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*
-
-
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
So these stories can *play with* identity -- with transness and similar concepts -- but never *get there*, the idea that Rochester could actually *change who he is permanently* by changing the way he dresses and acts is cut off, impossible -- the "real him" is always underneath
1 reply 3 retweets 34 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
There, I just gave, at much greater length than the original two paragraphs, my take on what I think they mean (as an only sort-of educated layperson)
2 replies 2 retweets 29 likes -
Thats exactly the problem - that you need to qualify it with "I think".
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, because the author of the paper is an expert and I am not Again, you don't have some kind of constitutional right for other people to not be smarter than you
1 reply 1 retweet 43 likes
I can tell you what "I think" about quantum physics too but I'm not an actual physicist so everything I say will be, to some degree, straight-up wrong The arrogance of Internet people who refuse to accept this is really astounding sometimes
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
just piping as someone in women’s studies who alternately deals with the criticism that it’s faff about nothing and that it’s too obscurist and dense for any layman to parse: there’s a not tiny bit of rejection of the humanities as a serious thing happening in this thread.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @diannaeanderson @arthur_affect and
like, Arthur, I think part of the reason people reject out of hand ‘academic speak’ about literature, in particular, is largely because they don’t believe there’s any there there to be arguing about or writing papers about
2 replies 0 retweets 22 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.