The House of Mirth

In class last Wednesday, we discussed Lily's Bart's ability to transcend the male gaze because the novel is primarily from her point of view. Because readers can hear Lily's rationale and skills for manipulating the men around her, they assume she actually has control over them. However, I contend that although Lily plays into the gaze, she is ultimately controlled by it because she lives in such a patriarchal society. Rather than giving her power, Lily’s hyper awareness of how she appears to others controls her entire characterization.

Readers are first introduced to Lily’s “carefully-elaborated plan” in Grand Central Station (27). She seems to radiate beauty and prestige, providing a stark contrast to the “dinginess, the crudity of this average section” (27). However, Lawrence Selden observes that “she must have cost a great deal to make, that a great many dull and ugly people must, in some mysterious war, have been sacrificed to produce her” (27). Readers trust Selden because he is not confused or blinded by wealth and money. Although he is clearly tempted by Lily’s beauty, he understands that they could not marry. Furthermore, Selden is the only character Lily trusts to be honest with her. Because Selden is not wealthy, Lily does not need to impress him or perform for him the way she does for the more aristocratic characters. The vast discrepancy between the way Lily behaves with Selden and how she performs with other characters highlight her inferiority to them, rather than her control.

As the novel progresses, Lily’s ability to manipulate the men around her diminishes. This is suggested by her interaction with Gus Trenor when she is locked in his house. Here Lily is implicitly stuck under Gus’ gaze and has no hope of manipulating it. The narrator vividly describes, “Over and over her the sea of humiliation broke – wave crashing on wave so close that the moral shame was one with physical dread” (149). Wharton’s use of drowning to represent Lily’s demise acutely highlights the loss of any agency she previously had. No longer is her beauty a commodity, but rather a curse. Wharton suggests that Lily cannot manipulate the male gaze because she has not yet been purchased into the system. Instead, she is in debt to those who have allowed her to exist in their society. Although Gus Trenor obviously is too aggressive with her, the pseudo-rape is a sadistic representation of Lily’s refusal to play by the rules of aristocratic society.

At the close of the novel, readers must ask themselves if her suicide (depending on how you read it) was avoidable. I believe that Lily’s demise occurred when she met with Gus Trenor. In this sense, metaphorically Trenor and the conventions of society actually killed Lily. I think Book II is merely insight into the loss of innocence that drowned Lily.

Nouveau Riche in Modern Day

I was really interested in reading the article Leah posted after reading her response. I think both Leah and the author aptly pointed out that our conventions of wealth are utterly skewed. A forty foot yacht is nothing compared to a 200 footer and what is a prop plane when your neighbor has a transcontinental jet. Leah point that "no matter what occurs the standard which is used to measure social status will always be obnoxious, whether it's based on family history or how much money you spent on a car that you don't drive, but leave in the drive-way for everyone else to see" stresses how fickle class actually is.

This past summer I worked at the pearl, one of the restaurants the Times author mentions. She contends that this is where the new money people go to "show off their wealth to each other." While I agree that the ostentatiousness of the nouveau riche is striking, I do not think that the old money can get off scot-free. For the past 50 years Nantucket has definitely been a "castle with a moat around it." However, the true Nantucketers are those that live there year round, not the ones that have had houses there for 50 years. I understand that this article is about the unabashedly showy wealth on the island, but I am not sure that those with old money are all that different from the newcomers. They all still want to join new yacht clubs, go to the nicest restaurants, and live in the most exclusive parts of the island. I can safely say I did not see one person in a Juicy Couture velour track suit this summer and I don't think that will ever change. Both the new and old money want Nantucket to remain a pristine and exclusive island. I think it is safer to say that those with enough money to pay for membership are welcome to join the party, regardless of whether their fortunes come from Yankee Candle or Goldman Sachs.

I do not pretend to say that I did not have to deal with some people I never wanted to see again in my life. I am not naive enough to think that they were all lovely people who had never lied, cheated, or stole to get ahead. The most important thing I learned this summer was that no matter who I was serving, I had to smile and wait on them without question. Chances are, they would leave the table and I would never see them again. However, it was people that made me feel as though I was their equal that I do remember.

I know this is quite tangental, but in hopes of tying this together, I will conclude with as much of a moral as I can. Up to a certain point, more money can make you happier. I do not think that can be argued. I cannot say however, that more money can or should change the way you treat people. New money, old money, it doesn't matter. No amount of money changes who are and where you came from, that I am sure of.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/NANTUCKET-FINAL.html?scp=7&sq=Nouveau%20riche&st=Search

The Great Recession of 2009

"Perhaps because the process of his ruin had been so gradual, perhaps because the excitement of preceding events had exhausted their capacity for emotion, the actual consummation of his bankruptcy brought a relief, a repose to Lapham and his family, rather than a fresh sensation of calamity"

The Rise of Silas Lapham, 351

As I was reading The Rise of Silas Lapham, I couldn’t help but notice the striking similarities between the Lapham’s rapid plunge into poverty and the millions of family in the United States that lost their wealth in the recession of 2009.

For the majority of investors, their money was lost not because of foolish investments by individuals, but by greedy companies. In Howells novel, there is a stark divide between greed and ethics, which can be traced using the symbol of the house. Often these corporations took advantage of hardworking American citizens. In the novel, Silas assumed he would be successful by investing in stocks. However no longer do individuals usually invest in the stock market. Instead their funds are now in the hands of these corporations whom they trust to take care of their money. When these investment companies failed, people were left stunned and unable to adjust. I also like the catharsis suggested in this passage. Because the family never could perform as well as the upper class, they degradation was less severe. Readers are left feeling that they might be better off. However, this is problematic because it suggests that only those with “old money” can ever survive in the upper class.

The Rise of Silas Lapham and New Money

Much of our discussion of William Dean Howells’ The Rise of Silas Latham was focused on the upper class’ ability to act, while the rising middle class has no knowledge of the correct ways to behave. Despite their best efforts, the Lapham family cannot perform. Although the Coreys do not have as much money, they are considered aristocrats because they know how to behave properly. Howells suggests that the upper echelons of society are not merely cost prohibitive, but also impermeable for individuals that do not know the correct performances.

Although it is redeeming that Silas Lapham is one of the few authentic characters in the novel, he recognizes that he cannot be a gentleman. Thus despite his wealth, Silas fails to be accepted by families like the Coreys. For example, at the party at the Coreys Silas gets overly drunk and likes like a fool in front of all the wealthy Boston families. He laments, “I was the only one that wasn’t a gentleman there…I showed that I wasn’t fit to go with you” (209). Silas’ is unable to control his intoxication. This suggests that he is not a stereotypically masculine man. His efforts are thwarted by his inability to dress well and his characterization as a “light weight.”

The barriers between old money and new money also confuse Penelope. Like Silas, she is sensitive to the feelings of others. However, she is more outspoken and unafraid to be genuine with members of the upper class. Penelope explains to Tom Corey, “It isn’t anything they say or do…It’s what they are. I couldn’t be natural with them, and if I can’t be natural with people, I’m disagreeable” (357). Penelope recognizes that she would have to perform to be accepted by the Corey family. However, she fails to realize that “what they are” is a parody of old English aristocracy. Everything they “say and do” is disingenuous. Penelope evolves into the heroine of the novel because she appeals to the wealthy Mr. Corey. I found this to be reminiscent of Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Because Elizabeth can maintain her outgoing nature while being irresistible to Darcy, she moderates between the upper and lower classes.

After finishing the novel, I had to ask myself whether it is better to live a performance as an aristocrat or be constantly striving for acceptance in the bourgeoisie. I think the rising middle class solved this by refusing to emulate the upper class. Instead, they developed their own form of cultural capital that the aristocracy was forced to accept and mimic.

The $30,000 Bequest

Last semester we read “The $30,000 Bequest” by Mark Twain and focused much of our conversation on Twain’s use of flipping to juxtapose two binaries. In doing so, we were forced to recognize our preconceived notions of stereotypes. This was especially exacerbated by the inversion of traditional male and female roles in “The $30,000 Bequest.” Aleck’s abilities with finance and emotional control are highlighted against Sal’s propensity to spend and mood swings. Moreover, the reversal of names forces readers to pause their reading and recall who is who. Although the inversion of gender roles is not a main theme of the novel, it assists readers in understanding the dichotomy of reality and fantasy.

Sal acts in traditional feminine ways in his emotiveness, while Aleck is stoic and almost unfeeling. His physically at times can make readers uncomfortable. For example after Aleck invested a thousand dollars, “Sally kissed her half a dozen times and even in that way could not express all his joy and thankfulness…and before she could restrain herself she made her darling another grant… The happy tears sprang to Sally’s eyes.” I had to reread this a few times to grasp which character was being so unnecessarily emotional. The fact that I was uncomfortable with male emotionality disturbed me because I consider myself to be very open to different concepts of gender. Yet Twain characterizes Sal and Aleck in a humorous way that allows readers to question gender stereotypes in a non-combative and critical manner. I do not contend that inverted gender roles are unfathomable to the point of being humorous. Instead, the way Twain makes light of their relationship inevitably makes light of our conception of gender.

I agree that the juxtaposition of male and female helps to enlighten the dichotomy of reality and fantasy. As we stop to notice whom is talking, we also must concentrate on whether or not the characters are existing in reality or a fantasy the Fosters have created. Because the gender dynamic is so obvious, the sense of lost reality is also heightened. By the end of the story, Sal and Aleck no longer have identities. Instead the lines that construct gender are blurred and eventually nonexistent in the same way the division of reality and fantasy are blurred to the point of destruction.

The $30,000 Bequest

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/

SaveMoney/8lotteryWinnersWhoLostTheirMillions.aspx

After reading "The $30,000 Bequest," I was struck by how elusive wealth can be. Although Sal and Aleck Foster often dreamed of what they would do with their money, the money never materialized and so their dreams never came to fruition. However, it is evident that if the money arrived, it would have corrupted them. This is suggested by the fact that Sal has "perfect and pathetic trust, and [Aleck] holding Sal by a thread" can complete control over their relationship. Previously, they had never hide anything from one another. Because they never had wealth to be extravagant with, they do not know how to behave correctly.

This encouraged me to think about the stories of lottery winners who lose all their wealth. In the article above, Evelyn Adams explained how she lost all of her wealth after winning the lottery twice. Because she had never had money, she did not know how to manage her new riches.

The theme of the “nouveou riche” not being capable of acting the right way has been important in our readings thus far this semester. In the Foster’s imagination they were admired and revered by their community. Similarly, Silas Latham was sure that his family was in the same social circles as the Corey family. Those with new wealth desire to appear as wealthy as those with “old money,” yet often do it in a gaudy or ostentatious way. This begs the question of who decides what is the correct cultural capital. Is it the media that shows fancy cars and huge houses? Or celebrity magazines that highlight clothing and traveling? Regardless, only those with money have a voice and power to dictate what wealth, as we know it, looks like.

A Look Inside America's Poorest County

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133734396

This NPR article from 2011 examines a Sioux reservation in South Dakota where the unemployment rate swells to 90 percent in the winter months. The article focuses on the fact that poverty has been a constant here for generations, leaving the residents without tangible hope for a better future. Despite government assistance, the reservations economy remains poor. Furthermore, 60 years ago a dam that was built on the Missouri River lead to flooding, which destroyed 100 acres of Sioux farmland. Reparations for these damages have yet to be paid.

The vast differences in wealth among Americans is not a new phenomenon. The moral and physical decay in Stephen Crane's Maggie are not so different then those in Ziebach County. However, the fact that we have not learned and changed the way we respond to impoverished sectors of our society is startling. While I cannot offer a fail proof solution to poverty in America, it is evident that the increasing divide between rich and poor highlights structural problems with the government.

Maggie

In Stephen Crane's novella "Maggie," the author discourages readers from sympathizing with the characters through his use of character descriptions and stark imagery. Instead, readers are distanced from their plight and forced to see the universality of the destruction in the tenements in a critical manner, thus eliciting a desire for change.

Crane’s characters do not display conventional human emotions that readers can relate to. Instead, they are hardened and cruel to such a level that their actions cannot by sympathized with, but must be critiqued. For example, Jimmie’s incapability to be kind makes him seem inhuman. After Tommie’s death, Jimmie “studied human nature in the gutter and found it no worse than he thought he had reason to believe it. He never conceived a respect for the world, because he had begun with no idols that it had smashed” (12). By denying Jimmie humanity, readers must judge his actions using a different and broader lens. The judgment thus cannot merely be what we as readers think is right or wrong, but must be what is moral and ethical. We are denied the ability to be passive readers and instead implicated to become jurors. After this passage, Jimmie is referred to by name less. His complacency with his moral degradation is thus not a character flaw of an individual, but an epidemic of all tenement dwellers.

The descriptions of the tenement are extremely vivid in order to place readers in an area that they have never nor will ever visit. The physical decay of the dwellings also serves to represent the moral decay of the citizens. Chapter two begins with the description, “A wind of early autumn raised yellow dust from cobbles and swirled it against a hundred windows” (4). The yellow dust serves as a reminder of city’s grime. The windows may represent the citizens of the tenements. This description highlights that they are forgotten and eventually lost in the vastness of the city. Crane’s description forces readers to recognize this, therefore bringing the need for reform to the forefront of readers’ minds.

Today, pictures and videos can be used to highlight the devastation in cities. Yet so much distance is created between the viewer and the picture that it can become difficult to critique our society. It becomes almost overwhelming to comprehend that citizens of our own country can exist like that. The strength of Crane’s novella comes from his ability to describe people and places and force readers to criticize how they have evolved.