Gender During The Romantic Era

952 Words2 Pages

Eliot’s overall disinterest in either of the discussed forms of over-concern with gender in regards to literature— because she didn’t consider a woman’s feminine virtue to be relevant criteria in determining the quality of a piece of literature, nor did she find the general advancement of any women’s writing to be a necessary aspect of advancing the overall status of the female gender— serves as yet another example of how this Victorian writer fits Ezell’s description of Romantic literary critics. During the Romantic era, a writer’s gender was not emphasized nearly as much as it was in the Victorian era. Regardless of the actual gender of the writer who wrote the piece of literature in question, if a writer achieved either a masculine or androgynous …show more content…

Likewise, Eliot claimed that “fiction is a department of literature in which women can […] fully equal men,” and furthermore saw the adopting of a masculine tone as a method by which such equal levels of literary merit could be accomplished (1368). Furthermore, the specifically considered “masculine” traits in literature of this time were “being witty [and] having a strong intellectual framework and content” (Ezell 74). If these traits were considered masculine, then those traits were praised by Romantic era critics. Therefore, literature lacking such traits would have, by basic laws of logic, been criticized. These therefore criticized traits— the lack of depth and the lack of intellect—are, as mentioned previously, some of the very same qualities that Eliot held against the “silly novels,” thus proving yet another instance in which Eliot’s views adhered to those assigned to the Romantic era rather than her own time. Also, the very fact that Eliot’s praised women adopting masculine traits in their writing is still another direct contrast with Ezell’s description of the Victorian era, specifically their preoccupation with women writers’ femininity, since femininity and masculinity are completely opposite …show more content…

Eliot is actually never even mentioned in Ezell’s discussions of the Victorian era, and is likely not even mentioned in the whole book. However, Eliot’s voice, or rather her pen, was only one of presumably a chorus of hundreds of Victorian literary critics’ opinions. Given basic knowledge of history regarding women’s societal roles, it’s not much of a stretch to assume that if there were other female literary critics in this era, there likely weren’t many, leaving the cacophony of male opinions and critiques to still be the dominating tone of this era. Thus, it’s certainly reasonable that Ezell would leave out the anomaly of George Eliot, for even the most extensive of research will still inevitably overlook some writers. The existence of Eliot’s works and its nature as a counterexample to the specific arguments Ezell presents regarding literary criticism thus paradoxically serves as confirmation of one of her largest, overarching arguments: scholarly attempts to set a mold to describe an element of literature inevitably results in exclusion because there will always be exceptions, and thus an image of a genre one may be presented with will never be quite as complete or all-encompassing as the writer or compiler may

Open Document