I wasn't sure how I was going to rate this one ; I can't apply my usual criteria because, while I didn't exactly enjoy it, I have to respect what it does and says as a classic work of literature.
Maggie Johnson, the ostensible protagonist in Stephen Crane’s controversial 1893 novella, exists not “for [her] own sake" (Enlo) but as a pastiche of female functions. For her lover she is a challenge and a conquest. She is an emblem of her mother’s authority and of her brother’s credibility. She is a repository for male desire, a source of carnal pleasure whose sexuality is not her own.
Maggie functions to delineate manifestations of gendered utility, even as she exemplifies the consequences of their forfeiture. Crane illustrates the plight of womanhood in the context of a problematic milieu: in the bowery, womanhood is a dangerous affliction. Thus, female utility is the fundamental difference between girls who disappear and women who survive.
Rather than get into naturalism as a genre and philosophy, I'm going to foreground gender instead.
The first thing I want to address is the relationship between gender binaries, double standards, and Maggie’s figurative, then literal, disappearance. It becomes very clear, very quickly, that utility is a currency which females exchange for survival; Maggie’s fatal descent into superfluity is a consequence of a bankruptcy that is uniquely female.
The young female characters in Crane’s novella operate in a social microcosm wherein Attractiveness, dutifulness, domesticity, or carnal talent can be redeemed for familial or masculine shelter.
That said, I Wouldn’t go so far as to call this a didactic treatise on proper behavior, not even a thinly veiled one. Crane’s bowery is no place for feminist or hegemonic precepts. More specifically, Maggie doesn’t really function to frighten bad little girls into staying good ones. Her story isn't really even meant to castigate patriarchy, not exactly. What Crane is doing is chronicling, rather dispassionately, the experiences of women operating in a misogynist, kill or be killed society.
He isn’t telling all women everywhere to fall back and let men guide, direct, and maintain them, nor does he advocate for or introduce new feminist precepts into the conversation. He isn't using Maggie to demonstrate that all women are dirty whores who'd live longer if they did what men said or, as some have argued, charging men with the deaths of Maggies everywhere.
He is, however,saying that women, essentially, worked harder to survive than men, especially if they were of the working class. After all, they didn't get to sit back, pop out kids, or eat, shop, or vacation on a patriarch’s dime. Unlike their wealthier counterparts, these women were *always* employed and on the clock.
And what jobs were available? Well, women could make a decent living remaining loyal to or reflecting positively on their families, even toxic ones like Maggie’s. They could do quite well as prostitutes. They could capture and maintain the interest of powerful, dangerous and, most importantly, wealthy men.
Bottom line, to survive in Maggie’s society, a woman needed to relinquish everything about herself that wasn’t useful to or pleasing to someone else. Those who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, often wound up drowning in the “mud puddle” that was “rum Alley” (Crane).
The problem, Crane’s novella argues, is that Women who became objects of sexual utility not only lost their appeal but also contracted a contagious shame. These women were of no value to their families because their behaviors were regarded as indicative of poor parenting. Families intent on maintaining the appearance of respectability would almost always cast them out.
Again, I’d argue that the novella is a journalistic endeavor, one intended to shed light on the fait of girls and women who occupied the lower rungs of late 19th century American society.
The gist of Crane’s report is that Life in the bowery sucked hard for men but even harder for women ;this was an unfortunate, objective reality that could not and should not be ignored.
Now, anyone who knows me knows how I feel about mysterious endings, especially ones that involve the ultimate fate of the protagonist. Again, I understand why Crane does this, even as I stamp my feet and scream at not being told what really became of Maggie.
Ultimately, this is an interesting, if not necessarily fun or exciting, read. I give it a grudging four stars.