Lecture Notes the Yellow Wall Paper PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes by Daniel...

Description

Lecture Notes on “The Yellow Wall-Paper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman Charlotte Perkins Gilman was an American who lived from 1860 to 1935. Her first marriage ended in an amicable divorce. She went on to become a celebrated essayist and speaker and ultimately became an important early figure in American feminism. Her own experiences with post-partum depression and with Dr. Weir Mitchell”s treatment for depression lead to her determination to help women. Because of Dr. Weir Mitchell’s so-called “rest cure,” Gilman says that she “came perilously close to losing [her] mind.” Note: Dr. Weir Mitchell used a controversial treatment on women which forbade any physical activity or mental stimulation in favor of enforced domesticity In “The Yellow Wall-Paper,” the narrator’s husband threatens to send the narrator to Dr. Weir Mitchell “if she doesn’t pick up faster” (272). Many critics say this story demands a feminist approach to the text. Not only is the unnamed protagonist physically imprisoned in a comfortable, airy room, she is spiritually and emotionally confined in a male-dominated world that reduces her to childish dependence. She has no one who is truly on her side. Her husband who is also her doctor controls every aspect of her life. Even her brother—who is also a doctor—sides with her husband against her. Note that I uploaded a short essay that uses a feminist theoretical approach to analyzing the story. POINT OF VIEW Gilman uses a first person narrator. The unnamed narrator is of course the protagonist. The narrator is a bit of a paradox; as she loses touch with the outer world, she comes to a greater understanding of her inner reality. This inner/outer split is crucial to understanding her suffering. She is faced with relationships and objects that are innocent enough but are actually quite bizarre to her. We see that she is a highly imaginative young woman who remembers that, as a child, she enjoyed terrifying herself with imaginary monsters and enjoying the notion that her home was a haunted house. Yet as part of her “cure,” her husband forbids her to exercise her imagination in any way. Both her reason and her imagination rebel against this treatment, and she turns her imagination onto seemingly neutral objects such as the house and the wall-paper in an attempt to ignore her growing frustration. What do we know about her husband, John? To begin, it is worth mentioning that John would have been typical of husbands and doctors of that time period. Thus, John can be said to symbolize the patriarchy. He is controlling:  She wanted to stay in a bedroom “downstairs that opened on the piazza….But John would not hear of it.” (p. 269)  “He is very careful and loving and hardly lets me stir without special attention. I have a schedule prescription for ech hour of the day.” (p. 269) There seems to be some irony here.

He won’t allow her to see friends and family members. Her cousins aren’t welcome. He says “he would as soon put fireworks in my pillowcase as to let those stimulating people about now.” (p. 271) He is condescending: He talks to her as if she is a small child or a mentally challenged adult  Whenever she tries to exercise some kind of control over her own life, He talks down to her. “He took [her]: in his arms and called [her] a blessed little goose” (p. 270) And a bit later, he “gathers [her] into his arms….andsaid [she] is his darling and hiscomfort…” (p. 273) He blames her for her illness:  “He says no one but [herself] can help [her] out of it, that [she] must use [her] will and self-control…” (p. 273)  “Bless her little heart….she shall be as sick as she pleases!” (p. 274) He threatens her  “John says if [she] doesn’t pick up faster he shall send [her] to Weir Mitchell in the fall” The narrator fears this place: “But [she doesn’t] want to go there at all. {She] had a friend who was in his hands once, and she says he is just like John and my brother, only more so.” (p. 273) 

Hhe doesn’t listen to her and seems to abandon her. On the first page of the story we see that neither her husband nor her brother listen to her regarding her concerns surrounding the house and her illness.  “Personally, I disagree with their ideas….But what is one to do!” (p. 268). She repeats this comment several times and it emphasizes her sense of helplessness and alienation. SYMBOLISM Windows are typically a positive symbol of hope and dreams for the future. Through the window, one can see the big wide world and all that is in it. The bars over the windows represent the barriers to achieving any of the wonderful things we see and hope for. The bara represent her husband’s determination to repress her imagination and, thus, her creative spirit as well as her husband’s refusal to listen to her thoughts and feelings about her own illness.  “Out of one window I can see the garden…Out of another I get a lovely view of the bay and a little private wharf that belongs to the estate….I always fancy I see walking in those numerous paths and arbours, but John has cautioned me not to give way to fancy. He says that my imaginative power and habit of story-making, a nervous weakness of mineis sure to lead to all manner of excited fancies, and that I ought to use my will and good sense to check the tendency. So I try.” (p. 270) The house represents her lack of control over her own environment. Even in the most repressive situations, women tend to experience a sense of freedom and security as well as a sense of control when they are in their own homes. However, the unnamed narrator of this story feels none of the above. She had no input into the decision to rent this house nor does her opinion matter when it comes to the simplest decisions relating to interior decorating. Finally,

even though there were other rooms she could have been confined to, John insisted she remain in this room The wall-paper symbolizes the patriarchy and the other troubling changing forces that haunt and imprison her. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: WHO IS THE WOMAN IN THE WALL-PAPER? The woman in the wall-paper represents the narrator’s repressed inner self—her double if you like. As she tears off more and more of the wall-paper, the woman in the wall-paper is freed. Thus, her repressed self—her double—seems to merge into the narrator. Although her outer life is crumbling, she is achieving a new authenticity in her inner life. Note the “Creeping women” in the story represent all women who must be content to “creep” on the edges of society. (See the essay I uploaded that offered a feminist reading of the story.) AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NARRATOR AT THE END OF THESTORY? She experiences a psychotic break. Though she seems to feel liberated, she has lost touch with the “real” world. COMPARE WITH “A ROSE FOR EMILY” We don’t get a complete picture of either woman. In “A Rose for Emily,” we get an external perspective of Emily. We can only imagine what she might be thinking or how she might be feeling. Like the people of Jefferson, we are on the outside looking in. We don’t get a complete picture of the unnamed narrator in “The Yellow Wall-Paper” either. In this story, we are totally absorbed in her inner world, but we don’t see her relating to anyone else—with the exception of her husband and doctor. These women lived in approximately the same time period, and they both lived in America. It seems to me that that Faulkner, like Gilman, is painfully aware that the life of his protagonist would have been very different if she had grown up male. Do you think both writers use their writing to criticize the status quo—the way things are—in their respective worlds? That’s it for these two stories! Let me know if I can help. ....