Trust does an excellent job showing the readers what the perception of women was in the 20th century. It’s also interesting to note that both men twisted reality in their books to fit the perception of Mildred that they wanted to be seen. Vanner does this by making Helen(Mildred) seem like she is falling into insanity and once this happens she is under Benjamin’s(Andrew’s) control. Readers see this in the fact that Benjamin is the one who decides he doesn't like the care she is receiving at the Switzerland institution and pulls her out for his treatment (Diaz, 113-120). However, as shown in Mildred’s portion readers know she was more in control of her illness than her husband. She even states,” Should’ve done as many times before: nudge him gently enough in the right direction so he could believe he was in command” (Diaz, 368). This shows Benjamin wasn’t in control of the treatment like Vanner suggested. Andrew does a very similar thing intending to present the watered-down version of his wife. While talking to Ida he even states, “We ought to convey Mildred’s lovely softness with a bit more emphasis” (Diaz, 286). In this Andrew is saying he’d like to focus more on Mildred's qualities that are stereotypically woman over her intelligence which is seen in her writings. Both men bend reality to make Mildred less than she was so she would fit into the box of a woman in the 20th century.
I agree with your statements that in the novel women are reduced to surface level characteristics and are not viewed as anything of substance. I think it is important to note that the women mentioned in your response are often described by their emotional and mental conditions. As seen in Vanner's section, Helen is mostly mentioned in relation to her mental state, her health rapidly declines, and she must be sent to an institution. Yes, she does have social gatherings and passions as her illness develops, but these efforts are diminished considering her condition. Past this, Benjamin is always her savior. Vanner paints a picture that Helen is helpless on her own and she would be worse off, more than she is at the end of the section, if she did not have Benjamin to advocate for her and maintain her well-being. To Vanner, women are no more than their emotions and mental condition, which are only supported, never diminished, by men. Likewise, in Bevel’s memoir Mildred is reduced to surface level characteristics such as “warm” and “kind,” which you mentioned. In regard to Mildred, I also think it is important to note that she had great depth. In Ida’s section, she remarks to herself that Mildred was well surrounded by accomplished individuals, she writes, “The conductor Bruno Walter comes by with some frequency. So do violinists Fritz Kresiler and Jascha Heifetz. Pianists Artur Schnabel and Moriz Rosenthal. Composers Ernest Bloch, Igor Stravinsky, Amy Beach, Mary Howe, Raimund Mandl, Ottorino Respighi, and Ruth Crawford are among the names I can make out” (296). Obviously, Mildred has a deep passion for and has vast knowledge about the arts if she can surround herself with these individuals with frequency. Despite this, Andrew is unable to make any comments about her interactions with these people or her passion for the arts and asks Ida to fabricate stories about her. This is just another instance of men depreciating women and not giving them the credit they are due. Overall, while the novel highlights the stories of many women, none of them are accurately portrayed, besides possibly Ida. Ida can tell her own story, but many men in her life influence her, which could play a large part in her decision making and personality. Therefore, Ida may not be the truest version to herself. Regardless, women are not afforded the depth, personality, and complexity they are due and are reduced under the weight of the patriarchy.
The perceptions of women we see throughout the novel reflect our patriarchal society’s eagerness to force women into subservience. This is especially evident in Varner and Bevel’s portrayal of Mildred and precisely described by Ida’s realizations about her real story. As you mentioned, Varner chose to portray Helen as disturbed, as if she had become “increasingly lost in the new tyrannical architecture of her brain”, that she was driven mad. She’s described as tormented and prone to self-destruction. Varner writes, “She never stopped scratching the oozing blisters as she stood there gaunt and abstracted”, it was only after Rask had bore witness to Helen’s self-inflected wounds did he “understood the turmoil within [her]”(101). By describing Helen in this way Vanner takes Mildred's life into his own hands, altering her truth and leading people to believe that she was sick. Later in the novel, Ida reveals that Mildred is nothing like Helen, the mentally unsound disturbed woman who was based on her. As Ida continues to dig through the logs and journals of Mildred's Archive. Mildred's story is once again mishandled, this time by her own husband, in Andew Bevel’s memoir. His effort to portray her as a sweet and respectable trophy wife was unyielding, even up to his death. He often described Mildred as reserved, almost meek” and so very fascinated by music. His statement that Mildred was like “a sweetly mischievous child” reflects how thoroughly he belittled her passion and infantized her very being. Ida discovers that Mildred's philanthropic efforts had a great impact on the music scene of New York, and she studied and understood music to a degree that demonstrated immense intellect. Her love of music was not just some silly fascination. Why do these men choose to flagrantly lie about Mildred's life? According to Ida, Vanner “broke Mildred body” and “[made] her mad” in his novel “simply because it made a better story”(245). Vanner’s portrayal of Mildred “forced her into the stereotype of fated heroines throughout history, made to offer the spectacle of their own ruin. Put her in her place”(246). By this, Ida means to say that Vanner chose to exploit Mildred’s life for his own personal gain. He minimizes her personhood, even going as far as to completely rewrite the nature of her death, which is a complete obstruction of her truth and identity because he knows it will reflect positively on his image as an author. By doing so, he renders Mildred to a subservient state, where even in her death, her may use life to serve his own aspirations. Bevel’s desire to put Mildred in her place was demonstrated by his constant infantilizing and belittling of her character. According to Ida “ he wanted to turn her into a completely unremarkable, safe character like the wives in the autobiographies of the Great Men I read…Put her in her place”(245). By this, Ida means that Bevle, like Vanner, intended to exploit Mildred's life, to force her into a stereotypical and easily digestible figure, so that he may look like a greater man. He minimizes all of Mildred's complexities, her passions, and even her life’s work, to ensure that nobody could beg the question: was his wife smarter than him? Mildred once again, is forced into this subservient role where she downplayed ten-fold in order to uphold a man’s self-centered aspirations.
Trust does an excellent job showing the readers what the perception of women was in the 20th century. It’s also interesting to note that both men twisted reality in their books to fit the perception of Mildred that they wanted to be seen.
ReplyDeleteVanner does this by making Helen(Mildred) seem like she is falling into insanity and once this happens she is under Benjamin’s(Andrew’s) control. Readers see this in the fact that Benjamin is the one who decides he doesn't like the care she is receiving at the Switzerland institution and pulls her out for his treatment (Diaz, 113-120). However, as shown in Mildred’s portion readers know she was more in control of her illness than her husband. She even states,” Should’ve done as many times before: nudge him gently enough in the right direction so he could believe he was in command” (Diaz, 368). This shows Benjamin wasn’t in control of the treatment like Vanner suggested.
Andrew does a very similar thing intending to present the watered-down version of his wife. While talking to Ida he even states, “We ought to convey Mildred’s lovely softness with a bit more emphasis” (Diaz, 286). In this Andrew is saying he’d like to focus more on Mildred's qualities that are stereotypically woman over her intelligence which is seen in her writings.
Both men bend reality to make Mildred less than she was so she would fit into the box of a woman in the 20th century.
I agree with your statements that in the novel women are reduced to surface level characteristics and are not viewed as anything of substance. I think it is important to note that the women mentioned in your response are often described by their emotional and mental conditions. As seen in Vanner's section, Helen is mostly mentioned in relation to her mental state, her health rapidly declines, and she must be sent to an institution. Yes, she does have social gatherings and passions as her illness develops, but these efforts are diminished considering her condition. Past this, Benjamin is always her savior. Vanner paints a picture that Helen is helpless on her own and she would be worse off, more than she is at the end of the section, if she did not have Benjamin to advocate for her and maintain her well-being. To Vanner, women are no more than their emotions and mental condition, which are only supported, never diminished, by men.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, in Bevel’s memoir Mildred is reduced to surface level characteristics such as “warm” and “kind,” which you mentioned. In regard to Mildred, I also think it is important to note that she had great depth. In Ida’s section, she remarks to herself that Mildred was well surrounded by accomplished individuals, she writes, “The conductor Bruno Walter comes by with some frequency. So do violinists Fritz Kresiler and Jascha Heifetz. Pianists Artur Schnabel and Moriz Rosenthal. Composers Ernest Bloch, Igor Stravinsky, Amy Beach, Mary Howe, Raimund Mandl, Ottorino Respighi, and Ruth Crawford are among the names I can make out” (296). Obviously, Mildred has a deep passion for and has vast knowledge about the arts if she can surround herself with these individuals with frequency. Despite this, Andrew is unable to make any comments about her interactions with these people or her passion for the arts and asks Ida to fabricate stories about her. This is just another instance of men depreciating women and not giving them the credit they are due.
Overall, while the novel highlights the stories of many women, none of them are accurately portrayed, besides possibly Ida. Ida can tell her own story, but many men in her life influence her, which could play a large part in her decision making and personality. Therefore, Ida may not be the truest version to herself. Regardless, women are not afforded the depth, personality, and complexity they are due and are reduced under the weight of the patriarchy.
The perceptions of women we see throughout the novel reflect our patriarchal society’s eagerness to force women into subservience. This is especially evident in Varner and Bevel’s portrayal of Mildred and precisely described by Ida’s realizations about her real story.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, Varner chose to portray Helen as disturbed, as if she had become “increasingly lost in the new tyrannical architecture of her brain”, that she was driven mad. She’s described as tormented and prone to self-destruction. Varner writes, “She never stopped scratching the oozing blisters as she stood there gaunt and abstracted”, it was only after Rask had bore witness to Helen’s self-inflected wounds did he “understood the turmoil within [her]”(101). By describing Helen in this way Vanner takes Mildred's life into his own hands, altering her truth and leading people to believe that she was sick. Later in the novel, Ida reveals that Mildred is nothing like Helen, the mentally unsound disturbed woman who was based on her. As Ida continues to dig through the logs and journals of Mildred's Archive.
Mildred's story is once again mishandled, this time by her own husband, in Andew Bevel’s memoir. His effort to portray her as a sweet and respectable trophy wife was unyielding, even up to his death. He often described Mildred as reserved, almost meek” and so very fascinated by music. His statement that Mildred was like “a sweetly mischievous child” reflects how thoroughly he belittled her passion and infantized her very being. Ida discovers that Mildred's philanthropic efforts had a great impact on the music scene of New York, and she studied and understood music to a degree that demonstrated immense intellect. Her love of music was not just some silly fascination.
Why do these men choose to flagrantly lie about Mildred's life? According to Ida, Vanner “broke Mildred body” and “[made] her mad” in his novel “simply because it made a better story”(245). Vanner’s portrayal of Mildred “forced her into the stereotype of fated heroines throughout history, made to offer the spectacle of their own ruin. Put her in her place”(246). By this, Ida means to say that Vanner chose to exploit Mildred’s life for his own personal gain. He minimizes her personhood, even going as far as to completely rewrite the nature of her death, which is a complete obstruction of her truth and identity because he knows it will reflect positively on his image as an author. By doing so, he renders Mildred to a subservient state, where even in her death, her may use life to serve his own aspirations.
Bevel’s desire to put Mildred in her place was demonstrated by his constant infantilizing and belittling of her character. According to Ida “ he wanted to turn her into a completely unremarkable, safe character like the wives in the autobiographies of the Great Men I read…Put her in her place”(245). By this, Ida means that Bevle, like Vanner, intended to exploit Mildred's life, to force her into a stereotypical and easily digestible figure, so that he may look like a greater man. He minimizes all of Mildred's complexities, her passions, and even her life’s work, to ensure that nobody could beg the question: was his wife smarter than him? Mildred once again, is forced into this subservient role where she downplayed ten-fold in order to uphold a man’s self-centered aspirations.