universal text.In the structuralist quest for"invariantelementsamong super-
ficial differences"(Lévi-Strauss8), for (so-called) universais ratherthan par-
ticulars,narratologyhas avoided questions of genderalmost entirely.This is
particularlyproblematicforthose feministcritics-in this country,the major-
ity-whose main interestis the "differenceor specificityof women's writing"
(Showalter, "Women's Time" 38). The recognitionof this specificityhas led
not only to the rereadingof individual texts but to the rewritingof literary
history;I am suggesting thatit also lead to a rewriting
of narratologythattakes
into account the contributionsof women as both producersand interpreters
of texts.9
This challengedoes not deny the enormous value of a body of brilliant
narrativetheoryforthe studyof women's works; indeed, it has been applied
fruitfullyto such writersas Colette (Bal, "The Narratingand the Focalizing")
and Eliot (Costello) and is crucial to my own studies of narrativevoice in
women's texts.It does mean thatuntilwomen's writings,questions of gender,
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 Susan S. Lanser
oflife
a representation
an account
ofreality
a mimetic
document
and as
a non-referential
linguistic
system
an enunciation a narrator
supposing anda listener
a linguistic
primarily construct. (Furman64-65)
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 345
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
346 Susan S. Lanser
#* *
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 347
FEMALE INGENUITY.
Secret A young
Correspondence.- Lady,newlymarried, to showherhus-
beingobliged
band,alltheletters
shewrote,
sentthefollowing
toan intimate
friend.
I cannot be satisfied,myDearestFriend!
blestas I aminthematrimonial state,
unlessI pourintoyourfriendly bosom,
which haseverbeeninunisonwithmine,
thevarious deepsensations which swell
withtheliveliest emotions ofpleasure
myalmostbursting heart.I tellyoumydear
husband is oneofthemostamiableofmen,
I havebeenmarried sevenweeks, and
haveneverfound theleastreasonto
repent thedaythatjoinedus,myhusband is
inperson andmanners farfrom resembling
ugly,crass,old,disagreeable, andjealous
monsters, whothink byconfining tosecure;
a wife,itis hismaxim totreat as a
bosom-friend andconfidant, andnotas a
plaything ormenialslave,thewoman
chosentobe hiscompanion. Neither party
hesaysought toobeyimplicitly;-
buteachyieldtotheother byturns-
Anancient maiden aunt,nearseventy,
a cheerful, venerable,andpleasant oldlady,
livesinthehousewithus-sheis thede-
lightofbothyoung andold-sheis ci-
viltoalltheneighborhood round,
generous andcharitable tothepoor-
I knowmyhusband lovesnothing more
thanhedoesme;heflatters memore
thantheglass,andhisintoxication
(forso I mustcalltheexcessofhislove)
often makesmeblushfortheunworthiness
ofitsobject, andI wishI couldbe moredeserving
ofthemanwhosenameI bear.To
sayall inoneword, mydear, , andto
crown thewhole, myformer gallantlover
is nowmyindulgent husband, myfondness
is returned, andI might havehad
a Prince, without thefelicityI findwith
him.Adieu!Mayyoube as blestas I amun-
abletowishthatI couldbe more
happy.
N.B.-Thekeytotheaboveletter, is toreadthefirstand
thenevery alternate
line.
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348 Susan S. Lanser
I cannot myDearestFriend!
be satisfied,
unlessI pourintoyourfriendly bosom,
thevarious deepsensationswhich swell
myalmostbursting I tellyoumydear
heart.
I havebeenmarried sevenweeks, and
repentthedaythatjoinedus,myhusband is
ugly, andjealous[;]
crass,old,disagreeable,
a wife,itis hismaxim totreatas a
plaything ormenialslave,thewoman
hesaysought toobeyimplicitly;-
Anancient maiden aunt,nearseventy,
livesinthehousewithus-sheis thede-
viltoall theneighborhood round,
I knowmyhusband lovesnothing more
thantheglass,andhisintoxication
often makesmeblushfortheunworthiness
ofthemanwhosenameI bear.To
crown thewhole, myformer gallantlover
is returned,andI might havehad
him.Adieu!Mayyoube as blestas I amun-
happy.
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 349
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350 Susan S. Lanser
This negativityis more than the link between two texts; it is the means by
which the two lettersfinallyyield a third:a thirdstory,a thirdvoice, a third
audience. For thenegativitymakes ofthe surfacetextnot one narrator'ssimple
proclamationof happinessbut the indictmentof an entiresocial system.What,
indeed, does the surfacepaint but the veryportraitof marriagethat it claims
to erase? Each negative statementsuggestsdeparturefroma social norm, a
normin whichbridesrepenttheirmarriages,husbands are monstrous,women
are treatedas playthingsor slaves, and women's desires are unthinkable.In
other words, the surfacetext,by sayingwhat one particularmarriageis not,
shows the terriblecontoursof what its narratorexpectedmarriageto be. While
the subtextcondemns one man and laments one woman's fate, the surface
lettercondemns an entiresociety,presentingas typicalthe conditions which
the subtextimplies to be individual. The subtext,then,becomes an instance
of the surfacetextratherthan its antithesis;the two versionsreveal not oppos-
ing but related truths.It is fitting,
then,that theymeet at theirpoint of dis-
satisfaction,at the single line- the first-that does not change: "I cannot be
satisfied,my dearest Friend!"
In the light of this reading, women's language becomes not simply a
vehicle forconstructinga more legitimate(masculine, powerful)voice but the
voice throughwhichthe more globaljudgmentof patriarchalpracticesis exer-
cised. This text differsfromthe "palimpsestic" discourse feministcriticism
frequentlydescribesin which "surfacedesigns" act simplyas a cover to "con-
ceal or obscure deeper, less accessible (and less socially acceptable) levels of
meaning" (Gilbert and Gubar 73). Here the "surface design" turnsout to be
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 351
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352 Susan S. Lanser
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 353
heterodiegeticnarration
of moments of "metalepse"
(third-person)Emma inJacqueslefataliste
or whennarrator consorts
Middlemarch withhischaracters
eXtra-
diegetic homodiegetic JaneEyre's letters
of
(first-person) narration Walton
or
Werther
heterodiegetic? talesofthe
(third-person) Heptameron
or
Scheherezade
intradiegetic
or
metadiegetic homodiegetic the"found"memoir of narratives
of
(first-person)LionelVerney inMary Frankenstein
Shelley'sTheLastMan andthe
orPirandello's
Six Monster
Characters
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354 Susan S. Lanser
The concept could also be applied fruitfully to texts in which the narrative
level is unclear,as in Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaperand Craik's A Lifefor
a Life, which seem to implicate a public narrateewhile purportingto writea
private diary.
The application of the distinctionpublic/privateto literarytextsrequires
us to thinkin more complex ways about thedichotomyof genderthatSpender
attaches to private and public discourse. Here again the letteris illustrative.
For if my analysis is persuasive in suggestingthe existence of a third text
available only to one who has read both the second and the first,and read in
the lightof a particularunderstandingboth of women and of textuality,then
the public text-thatis, the one -whichis directedby the extradiegeticnarrator
or editor to "anyone"- is also the most hidden text,the hardest to see, for
nothingreallypoints to its existenceexcept itself,and it requiresa readerwho
bringsto it particularkinds of knowledge.Since it is at the public level of
narrationthat the ideal reading becomes possible, the letterpresentedas a
displaytextalso escapes the genderassociations of the originalstructureof the
intradiegetic narrative (in which it seems that public = male and pri-
vate= female),suggestinga kind of paradigm forreading"as a woman" that
encompasses but is not determinedby the question of sex. Equally, when
women write novels that use private narrativeforms,they are nonetheless
writingfor a public, and a public that cannot entirelybe dichotomized in
genderterms.How individual writersnegotiatethiscomplex contextofgender
and public-ityconstitutesanotherimportantarea to investigate.
The difference betweenGenette'sformulationof narrativelevels and my
own illustrates,I hope, the differencebetween purelyformaland contextual
approaches to meaningin narrative.Justas speech act theoryunderstoodthat
the minimal unit of discourse was not the sentencebut the productionof the
sentencein a specificcontext,so the kind of narratologyI am proposingwould
understandthat the minimal narrativeis the narrativeas produced. In the
case of the letterthat appears in the Casket, questions of contextare closely
related to interpretivepossibilities. For depending on whetherone sees the
letteras a historicaldocument or as a textwrittendeliberatelyfor display-
and whether,if "display text,"an imitationor a parody- different readingsof
the letteremerge.If the textis an authenticdocument,a letteractuallywritten
by an unhappy wife that somehow came into the hands of the Casket, then
the text mightbecome importanthistorical evidence of the ways in which
women's writingis conditionedby censorship.If the textwere constructedas
imitation,it stands as evidence of the perception,if not the historicalfact,of
censorship. But the lettermay well have been intended as a parody of the
"female style." Indeed, the historyof this style,and its connection to the
epistolary,provides the contextforan interestingpossibility.Historically,the
letterhas such overdeterminedassociations with women that what became
thoughtof as the "female style,"a styleacclaimed forits artlessness,its sense
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 355
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 Susan S. Lanser
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 357
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 Susan S. Lanser
Notes
1A simpledistinction betweenso-called"American"and "French"feminisms is
impossible.By "French"feminism is usuallymeantfeminism conceivedwithinthe
theoretical premisesof post-structuralism and henceheavilyindebtedto thewritings
of Derrida,Foucault,Lacan, Kristeva,Cixous,and Irigaray."American"feminism
tendsto be conceivedwithinthepoliticalimperatives of theAmericanwomen'slib-
erationmovement andthehistorical experience ofwomeningeneralandwomenwriters
in particular. Bothmodesarepracticed in theUnitedStates,and thetwohavebecome
increasingly intertwined. Nonetheless, thedebatesgo on. For further discussionofthe
differences see, forexample,theintroduction and bibliography and theessayby Ann
Jonesin Showalter, TheNewFeministCriticism ; foran exampleofthenewsynthesis,
see Meese.
2 See especiallyFurman45-54.
3 A piece of Bal's book on the HebrewBible is availableto English-language
readersas "Sexuality, Sin and Sorrow."
4 It is revealingthatthesinglesentencein mybook mostcitedby reviewers is
the statement that"my trainingis deeplyformalist, and my perspective as deeply
feminist"; clearlymanyscholarsconsiderfeminism and narratology an odd pair.
51 findit ironicthatDonovan'srejectionofformalist "dissection"is justified by
finding it incompatible withwhatEvelynBeckand I have calleda "women'sepiste-
mology"(Lanserand Beck86).
6 Particularly in thewakeofthenewpsychoanalytic narrative
theoriestheterm
narratology has fallenintodisuse,perhapsperceivedas too narrowly structuralist.Crit-
ics disagreeabout thedifferences betweennarratology and narrativepoetics ; see, for
example,Rimmon-Kenan's attemptto distinguish thetwoin NarrativeFiction(133
n.l). By narratology I meansimplythatbranchofpoeticsconcerned withdefining and
describing all aspectsof narrative.
I have chosenthroughout thisessay to use the wordnarratology ratherthan
narrative poeticspartly to foreground thedissonancebetweennarratology andfeminism
and partlyto identify morepreciselythe formalist/structuralist practicesthatI am
discussing here.I will,however, be callingin thisessayfora studyofnarrative thatis
finally less formalist thatnarratology generallyconnotes.For thatreason,and sinceI
am also suggesting a less alienatingterminology forthestudyof narrative, I can also
see theadvantagesof narrative poetics, and I wouldnothesitateto makethechange.
7Whilethereis a reader-oriented narratology thatemphasizestheprocessoftext
production, Rimmon-Kenan is rightto implythat"themorefar-reaching 'revisionism'
of somereader-oriented studied... is oftenat odds withtheveryprojectof narrative
poetics"(118).
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 359
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 Susan S. Lanser
Works Cited
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 361
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 Susan S. Lanser
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Toward a Feminist Narratology 363
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:59:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions