AFTER you watch the video, answer the following question as a COMMENT below: "Since many women in the early 19th century tried to hide their identity as a woman by adopting a male name, or writing more 'male' stories, how do you think colonial writers did the same? That is, how did they hide their colonial identity in writing to sound more 'English'? What might they have had to hide, or ignore, or not reveal as a writer? (This will count toward your participation grade, since I can no longer take roll or have you discuss the works in class).
BE SURE to read the first three Mansfield stories and answer the questions in the post below no later than Friday! E-mail me with any questions or concerns. Look forward to hearing from you!
Enter comments here! :)
ReplyDelete1. I think that the same reason of why we feel isolated in society is the same reason that the characters in Mansfield stories feel isolated as well. We may try as hard as possible to fit in with society and just never get to that point with others. Most of that stems from our own personal endeavors. We may try to put ourselves out there and interact with people in our society but there is just something inside that will not let us feel happy. I think that this is where a lot of depression stems from.
Delete2. I think that the father in this story is like Heathcliff in the fact that they both realize the amount of power that they have, and they don’t necessarily use it for good. The way that Heathcliff uses his power to manipulate people is the same way that I see the fathers manipulate the daughters. The daughters know that their father loves them so why would they question his actions? This sounds familiar to me as we also see shades of this with Heathcliff and Katherine.
Isaac Bellinger
DeleteThey had to change the way that the sounded because just their original self would not have sold books. They had to make up this whole new persona of themselves so that they would be looked at as an entirely new person. People did not want to hear the things that took place in their everyday life so they had to spice it up a little bit.
DeleteIsaac Bellinger
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteCarla Torres:
ReplyDeleteI think woman in the early 19th century tried to hide their identity for numerous reasons. The main one is that woman in the 19th century would not receive the same attention as men if they were writers. The women of the time would use other names or try to change their name like Katherine Mansfield did to try to hide their identity. The women would try to hide their identity by trying to sound more 'English' by changing their names many times. The women in the 19th century would have to hide their name while writing because women writing was not acceptable at the time.
Great response...and even today, many writers employ pen names to change their identity and the very perception of their writing. An English reader of the late 19th century would have a hard time taking a colonial writer seriously, since they couldn't use the "Queen's English" properly (as they called it). In these stories, Mansfield starts to flirt with the idea of writing from a colonial perspective, using the speech and dialect of her youth. That's why we need so many footnotes!
DeleteThere are several things that could reveal a colonial identity that many writers in this time had to avoid, if they wished to sound "English". Many of these aspects would likely be related to upbringing. One could not reveal what his or her childhood was like, so these details cannot be incorporated into a story. The writer would also not be able to reveal his or her specific religion. Really, it seems that for someone to hide his or her colonial identity, the author would essentially have to omit every piece of information that indicates where he or she was raised. There also may have been a shift in attitude while writing to seem more 'English'. I'd imagine writers with this goal would want to be read as strong and sensible, so they would have to write as such.
ReplyDeleteYes, great response; another colonial writer once said that the English would police the speech of colonials, and "pounce" if they used dialect or slang. There used to be the idea that English should all sound standard, with no sense of who was writing it, whether man or woman, English or Indian, etc. Today we celebrate the stamp of diversity, but this was very frowned upon in Mansfield's day. She's one of the first to play with the idea of writing from a colonial perspective. American writers did this with regionalism, but America was different...class wasn't as demarcated here, since we were a colony ourselves.
DeleteCallie Farley:
ReplyDeleteWomen during the 19th century had to hide their true identity because of the often racist and misogynistic ways of the British Empire. This was especially essential if you were a colonial writer. Many of the women of colonial England would have to change their names to sound more English rather than colonial. Sometimes they would even have to make their names sound more manly so that nobody knew that they were women. As colonial writers it would have been to their advantage to be able to travel to England so that they could accurately depict life there. It would've have also been important that they didn't sound too colonial.
Great response...and something to consider is, what would it mean to "sound" colonial? As you read Mansfield, ask yourself what words or passages don't make perfect sense to you. Could this be her colonial background slipping out? When does she use colonial slang and references in her stories, esp. At the Bay?
DeleteWomen during the 19th century really had no other choice other than to hide their identities because of the history of female vs male writers. Women had to tarnish their entire identity, beliefs, upbringing, etc. just to get their writings out there. Women changing their names, and social identity was very common during the 19th century, the main thing that they changed was trying to sound “English”, this would strangers to want to read their works. Obviously, women didn’t receive the same amount of attention for their writings, even if the woman was a better writer than a man.
ReplyDeleteGreat response; and yes, the woman could kill two birds with one stone if she could have a male name/identity that also sounded more English. The biggest thing was to write use standard English and not sound too colonial...but note that Mansfield often lets her characters (esp. servants) use slang and dialect. This is similar to what Twain did in his novels, which was seen as very shocking at the time.
DeleteMany women in the 19th century were forced to hide their gender to become successful. Women writers could not get men to read their books, which is why they altered their appearances and names to become “male.” Similarly, colonial writers were able to hide their identity by “becoming” more English. They read books by British authors, and they realized that becoming British would increase their chances of creating a “known” book. Racism is one reason that colonial writers tried to hide their real identity. For example, Katherine Mansfield changed her name multiple times to fit in. By changing her name, she was able to become many different people from many different ethnicities. If colonial writers were to show their true ethnic background or gender, they would lose their credibility, which would lead to no publicist. By keeping their background to themselves, they had a chance to succeed.
ReplyDeleteGreat response...yes, hiding their ethnicity or background would have been essential to fit in. Also, not writing about colonial subjects would be important, which is something Mansfield started out doing, but as she got older, she returned to her New Zealand home. She even used local dialect, which would have been a big no-no, since English readers would have founded that really backward.
DeleteAfter learning about how women were oppressed and had to hide their gender identity in the 19th century in order to be more successful writers and gain more readers, I can definitely understand why colonial writers did something similar. As for what they concealed, I would assume that they would not be able to put too much of their own personality, views, values, religion, etc. into any of their characters or narration. And I think that this would be incredibly hard since most writers almost can't seem to help leaving traces of themselves somewhere in the work like a fingerprint. And regarding how they must have concealed these things and appeared more British, I think that they would, just as they changed their names, have to create new identities to go along with them, ones that were not colonial and that instead had British characteristics. They would have to essentially split themselves internally every time they changed their name. It's almost like being a secret agent or criminal and having a whole bunch of different passports from different countries with different personal information on each one so you can make a quick getaway if need be.
ReplyDeleteYes, great response...they basically had to make 'safe' identities to further their careers as writers. Mansfield did this initially, but gradually let down her guard as her career took off. She was one of the first writers in English to really embrace her colonial background, though a few writers, such as Kipling, had experimented with it earlier (though he was a man, so it was easier...)
DeleteIn addition to changing their name, a colonial author would have to be careful not to reveal their true ethnic identity through speech. Stories would have to omit traditional holidays or events unique to their home country. However, if they had received an 'English' education, they would be familiar with English culture. I am curious if people of French, Russian, Polish, and German backgrounds were more accepted than New Zealanders. Would that explain why Mansfield changed her name to those ethnicities? Although colonial writers had more obstacles to overcome than English writers, it seems that Mansfield struggles more with her own identity as an individual than as a colonial writer.
ReplyDeleteGreat response; language for a writer would be the largest indicator of her origin, even in the slightest turn of phrase (similar today to what we call soda, or pop determines where we're from). But yes, certain cultures were more in vogue at this time, esp. Russian and French, so masquerading as one or the other would give her a marketable foreignness. The Colonies were seen as exotic but only from an English perspective--not from their own.
Deleteabove unknown: Yolanda Helm: 1:22pm response
ReplyDeleteWe've discussed some of the surface-level tactics of assimilation that colonial writers employed to gain an English audience, like the assumption of an English-sounding name and adherence to English conventions of speech, but I think that there was probably a forced assimilation in values that cuts even deeper. It's not just that one would have to look and sound English; they would also have to somehow communicate that they were amenable to the racist and misogynistic value systems that run deep in English society.
ReplyDeleteIn doing so, one would either have to actually buy into those oppressive systems and truly become complicit in damaging oneself (internalized racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is a thing!) or maintain their own point of view and integrity somewhere deep inside while knowingly perpetuating harmful ideas. It's an impossible choice, either to be a betrayer or to knowingly assume the role of one, and I know it still happens today. For instance - many people of color with hair that does not conform to Eurocentric beauty standards have to choose between keeping their natural texture, which helps with issues of representation and is an empowering stance for the next generation, and conforming via straighteners or weaves, which protects the individual from harassment and stigma but upholds the status quo idea that Black hair is bad.
Yes, great response--this is exactly what she and so many other colonial authors were facing. As a writer, too, there was no tradition of being colonial, no models at all. And her own parents would have encouraged her to make this attempt, as would all the other writers around her. It was a big leap for her to start writing about her home, and introducing characters and language that reflected it. In a few decades, colonial writers would face added pressure from their peers who had embraced a colonial identity: writing in English would be seen as a betrayal and a tasteless concession to the colonizer. Yet many authors argued that using English was a necessary tool since it communicated to a wide audience, and you could subvert it to your own ends--in effect, hijack it! That's kind of what Mansfield did, in her modest way.
DeleteRylee Shurtleff:
ReplyDeleteWomen had to change their name, and sometimes their ethnicity, in order to even publish a piece of literature. Colonists cared about a variety of traits: social class, sex, religion, family history. It was much like your classic high school lunch room scene. Be careful where you sit because who you associate with affects your whole life. (At least that's how it feels).
I would imagine that women would also have to change their language and dialect. Say one thing wrong and it's over for you. It's sad to think that women (or anyone, for that matter) had to conform to even be considered worthy of attention. This society, like many of the ones after, only care about the status quo. I can't imagine changing who I am and how I speak just for my opinion to even be heard.
Ha, yes, good point--it was very much like a high school lunch room. And in this case, there's only one popular table, and it's very small...and you know exactly how you have to dress and act to sit there. A woman would be expected not only to write like a man (about 'male' subjects), and to suppress any sense of an outside identity. Otherwise, they would be dismissed as trivial, or ignorant. The idea that women or colonials could have something vital to say wasn't taken very seriously until later in the 20th century.
DeleteFalling in line with many of the novels and themes we've read and discussed previously in the semester, the British empire was not kind to those deemed taboo or unworthy; to elaborate, if you weren't their preferred skin color and weren't a powerful figure, then you could consider yourself unworthy in those times in the eyes of the rich and powerful. If a writer outside that criteria wished to share their work and ideas, then they will have been left no choice other than to conform both themselves and their work if they wanted to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteAny aspiring writer or artist during this time, especially if they were of colonial descent, their best chance of having themselves heard was to rid any hint of their true ethnicity and culture in their writing; instead, they would have to adapt their novel or short story to the ideas and culture preferred in the British empire. Challenging the status quo within your text was a dangerous move, and I imagine many writers were forced into rearranging or getting rid of many of their ideas for their novels if they wanted any hope in being recognized by the public.
Great response...as you suggest, adapting your identity to the status quo was essential, if dangerous, since it's a performance that had to acted with perfection. One writer said that if you didn't use the language perfectly, and predictably, you could be 'outed.' So how do you think writers hid themselves in their prose? What was the easiest--and hardest--thing to hide?
DeleteAmily Clary
ReplyDeleteWhether you were a woman or an ethnicity of a lower standing, people would not give half as much attention to these type of people. The name of a Englishman would have a much better chance of being published than the name of someone who had a female name or someone with a foreign name. Men would be more interested in a narrative that was written by a man and had the same morals that a man would assume is correct. If one wished to be published that person would have to assume the role of a person who would be of high status and to be a man. People of this time really only listened to men for several centuries. A woman would not get half as much recognition as a woman who pretended to be a man was.
Great response, and true, it would always be harder for a woman to manage the disguise than a man. Indeed, the first colonial writers to really break through were men (Mansfield slipped through by making her name with more 'English' stories, initially). In a way, she had it easier since her name sounded English enough, she was white, and she received some of her education in England. And yet, none of that would have mattered: she would forever be marked as colonial, and even a great writer such as Virginia Woolf, once wrote that she appeared "common," which was a code word for low, uncultivated, and therefore, colonial.
DeleteAs you pointed out during your lecture, once a writer identifies their ethnicity, the reader immediately classifies them by their race rather than focusing on the content of their works. If a colonial Indian were to reveal their cultural identity, then the citizens of Great Britain would have immediately dismissed the work.
ReplyDeleteWhile many Englishman and woman of the time claimed they were bringing "enlightenment" to those they colonized, they also took advantage of them by using them as slaves and saw them as "lesser beings". If a colonial were to honest about their identity as an author, they would have no chance to pursue their aspirations. Much like women, they had to adapt and transform their work so others would believe they were male or an English citizen. This included, like Katherine Mansfield, changing their name and often excluding the authenticity and experience of their own cultural practices and identity. They had to do what they could in order to release their works and attempt a career as an author in a widely racist and misogynist world.
Yes, great response--the name and appearance was everything in a racist, class-based society. So how do you change your appearance in writing? What do you think would most look or sound 'English'? If you were a colonial writer, what aspect of, say, Austen would you most want to adopt? Or Shelley or Bronte?
DeleteIn order for writers to sound more “English” than colonial, they had to study the English culture. They had to know the language and with every language comes slang words. Writers had to be aware of locations. If a writer is writing an English story and starts making up locations, the reader would become aware right away. For colonial men this would have been a lot easier because men are able to travel and study in England and other places while a woman’s only source of studying came from books. If a woman wanted to be a successful English writer without her identity being used against her, she had to educate herself about the English culture. I believe women would have interviewed or just talked to people that have had the chance to travel to England and other places to make sure their information is accurate. It’s really sad to me that not only women had to hide their gender and name but also their ethnicity in order to be successful. Women literally tried everything they could in order to be successful writers. If that’s not inspiring then I don’t know what is.
ReplyDeleteOne way that colonial authors likely concealed their identity could have been by changing their names. Without seeing a picture of the author, readers would likely not know if an author was colonial or not. One of the only indicators would have been a colonial author's name. If their name sounded foreign, then they may have had an issue with selling their stories. This could have been similar to how women changed their names to more male-sounding names. I also wonder if colonial authors made their characters have more "British" characteristics and features to conceal their identity further.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think it is interesting how Mansfield took on many different identities. It is sad that she felt the need to do so, but it is also an interesting idea. It was almost like she was conducting her own social experiment. I would be curious to know which identities she had the most success with.
Several people have mentioned that character backstory could potentially expose the authors lack of "Englishness". I agree with these sentiments, and realize that, at the very least, backstory could makes obvious the objective that the author's working away at, which would be a colonial-inspired dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that there is an overlap between the author hiding their identity and the sort of shrouding that extends into the characters on the page. Especially in a short story that, as you mentioned, is sort of a slice of life that doesn't require the same amount of explanation as in a novel. It seems a perfect place for hidden messages to be delivered.
-Bryce Clark
DeleteKurstyn Young:
ReplyDeleteI think colonial writers hid who they truly were by changing their names, and even changing their writing style to fit more into the "English" style. Both of these ways would have made it harder for the author to truly embrace what they truly meant/wanted to say. Many of these authors could have been scared that their work would have been frowned upon, since the Colonials were looked as inferior. The females struggled with this far more than men did, which is why more authors changed their names and writing styles. These women still felt that their works should be read, and had meaning to them, and the one way to do this was to do whatever they could to market the books/stories better. The writing style could have been the biggest factor for these writers, because each culture has their own way of speaking and writing, so the authors trying to embrace the "English: writing, would have to change much of what they were putting onto paper. This could have changed some of the interpretation of the stories, depending on the readers.
The colonial people had to change how they wrote in order to keep what ethnicity or background they came from. If they simply kept writing how they were supposed to they most likely wouldn't have sold as much books. Changing how they wrote also changed how the story is being told and it can be translated wrong, yet only the colonial would know. It is like how women would publish stuff anonymously, so people would read them.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, both have to change their perspectives to that of who they’re trying to take the guise of. For the sake of deception, it would be sensible to partially shirk the writing styles and developments made by authors more popular to their home country, and become much more familiar with those of Britain’s. They’d also need to practice a degree of restraint when writing of things familiar to their own cultural roots. For example, a writer from India might have to write about curry from the perspective of a conventionally British person, and ignore the cultural roots the dish holds in them personally. That being said, they could still showcase the beauty of this cultural widget and its origins without destroying the author’s jig if done so carefully.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine that you had to relinquish a lot of your common understanding in terms of familiar cultural concepts or colloquialisms. Another thing they might have had to hide was any negative opinion about England or the British Empire, since you would not want to stick out from the crowd.
ReplyDeleteBtw, this is Cody.
Delete