Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Dedalesther

So far a lot of people have been talking about the connections between Esther Greenwood and Holden Caulfield, which makes sense. After all, the two characters have very similar experiences of alienation in New York City at around the same time, and they describe many of the same problems. However, I also think it might be worth looking at the ways in which Esther compares to Stephen from Portrait, because despite their different settings I think their personalities have a lot in common. More specifically, both of them are academic prodigies who must find a way to reconcile themselves to the end of their formal education, and the social independence to come. In particular, they are different from Holden in that both struggle more (or at least tell us more about their struggles) with their internal identity than with the failings of the outside world.

It would be an understatement to say that Esther and Stephen have difficult relating to the people around them. Neither character is able to have anything like an easy rapport with even their supposed friends -- Esther seems to have nothing to say to Betsy and is mostly interested in Doreen as an observer, while Stephen mostly takes social interaction as an opportunity to lecture (at least once he's grown up). Both of them yearn for a real connection with others, but have difficulty expressing their "true" selves, in part because they are afraid of the social consequences of revealing their reservations about the conservative society around them. Together with the fact that writing is what has always come naturally to them and what has earned them praise since they were young, this perceived inability to express themselves authentically to others may be what leads them to seek expression through art, and to identify themselves as artists.

Despite the probable similarities in motivation for Stephen and Esther to identify as self-consciously "artistic," the ways in which the two characters express this identity are remarkably different. The obvious example is the fact that Joyce feels free to proclaim his character as an artist in the very title of his book, and to draw connections with such famous artists as Lord Byron and Dedalus. His belief in his own nature is expressed loudly and ecstatically, on almost every page of the last few chapters, and the book closes with Stephen at the cusp of finally living up to the ideal to which he has compared himself for the entire novel, with fully-defined aesthetic beliefs and the journal entries which presumably began the process of writing Portrait itself. By comparison, Esther is much more hesitant to call herself a poet. Despite having created what appears to be a much larger body of work than Stephen's by the time of The Bell Jar, and clearly harboring the desire and talent to write professionally, she has difficulty seeing herself outside of the preconceived "figs" for which she has been prepared. In contrast to Stephen's driving devotion to poetry, Esther's dreams seem to take one of two: either she gives up literature entirely to live as a housewife, or she is allowed to engage with it only the academic setting, as a professor writing long essays about Joyce (interestingly enough). Unlike Stephen, who feels empowered to do as he pleases, and define himself however he wants, Esther feels hemmed in by existing norms. While her collapse towards the end of the book is probably attributable to many causes, one of the biggest must be her inability to imagine a future in which she actually gets to do the one thing she actually wants to do, and the way in which her very ability to do so is slowly taken from her as she loses her ability to read and write.


4 comments:

  1. I think it is important that you point out that Esther, when compared to Stephen feels much less comfortable placing herself in the role of artist. Esther is much more focused on poems as a way to create success for herself. She mentions writing for class--winning awards for her poetry etc. I think a large part of Esther's difficulty in viewing herself as an artist come from her gender. In Esther's world, for a smart women like her, the clear way to move forward is to be successful in the very typical sense. Esther feels strongly that she should enter various institutions (academia, publishing) that have established clear hierarchies and paths to success. The idea, for her, of writing poetry for the sake of art and creation is utterly foreign. As a women in her time, she does not have the luxury of considering alternate paths to success (to even be eligible to succeed seems to Esther, more than she could ask for).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think, in comparing Esther to Stephen, it's important to consider the genders of the two (like Simone already did, but what the hell). At the end of Portait, we're confronted with a confident young artist with fully realized artistic ideals and an adaptable plan for the future. In contrast, perhaps the defining feature of The Bell Jar is the bell jar that Esther finds herself trapped within–there is no such thing as an adaptable plan, she has to pick a fig and stick to it. Not only that, but the world is physically a lot more dangerous for Esther, because she's a woman. Esther couldn't have done half the things that defined Stephen's character, she could never walk the streets of Boston like Stephen does Dublin. Moving to Europe would be nigh-inconceivable because of the risk. Plus, even if she did all of that, even if she came up with brilliant aesthetic philosophy and wrote amazing poetry, who, in the context of 1950s America, would listen to her? They mostly didn't even read the book, as great as it is, until the 70s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I probably should have emphasized the gender difference more in my post, since I think that's probably the biggest reason why Esther feels so much less confident in her identity. On the other hand, I think people tend to exaggerate just how physically constrained Esther is by her gender -- at one point she feels totally comfortable taking a Holden-esque 48-block walk from Lenny's apartment to the hotel in the middle of the night. Maybe it's not a smart decision, but with the exception of the Marco incident there isn't much to suggest that she really has much physically to be scared of. She's a much bigger danger to herself than anyone else is.

      Delete
  3. It's interesting because your post made me realize the little thought I've put into attempting to understand Esther as an "artist." Part of this -- as you point out -- is because of her own hesitancy to call herself an artist but I also think I have to admit to somewhat dismissing Esther as an artist myself in the beginning of the novel. Simone mentioned something about how her "writing poetry for the sake of art and creation" is utterly foreign to her; while I don't think I would go so far as to say that -- because she has a genuine impulse to write eg. in physics class -- I did a get a sense that at least in some of the writing she shared publicly she still wasn't expressing her true self. Beyond that, I'm not so sure I agree that being a poet was the one thing she actually wanted to do (at least in the beginning). I personally interpreted her crying while getting her photo taken posing as a poet as indicative of how she can foresee the bell jar, this sick isolation, present even in what potentially most fulfills her. Unlike Stephen, she doesn't see art as holding the ability to "save" her nor does she ultimately adopt the perception that isolation is necessary, still fearing the bell jar. I think a lot of this is because Stephen has formed the perception of art and truth as absolute and in this way he is able to see himself as having a true self mirrored in this absolute. Through her art however, Esther only sees herself as she feeling in the moment, instead of an ideal true self she can understand,she ultimately accepts the coming and going of the bell jar. I don't want to dwell on the Stephen's whole idea of moving from lyrical, epical, to dramatic art too much but arguably Esther's hesitancy to call herself an artist is derived from her lack of concern with achieving some ideal relationship with the audience, embracing "lyrical art." Perhaps this serves to undermine Stephen's ultimate conclusion.

    ReplyDelete