Political Power: Feminine Writer; Masculine Character

Previously in class we have established the rights of women as deserved, and entered into a discussion about if women in the late 18th century had any ability as a citizen. Charlotte Smith writes her epistolary novel knowing that she has no power as a female to discuss much of anything, let alone about political revolution. Despite this challenge, Smith shows exactly how much knowledge a woman can gather of being a citizen regardless of the male-dominated society she is writing in. Wollstonecraft and Smith both wrote in 1792 and both manipulate the society they are in to make a better argument and launch themselves as writers. To examine some of Smith’s political thoughts and information she shares with the reader, it seems appropriate to reference Desmond’s Letter Seven.

We have discussed Wollstonecraft at length, and we came to the idea of women as citizens repeatedly, agreeing that women were not able to gain knowledge because they were treated as a sex, or an entity with no qualities outside of mothering and pleasing men. Charlotte Smith lives in the same time period and manages to establish herself as a writer for not just women, but her entire current society “Yet Charlotte Smith stands in a kind of exemplary isolation. She succeeded against all odds; in contemporary parlance, she made it the hard way” (Curran 66). Stuart Curran begins to deliberate about Smith’s works and how she makes such a name for herself considering that she is not only a woman in her time, but the other personal trials she goes through with her marriage and family life. Further reading into the article, Curran mentions how Smith had to make herself “bend to the marketplace” (Curran 68).  Due to her need for income and making a living for her children due to her husband’s lack of care or discipline, Smith had a different role to play; she could not enter into a conversation against a majority without losing readers, which risked interrupting her bottom line. Charlotte Smith writes Desmond with a comprehensive sense of what is happening around her and is knowledgeable about things a woman should not necessarily know about, but she still chooses to write as two men in a way that will inspire a larger audience.

 Going into the novel, Charlotte Smith creates two characters who are friends discussing various things, but she chooses to talk about the French Revolution and corrects the lack of understanding where she is, “I can now, however, assure you – and with the most heart-felt satisfaction, that nothing is more unlike the real state of this country, than the accounts that have been given of it in England … have no existence but in the malignant fabrications of those who have been paid for their misrepresentations” (Smith 87). Although women are seen to know nothing about politics of their native country or in general, Smith comments on the misrepresentation of what is actually happening during the revolution and extends excitement to the situation at hand. In order to write this novel, and this specific passage, Smith has knowledge that the commoner may not, she has been trained with formal education but also has managed to become a citizen that knows politics and world events. Continuing to talk about this in the letter and the novel Smith has a clear sense of her own intelligence, and knows she is a woman exemplifying why women should have rights and respect more so than the current state. However, she makes a clear choice to write as two men.

           

Why? Having the know-how she does and transforming herself into an esteemed author even as a woman has me (and I hope others) wondering why she would choose not to write as a woman, or to at least portray a stronger set of female characters? Up to this point in the novel, Smith has chosen to display women as men would; she creates weak characters that hold up to the spaniel-like expectations of women at the time. It is left to the reader to decide if Smith does this to make a point to her audience, or to keep an audience she economically needed to stay a popular writer. 

When trying to think of something that reminded me of Smith's writing in her way of showing intellect but having to hide behind social constructs, I thought of Stephen Colbert and how he acts in all of his shows. Here is an example of Stephen Colbert making fun of socially accepted things (smartphone usage) while staying completely serious, which seems to be an angle Smith may use in her description of females, although it may just be this way for us reading the text much later. 

Questions:

1) Does Smith's writing among letters help or hinder the details of revolution in Paris? Is her style making these details stand out or seem insignificant along with the rest of the letters? How else could she have structured the novel to make her point?

2) Writing as men in both letters, does Smith achieve a better appreciation from her audience? Do you think she did this as to guarantee a higher regard as an author or to make her political thoughts taken seriously?

3)  Why do you think Smith chooses to depict Geraldine the way she does so far?