I would like to clarify that I did not give this book a low rating because of its writing quality. The reason it was on my radar in the first place was because I wanted to read something--anything--created by this fascinating woman I've been reading about, who essentially lived her life as a man in order to gain the autonomy and freedom that she craved, and whose work inspired many of the greatest novelists of her generation, including the Brontes. After hearing that, I had to see what kind of writer she was, and on that score, I was not disappointed. I look forward to exploring more of her work in the future. In fact, part of me realizes that my rating is a bit unfair, because it stems from something that can't exactly be helped, given that the story was published sometime around 1875. Sand might have been a revolutionary, but she still had to work within the borders of her dysfunctional society, just like anyone else.
Sorry, Let me back up. Although I enjoyed the writing style of "Marianne" I was honestly a bit annoyed by some of its ideas--a short list of teeth-grinding "romance" fiction tropes that still plauge fiction--esppecially fiction aimed at women--to this day. Granted, in 1875 these things weren't tropes; they were just commonly accepted ideas about how female lives should be lived. Even so, it still hurts my heart to see them turn up anywhere, wether it be in modern YA, a bad Rom-Com, or in otherwise lovely fiction from over a hundred years ago; and it hurts a little extra that a woman like Sands, who was determined to live a different "life script" than the one the world offered her, would be content to write the script thaat she rejected for her characters to live, instead.
(From here on there's a little bit of spolier action):
This narrative opens with something really intruging, especially for a 19th century setting: an independant young woman that is apparently content to live quietly, unmarried and childless, pursuing what she likes in an environment of her choosing. This set up left me hoping for a closer examination of Marianne's life--perhaps a portrait of a woman calmly living outside of the life that her society tells her is the only one that will make her happy, not to Make A Statement, but simply to make the most of her existance, her way. Instead, the narrative quickly becaomes:
1. A story about a man observing a woman, rather than a story about a woman, a la Dasiey Miller--well hello, there, Male Gaze. Haven't see you out in all your blatant glory like this since the Corsett scene in the first "Sherlock Holmes" film.)
2. A modern romance, in the sense that we have a young woman caught between two men who, a. both want her, and b. are both idiots. (One of them expects her to marry him after knowing him for about the space of an afternoon, and the other spends a good portion of the story wondering wether or not Marianne has any real intelligence, and discouraging her desire to educate herself...how lovely. Who among us wouldn't just fall into that man's arms?)
3. A modern romance in the sense that this woman who seems perfectly happy living independantly at the begining of the story ends up married by the end. (To its credit, however, at least she marries because she wants a particular person, and not because "oh my goodness every woman must have a man!" that's actually a lot more progressive than some things written less than ten years ago.)
These things would not bother me so much--would probably not even phase me--if they were relics; dim memories from a past in which women were viewed, and viewed themselves, as pretty things that needed a man's attention and affection in order to both be aware of and embrace thier own existance. No, these elements in this 140 year old story bother me because I've seen them all before. In fiction that was created in my lifetime. For example:
1. I last blatant example of the male gaze (essentially the idea that women exist, at least in part, for the purpose of being looked at by men, either in a contemplative or a sexual way, and should take pleasure in being observed and validated by male eyes), was the "Sherlock Holmes" film released in 2010. The way that the camera was caressing Rachel McAdams during that scene in which she was wearing only a corsett was pretty obviously meant to be sensual, which assumes that the only people in the audience are straight men. (Well, technically, that image would be potentially sensual to both straight men aand Lesbian/Bisexual women, but considering how hollywood tends to fetishize both of those groups in an attempt to titlate--once again--straight men, I kinda doubt that the director was thinking about drawing in his Lesbian audience when he filmed that shot). This one was pretty hard to ignore, but the Male Gaze still exists in a variety of forms in our culture, both subtle and blatant....and being reminded of how long it's been around, as a form of storytelling, no less, honestly hit me in the gut a little.
2. Examples of single, autonomous women deciding that, no, actually, they really do need to be married by the time thier stories end, abound in modern ficton. Take the protagonist of 2007's "Eat, Pray, Love," who makes a big deal of Embracing Her Independance after a difficult divorce...only to end up remarried by the end of the story. I'd be here all day if tried to list every example, but I'm sure that anyone reading this who grew up in a Western culture can think of many, many more without my healp. (Particularly if you happen to be female, since most fiction with a "No, really, you need to be married by the end," plot is geared toward women).
3. Portaying men who display a profound disrespect for the basic competence and intelligence of the women they "love" as desireable partners...well, that one's been at the center of a hugely successful franchize since about 2005. I won't bother to name it--I think you're picking up what I"m putting down.
So, in the end, maybe I'm being just as un fair to "Marianne" as most of the cast of her own story is. I can't bring myself to praise a piece with these themes in it too highly, but for very personal reasons. It's not simply the fact that those ideas existed in 1875, which I understand; it's the pang of being reminded that they are about as prevelant today as they ever were, which both baffles and honeestly sickens me.