First, I’ll own
that I have not finished The Seamstress
yet—with about fifty pages left, I admit that my thoughts may change by the end
of the text, though I somehow doubt they will alter much (based on perusal of
chapter titles and illustrations). That
said, what I find disturbing in Reynolds’s text so far is the depiction of
Julia Barnet and what I wager is the author’s inherent slut-shaming in her
depiction. Julia, from Reynolds’s
description, fits “a splendid specimen of woman in the perfection of her vital
system” (19), a characterization that we must remember Reynolds himself
creates. The author further notes that
“her charms were wholly of a physical nature, blending not in the slightest
degree with the softer fascinations which denote the angelic nature of the sex
in general.” What troubles me about Julia’s
overall description—beautiful, stately, not quite intelligent, immoral—is the
imposition of a particular patriarchal moral dictate on her character and the
use of the virginal Virginia (with that heavy-handed moniker) as her foil.
Consider the
later scene written as the two friends take their tea together: “The one was the personification of a
luxurious sensuousness; the other was the impersonation of the tenderest
sensibilities” and so on culminating in Julia’s depiction as post-Edenic Eve
and Virginia as Eve “before the forbidden fruit had stained the virginal purity
of her lips” (36). But here’s the
thing: if Julia embodies the fallen Eve,
then she also embodies the very fruit itself because, through her own
narrative, it is Julia who opens Virginia’s eyes to knowledge of good and
(mostly) evil. I still obviously need to
think through this more, but must Julia’s situation be one of shame implied in
her need to “whisper” that she has lost her virtue (39)?
Great title. Reynolds definitely leans hard on the concept of sexual virtue in characterizing Virginia, and so Julia functions as an equally emphatic foil. On the other hand, she does speak with the voice of the author when she dissects the economic system that impoverishes Virginia. I have to admit that I love the fact that a prostitute serves as an economic expert (especially in contrast to Gaskell and her disclaimer that she knows nothing about political economy). But you're definitely right that Julia is stereotyped and slut shamed rhetorically.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed your post and was struck by the same issue. Reynolds certainly makes his position as a proponent of sexual virtue quite clear. To pick up on Dr. Rosenman's response, I would like to make a small assertion. In addition to speaking with economic authority, Julia seems, at least to me, to function as a metaphor for the prostitution industry, broadly speaking. As we end the novel, we see that Julia's companion is thrown into gaol. Julia then "found her way back to England, [and] has added another to the frightful catalogue of lost females who ply their loathsome trade in the streets of London" (111). One can almost imagine Julia as a machine continually manufacturing sexual favors whether she wishes to or no.
ReplyDelete