What do you think?
Rate this book
The Woman Who Did
The most notorious of the so-called "New Woman" novels of the 1890s--a type of fiction inspired by contemporary debates about women's education, family life, and sexual independence-- The Woman Who Did was controversial from the start and eventually became a bestseller. Determined to arrange
her own life, Herminia Barton enters a relationship ouside of marriage with the lawyer Alan Merrick, and the consequences of that decision test her resolve to the very limit. Flying in the face of convention, Allen intended the book as a protest against the subjection of women, but feminists
including Millicent Fawcett condemned both Allen and the novel.
her own life, Herminia Barton enters a relationship ouside of marriage with the lawyer Alan Merrick, and the consequences of that decision test her resolve to the very limit. Flying in the face of convention, Allen intended the book as a protest against the subjection of women, but feminists
including Millicent Fawcett condemned both Allen and the novel.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1895
19 people are currently reading
261 people want to read
About the author
Grant Allen
1,197 books32 followersCharles Grant Blairfindie Allen (February 24, 1848 – October 25, 1899) was a science writer and novelist, and a successful upholder of the theory of evolution.
He was born near Kingston, Canada West (now incorporated into Ontario), the second son of Catharine Ann Grant and the Rev. Joseph Antisell Allen, a Protestant minister from Dublin, Ireland. His mother was a daughter of the fifth Baron of Longueuil. He was educated at home until, at age 13, he and his parents moved to the United States, then France and finally the United Kingdom. He was educated at King Edward's School in Birmingham and Merton College in Oxford, both in the United Kingdom. After graduation, Allen studied in France, taught at Brighton College in 1870–71 and in his mid-twenties became a professor at Queen's College, a black college in Jamaica.
Despite his religious father, Allen became an agnostic and a socialist. After leaving his professorship, in 1876 he returned to England, where he turned his talents to writing, gaining a reputation for his essays on science and for literary works. One of his early articles, 'Note-Deafness' (a description of what is now called amusia, published in 1878 in the learned journal Mind) is cited with approval in a recent book by Oliver Sacks.
His first books were on scientific subjects, and include Physiological Æsthetics (1877) and Flowers and Their Pedigrees (1886). He was first influenced by associationist psychology as it was expounded by Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer, the latter often considered the most important individual in the transition from associationist psychology to Darwinian functionalism. In Allen's many articles on flowers and perception in insects, Darwinian arguments replaced the old Spencerian terms. On a personal level, a long friendship that started when Allen met Spencer on his return from Jamaica, also grew uneasy over the years. Allen wrote a critical and revealing biographical article on Spencer that was published after Spencer was dead.
After assisting Sir W. W. Hunter in his Gazeteer of India in the early 1880s, Allen turned his attention to fiction, and between 1884 and 1899 produced about 30 novels. In 1895, his scandalous book titled The Woman Who Did, promulgating certain startling views on marriage and kindred questions, became a bestseller. The book told the story of an independent woman who has a child out of wedlock.
In his career, Allen wrote two novels under female pseudonyms. One of these was the short novel The Type-writer Girl, which he wrote under the name Olive Pratt Rayner.
Another work, The Evolution of the Idea of God (1897), propounding a theory of religion on heterodox lines, has the disadvantage of endeavoring to explain everything by one theory. This "ghost theory" was often seen as a derivative of Herbert Spencer's theory. However, it was well known and brief references to it can be found in a review by Marcel Mauss, Durkheim's nephew, in the articles of William James and in the works of Sigmund Freud.
He was also a pioneer in science fiction, with the 1895 novel The British Barbarians. This book, published about the same time as H. G. Wells's The Time Machine, which includes a mention of Allen, also described time travel, although the plot is quite different. His short story The Thames Valley Catastrophe (published 1901 in The Strand Magazine) describes the destruction of London by a sudden and massive volcanic eruption.
Many histories of detective fiction also mention Allen as an innovator. His gentleman rogue, the illustrious Colonel Clay, is seen as a forerunner to later characters. In fact, Allen's character bears strong resemblance to Maurice Leblanc's French works about Arsène Lupin, published many years later; and both Miss Cayley's Adventures and Hilda Wade feature early female detectives.
Allen was married twi
He was born near Kingston, Canada West (now incorporated into Ontario), the second son of Catharine Ann Grant and the Rev. Joseph Antisell Allen, a Protestant minister from Dublin, Ireland. His mother was a daughter of the fifth Baron of Longueuil. He was educated at home until, at age 13, he and his parents moved to the United States, then France and finally the United Kingdom. He was educated at King Edward's School in Birmingham and Merton College in Oxford, both in the United Kingdom. After graduation, Allen studied in France, taught at Brighton College in 1870–71 and in his mid-twenties became a professor at Queen's College, a black college in Jamaica.
Despite his religious father, Allen became an agnostic and a socialist. After leaving his professorship, in 1876 he returned to England, where he turned his talents to writing, gaining a reputation for his essays on science and for literary works. One of his early articles, 'Note-Deafness' (a description of what is now called amusia, published in 1878 in the learned journal Mind) is cited with approval in a recent book by Oliver Sacks.
His first books were on scientific subjects, and include Physiological Æsthetics (1877) and Flowers and Their Pedigrees (1886). He was first influenced by associationist psychology as it was expounded by Alexander Bain and Herbert Spencer, the latter often considered the most important individual in the transition from associationist psychology to Darwinian functionalism. In Allen's many articles on flowers and perception in insects, Darwinian arguments replaced the old Spencerian terms. On a personal level, a long friendship that started when Allen met Spencer on his return from Jamaica, also grew uneasy over the years. Allen wrote a critical and revealing biographical article on Spencer that was published after Spencer was dead.
After assisting Sir W. W. Hunter in his Gazeteer of India in the early 1880s, Allen turned his attention to fiction, and between 1884 and 1899 produced about 30 novels. In 1895, his scandalous book titled The Woman Who Did, promulgating certain startling views on marriage and kindred questions, became a bestseller. The book told the story of an independent woman who has a child out of wedlock.
In his career, Allen wrote two novels under female pseudonyms. One of these was the short novel The Type-writer Girl, which he wrote under the name Olive Pratt Rayner.
Another work, The Evolution of the Idea of God (1897), propounding a theory of religion on heterodox lines, has the disadvantage of endeavoring to explain everything by one theory. This "ghost theory" was often seen as a derivative of Herbert Spencer's theory. However, it was well known and brief references to it can be found in a review by Marcel Mauss, Durkheim's nephew, in the articles of William James and in the works of Sigmund Freud.
He was also a pioneer in science fiction, with the 1895 novel The British Barbarians. This book, published about the same time as H. G. Wells's The Time Machine, which includes a mention of Allen, also described time travel, although the plot is quite different. His short story The Thames Valley Catastrophe (published 1901 in The Strand Magazine) describes the destruction of London by a sudden and massive volcanic eruption.
Many histories of detective fiction also mention Allen as an innovator. His gentleman rogue, the illustrious Colonel Clay, is seen as a forerunner to later characters. In fact, Allen's character bears strong resemblance to Maurice Leblanc's French works about Arsène Lupin, published many years later; and both Miss Cayley's Adventures and Hilda Wade feature early female detectives.
Allen was married twi
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
Read
August 20, 2023I have no idea how to rate this. It was completely fascinating but also made me quite cross.
June 21, 2016
While not the typical moral tale of his contemporaries, this novel is a platform for views and opinions that were not at all the norm in 1895.
The author’s ideas and thoughts on marriage, England, war, property ownership and woman’s rights are on full view throughout this story. Though he married twice himself and this book is in fact dedicated to his wife, the premise of the story is that marriage is a form of serfdom for the woman, that she is in essence selling her body for food and a roof over her head. The heroine in fact does not even wish to live with her lover, never mind marry him. She wishes to remain completely free and independent, with her own house, job and life.
The author seems to have a distinctly socialist view that manifests itself in a derisive opinion of Englishmen, in a wish that we did not have so many ‘No Trespassing’ signs and in the view that war just because your country says so is not a good reason to fight and die.
I had a hard time considering the ideas in this book with seriousness. In some part I think this was because we have, at least partially, come to that point where marriage is not necessary, where woman can be independent and single without a social stigma, or at least without the same type of social stigma that was prevalent in 1895. In some part this is also because I think there is a form of naivety in what the heroine was attempting; to think that making yourself miserable for the good of womankind and think that this will be a benefit was sweet but misguided, though I admire anyone willing to go so against the grain of popular social convention. And lastly, the author did not go far enough, he still continues to see woman as demure creatures to be educated and who are made for the motherly role and to be self sacrificing, to whom wanting a man to take care of her is still her character, which she must rail against. In other words, it’s still a man’s world, no matter all the pretty speeches he writes. The heroine is still the Victorian ideal, despite her unconventional ideas. What she does may have been shocking at the time but from over 100 years later this feels at heart like it’s still oppressing, would not it be better to be married and be outrageous, rather than be ostracised with no voice? Though, I must admit that I am more of a type to skirt the social conventions rather than flout them ostentatiously, I have no wish to give up my life and happiness for the greater good.
I liked it, it was interesting to read and even with the preaching, it was a good story. Though I don’t think much of the ending.
The author’s ideas and thoughts on marriage, England, war, property ownership and woman’s rights are on full view throughout this story. Though he married twice himself and this book is in fact dedicated to his wife, the premise of the story is that marriage is a form of serfdom for the woman, that she is in essence selling her body for food and a roof over her head. The heroine in fact does not even wish to live with her lover, never mind marry him. She wishes to remain completely free and independent, with her own house, job and life.
The author seems to have a distinctly socialist view that manifests itself in a derisive opinion of Englishmen, in a wish that we did not have so many ‘No Trespassing’ signs and in the view that war just because your country says so is not a good reason to fight and die.
I had a hard time considering the ideas in this book with seriousness. In some part I think this was because we have, at least partially, come to that point where marriage is not necessary, where woman can be independent and single without a social stigma, or at least without the same type of social stigma that was prevalent in 1895. In some part this is also because I think there is a form of naivety in what the heroine was attempting; to think that making yourself miserable for the good of womankind and think that this will be a benefit was sweet but misguided, though I admire anyone willing to go so against the grain of popular social convention. And lastly, the author did not go far enough, he still continues to see woman as demure creatures to be educated and who are made for the motherly role and to be self sacrificing, to whom wanting a man to take care of her is still her character, which she must rail against. In other words, it’s still a man’s world, no matter all the pretty speeches he writes. The heroine is still the Victorian ideal, despite her unconventional ideas. What she does may have been shocking at the time but from over 100 years later this feels at heart like it’s still oppressing, would not it be better to be married and be outrageous, rather than be ostracised with no voice? Though, I must admit that I am more of a type to skirt the social conventions rather than flout them ostentatiously, I have no wish to give up my life and happiness for the greater good.
I liked it, it was interesting to read and even with the preaching, it was a good story. Though I don’t think much of the ending.
April 15, 2016
The main impression I have as I read The Woman Who Did is the imposition of a male writer upon the supposed thinking and development of a woman’s thoughts and philosophy. In particular it conjures for me, a memory of a teacher who I would have to say was selfish in setting an essay topic on why people marry. I was in fifth form (now called Year Eleven) and she was still studying Sociology at university and sharing some of her texts and work there with our class. She was also just engaged.
It seems to me now, as it did then, that she was using the class to question herself about the choices she was making. She certainly did not appreciate my conclusion that marriage was a social convention that had not been particularly long-lived. Nor that it was largely based on economics rather than love.
I don’t even know where my ideas came from in 1975 to be writing as I did. If I had a text such as Grant Allen’s The Woman Who Did, I may have been able to make better points, or more compelling arguments, than I did. I merely wrote from my own mind and my own observations – and more than likely conversations I had overheard through my family without being old enough to partake or be appreciated as hearing what was being said by such adults.
Whatever I thought was as unformed after the response from this teacher as it had been before it. She was operating from a personal perspective despite being challenged in her own studies to step beyond a personalised view of the world, and invited to accept the many views that make up our world. I was aware of the many views but still uninformed about how to place them side by side for more appropriately guided consideration and guidance, for myself or for others, in understanding how they could all co-exist and yet still somehow form “majority views” of morality and acceptability without managing to crush alternatives completely.
Now, after many years of Women’s Studies and actions and debates, I read a book such as Allen’s The Woman Who Did, and realise there are many more views out there in written form than any of the forums I have attended have allowed to be included in their own discussions.
I feel the lack the moreso for the understanding I developed within myself about how each personal choice is from within, whatever range of ideas and conventions you feel comfortable to access and align with, whichever details you choose to reject and deny for yourself.
The clash between the individual choice and the sense of social responsibility is the one that most strongly comes across in Grant Allen’s work. It is presented as a male social convention against a female convention. It is shown as a challenge to economic structures as well as social decorum. But it fails to appreciate that the economic necessities of industrialisation were part of the social imposition of the Churches upon other social and parochial conventions. It does not speak to these issues because it is so busy with the male/female divide, which in many respects was quite a new convention in itself.
Thus when we consider a person “a product of their times” we must include their place and relationship to other groups, ideas and places as well as noticing the streams they seem to be unaware of that must have lingered through other means at the same time!
It is not so much a product of time as a product of relationship that makes or counter-makes a person what they propose themselves to be. For each self-selected apportionment there co-exists the recognition or interpretation of its aspects by those around that person. Some are concurrent, many are only later interpreters who have finally got what was earlier said (or done) without such recognition or appreciation.
What endures the most in the short-term is the tendency to not understand - or to misinterpret. Endurance in a longer sense is the ability to have alternate means of interpretation re-applied to earlier conditions, thus drawing out their alternative meanings. This applies equally to a maturing person changing over time and a range of individuals who are also looking for predecessors for their own developments against whatever majority tide they choose to swim against.
To marry or not to marry is presented very clearly by Grant Allen as a question of slavery or freedom – from his female protagonist’s point of view. However, I don’t believe this is a realistic interpretation of her actual view of herself (if she was a real women rather than a character in his false projection).
Marriage is ultimately a pre-written contract. Law being the realm of men makes it appear to be a form they have imposed. Social convention however proves that it is beyond gender. Trying to alter it through gender alignments is necessarily a limit to any such proposed amendments.
Enter the extra-gender framework of twenty-first century politics and marriage becomes a sought-after state for others previously precluded. Increase the franchise and the dissent within those already included in its purview is diluted. The potential of dissent seems weakened by the louder voice of alternate dissenters.
At the base of Allen’s book is his own parentage by a clergyman. He presents his female protagonist in a similar position. Yet he argues against her through the male “suitor” who she both denies interest in finding, and yet accepts her lot “as a woman” to go on being prepared for, despite her own commitment to freedom from the contract that would allow her an operative position within marriage.
Thus every representation of her position becomes a further compromise toward something that is not her own true commitment at all. Even the premise that she is making this choice publically so that other women will have her as an example is immediately thwarted by her public silence of both her true “illegitimate marriage” and her failure to tell anyone other than the man she has aligned herself to about her own motivations. It is unbelievable because it is so inconsistent to demand such a commitment from him, who she is attempting to convince, and yet fail to continue her own stance.
The DNA/RNA of this literary setup thus dilutes the issues the writer is trying to present as true freedom. Of course, he was not in a time and place where DNA/RNA imagery was possible. Life is a blending and separation of these two strands as chemistry that did exist socially through conventions of dance – even persisting to more modern times as “the Hokey Pokey” (“put your whole self in, put your whole self out”).
Freedom is ultimately based upon such connections and the ability to extract and realign.
The scandal of Victorian Britain toward Grant Allen’s book could only be a Victorian scandal. The institution of Victorian marriage conventions necessarily hinged on the royal lineage. The alignments of European royal families through marriage being more than a personal choice, and very much connected with alignments of “property” and alliances of whole social networks, is not something the ordinary person could necessarily influence. But the slavery of such conceptions was more about the reliance of every underling to the choices of their “masters” more than the freedom of individuals to live within a household with a person of their own choice for practical daily purposes.
Here the more relevant theme of Allen’s book appears: the socialistic movement against the hierarchical imposition of values.
The segment of society likely to read Grant Allen’s book was just the segment from which he arose. The approaching demise of Victorian times was the time against which such conventions could bare themselves as still present despite the long rein of that royal personage. The long reign in itself could be confused with “tradition” as if no innovations had been made during that reign. The questions considered by the female character over a prolonged period, within her own mind, hinge upon the legalities developed within this same extended period of assumed consistency.
And yet the examples given of Mary Godwin (who married Shelley) and George Eliot (who lived with George Lewes) should, in a sense, be no more remarkable than previous royalty having houses set up for mistresses. The woman having a choice in her own lifestyle is still presented as “particularly for one male” while the male is considered to be polygamous while retaining the rights of bachelorhood. This monogamy was imposed upon the Queen when it had not been imposed upon her male antecedents. Therein lies the slavery of women – even if it was Queen Victoria’s own personal choice it became assumed womanhood.
Meanwhile there was Catherine The Great in Russia who practiced the male model of royalty by having a range of lovers when her husband proved so inadequate to her needs or wants. Perhaps this is also why the shifts were that much greater within Russian society for the socialist and communist movements to arise there with the added judgment-from-a-distance that the English novelists provided, as commentary from the sidelines.
The frame of this novel is not so much the social setting of the times, as a reaffirmation of the marriage of the writer and his chosen woman – as the dedication shows. By highlighting the tensions of an alternative, the strength of their own endurance of and with each other is assumed to be the more complete. I would have to do some research to find out if this was so from his wife’s point of view as much as he presented it from his own. But such research is, quite frankly, irrelevant to me.
I live in a time when family history research is becoming more generalised. Previously it has been used by specific individuals to increase their hold on particular versions of history that increase their ability to manipulate those around them for the “sake of the story of family”. Just such an attitude persists because of the seeming attack on the contract of marriage that the push for increased franchise of it by gay and lesbian partners makes.
If a contract is no longer exclusive, how can it retain its strength of purpose?
The dilution of dissention is an alchemical process which strengthens the convention rather than weakening it in the longer term. The question for each individual partaking of this process remains: is it right for me, is it possible for me to continue to be myself within this particular version of the social convention?
When the answer seems right, the action will follow. When the answer is not a solution but a sediment, all other participants will begin to question the purity of the social form they espouse. When the failure to merge settles so obviously on the surface rather than in the depths of such an attempted union, the horror of it draws more attention in those who are unsettled within themselves than it does to those for whom such “solutions” are amenable.
The personal choice and the social convention of acceptability of variations upon the theme are constantly in flux. The degree to which they seem to challenge people reflects more back to the personal verity than the social one.
Thus the form of a book to contemplate one’s own position, allows the choice between keeping one’s own council on such matters or finding a book group to share it with, to tease out alternative choices one may not yet have processed to bring thought and action into alignment within one’s own life.
Of course, marriage requires a partner of some sort to be aligned with as well. It takes each of us however long it takes us to find ourselves, as well as it takes to find another willing to join us, on our own personal journeys.
This book may prove an adequate aid for some. For many it will appear too Oxford intellectual. Perhaps they might find a way to write their own version worth sharing in current times, and places, with the living institutions rather than the manipulative older ones which have yet to realise their control is secondary to how people really live.
The great tragedy of this particular story is in a “seeming individual choice” meaning social exile, leading ultimately to suicide. The think line of connection to others of supposedly like mind is so peripheral within this novel that it seems as if it never existed. Presumably it was from some connection with these “people of ideas & ideals” that the individual drew up their own ideal to the point of living it as fully as they possibly could – even despite the indications of less commitment from the person most closely chosen for their own commitment to such action.
The greater challenge to marriage would surely be those who refuse outright to marry anyone in any sense of the word, rather than simply withholding from an institutionalised version of it. The position of the Singular Woman within society is so challenging to everyone that it still has not been written about effectively by anyone. Only the fallen or the purified pseudo-marriage to the Church gains attention from time to time. The truly free individual is still an anomaly too great for public consideration.
It seems to me now, as it did then, that she was using the class to question herself about the choices she was making. She certainly did not appreciate my conclusion that marriage was a social convention that had not been particularly long-lived. Nor that it was largely based on economics rather than love.
I don’t even know where my ideas came from in 1975 to be writing as I did. If I had a text such as Grant Allen’s The Woman Who Did, I may have been able to make better points, or more compelling arguments, than I did. I merely wrote from my own mind and my own observations – and more than likely conversations I had overheard through my family without being old enough to partake or be appreciated as hearing what was being said by such adults.
Whatever I thought was as unformed after the response from this teacher as it had been before it. She was operating from a personal perspective despite being challenged in her own studies to step beyond a personalised view of the world, and invited to accept the many views that make up our world. I was aware of the many views but still uninformed about how to place them side by side for more appropriately guided consideration and guidance, for myself or for others, in understanding how they could all co-exist and yet still somehow form “majority views” of morality and acceptability without managing to crush alternatives completely.
Now, after many years of Women’s Studies and actions and debates, I read a book such as Allen’s The Woman Who Did, and realise there are many more views out there in written form than any of the forums I have attended have allowed to be included in their own discussions.
I feel the lack the moreso for the understanding I developed within myself about how each personal choice is from within, whatever range of ideas and conventions you feel comfortable to access and align with, whichever details you choose to reject and deny for yourself.
The clash between the individual choice and the sense of social responsibility is the one that most strongly comes across in Grant Allen’s work. It is presented as a male social convention against a female convention. It is shown as a challenge to economic structures as well as social decorum. But it fails to appreciate that the economic necessities of industrialisation were part of the social imposition of the Churches upon other social and parochial conventions. It does not speak to these issues because it is so busy with the male/female divide, which in many respects was quite a new convention in itself.
Thus when we consider a person “a product of their times” we must include their place and relationship to other groups, ideas and places as well as noticing the streams they seem to be unaware of that must have lingered through other means at the same time!
It is not so much a product of time as a product of relationship that makes or counter-makes a person what they propose themselves to be. For each self-selected apportionment there co-exists the recognition or interpretation of its aspects by those around that person. Some are concurrent, many are only later interpreters who have finally got what was earlier said (or done) without such recognition or appreciation.
What endures the most in the short-term is the tendency to not understand - or to misinterpret. Endurance in a longer sense is the ability to have alternate means of interpretation re-applied to earlier conditions, thus drawing out their alternative meanings. This applies equally to a maturing person changing over time and a range of individuals who are also looking for predecessors for their own developments against whatever majority tide they choose to swim against.
To marry or not to marry is presented very clearly by Grant Allen as a question of slavery or freedom – from his female protagonist’s point of view. However, I don’t believe this is a realistic interpretation of her actual view of herself (if she was a real women rather than a character in his false projection).
Marriage is ultimately a pre-written contract. Law being the realm of men makes it appear to be a form they have imposed. Social convention however proves that it is beyond gender. Trying to alter it through gender alignments is necessarily a limit to any such proposed amendments.
Enter the extra-gender framework of twenty-first century politics and marriage becomes a sought-after state for others previously precluded. Increase the franchise and the dissent within those already included in its purview is diluted. The potential of dissent seems weakened by the louder voice of alternate dissenters.
At the base of Allen’s book is his own parentage by a clergyman. He presents his female protagonist in a similar position. Yet he argues against her through the male “suitor” who she both denies interest in finding, and yet accepts her lot “as a woman” to go on being prepared for, despite her own commitment to freedom from the contract that would allow her an operative position within marriage.
Thus every representation of her position becomes a further compromise toward something that is not her own true commitment at all. Even the premise that she is making this choice publically so that other women will have her as an example is immediately thwarted by her public silence of both her true “illegitimate marriage” and her failure to tell anyone other than the man she has aligned herself to about her own motivations. It is unbelievable because it is so inconsistent to demand such a commitment from him, who she is attempting to convince, and yet fail to continue her own stance.
The DNA/RNA of this literary setup thus dilutes the issues the writer is trying to present as true freedom. Of course, he was not in a time and place where DNA/RNA imagery was possible. Life is a blending and separation of these two strands as chemistry that did exist socially through conventions of dance – even persisting to more modern times as “the Hokey Pokey” (“put your whole self in, put your whole self out”).
Freedom is ultimately based upon such connections and the ability to extract and realign.
The scandal of Victorian Britain toward Grant Allen’s book could only be a Victorian scandal. The institution of Victorian marriage conventions necessarily hinged on the royal lineage. The alignments of European royal families through marriage being more than a personal choice, and very much connected with alignments of “property” and alliances of whole social networks, is not something the ordinary person could necessarily influence. But the slavery of such conceptions was more about the reliance of every underling to the choices of their “masters” more than the freedom of individuals to live within a household with a person of their own choice for practical daily purposes.
Here the more relevant theme of Allen’s book appears: the socialistic movement against the hierarchical imposition of values.
The segment of society likely to read Grant Allen’s book was just the segment from which he arose. The approaching demise of Victorian times was the time against which such conventions could bare themselves as still present despite the long rein of that royal personage. The long reign in itself could be confused with “tradition” as if no innovations had been made during that reign. The questions considered by the female character over a prolonged period, within her own mind, hinge upon the legalities developed within this same extended period of assumed consistency.
And yet the examples given of Mary Godwin (who married Shelley) and George Eliot (who lived with George Lewes) should, in a sense, be no more remarkable than previous royalty having houses set up for mistresses. The woman having a choice in her own lifestyle is still presented as “particularly for one male” while the male is considered to be polygamous while retaining the rights of bachelorhood. This monogamy was imposed upon the Queen when it had not been imposed upon her male antecedents. Therein lies the slavery of women – even if it was Queen Victoria’s own personal choice it became assumed womanhood.
Meanwhile there was Catherine The Great in Russia who practiced the male model of royalty by having a range of lovers when her husband proved so inadequate to her needs or wants. Perhaps this is also why the shifts were that much greater within Russian society for the socialist and communist movements to arise there with the added judgment-from-a-distance that the English novelists provided, as commentary from the sidelines.
The frame of this novel is not so much the social setting of the times, as a reaffirmation of the marriage of the writer and his chosen woman – as the dedication shows. By highlighting the tensions of an alternative, the strength of their own endurance of and with each other is assumed to be the more complete. I would have to do some research to find out if this was so from his wife’s point of view as much as he presented it from his own. But such research is, quite frankly, irrelevant to me.
I live in a time when family history research is becoming more generalised. Previously it has been used by specific individuals to increase their hold on particular versions of history that increase their ability to manipulate those around them for the “sake of the story of family”. Just such an attitude persists because of the seeming attack on the contract of marriage that the push for increased franchise of it by gay and lesbian partners makes.
If a contract is no longer exclusive, how can it retain its strength of purpose?
The dilution of dissention is an alchemical process which strengthens the convention rather than weakening it in the longer term. The question for each individual partaking of this process remains: is it right for me, is it possible for me to continue to be myself within this particular version of the social convention?
When the answer seems right, the action will follow. When the answer is not a solution but a sediment, all other participants will begin to question the purity of the social form they espouse. When the failure to merge settles so obviously on the surface rather than in the depths of such an attempted union, the horror of it draws more attention in those who are unsettled within themselves than it does to those for whom such “solutions” are amenable.
The personal choice and the social convention of acceptability of variations upon the theme are constantly in flux. The degree to which they seem to challenge people reflects more back to the personal verity than the social one.
Thus the form of a book to contemplate one’s own position, allows the choice between keeping one’s own council on such matters or finding a book group to share it with, to tease out alternative choices one may not yet have processed to bring thought and action into alignment within one’s own life.
Of course, marriage requires a partner of some sort to be aligned with as well. It takes each of us however long it takes us to find ourselves, as well as it takes to find another willing to join us, on our own personal journeys.
This book may prove an adequate aid for some. For many it will appear too Oxford intellectual. Perhaps they might find a way to write their own version worth sharing in current times, and places, with the living institutions rather than the manipulative older ones which have yet to realise their control is secondary to how people really live.
The great tragedy of this particular story is in a “seeming individual choice” meaning social exile, leading ultimately to suicide. The think line of connection to others of supposedly like mind is so peripheral within this novel that it seems as if it never existed. Presumably it was from some connection with these “people of ideas & ideals” that the individual drew up their own ideal to the point of living it as fully as they possibly could – even despite the indications of less commitment from the person most closely chosen for their own commitment to such action.
The greater challenge to marriage would surely be those who refuse outright to marry anyone in any sense of the word, rather than simply withholding from an institutionalised version of it. The position of the Singular Woman within society is so challenging to everyone that it still has not been written about effectively by anyone. Only the fallen or the purified pseudo-marriage to the Church gains attention from time to time. The truly free individual is still an anomaly too great for public consideration.
December 5, 2019
A short novel about a feminist in England named Herminia who wanted to make a statement to the world that women should be free to start a family without being married. Marriage is slavery (15-16), weddings are immodest (25), and living with your partner makes him boring (29). Takes place in the time when being an unmarried woman with a child carried great shame and shunning from society. Although Herminia has the strength and courage to go against the grain and refuse to marry the man she loves, she remains meek and yielding to him (15, 17, 30).
I enjoyed the book. It reminds me of a Jane Austen novel, but I loved this one so much more. Although I don’t agree with all of the author’s opinions (pro-socialism, anti-monogamy, anti-celibacy [49, 61]), I could relate to the main character because I too am strongly against marriage and weddings. It made me cry more than once.
Lots of good quotes:
“We ought to seek the Truth before all things, and never to rest till we felt sure we had found it. We should not suffer our souls to be beguiled into believing a falsehood merely because we wouldn't take the trouble to find out the Truth for ourselves by searching. We must dig for it; we must grope after it.” (9)
“'Why should YOU be the victim? Why should YOU be the martyr? Bask in the sun yourself; leave this doom to some other.' But, Alan, I can't. I feel I must face it. Unless one woman begins, there will be no beginning. . . . Think how easy it would be for me . . . To do as other women do; to accept the HONORABLE MARRIAGE you offer me, as other women would call it; to be false to my sex, a traitor to my convictions; to sell my kind for a mess of pottage, a name and a home, or even for thirty pieces of silver, to be some rich man's wife, as other women have sold it. But, Alan, I can't. My conscience won't let me. I know what marriage is, from what vile slavery it has sprung; on what unseen horrors for my sister women it is reared and buttressed; by what unholy sacrifices it is sustained, and made possible. I know it has a history, I know its past, I know its present, and I can't embrace it; I can't be untrue to my most sacred beliefs. I can't pander to the malignant thing, just because a man who loves me would be pleased by my giving way and would kiss me, and fondle me for it. And I love you to fondle me. But I must keep my proper place, the freedom which I have gained for myself by such arduous efforts." (15)
“Marriage itself is still an assertion of man's supremacy over woman. It ties her to him for life, it ignores her individuality, it compels her to promise what no human heart can be sure of performing; for you can contract to do or not to do, easily enough, but contract to feel or not to feel,—what transparent absurdity! It is full of all evils, and I decline to consider it. If I love a man at all, I must love him on terms of perfect freedom. I can't bind myself down to live with him to my shame one day longer than I love him; or to love him at all if I find him unworthy of my purest love, or unable to retain it; or if I discover some other more fit to be loved by me.” (16)
“Whoever sees the truth, whoever strives earnestly with all his soul to be good, must be raised many planes above the common mass of men around him; he must be a moral pioneer, and the moral pioneer is always a martyr. People won't allow others to be wiser and better than themselves, unpunished. They can forgive anything except moral superiority.” (16)
“If I would, I might go the beaten way you prescribe, and marry him legally. But of my own free will I disdain that degradation; I choose rather to be free. No fear of your scorn, no dread of your bigotry, no shrinking at your cruelty, shall prevent me from following the thorny path I know to be the right one.” (18)
“I saw that the one way of freedom for the woman is to cast off, root and branch, the evil growth of man's supremacy. I saw that the honorableness of marriage, the disgrace of free union, were just so many ignoble masculine devices to keep up man's lordship; vile results of his determination to taboo to himself beforehand and monopolize for life some particular woman.” (24)
“In the end, no doubt, complete independence would be secured for each woman by the civilized state, or in other words by the whole body of men, who do the hard work of the world, and who would collectively guarantee every necessary and luxury to every woman of the community equally. In that way alone could perfect liberty of choice and action be secured for women; and she held it just that women should so be provided for, because the mothers of the community fulfil in the state as important and necessary a function as the men themselves do. . . . there was nothing for it save that as many women as could should aim for themselves at economic liberty, in other words at self-support. That was an evil in itself, because obviously the prospective mothers of a community should be relieved as far as possible front the stress and strain of earning a livelihood.” (27)
I like this idea. Instead of taxes going to public schools, they should go to pay mothers to educate their young at home. But women shouldn’t be banned from working if that’s what they wish. And women who waste their government pay by neglecting their kids and wasting it on drugs should have their pay revoked.
“That is the worst of living a life morally ahead of your contemporaries; what you do with profoundest conviction of its eternal rightness cannot fail to arouse hostile and painful feelings even in the souls of the most right-minded of your friends who still live in bondage to the conventional lies and the conventional injustices.” (31)
“In the topsy-turvy philosophy . . . what is usual is right; while any conscious striving to be better and nobler than the mass around one is regarded at once as either insane or criminal.” (32)
“It is not the intrinsic moral value of an act such people think about, but the light in which it is regarded by a selfish society.” (36)
“In a world like our own, it is impossible for the righteous always to act consistently up to their most sacred convictions.” (36)
“There are poor souls born into this world so petty and narrow and wanting in originality that one can only expect them to tread the beaten track, be it ever so cruel and wicked and mistaken.” (37)
“So wrapt in vile falsehoods and conventions are we. So far have we travelled from the pristine realities of truth and purity. We lie to our children—in the interests of morality.” (50)
“Blank pessimism is the one creed possible for all save fools. To hold any other is to curl yourself up selfishly in your own easy chair, and say to your soul, "O soul, eat and drink; O soul, make merry. Carouse thy fill. Ignore the maimed lives, the stricken heads and seared hearts, the reddened fangs and ravening claws of nature all round thee." Pessimism is sympathy. Optimism is selfishness.” (50)
“But what after all IS patriotism? ‘My country, right or wrong, and just because it is my country!’ This is clearly nothing more than collective selfishness.” (62)
Herminia hoped to raise a daughter who would carry on her legacy of women’s liberation. Instead, her daughter only envied the status quo and conformed to it. That’s the risk you take when you send your child to school instead of homeschooling. It’s true that once an adult, the child is exposed to the world. But perhaps by that late age, the foundation is firm enough to withstand any cracks of doubt.
I enjoyed the book. It reminds me of a Jane Austen novel, but I loved this one so much more. Although I don’t agree with all of the author’s opinions (pro-socialism, anti-monogamy, anti-celibacy [49, 61]), I could relate to the main character because I too am strongly against marriage and weddings. It made me cry more than once.
Lots of good quotes:
“We ought to seek the Truth before all things, and never to rest till we felt sure we had found it. We should not suffer our souls to be beguiled into believing a falsehood merely because we wouldn't take the trouble to find out the Truth for ourselves by searching. We must dig for it; we must grope after it.” (9)
“'Why should YOU be the victim? Why should YOU be the martyr? Bask in the sun yourself; leave this doom to some other.' But, Alan, I can't. I feel I must face it. Unless one woman begins, there will be no beginning. . . . Think how easy it would be for me . . . To do as other women do; to accept the HONORABLE MARRIAGE you offer me, as other women would call it; to be false to my sex, a traitor to my convictions; to sell my kind for a mess of pottage, a name and a home, or even for thirty pieces of silver, to be some rich man's wife, as other women have sold it. But, Alan, I can't. My conscience won't let me. I know what marriage is, from what vile slavery it has sprung; on what unseen horrors for my sister women it is reared and buttressed; by what unholy sacrifices it is sustained, and made possible. I know it has a history, I know its past, I know its present, and I can't embrace it; I can't be untrue to my most sacred beliefs. I can't pander to the malignant thing, just because a man who loves me would be pleased by my giving way and would kiss me, and fondle me for it. And I love you to fondle me. But I must keep my proper place, the freedom which I have gained for myself by such arduous efforts." (15)
“Marriage itself is still an assertion of man's supremacy over woman. It ties her to him for life, it ignores her individuality, it compels her to promise what no human heart can be sure of performing; for you can contract to do or not to do, easily enough, but contract to feel or not to feel,—what transparent absurdity! It is full of all evils, and I decline to consider it. If I love a man at all, I must love him on terms of perfect freedom. I can't bind myself down to live with him to my shame one day longer than I love him; or to love him at all if I find him unworthy of my purest love, or unable to retain it; or if I discover some other more fit to be loved by me.” (16)
“Whoever sees the truth, whoever strives earnestly with all his soul to be good, must be raised many planes above the common mass of men around him; he must be a moral pioneer, and the moral pioneer is always a martyr. People won't allow others to be wiser and better than themselves, unpunished. They can forgive anything except moral superiority.” (16)
“If I would, I might go the beaten way you prescribe, and marry him legally. But of my own free will I disdain that degradation; I choose rather to be free. No fear of your scorn, no dread of your bigotry, no shrinking at your cruelty, shall prevent me from following the thorny path I know to be the right one.” (18)
“I saw that the one way of freedom for the woman is to cast off, root and branch, the evil growth of man's supremacy. I saw that the honorableness of marriage, the disgrace of free union, were just so many ignoble masculine devices to keep up man's lordship; vile results of his determination to taboo to himself beforehand and monopolize for life some particular woman.” (24)
“In the end, no doubt, complete independence would be secured for each woman by the civilized state, or in other words by the whole body of men, who do the hard work of the world, and who would collectively guarantee every necessary and luxury to every woman of the community equally. In that way alone could perfect liberty of choice and action be secured for women; and she held it just that women should so be provided for, because the mothers of the community fulfil in the state as important and necessary a function as the men themselves do. . . . there was nothing for it save that as many women as could should aim for themselves at economic liberty, in other words at self-support. That was an evil in itself, because obviously the prospective mothers of a community should be relieved as far as possible front the stress and strain of earning a livelihood.” (27)
I like this idea. Instead of taxes going to public schools, they should go to pay mothers to educate their young at home. But women shouldn’t be banned from working if that’s what they wish. And women who waste their government pay by neglecting their kids and wasting it on drugs should have their pay revoked.
“That is the worst of living a life morally ahead of your contemporaries; what you do with profoundest conviction of its eternal rightness cannot fail to arouse hostile and painful feelings even in the souls of the most right-minded of your friends who still live in bondage to the conventional lies and the conventional injustices.” (31)
“In the topsy-turvy philosophy . . . what is usual is right; while any conscious striving to be better and nobler than the mass around one is regarded at once as either insane or criminal.” (32)
“It is not the intrinsic moral value of an act such people think about, but the light in which it is regarded by a selfish society.” (36)
“In a world like our own, it is impossible for the righteous always to act consistently up to their most sacred convictions.” (36)
“There are poor souls born into this world so petty and narrow and wanting in originality that one can only expect them to tread the beaten track, be it ever so cruel and wicked and mistaken.” (37)
“So wrapt in vile falsehoods and conventions are we. So far have we travelled from the pristine realities of truth and purity. We lie to our children—in the interests of morality.” (50)
“Blank pessimism is the one creed possible for all save fools. To hold any other is to curl yourself up selfishly in your own easy chair, and say to your soul, "O soul, eat and drink; O soul, make merry. Carouse thy fill. Ignore the maimed lives, the stricken heads and seared hearts, the reddened fangs and ravening claws of nature all round thee." Pessimism is sympathy. Optimism is selfishness.” (50)
“But what after all IS patriotism? ‘My country, right or wrong, and just because it is my country!’ This is clearly nothing more than collective selfishness.” (62)
Herminia hoped to raise a daughter who would carry on her legacy of women’s liberation. Instead, her daughter only envied the status quo and conformed to it. That’s the risk you take when you send your child to school instead of homeschooling. It’s true that once an adult, the child is exposed to the world. But perhaps by that late age, the foundation is firm enough to withstand any cracks of doubt.
January 10, 2011
Loved this book, really captivated by it's social commentary so glad I stumbled across it.
March 31, 2016
there are two kind of novels in this world - 1. (good, better, best, finest) novel and 2. novel's malnourished, neglected, revenge-prone half-brother - drivel. this is an astonishing thing that happened to me while reading this melodramatic drivel, that how could i finish its last approximately 15 chapters in one sitting? this is a mystery and i finished this book with lots of disgust but i had to, anyway. in the meanwhile, beckett helps surprisingly enough ("i can't go on, i'll go on!")! but, at first, when i thought about the title's meaning, i was confused (i still am). the woman who did (what?)? after reading it, i realised that the woman who 'bored'. first off, it was good but then, there was no doubt in me many melodramatic sobfesting bollywood films took the queue of this novel's 'narrative', like "Ram Teri Ganga Maili" or, "Prem Granth" (most of you haven't heard of the latter, i'm sure). and, herminia's character can easily be portrayed by nirupa roy (may she rest in peace or, may she find her lost children in a manmohan desai flick!) or rekha (remember, 'Koi Mil Gaya' or, indian 'aila'-esque "E.T."?) it was funnily boring, fucking predictable, dull-duller-dullest (whoa! that escalated quickly!) but, one thing which is escaping me is that how i even managed to read this drivel! i must be some kind of reader-king in my previous birth! now, the clarification of giving it one star rating. why so? because its short length and it's much readable than the other pseudo-proto feminist fiction (yes, you guessed it right!) "jude the obscure" (the drivelest of the drivel without any narrative drives whatsoever). and, first time, i saw (oops, my bad, 'read' about) a friendzoned guy impregnated the friendzoner, fake-swishy gal in a novel. but, who knows that truth is stranger than fiction! sigh, india! sigh, humanity!
p.s. after exams, i will get back to reading dfw and kafka which i determined, like now. if my mood gets spoiled at that time, it'll be a pity but i'd really like to cleanse my reader soul, my reading taste and sense (and sensibility) because i feel like i am tortured, psychologically and mentally! i really need some witty, TRUE, FINEST type of literature break free kind of state of mind. I REALLY, DESPERATELY NEED IT!
p.p.s. why did i write a mega review for a paltry one-star rated drivel? because, that's how i wanted to vent my anger on this drivel, by writing this review (how i wished to throw it in allen's face but he wouldn't have understand it!) and reading it in pdf format made me more angry, vexed and funny! so, i leave, echoing michael stipes -
"oh no, i've said too much.
i haven't said out enough!"
p.s. after exams, i will get back to reading dfw and kafka which i determined, like now. if my mood gets spoiled at that time, it'll be a pity but i'd really like to cleanse my reader soul, my reading taste and sense (and sensibility) because i feel like i am tortured, psychologically and mentally! i really need some witty, TRUE, FINEST type of literature break free kind of state of mind. I REALLY, DESPERATELY NEED IT!
p.p.s. why did i write a mega review for a paltry one-star rated drivel? because, that's how i wanted to vent my anger on this drivel, by writing this review (how i wished to throw it in allen's face but he wouldn't have understand it!) and reading it in pdf format made me more angry, vexed and funny! so, i leave, echoing michael stipes -
"oh no, i've said too much.
i haven't said out enough!"
January 15, 2016
The reviews here on Goodreads are greatly lacking in actual feedback regarding the novel, so I will attempt to give more of a review than I tend to do. First, this is a book written by a Canadian man about an English woman and her life in Europe. He addresses the New Woman movement - not my area of expertise - ask your teacher or Google it.
What's significant to me is his attempt to speak from a woman's mind on so deep a topic throughout the book. I know lots of authors do it. The way Allen gets his messages across is through extended exchanges of ideas between Herminia and Allen (yawn) about how much they agree upon and the one thing they ultimately don't really agree on - he wants them to marry for her protection in the eyes of society although he agrees with her philosophically - but when she refuses he respects her.
Of course, all is good until she gets pregnant. He strongly recommends they go to Italy for her confinement to minimize conflict and here is where the story really begins.
Herminia's motivation for her cause is never made clear - as far as I see - except she feels she is meant to be the first. For the rest of the story, her emotions are few.
Nevertheless, the last few chapters make for a twist to the story that gives the end a satisfying surprise that may make you think about what might happen next.
I listened to the audiobook so I can't comment on punctuation, but the librivox free audiobook read by Ruth Golding was excellent.
What's significant to me is his attempt to speak from a woman's mind on so deep a topic throughout the book. I know lots of authors do it. The way Allen gets his messages across is through extended exchanges of ideas between Herminia and Allen (yawn) about how much they agree upon and the one thing they ultimately don't really agree on - he wants them to marry for her protection in the eyes of society although he agrees with her philosophically - but when she refuses he respects her.
Of course, all is good until she gets pregnant. He strongly recommends they go to Italy for her confinement to minimize conflict and here is where the story really begins.
Herminia's motivation for her cause is never made clear - as far as I see - except she feels she is meant to be the first. For the rest of the story, her emotions are few.
Nevertheless, the last few chapters make for a twist to the story that gives the end a satisfying surprise that may make you think about what might happen next.
I listened to the audiobook so I can't comment on punctuation, but the librivox free audiobook read by Ruth Golding was excellent.
January 7, 2019
I absolutely loved it. I read this novel for a class on gender studies, on the role of women between 1850 and 1950, and I was not disappointed. Knowing how society worked at the time, it's easy to understand how this novel could have shocked the readership, but it felt really good to read about a women of the 19th century refusing to go by society's standards of morality. It also raised thought-provoking questions about today's society, which is still deeply flawed, and it really made me think about some questions raised by the author. Now, I'm not saying that everything is great in the book. There are a few flaws in the author's thinking and in some of the character's beliefs, and there still was some progress to be made about the conception of women at the time, but for 1895, I think it's already quite good, even quite advanced for some subjects! I think it's a must-read.
May 6, 2009
This is more a pamphlet than a novel. It is mostly interesting for its politics: The heroine enters into a relationship outside marriage because for her, marriage and feminism can never work together. From a nowadays point of view, the plot is more than banal, but the interesting aspects about the text are how the Victorian image of womanhood and radical reformist and socialist thought are mixed together amazingly well, but resulting in one big blob of melodramatic rhetoric.
January 9, 2018
I've read some bilge in my time, but this beats most. There's not a single credible character in the whole farrago. It's social opinion dressed up as a novel, and it's not even well written. It's melodramatic and tedious at the same time. I can't remember a 'heroine' as stupid as Herminia.
So you may guess, I don't recommend it.
So you may guess, I don't recommend it.
October 1, 2014
It's a definite period piece, by which I mean a piece of its period. The period in question has lots and lots of moralizing dialogue. This one has about that much more again of it. It's an interesting effort, but it's ultimately as sad a failure as the experiment it outlines.
April 22, 2012
A pile of (misogynist) poo
April 5, 2023
Allen portrays interesting political ideas, but the execution of these ideas and the writing style weren’t for me.
January 2, 2024
Entertaining fantasy listening🎶
This was a free novella kindle e-book from Amazon
I tried this novella but it did not work for me give it a try it may work for you. 2024
This was a free novella kindle e-book from Amazon
I tried this novella but it did not work for me give it a try it may work for you. 2024
May 30, 2010
[These notes were made in 1988:]. What did she do? She had a sexual relationship with a man she didn't marry, and bore him a child. She also became mouthpiece and ideal for Allen's radical theories (socialism and free love). Oh yes, and when at the end, society had thoroughly beaten her down, and her own daughter repudiated her, she committed suicide. One would think the author was trying to discourage radicalism, would one not? But the impassioned authorial tirade near the end about the ill-effects of "monopolist instincts" (patriotism, land ownership, capitalism, marriage) leaves no doubt where Mr. Allen stood. He speaks only admiringly of Herminia, the "woman" of the title, and only slightingly of Dolores, her daughter, even while portraying her as a fairly sensible if a little cold young woman. The name of the man with whom Herminia has her affair (which is really a marriage without the rings; it looks permanent when the man dies) - anyway the man's name, Alan, betrays where Allen is identifying himself. I think too, though, that the narrator betrays something of the same fascination with the idea of martyrdom that Herminia does. It's fairly hard, I'm afraid, to convince a hardened old cynic like me that Herminia's tearful suicide is a martyrdom in the cause of true and higher thinking. Women's Lib, as history has shown, does not thrive on martyrs but on survivors. And Allen's closet chauvinism, which might have been less evident in 1896, screams at the reader now. He argues for emancipation - then in the same breath declares with apparent gravity that women are by nature dependent and desire to be led!
March 19, 2020
Couldn't get into it; couldn't finish it; got further depressed with each successive page! After reading Sex Wars by Marge Piercy, and discovering for the first time in MY life (never covered in 16yrs of schooling!) the fact of women as chattel in previous times (and still today, to a greater degree than we care to admit), I am uncomfortable with any books that even hint at the subject! Oh, I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I grew up in an environment of strong, free-thinking women, and have been fortunate to have daughters, daughters-in-law, and five granddaughters of the same strong, burgeoning independence. I sit here, watching coverage of this horrid COVID-19 pandemic, thinking a woman-in-charge could have mitigated spread much better than the white-haired (and Orange-haired) men who are obviously NOT IN CHARGE! The ERA was first proposed how many decades ago, and it's still not adopted? SHAME on those white-haired old men, and SHAME on the women who have let them get away with it! Our salvation may come from the promise from both leading white-haired, Democratic, near-octogenarian, candidates who have each promised to choose women running mates: maybe a woman can at least (and at last) BACK INTO her proper place as leader of this needy country and society!
Read
November 7, 2022It troubles me to read bad reviews of books like this. Yes, it's easy to complain about novels from, say, the Victorian period (1837-1901)--this one was late during this era, 1895. It belongs to batch of works dealing with "The New Woman"--in waves, over time, women protest their subjugation by the machinery of the social order; this is one version of that. THE WOMAN WHO DID isn't a terrific novel by modern standards. Too much exposition in the form of dialog, and so on. But, I've learned, you have to read a book on its own terms, you have to take what you can from it, in this case a poignant (though didactic or heavy-handed, we might feel) account of young woman who is determined to live by her own lights; she demands personal freedom; she views marriage as a form of slavery--she refuses to marry the man she loves, who loves her, on principle. She pays terribly for this choice but is loyal to it. Young women of today need to know how things used to be, what choices were available, what awful constraints were in place, how fierce the opposition to change, how difficult it was for a woman on her own to make a living. Reading out of one's own time and place is crucial for both a nuanced understanding of the world and an understanding of how our literature morphed over time.
October 26, 2018
The fact that the mother committed suicide at the end of this novel is something horrendous ... oh my! Do not think that Dolores could ever be happy! Just if she ' s some kind of psychopathic monster! Pure horror!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 14, 2018
What an unfortunate book. This really should have stayed as a debate the author had with is friends over a beer at the pub. The author has serious contempt for women and their liberties and tries to recruit more people to his club of contempt by showing Herminia, the main character as a failure that clearly needs man in her life. The fact that the author veils his commentary on the issue of feminism is not so much a problem, the problem is how wrong and disgusting his views are, again, what an unfortunate book, it really should not have been written. I am utterly disgusted and will dispose of this copy, i can not have it in my collection and risk having people read it and attribute it to me!.sies!!.
October 3, 2012
A very brief book, and mostly very easy to read. Massively political, but still from a slightly strange point of view - although Herminia (what a name!) is applauded for her determination to preserve her freedom and independence, her life is still a terrible and tragic failure. And there is no hope for the spinster - the author is quite clear that the whole purpose of a woman's life is to have a child! Must have been very depressing for its contemporary readers - the married ones would have felt shocked or criticised, the spinsters even worse! I must admit I skipped the long boring socialist rant towards the end...it didn't seem to add much.
November 11, 2014
Allen appeared to have an obsession with exclamation marks... The Woman Who Did is a "New woman" novel about a independent woman named Hermia Barton who is strong willed in that she decided to never get married because she believed marriage is given men possession of the woman. Then she met Alan Merrick, a lawyer who believes her cause and the two remained lovers but unmarried. Soon tragic event happened and Hermia needs to decide if she could keep up her ideal.
I personally thought the writing was tedious and unrealistic. The narration was dreadful and the characters were disposable. The message about women's independence didn't exactly express itself that well.
I personally thought the writing was tedious and unrealistic. The narration was dreadful and the characters were disposable. The message about women's independence didn't exactly express itself that well.
October 10, 2013
This book was better than having to read the Odd women but I still wouldn't read it on my own time. Also Grant Allen did not write a good book and I only read this book for class.
June 20, 2017
1.5
Diatribe masquerading as a novel.
Diatribe masquerading as a novel.
December 3, 2016
depressing
Read
March 18, 2024no clue what to rate this; was a pretty interesting insight into some (seemingly conflicting to me as a modern reader) ideas of the new woman, but there wasn’t much imagination or plot going on
October 6, 2023
There were two things wrong with this book, two things that happen way too often. At the risk of sounding sexist, I don't think a book like this should be written by a man. Every book I've read from classic days written by a man about a nonconformist h, always has her appear more cardboard cutout than real. She becomes a walking, talking political/social cause, rather than a living breathing woman. Any man who's dumb enough to fall for an A.I. (like the boring H in this book) deserves an early death.
The other glaring fault is the all-too-frequent hypocrisy of unconventional types when confronted with the conventionality of others who choose to be that way. They can't accept that! How come? They want people to accept themselves being different and not be condemned for it, yet they can't accept people who don't want to be different and condemn them for it! Can you say, "double standard"? I sure can! It's what she has for her daughter, who dares to want the conventional life Mommy disapproves of. Hypocrite!
I've read several 19th century/early 20th century novels with nonconformist h's that were written by women and they're much better than this!
If I'm sexist, then so be it!
The other glaring fault is the all-too-frequent hypocrisy of unconventional types when confronted with the conventionality of others who choose to be that way. They can't accept that! How come? They want people to accept themselves being different and not be condemned for it, yet they can't accept people who don't want to be different and condemn them for it! Can you say, "double standard"? I sure can! It's what she has for her daughter, who dares to want the conventional life Mommy disapproves of. Hypocrite!
I've read several 19th century/early 20th century novels with nonconformist h's that were written by women and they're much better than this!
If I'm sexist, then so be it!
May 19, 2019
I read this for my class on the Decadent era of literature. It was my favorite because it was so hilariously awful. Allen wrote an allegory about the radical but not progressive role he believes women should play. Essentially for him, marriage is a social construct, but how are we to survive if women don't make babies for us? I've been telling people it should be called "The Woman Who Should Have [Gotten Married]." I wouldn't recommend it for pleasure reading. He objectifies and sexualizes women left, right, and sideways, to the point that it's virtually unreadable at times. His idea of a "strong, independent woman" is downright insulting. It was definitely worth reading for me as a feminist critic in academia, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
May 25, 2018
The politics are terrible, but the book poses some interesting questions. It was less of a hit in class discussion than I had hoped. I will try again sometime in the future.
Meanwhile, I love the reviews that are included in this Broadview edition. H. G. Wells's response to _TWWD_ is priceless.
Meanwhile, I love the reviews that are included in this Broadview edition. H. G. Wells's response to _TWWD_ is priceless.
February 26, 2020
A bitter personal grievance disguised as a novel. Extremely self-righteous, but readable for all that!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews