Jessa Crispin, aka Book Slut, has been writing a lot about the term “spinster” lately, and her posts have been fascinating. I saw Maleficent the other day (more to come), and I’ve been thinking a lot about it, in conjunction with Crispin’s writings on spinsters. Her posts have been a perfect supplementary text to the movie and Angelina Jolie’s performance.
In today’s post over on Book Slut, Crispin calls for a “spinster library,” books/movies that celebrate or at the very least portray the potential power of the unmarried woman. Even in something ultimately tragic like The Heiress (based on Henry James’ Washington Square) what we see is that her “spinsterhood” is actually better than the alternative she was offered, if you think about it. She is now free. It is a terrible freedom, yes, but at least she now lives in truth, at least now she can see clearly, she is free from the societal ties that bind. She had been under-estimated her whole life. She had internalized that under-estimation. But not by the end, oh boy. She finally realizes her own power. She uses it. She is free. Go read Crispin’s words, she said it better than I could.
Crispin is working on a new book and she quotes an excerpt from it, which made me think of Maleficent, again:
In Celtic fairy tales, there are two roles for women: the bride, and the hag. The bride, she is so very beautiful that men give her what she needs. She moves directly from the protection of the father to the protection of the husband. She wants not. But god, is she boring.
The hag is the rejected, ugly creature. The woman who has to make herself wise, or just passively die on the side of the road waiting for someone to offer aid. She works for what she acquires, she seeks and finds wisdom through struggle. And she may know all of the secrets and understand everything that goes on around her, including the movement of the heavens and the language of the fish in the river and which god you need to talk to for which problem, she will always be physically repulsive.
No wonder the hag is forever trying to mess with the bride. No wonder she says, “Fuck you little girl, here have a poisoned apple.” To just have the world on offer, rather than fighting and kicking and biting for it. And then to take it for granted, to just sit there waiting for it to come to you, for disrespecting it in that way, fuck that girl. Poison her, put her in a tower, pull her beautiful hair.
Saw it yesterday. Thought Angelina Jolie was simply superb. Looking forward your take.
She was absolutely awesome. Had some problems with what they did to the story itself – but she was glorious and painful and hilarious. Mean.
I hope this’ll not get out of hand – as has been the wont of do-gooders, reformers, and radical relativists since the 19th century – and lead to a theory cum movement – spinsterhoodism.
George –
Are you kidding me? That movement is long overdue. I’ll be the East Coast president of the damn thing.
I am astonished.
There is no good thing, no noble conviction – including spinster/bachelor hood – that is not ruined, does not diminish itself, does not make a joke of itself, by institutionalizing itself. I should hate to live by yet another set of rules, regulations, and precepts. Perhaps it’s different for men; perhaps women are more prone to orderliness, meetings, klatches, and things of that sort.
George – lighten up. Don’t lecture me. Jesus Christ.
and “women are more prone to orderliness”, “Klatches”?
Are you aware of how pompous you sound?
and not sure why you would be “astonished”. I’m talking about something that is quite personal to me, and also kind of amusing. Spinsters get shit done. All hail the spinster. And I am enjoying Jessa’s posts about the word spinster.
You, however, show up to worry-wart over the conversation (which, by the way, men have done about female conversations since the beginning of time) and what it will lead to (oh heavens no!) and what will happen if “spinsterhood” becomes “organized” and maybe it’s because “women like organization”.
“I hope this won’t get out of hand.” you say.
Gross, man. Gross.
I’m talking about something that is quite personal to me, and also kind of amusing.
I also find it amusing. And had attempted to comment in kind.
I am enjoying Jessa’s posts about the word spinster.
I too enjoyed it.
Are you aware of how pompous you sound?
and
Gross, man. Gross.
I’d apparently set off a nerve or two and set you rocking frantically on your hobby-horse. It was not my intention; I had not been searching for them to prod. I must learn emoticons.
I was not “rocking frantically” on a “hobby horse” – which is a condescending way to refer to someone’s emotions/opinions. I was pissed off at your pompous tone.
But there’s good will between us, and you have a history of making awesome comments. So I’ve said what I have to say.
The interview with Bruce Benderson about his book “Against Marriage” was very interesting, especially about the vanishing Spinster in film and the value of a spinster aunt. I don’t think I’ll adopt his thesis about marriage, but I agree with his observation that the gay rights movement seems to have become “let’s make it all about marriage” and that may lead to an opt-in position rather than any re-working of marriage. It destroys the opportunity that Jessa pointed out in one of the headings to the post you linked to: Being an outsider lets you acquire wisdom.
When I think of organizations I’ve joined over the years (ACLU, Amnesty Int. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRA) because I supported their missions only to become disgusted with how everything that happens in the world becomes a reason to solicit donations – I can see George’s point about institutionalization. Maybe you could start an organization with a defined end date.
George is the only one who said anything about institutionalizing anything. I was just mentioning an interesting blog-post. He’s the one who worry-warted over where it would end. I have zero interest in groups. My response to him was a joke because I was trying to lighten the mood set by his pompous comment- Unfortunately he just came back with more. Hence, our current situation.
But back to the topic at hand, which is far more interesting than some hypothetical worrying over the “organization” of spinsters and how no good can come from THAT:
Yes, that interview with Benderson was fascinating. And that was one of the things I found interesting (and sometimes frustrating) about Maleficent. I won’t go on because there will be spoilers. I do want to write something about the movie, and Jolie’s acting in general (she’s kinda awe-inspiring). But the movie plays around with these ideas – sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But it’s weirdly refreshing.
Between the time I started my post and when I hit “Post” lots of back-and-forth occurred. Not trying to stir up trouble here.
I know. This was a pretty quick derailment. No worries.
But there’s good will between us
There will always be on my part, even when you misconstrue entirely my intent.
Normally your tone has never been a problem. This time you were way way off. If that is not what you intended, then I believe you.
I’ll have to visit Book Slut more often. I also liked the post about Shirley Jackson and “We Have Always Lived In The Castle.” Much could be written about Merricat. She’s freaking scary, and a bit too easy to identify with – if you’re prone to solipsism and anti-social thoughts upon occasion.
Oh God, that book! So scary. So deadpan. I should read it again.
If that is not what you intended, then I believe you.
Thank you.
Odd (?) coincidence – Sheila, I have both your blog and Bookslut in my Feedly. Yesterday I read her post, then immediately clicked right down to your blog feed without having any idea of what I would see. SPINSTERIST. :-)
Very much looking forward to your review of “Maleficent.” I’m pretty much put off by Disney these days but I could be convinced to make an exception.
Amy – Ha! Love that – I love following Jessa on her different obsessions and trains of thought. They always lead to interesting places.
Maleficent has one of the darkest most brutal scenes I’ve ever seen in a Disney film – it’s up there with the death of Bambi’s mother, and in many ways, worse. It happens early on and I was gut-punched by it – it haunts the rest of the film. Unfortunately – they changed Maleficent’s story a bit in the end – which is my main issue with the movie. But the middle section – the whole section where she’s the Big Baddie – is WELL worth it. Super entertaining – but also sick and twisted.
Sheila I can’t wait to see Maleficent and then read your review, it sounds fantastic! It’s funny I think about this spinster stuff a lot and I’ve been married over 30 years. I had zero friends growing up, let alone boyfriends and didn’t have either till I was in my twenties. I pretty much still thought I’d be a loner but I met my husband at about 24 and (as you know) we are still together. All my girlfriends except for one are single, and we are getting up there in age. I think they might struggle more and be lonely at times but I also think they are way more adventurous and have way more exciting lives, they all happen to be artists. I’ve never traveled alone, or did not much of anything alone since meeting my husband! Actually last week I made myself go alone to LA to see my daughter because my husband couldn’t go. I was a nervous wreck! But so proud of myself but also realized how ridiculous it was, (my husband called it getting ready for the invasion of D-day) I used to be so brave! My one friend who was with someone as long as me recently had her husband die. She is grieving of course, but also she doesn’t know how to live, at all, and really doesn’t much want to. I think I would be like this, and I argue with my husband who’s going to go first, we both know the one who goes first has it easier. I think about this spinster stuff reading Little Women too (and all your fantastic posts on it!)
// my husband called it getting ready for the invasion of D-day //
hahahahaha
So much of this stuff is just habit – you know? We get used to how we do things, however they may be. Changing it up can be totally anxiety-provoking.
// She is grieving of course, but also she doesn’t know how to live, at all, and really doesn’t much want to. //
I am so sorry to hear that about your friend. The grief/fear – that she can’t do it alone – must be crushing. But she WILL find her strength! She will!!
I am still bummed that Jo March had to get married in Little Women. I understand why she had to – but I will never approve of The Professor! Have you and I discussed this before?? What are your thoughts on Jo March, and Laurie, and The Professor, and all that? When I was a kid, I was so upset that the whole Laurie thing didn’t happen that I resented the Professor – and I’m still not crazy about the Professor (although now, being more grown-up, I can see that she and Laurie wouldn’t have worked, probably.)
But now I think that obviously – she shouldn’t have gotten married at all. I know that that was the way Alcott was leaning and was talked out of it.
Be curious to hear what you think of Maleficent. Jolie swooping through the air with her wings is pretty much to die for.
Sheila That D-Day joke got me hysterical and probably got me through it! That’s just one of the things I don’t know how I would live without, C’s sense of humor, I’m such a Gloomy Gus! But what you say about habit, that also helps, a lot! I’m not just a moron!
I never wrote in on all your posts on Little Woman, I was a shy lurker, but an avider reader! I hated the whole Laurie thing. And my first Little Woman book had pictures and The Professor had a big pot belly, was old and a big ugly beard and my little kid brain was horrified, but I never got it without the pictures too! It makes sense to me now that you say Alcott was talked into having Jo marry The Professor, something about that just didn’t fit!
Regina –
// the Professor had a big pot belly, was old and a big ugly beard and my little kid brain was horrified, //
Me too. I have never been reconciled to that – Jo so clearly doesn’t NEED a husband. And why, Jo, why are you marrying HIM? Clearly I am still not over it.
I haven’t seen the movie. I’ve seen the preview a couple of times. The first time I saw it was in a theater with a ton of little kids, including my own. The freaky preview ended and my boys said:
“I am NOT seeing that.”
“Seriously. No way.”
And then a half dozen little girls started crying.
Kate – hahahahaha I can just see that at the preview!
There were a ton of kids at the show I went to – and I have no idea how it played for them. But the moment I mentioned – the brutal moment – was too raw and painful for ME to deal with, so I have no idea what it was like for the kids to see it.
I miss you – let’s reconnect soon.