The prompt for essay from ENG 216:

Choose one of the non-fictional pieces we have read so far this semester and one scene, chapter, or passage from the novel. Compare and/or contrast the way women are characterized in each, paying special attention to the assumptions each work seems to be making.Be sure that you bring your comparison to a point. You should develop an analytical claim, identify a focus for discussion, and explain why both matter. Your introduction should conclude with a statement like the following: By analyzing [name your focus], I will argue that [state your interpretive claim], which is important because [answer the “so what?”].

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

  • To what extent does its depiction of men (as sons, brothers, husbands, friends), their expectations regarding women, their conversations about them, or their behavior towards them seem connected to the legal ideal?
  • In what ways do the women in the novel seem to embody the legal idea of women as presented in our non-fictional readings? Non-fictional works include Bodichon’s Plain Summary, Cobbe’s “Criminals, Idiots, Women and Minors” and Bronte’s Preface to the novel.
  • How do the women in the novel show acceptance of or resistance to the legal ideal? If readers are supposed to side with Helen, are they also supposed to view all her actions equally favorably? To what extent does the novel endorse challenges such as hers to the law?

Google Doc copy of my essay with comments/questions as a place to continue working from:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u-HbgnKu60Bs4oyNaArJVzsArUfNxxw5R-oiwPgXeOo/edit

In thinking about what aspect of this past work I want to extend and make room for further exploration that reflects the skills I have gained since this project, I want to be able to go further in depth in the theories of other Victorian writers/thinkers for more context. By narrowing in on the conversation around marriage, which is obviously central to the legal implications Helen faces in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, can extend from my piece that argues the ideal of marriage stipulated in the law does not match reality, to one that asks why WAS this the reality? For instance, what did the parliamentary debates say on matters such as coverture? Who were the political theorists writing and speaking on this subject. In that, I can employ the work of J.S. Mill and his take on what marriage was meant to achieve and why the law had to require it in order to meet certain ends? Specifically, his arguments within his essay “The Subjection of Women.” What other systems of laws surrounding marriage had been attempted or proposed? (Extending further from Bodichon here)