The Rhetoric of Women’s Humour in Barbara Pym’s Fiction. Naghmeh Varghaiyan

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ relevant to women, Pym did not have an openly feminist agenda. But since, as Michael Cotsell points out, “any study of Pym must keep in mind that its subject is a woman author, exploring one phase of women’s experience” (7), feminist concerns have to be considered in an analysis of her work.

      Although theories of humour have undergone fundamental changes, they have mostly remained under the influence of the standards set by the dominant patriarchal perspectives. Accordingly, the classical theory of humour has failed to provide an adequate set of terminology, or effective technical tools with which to analyse the specific sense of humour of female writers.

      This study is based on terminologies offered by forerunners of the theory of women’s writing such as Eileen Gillooly, Regina Barreca, and Nancy Walker. Dismissing conventional theories of humour in female writing, this study aims to offer an alternative approach to such humour as instantiated by Pym’s novels.

      Barreca highlights the inadequacy of conventional theories of humour in relation to female comical writing. According to her study, comedy has been traditionally defined in these ways: as a “celebration of fertility and regeneration,” as “the vulgar and exaggerated presentation of the familiar,” as “catharsis of desire and frustration,” as a “social safety valve,” as a “carnival,” as an “unconscious, psychological reaction to personal and social instabilities,” and as a “happy ending, joyous celebration, and reestablishment of order” (introduction 8). Such definitions, as Barreca understands, do not exemplify women’s comic writing, which primarily “has to do with power and its systematic misappropriation.” In spite of its undermining power, traditional humour substantiates the dominant cultural values, mostly patriarchal. Judith Curlee also emphasises this point, stating that traditional and conventional comic discourse supports the patriarchal order since it “generally maintains the status quo in society by failing to problematize the kinds of inequity that it often reveals” (35). Thus, the traditional comic discourse has covertly and invariably been in the service of the dominating patriarchal culture.

According to Barreca, numerous events and details in life determine, and have an impact on, “the way we create and respond to” (Untamed 12) the humorous and humour. Thus, the theoretical discussions on humour and comedy, as one of the artistic mediums of humour, had long existed before the commencement of any structural analysis in literary studies. In the canonised sense of the term, humour can be described as something which causes one to smile and/or to laugh. This concept has been a relatively recent phenomenon, although the concept of comedy has always existed in literary texts.2 “Comedy,” according to Alleen and Don Nilsen, “is a term that literary scholars ‘owned’ long before the popular culture gave it today’s more generalized meaning of something that brings smiles and laughter” (246). The definition of the term ‘comedy,’ however, has undergone enormous changes throughout time. For instance, as Alleen and Don Nilsen point out, in medieval times it “was applied to literary works that were not necessarily created for the purpose of arousing laughter, however, it had happier endings and less exalted styles than tragedies.” In the Middle Ages it was categorised into different parts such as “High Comedy (what we now refer to as smart comedy or literary comedy) relied for its humour on wit and sophistication, while low comedy relied on burlesque, crude jokes, and buffoonery” (246). As Barreca highlights, the lack of a universal definition for comedy is due to the fact that “out of all the textual territories explored,” it is “the least universal” (12). The reason is that comedy appears to be fundamentally subjective in nature so that its production as well as its reception is contextually gender-based since “age, race, ethnic background, and class are all significant factors in the production and reception of humor” (Barreca 12).

      Theorists and humourists throughout history, however, have only paid attention to men’s humour. This intellectual subordination of women was mostly due to the fact that, as Virginia Woolf states in A Room of One’s Own “nothing could be expected of women intellectually” (55) since numerous intellectuals believed in “the mental, moral and physical inferiority of women” (31). Likewise, as Regina Gagnier suggests, despite the fact that some recent works address the effects of gender on humour, “historically theorists of humour have been men, and they have seldom considered the role of gender in humor” (136). Barreca also asserts that male theorists such as Freud and others before him misinterpreted the specificity of women’s humor as humourlessness: “What early theorists like Freud failed to understand is that women do not lack a sense of humour; they just find different things funny” (qtd. in Bennett 37).

      There has been a long-standing claim against feminists’ lack of a sense of humour. As Barreca argues, the belief that women lack a sense of humour is specific to men only, since “women typically have hidden this trait from men in order to appear traditionally ‘feminine.’” Accordingly, she emphasises that “it is no secret to women that women have a sense of humor” (Snow White 103). Thus, a theory of women’s humour is indeed necessary to analyse the true nature of the humour in the works of female writers and to prevent misinterpretations of such texts. As Gail Finney sums up, in addition to Judy Little’s work, the works of Walker, Barreca, Gillooly, Sochen, and Zita Dresner have “effectively exploded the myth that women have no sense of humour” (1).

The comedy present in Pym’s work holds a special place in literature and can be classified as high comedy.3 Mason Cooley names “realism and comedy” amongst the most significant ingredients of her fiction (“Barbara” 384). Her specific type of comedy is mostly marked by indirectness and subtlety. While mainly rendering the lives and traditions of middle-class ordinary people, Pym depicts them and the human condition as “shot through with the antic spirit of comedy” (Cooley “Barbara” 384). By experience, Pym was entirely familiar with the conventions and traditions of the middle classes. Her awareness of the nature of middle-class culture and mentality significantly contributed to her detailed descriptions of middle-class life and people. Moreover, the Pyms were closely associated with the church and the vicarage, or “the vicar and curates” (Long 3).4

Pym’s novels STG, EW, and JP were published in 1950, 1952 and 1953, respectively, by Jonathan Cape. Following the publication of her sixth novel No Fond Return of Love, a prolonged period of negative critical responses to Pym’s novels began with the publication of her novel An Unsuitable Attachment. This period lasted for fourteen years. Despite suffering from depression and a lack of self-assurance, Pym continued writing several novels including an unpublished academic novel, and The Sweet Dove Died. Pym’s unpublished works were only published after Lord David Cecil and Phillip Larkin in the Times Literary Supplement in 1977 “named her one of the nation’s most underrated novelists” (Bentley et al. 286). Since then, various articles, books and dissertations have been written about her novels.5

      Published in 1950, STG was Pym’s first novel. Her first experience as a novelist was generally favoured by critics and the critical reviews were mostly approving. Some critics connect this novel with the English sense of humour and traditional comedy. Being narrated from an omniscient point of view, the novel, in Long’s words, is “modestly voiced yet sharply focused” (14). STG is mostly considered as one of the most humorous novels of Pym. According to Long, it comprises Pym’s “characteristic ironies, ambivalences, and sense of the ridiculous,” displaying a humour coloured with “gentle malice” (Long 15). Her wit was considered to be subtle and indirect. Long argues that after STG, Pym began to “focus [on] her comic vision” (8). According to Cooley, the novel helped to establish Pym as a successful writer of comedy whose domain extends from “farce to the rarefied mental acrobatics of high comedy” (“Barbara” 367). Pym’s thoughtful employment of wit, as well as the attentive application of comic tactics and strategies contributes to the reversal and parodying of “literary convention” (“Barbara” 367). Critics generally agree that this novel subverts the romantic plot. Cooley, who studied Pym’s СКАЧАТЬ