impetuous-creatures

[impetuous-creatures]

Past Present Essay

I decided to write my past present essay in the style of a blog post as I felt that I could include outside information and sources in an easy and very creative way. My essay also feels very personal and the style feels incredibly narrative.

From Samuel Richardson's Clarissa to Thomas Otway's Belvidera, women in 18th century literature were objects of commodification. Though deeply complex characters, these women were simply seen as catalysts for the masculine characters in the work in which they appear. Over time, this has changed. Women have gone from being objects of commodification to politicians themselves. Throughout all fields within fiction, from video games to comic books, women have become more heavily involved in the political climate in which they appear. In comparing political drama-based-fiction set in the present to political-drama-based-fiction set in the 18th century, it's evident that the role of women has changed heavily. 

At the beginning of Richardson's Clarissa, Clarissa is forced into an arranged marriage. Her best friend, Anna Howe, disagrees with her situation wholeheartedly, believing it to be unfair. Though Anna is from a different social class and cannot understand Clarissa's social class and situation as much as Clarissa can, it is Anna's firm belief that Clarissa is simply a means of her family advancing politically. The Harlowe family is in a unique situation. Clarissa is a young lady of great renown. She is beautiful, intelligent, and the target of a great many men's affections. However, her suitor, Solmes, is a horribly dull and *odious* man. One of Clarissa's main outlets is her writing and Solmes lacks the ability to correspond with her. Not only are his grammatical errors present, but his own personality seems to reflect his writing. Solmes cannot communicate and his concerned only with his wealth and political advancement, a commonality in the 18th century. 

It's true that politically-charged women in the 18th century were simply written-off as being commodified objects. On page 62 of Clarissa, in her correspondence to her best friend, Anna Howe writes "You are all too rich to be happy, child, For must not each of you, by the constitutions of your family, marry to be still richer (pg 62)?" Anna points out that Clarissa's family cares far too much about their reputation and not enough about their daughter. Anna believes that wealth is primarily what fuels the upper-class and that Clarissa's family cares very little about her own happiness. Later in the novel, she goes on to say “If these men plead authority to our pain, when are theirs -- why should we not, in such a case as this, make some good out of the hated word, for our reputation, when are induced to violate a more natural one (pg 220)”? Anna goes from believing in Clarissa's happiness to accepting that she will not be happy, even running away with Lovelace like she does. Anna's cynicism showcases women's hopelessness in the 18th century and the fact that women are presented as being simple political catalyst's for the advancement of men. 

The political role of Clarissa is to advance her family socially, politically, and for the purpose of obtaining wealth. Her true role in the work she appears in allowed me to compare her marriage and advancement to one of the main protagonists in a video game I've come to admire heavily. In Fire Emblem: Three Houses, a tactical RPG with a great deal of text-based storytelling, Edelgard von Hresvelg represents the political house in which she comes from as well as her father's empire. Edelgard is a more modern politically-charged woman, as her character is not simply amounted to being a catalyst to men's political advancement. Instead, she's forced to advance politically for the sake of the Empire she represents. Although she is initially masked and seen as a male (through appearing as the flame emperor), her identity is discovered and she's proud of her own identity and ideologies. I've compared Edelgard to Clarissa because she's well-read, intelligent, and comes from a family of great renown. However, instead of simply marrying into another wealthy family, her choices to defend her Empire and take down an arguably corrupt religion-based-regime are her own. Depending on the route you take in the game, she is successful in her efforts. Edelgard advances the Empire politically with her own resources and ability. Edelgard represents a modern female politician who does not have to rely on men to get what she wants and is proud of her own political beliefs. In writing Edelgard, Yuki Ikeno, Ryohei Hayashi, and Mari Okamoto showcase how women in political drama have gone from being commodified objects of men's desire to their own, powerful political leaders.  

Samuel Richardson wrote his version of a twisted fairytale, painting Clarissa as a damsel-in-distress type protagonist. Going from this narrative to another tragic narrative, Thomas Otway's Venice Preserv'd is another iconic piece of 18th century literature. Venice Preserv'd focuses much more on the political aspect of things and Otway's main female protagonist, Belvidera, suffers at the hands of the political environment she is a part of. However, unlike Richardson's Clarissa, this is not her downfall. Instead, during this time of political drama in which Belvidera finds herself the center of a plot she never intended to be a part of, she showcases what makes her strong. She's a much better representation of a strong woman as speaking her mind is not her downfall. Belvidera proves to be cunning, wise, well-spoken and well-read. She has a manipulative streak about her. Belvidera is able to convince Jaffier to listen to her and understand her views. It is true that Belvidera is commodified and seems to be a catalyst for the men in the play. However, Otway's Venice Preserv'd came at a later point than Richardson's Clarissa. As such, Belvidera is a more modern portrayal of a woman in politics. Belvidera is not quite the protagonist woman desire, but for the 18th century, as a commodified woman, she is a strong character leading way for women in politics. 

I think a brilliant counter to Otway's Belvidera is Russell T. Davies' Harriet Jones from Doctor Who. Although Harriet Jones' situation is confusing and tragic at the hands of the aliens surrounding her, Jones' makes a name for herself. Her approach is unapproved by the later Tenth Doctor, but in the end, she sacrifices herself for the good of her country. In Harriet Jones' final appearance in Doctor Who, she has a conversation with four characters significant to. the Doctor's life. Ianto Jones, a Torchwood representative argues that if the Subwave Signal is transmitted, then the Daleks will be able to transmit it. Harriet Jones final message is that of true sacrifice and she goes out with a bang, much like Belvidera's character. She says "My life doesn't matter. Not if saves the Earth,..." and goes on to say "There are people out there dying on the streets." Harriet Jones character has gone full circle -- although her political career is over at the hands of men, her last appearance is sacrificial, showing that she had her country's best interest at heart. Like Belvidera, Harriet Jones is a well-written, intelligent character who eventually bests the men around her even if she is commodified in the process and is an exceptional example of a modern female politician in a representation of political drama. 

I’ve never considered myself to be a pursuer of political drama. To me, it feels like something I could tune into any news station and be exposed to. While I feel that it’s important for young people to be exposed to politics and for us to develop our own ideologies, when I reach for a book, film, or other piece of fiction (particularly video games and television [which I addressed within]), I want to be able to escape. Through exposure to pieces in my 18th century British literature course, I’ve grown to appreciate political drama and politics in general, particularly the role of women in political drama. Ultimately, I’ve discovered that since the 18th century, women in political drama have gone from being an object of commodification to to pursuers of politics themselves. 

[impetuous-creatures]

Harriet Jones: Why she Matters

“Harriet Jones deserved better. And Martha Jones deserved better. In fact, if your surname is Jones and you ever appear on Doctor Who as a skilled, successful woman, let's just assume you deserve better.“

I chose Harriet Jones as being a counter to Belvidera. An article, as written by Courtney Enlow argues that Harriet Jones’ portrayal in Doctor Who was as misogynistic as they come. While I agree,  I think that Harriet Jones’ final appearance in Doctor Who showcased her strengths and the reason she was initially elected as prime minister. 

Harriet Jones sacrifices herself for the good of her country.

She develops a means of apprehending the evil Daleks. 

Moreover, she holds herself in office as a female prime minister. 

I feel that if Belvidera were given the same opportunities as Harriet Jones today, in a modern political climate, she would excel as a prime minister or whatever role she’d want to play. Harriet Jones doesn’t have to be commodified. She packs a punch in her final message. 

Article link: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/chosen-one-of-the-day-harriet-jones-prime-minister

[impetuous-creatures]

Belvidera: Why She Matters

The above is taken from the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 2019 production of Thomas Otway’s Venice Preserv’d. 

In the scene, Jodie McNee’s Belvidera and Michael Grady-Hall’s Jaffeir go toe-to-toe. I chose to discuss Belvidera for a number of reasons. 

Belvidera is a more modern representation of an 18th century woman in a piece of political drama. Though she is still commodified, she is able to hold her own against Jaffeir and her father’s conspirators. 

Belvidera is witty, yet kind and the slightest bit cunning. She is able to manipulate with her voice and words. 

The political climate in which Belvidera finds herself is a tragic one, but she is able to showcase her strengths even against the men commodifying her.

[impetuous-creatures]

Edelgard von Hresvelg: Why She Matters

I chose Edelgard von Hresvelg as being a present day counter to Clarissa Harlowe. Here’s why: 

Edelgard is also traumatized and initially commodified at the hands of her father’s corrupt Empire. Whenever she takes his place, she intends to stop the cruelty that her House (as well as the whole of Fodlan) have faced at the hands of the goddess, Seiros. 

Edelgard well-read, intelligent, and able to hold her own both in battle and elsewhere, going so far as to write her own manifesto. She’s the perfect counter to Clarissa and a representation of women in modern political drama as she overcomes her own trauma and relation to men. 

[impetuous-creatures]

Clarissa Harlowe: Why she Matters

The scene above is taken from the 1991 BBC miniseries starring Sean Bean as Lovelace and Saskia Wickham as the titular character. It’s a direct representation of Clarissa sneaking out to meet Lovelace. 

Clarissa is an important character both to political drama, women in politics, and 18th century British literature.

She takes on the role of a damsel-in-distress and pursues her own interests, only to find that the man she believes has her best interests at heart simply desires to own and subdue her himself. 

Clarissa is a representation of commodification in its’ purest form. 

[impetuous-creatures]

Interview with Dave Strider

“My wife is getting her citizenship and I’m so proud of her. I never wanted a trophy wife.” 

Because of the political nature of my class, I decided to reach out to a social media personality who is active in politics, Dave Strider, who recently ran for US senate. I asked him some questions about political drama and whether or not it’s accurate to what we really see and his response was overwhelming. Mr.Strider’s ultimate beliefs is that though fiction will always be “greater than life itself,” it’s accurate to what we see today. 

Q: What difference do you see between now and the 18th century?

A: I see no difference between now and the 18th century. I think that reflections are very important.

Q: Do you think political drama is at all elevated?

A: Writing is always going be greater than life itself. However, I think reflections are very important. Today in fiction we have superheroes. Everyone’s a hero today, but if Shakespeare, for example, were alive today, he would see no difference in his writing and what goes on in politics. We need to remember from the past and work to change it. Literature is a great way of doing that. 

Q: What about campaigning? Is it at all elevated from what we see in political drama? 

A: Again. Not at all. I have strong feelings about the whole process, but I think we should always tell the truth in campaigning. Truth is always going to be the same. When you lie, as you see in literature, it gets you into trouble. 

Q: How do you feel about women in politics? Do you feel that there should be more women involved in politics?

A: I’m a father of 3. I’m very proud of my daughters. My wife is from Thailand and she’s getting her citizenship. I’m so proud of her. I never wanted a trophy wife. Men need to stop telling women what to do. We should focus on a woman’s brain instead of her looks. The first two things that are more important to me are the brain and the heart and then the looks. We should be affected yet equal in politics.