And yet it's in this guise, when he's "not himself", that he's *able to speak most honestly as himself* -- to say all the shit about the other members of his household that he can't say normally, to honestly express his feelings for Jane
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
It's just one example, and maybe not the strongest example, but it's a demonstration that 1) Mr. Rochester does *change something* very important about his identity when he dresses in drag as a fortuneteller, 2) he's still *himself*, in some real sense he's not *lying*
1 reply 3 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
That this time period and culture that's supposedly rabidly essentialist and therefore anti-performativity is actually obsessed with it Victorians were really into the concept of disguises, secret identities, slumming and drag
1 reply 3 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
At the same time, of course, you can't say that this whole two-faced at-war-with-itself nature of Victorian social norms means the norms weren't really norms That's what the second paragraph means Playing around with drag in fiction is *kinda* pro-self-ID but also anti-self-ID
1 reply 2 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
There's always an "unmasking" moment, a return to "normal" The scene with Rochester as the fortune-teller is *kind of* pro-trans -- it's presenting Rochester adopting a female identity in a sort-of-positive light -- but ultimately not really
1 reply 2 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
The point of the scene is Rochester unmasking himself, taking off the disguise, letting Jane "see underneath" to the "real self" Any of these stories about "masters of disguise" assume the disguise is something that can be and must be taken off
2 replies 3 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
The story always comes back to a "true self" that can be seen when you wash the makeup off or pull off the hairpiece/veil to see your real hair or pull open the clothes to see you naked The idea that there's still an ultimate definition of who you really are based on your body
4 replies 3 retweets 43 likes -
This is an absolute nonsense. There is no "true self". That is exactly the problem with this whole Butlerian discourse.
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, I don't believe that there is, and Butler's whole theory of performativity -- which you clearly don't understand -- doesn't believe that there is either I'm saying that *Victorian novels* believe that there are (You seem to have problems with reading)
2 replies 2 retweets 40 likes -
The idea that your "true self" is immaterial and disconnected from your body is equally problematic. Nobody ever in Victorian times claimed that your whole essense is reduced to your body only, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Okay cool but you just changed the subject Now we're not talking about what the book in question says (or whether the book in question has any meaning at all) Now you're conceding it has a meaning but you disagree with the implications
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
FWIW, Butler *also* disbelieves in "gender identity" being any kind of spooky essence, and what she does believe about trans identity is in the realm of "Well we're all non-binary and fluid and we could in theory all be anything"
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
For this reason, she's disliked by a lot of trans people who find that, whatever the intellectual merits of this claim, it doesn't map onto their own lived experience well at all (trans people who ID as strongly binary and have "always known")
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.