Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion

Would you classify Daughter of the Forest as a feminist book?

Claire Elizabeth Hall wrote a thesis on Daughter of the Forest: “Do You Hold a Wild Creature Once It is Healed, and Ready to Fly Home?” A Feminist Investigation of Fairy Tales and Sexual Assault in Juliet Marillier’s Daughter of the Forest. You can read it online. This post is largely based on Hall's work.

Daughter of the Forest is based on an old fairy tale. It falls under type 451 of the Aarne–Thompson tale type index. This is a list used by folklorists to talk about folktales. It groups multiple stories together, based on recurring plot patterns. Type 451 means that it falls under the category of:

Fairy Tales
Supernatural or Enchanted Relatives 400–459
Brother or Sister 450–459
The Nurse looking for her Brothers, 451

Hall's thesis compares Daughter of the Forest mostly with some of the stories of Grimm that also file under type 451. Comparing them brings up some interesting contrasts.

Sorcha is not at fault for the transformation of her brothers

This is different in for example Grimms’ “The Twelve Brothers”. There the young sister picks twelve flowers - even though she had been warned not to. Each time she picks a flower, one of her brothers is turned into a raven.

Sorcha is not a passive survivor

In the Grimm tales, the woman does not fight against what happens to her, she just lets it happen.

Sorcha's 'feminine behavior' is not seen as desirable

In the Grimm tales, the silence of the woman is seen as something that makes her attractive; the male desires her because of it. Fairy tales have been used in the past to teach a lesson. Tale type 451 could be seen as a lesson that if you are quiet as a woman, you can get what you desire, for example a husband. Silence makes a woman mysterious and intriguing. In Daughter of the Forest, Red is not attracted to Sorcha because of her silence.

(On the topic of silnce Hall cites critic Ruth Bottigheimer: "Men (in literature and drama) could be silent, but women were silenced" Hall theorizes that Sorcha is silent, but not silenced; she has the choice to end it.)

There is also her 'domestic work' of making the shirts, which is not seen as something positive (obviously). "The shirts that Sorcha creates for her brothers represent another widespread aspect of the Type 451 tales: the emphasis of women’s domestic tasks. These tasks appear in many of the tales in a few different forms: “industriousness and adeptness in household work, especially spinning, sewing, and weaving, often highlighted or depicted in exaggerated form. They also represent traits which the male figure in the tale prizes in his search for a wife” (Rusch-Feja 26)." (Hall, 9)

Sorcha decides if she wants to be with Red

She is given the choice to deny Red. It is not Red, nor her father or her brothers who ultimately decide what she should do.

Hall also cites a different view on the book, that it is "supportive of the patriarchy both because of the happy endings and because of the subtlety of the efforts employed. One feminist challenged Marillier’s right to include what she derided as a simple happily ever after. Marillier’s response … was that the conclusion of her book was “neither truly happy nor truly an ending. (Copley 22)" (Hall, 47)

Towards which side in the discussion do you lean?

I am so glad you found this essay. I actually have made several attempts to write about this very same thing, but it kept coming out jumbled.

I do see Daughter of the Forest as a feminist book. I found it intriguing that the tasks Sorcha must keep to are stereotypically desirable classic feminine qualities. To be silent. To be apt in domestic pursuits.

Sorcha is not a proper lady of her times. Especially considering she is the child of a lord. She is a child of nature and not raised to aspire to delicate, female accomplishments. I think that both her tasks are meant to conceal her true self. She is unable to speak and express her bright, capable, and strong mind. Her task to sew the shirts literally causes her horrific pain and mutilates her hands.

Sorcha is forced to give the appearance of passivity (i.e. the many times Richard menaces her, when she is raped, etc.) because simply to speak to defend herself will forfeit her brothers' lives, to fight back may have lead to her own death and that too would doom her brothers. Sorcha is not passive, but chooses to be for a tremendously altruistic goal.

Lindsay wrote: "I think that both her tasks are meant to conceal her true self."

That's an interesting point. Like it is said in the thesis, often the time in the forest is considerend a sort of rite of passage, a time to meditate and to perhaps bring you closer to your true self. Sorcha's tasks make her move farther away from herself, not being able to use her strong points, such as comforting people with her telling of stories, healing people with her words, hands and wisdom (among many other qualities).

Didn't Simon make a reference to how she has the gentlest hands in the world? And it are exactly those hands that are mutilated because of her tasks.

Sorcha is made silent and passive, which surpresses and conceals her natural qualities. Using a fairy tale that had the message that women being silent and passive was a good thing, and turning that into a story of how that doesn't allow people to be themselves is quite feminist indeed.

I would argue that the end is remarkably feminist too (spoilers ahead, obviously). Sorcha does not for one second consider abandoning her home for Red. She saves her brothers, and Red (ok fine, there is some mutual saving going on ;). But in the end, it's RED -- lord of his manor -- who leaves everything behind to be with her in her land, with her family. I wouldn't be surprised if he took her name ;)

It feels like the comment that the ending of the book is not feminist because it results in a marriage is a little silly, perhaps? What would they have wanted? For Sorcha to grow old alone, muttering quotes of Simone de Beauvoir? Sorcha won't listen to comments like that, nor to the patriarchy. She just does what she wants ;)

(I can understand that some people don't the happy ending, that it is not as simple as I implied. I just felt like overexaggerating a little.)

I found the story to be quite empowering, and I often wondered if I would have been able to endure the same hardships that Sorcha had. I love my family, but I feel that I would likely have lacked the force of will to accomplish all that she had. And feminism isn't anti-marriage or anti-traditional love, it is against oppression, and I thought this book did a beautiful job conveying feminist ideals.

Katie wrote: "And feminism isn't anti-marriage or anti-traditional love, it is against oppression, and I thought this book did a beautiful job conveying feminist ideals."

There's some branches in feminism that you don't want to look into then! For example The Feminists, a radical feminism movement:

The Feminists held a more idealistic, psychologistic, and utopian philosophy, with a greater emphasis on "sex roles", seeing sexism as rooted in "complementary patterns of male and female behavior". They placed more emphasis on institutions, seeing marriage, family, prostitution, and heterosexuality as all existing to perpetuate the "sex-role system". They saw all of these as institutions to be destroyed. (x)



Or separatist feminism:

Separatist feminism is a form of radical feminism that holds that opposition to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and girls. Some separatist feminists do not believe that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate the dynamics of patriarchy. (x)

And of course lesbian separatism:

Charlotte Bunch, an early member of The Furies Collective, viewed separatist feminism as a strategy, a "first step" period, or temporary withdrawal from mainstream activism to accomplish specific goals or enhance personal growth. Other lesbians, such as Lambda Award winning author Elana Dykewomon, have chosen separatism as a lifelong practice.

In addition to advocating withdrawal from working, personal or casual relationships with men, The Furies recommended that Lesbian Separatists relate "only (with) women who cut their ties to male privilege" and suggest that "as long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially Lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits". (x)

Silly things like this happened too:



(I do agree that the book was empowering and feminism as a movement against oppression is my favorite of all the varieties.)

It's interesting, because I think an alternative feminist interpretation of this story could be considered in a fairly negative light. I see this story as a version of the civilization theme seen in stories such as The Jungle Book, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Anne of Green Gables, or Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. The character starts in a position of wildness, loses his/her innocence, is civilized, and becomes an adult.

The problem I have consistently had with this type of theme when applied to girls versus boys is that civilization is inevitably domestication and a diminishing of personality. In my other two examples of Mowgli and Tom Sawyer, the boys mature but still maintain their power. In contrast, girls are reprimanded in their wildness and learn to be domestic and tame. I definitely see this maintained with Sorcha. She starts out the story essentially a creature of the Forest ("Daughter of the Forest")with bare feet, connected to the vegetation, to the Fair Folk, and to her chosen profession of healing. She even has significant agency through her actions towards Simon who in some ways represents the synthesis of her wildness and her own choice. But she is too wild and so she needs to be tamed and domesticated.

The first domestication occurs through the villain who tells her she needs to be a lady and takes away her profession and her connection to nature. This is understandably an evil act and I was hoping the book at that point would reaffirm Sorcha's power and connections to nature by reconnecting her to her healing. Instead the Fair Folk double down on her domestication.

Her "taming" is shown in depriving her of her voice and in her having to rescue her brothers through an ongoing act of female domestication. In this case a literal transformation of wildness (plants which signified her original calling to be a healer and her power as a healer) into tameness through the creation of shirts which inflict harm on her. She is figuratively beaten into submission through the act of weaving and sewing. However, she is still alone in the forest at this point - still "semi wild".

Then she is raped - her innocence is taken from her and then the Fair Folk insist she leave her forest sanctuary and join civilization. Her agency is reduced to reacting to others. Her voice is also almost completely subsumed in others' opinions. At more than one point she comments that she has only one choice - that her choices have been taken from her. The rest of the story progresses predictably. She has been domesticated, tamed, and taken up the traditional female role. Not only did the villain do this to her, but nature itself (as represented by the Fair Folk), have ensured that she continues as all other women ought to. Even her choice of Red is in some ways the safe, traditional choice. She was married after all her other choices have been taken from her. Yes, she chooses him at the end over the protests of her brothers. But even then her final choice could be seen as accepting a role of civilization and domestication. Her father has to encourage her to choose, (even though she used to rebel against her father), and her voice is still mostly subsumed as she does not really speak much even then, Red does the speaking.

From this perspective I do not see the book as empowering except for the message that women (and men) can survive through endurance. That is an important message, but it is not a positive one in my mind. A much more empowering message would be one where she maintains her wildness. Where she is not driven to be merely reactive; to acquiesce to the loss of all of her choices. Where at the end she chooses to regain her power and agency and has a voice that she insists the other characters consistently listen to instead of an essential domestic passivity.

Philippa wrote: "It's interesting, because I think an alternative feminist interpretation of this story could be considered in a fairly negative light. I see this story as a version of the civilization theme seen i..."

Philippa, may I ask you if you are familiar with the original fairy tale?

"Would you classify Daughter of the Forest as a feminist book?"

I would like to split that into two questions: Is Daughter of the Forest a book about feminism? and, Is Daughter of the Forest a book with a feminist in it?

To the first question I would say no, its not a book about feminism.
To the second I would say yes, that there is a feminist in it.
I like the fact that I can see Sorcha as a real person, and not as a one dimensional cartoon of feminism or anything else for that matter.

Melissa wrote: "Philippa wrote: "It's interesting, because I think an alternative feminist interpretation of this story could be considered in a fairly negative light. I see this story as a version of the civiliza..."

Yes. So? Understanding that some of the problematic aspects of this tale come from the original does not negate how Marillier chose to depict them or even reinforce them. The character has to weave shirts from brambles and stay silent in the original. Marillier makes Sorcha a healer and locates the power of her character in nature. That adds impact to the essentially domestic nature of the weaving and reinforces the wildness-taming metaphor. Sorcha's muteness - while required in the story - is reinforced by her lack of attempts to affect her circumstances. She acknowledges that she has no choices in terms of her overall circumstances but then chooses to remain essentially passive in front of others' animosity. She chooses to affect very few of the things which do remain in her power. While that is consistent with the original fairy tale, I don't see that it's required necessarily.

Philippa wrote: "Yes. So?"

I didn't mean to offend. From your first post I wasn't entirely sure if you were reading the text in relation to the original tale. I didn't want to make assumptions. I understand your points much better now. (I think.)

Thank you for taking the time to make such a long, intelligent post. I found your reading of the book very interesting. The more perspectives, the more interesting a conversation becomes.

I'd like to reply, but I do want to point out that I'm pretty sick at the moment and am on quite a lot of medication, so sorry if I sound a bit off, or make no sense at all.

First I'd like to respond to certain of your points and contrast them with my reading. (By which I do not mean to imply that one reading is better than the other.)

I believe we mostly read the ending differently.

She has been domesticated, tamed, and taken up the traditional female role. Not only did the villain do this to her, but nature itself (as represented by the Fair Folk), have ensured that she continues as all other women ought to.

My reading of the story was that she was indeed forced to take up the traditional female role, but that it was only temporary and that it was stressed that it was a negative way to treat a person. I read it as that forcing people in that 'mold', led to people not being able to be themselves and to not make fully use of their natural strengths.

I do agree that Sorcha was rather passive and silent at the ending, which can be seen as her being tamed, but I read that more as that she was still recovering from the trauma of what happened to her, which can be seen as a strong point of the book: she is not instantly alright and happy now that her ordeal is over. This seems more realistic to me. It's not a black-and-white happy ending.

In my expectation, she is going to be her strong, wild self again after she has had a bit of time to recover. Maybe someone who has read the other novels in the series knows how Sorcha as an adult in characterized?

Her father has to encourage her to choose.

I didn't read that as that she needed her father's encouragement, but more as an explicit way of showing that the patriarchy (and who better to represent that than the pater himself?) was acknowledging that she would be listened to. It showed a change.

Next I would like to talk a bit about what makes a story feminist. I don't think that is easy to answer and there might be as many answers as there are persons.

Let us take the following quote:

Fairy tales define women as beautiful objects, powerless to alter the events in their lives, while fairy tale men are powerful agents of their own destiny. (x)

I don't think there was much focus on Sorcha being beautiful. For example, when she and Red meet for the first time, she wasn't graceful and gorgeous. In a lot of other variations of the tale, she seems to be exactly that; and the prince falls in love with her simply because she is beautiful.

Sorcha is limited by the curse, so in a certain sense she is indeed powerless, but she does have some power to alter her destiny. She doesn't need to wait for a prince to defeat the dragon, she isn't in a state of unconsciousness like for example Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. (Of course, that was already the case in most of the older versions of the text, so Marillier didn't really change much here.)

Donna Jo Napoli is one feminist author who has found success re-visioning fairy tales, creating feminist rather than fractured fairy tales. She has altered generic conventions in three main areas in her books that allow her to rework the discursive foundations of the traditional material: narrative strategy, representation of male and female characters, and renegotiation of patriarchal ideologies and values. (x)

Narrative strategy: Marillier changes the traditional omniscient, anonymous narrator to a first-person narrative, allowing Sorcha to be the agent of her own narration.

Representation of male and female characters: Sorcha is her 'natural' state is a someone who does and says what she wants, making her a not typical fairy tale girl. Red is characterized as someone who is gentle and patient, which are traditionally feminine qualities.

Renegotiation of patriarchal ideologies and values: the traditional role of women is shown as limiting; patriarchy is shown as oppressive. (Depending on your reading.)

Whether this book seems feminist is very personal and all about the eye of the beholder.

It might be interesting to mention Kay Stone: she questioned the simplistic dichotomy of passive and active heroines and the conventional judgement that active heroines have more to offer women than their victimized counterparts. She believed in the heroic potential of the persecuted heroine. (x)

I think that Marillier would agree with that. She wrote a blog postabout her heroines.

I'll quote some relevant passages:

In creating the female protagonists of my novels, I’m also influenced by the books I read and loved when younger; old favourites I’ve now read over and over. The characters I was drawn to as a teenager had three notable characteristics:

- they showed courage in adversity
- at some point they took control of their destiny
- they stayed true to themselves

All of these characters know their own minds, or come to know them. All of them display courage. All of them meet their challenges and stand up to their persecutors. But not right away – each of them must first make a difficult journey.

In the nineties I struggled with the sudden proliferation of kick-ass heroines, because those stories seemed to suggest that a woman could not be a good protagonist unless she acted like a man (or in the way tradition suggests a man should act.) For years I actively avoided creating a ‘warrior girl’ character, thinking there were more than enough of those already. For me, women’s strength goes far deeper. It’s found not only in the soldier, the corporate executive, the elite sportswoman, but also in the stoic grandmother, the single parent shift-worker, the woman who cares for a disabled child or a frail parent. It’s there in all of us.

I do think Marillier could have done more with the story. But I feel that this is her personal interpretation of a strong female.

I can see the argument that what she is forced to do is "women's work", but I think it goes beyond that - in this story the traditionally female work doors a great deal of harm to Sorcha, but she's strong enough to rise above the pain. To me, that's more of a hero's journey than if she just had to weave and sew. It might even be a commentary on what being forced into those traditional roles would do to Sorcha - it's a literal manifestation of the pain it would cause her to be what the Lady Oonagh wants of her instead of staying true to herself.

Melissa wrote:
I didn't mean to offend. From your first post I wasn't entirely sure if you were reading the text in relation to the original tale. I didn't want to make assumptions. I ..."

No worries; I wasn't offended. I do think that the source material is challenging to craft in such a way that a feminist critique doesn't highlight the negatives. However, some of Marillier's choices for the characters, in my opinion, tend to emphasize those negatives instead of mitigate them.

My reading of the story was that she was indeed forced to take up the traditional female role, but that it was only temporary and that it was stressed that it was a negative way to treat a person. I read it as that forcing people in that 'mold', led to people not being able to be themselves and to not make fully use of their natural strengths.

This is challenging to refute since it's dependent on actions potentially taken after the ending of the book. It's certainly possible that Sorcha has a more empowered role later on, but I would argue that it's irrelevant to her depiction in Daughter of the Forest since it's not contained in the text.

I didn't read that as that she needed her father's encouragement, but more as an explicit way of showing that the patriarchy (and who better to represent that than the pater himself?) was acknowledging that she would be listened to. It showed a change.

I think that the way you've phrased that actually supports my point. There is space for Sorcha's voice, but it is only within the structure of others' voices. I don't know if it's just male voices - I think that women in the book were just as responsible for depriving her of choice and voice - but it's a contrast to the beginning of the book when she acts out against her father.

As to whether this is a feminist book - I agree that that's a much harder determination to make. I suppose my position would be that if a feminist critique of the book highlights the female protagonist in a negative way then by definition the book isn't feminist. But in general I'm not sure what it means to say that a book is feminist if we're not talking about a non-fiction description of feminist thought. From the rest of your argument I think that the idea of whether a book is feminist is dependent on whether it can be seen positively within a feminist critique, which is something I've already stated I don't think is true.

I agree that Marillier doesn't over emphasize female beauty, although the idea of Sorcha as a locus of male desire is preserved both through the rape, Red's interaction with her, and the perception of Red's desire by others. It would be challenging to have a romance without that construction, but it does make it harder to claim that Marillier is subverting a stereotype.

I actually think that the active-passive dichotomy is quite a good one to use if we define what that means. Active doesn't have to mean aggressive. An active character can be one who only acts within a limited space; even a domestic or an internal space. S/he has a strong voice (either externally or internally) and agency within the story. In contrast, I would define a passive character as a reactive one. Events happen to the character and s/he responds without any attempts to change further events. My criticism of the way that Sorcha develops is that she becomes reactive. She continually mentions that her "choices are taken from her" and she acquiesces to that perceived lack of choice. Faced with hostility she withdraws - not just physically but in her narrative voice. Faced with the choice Red makes to marry her she acquiesces - but she doesn't acknowledge her own desire and love until others articulate it for her. She loses her voice internally as well as externally.

This is what I meant when I said that the author's choices for the character make the original source material more problematic. By making Sorcha's strength and agency come from the forest it's even a stronger betrayal of that agency that the Fair Folk (representations of nature) and the starwort (symbol of the herbs she masters) are the means by which she is silenced, hurt, and contained. By giving Sorcha not only a physical voice but a mental one, it's a worse silencing that by the end of the book Sorcha does not admit to herself what she wants or needs and has to wait for the space that others provide.

I completely agree that a strong female protagonist can be quiet, internally contained, and domestic. She can also be victimized and a figure of endurance. The challenge with depicting that type of protagonist as strong, particularly in a first-person narrative, is that it requires a strong voice. And as I've argued above, I believe that Sorcha's voice has been significantly diminished by the end of the book (both literally and figuratively).

Philippa wrote: "She loses her voice internally as well as externally...."

I think that is a very interesting point, but I actually feel like that strengths Sorcha has a character. At the begin, her life was predominately idyllic. When confronted with change (Liam being betrothed) she acts as most children would. She is scared of change, but it manifests itself as anger and resentment.

When Sorcha is raped, the act of violence is of such a magnitude that it mutes her soul. I think her silence of self and her lack of agency comes from the trauma of her rape. Eventually, bit by bit, she regains herself, but it is different. She is not a wild girl of the forest, but becomes a more serene figure who has a deeper grasp on all the world. She can communicate with Red without words, she is able to continue to be a healer by saving Margery and Johnny during the difficult labor. She can still run wild and free on the shores with the seals, but still, her soul does fight with her trauma and she does struggle with finding her voice even to herself.

I do not think it makes her weaker or is it a stereotypical portrayal of a helpless female. There is a scene were Sorcha is sewing in the room with all the ladies and they are gossiping about Red and his attributes, and Sorcha is disgusted that they would even think or relish sex. At this point, we know she has developed a bond with Red, but she cannot come to terms with what has happened to her and is still incapable of believing sex can be an enjoyable act between two people who love one another.

We do see Sorcha return to her homeland and her forest, but there are many layers to this. For months she was left to waste in a prison cell, abandoned by most and incapable of voicing her innocence. She was nearly burned alive. She saved the man she has come to love beyond all else, and while she saved her brothers, too, it was not a glorious victory. Liam's beloved is now wed to another, Finbar is left with a swan wing and never quite himself. They have all been broken beyond the breaking point of most human psyches.

Sorcha is not incapable of voicing what she needs and what she wants, because she wants so much. She wants to go home. She wants to be the wild girl in the forest cavorting with her brothers. She wants to be with Red. Yet, her mind reels with all that has been lost that she can only cling to what she does have so she will not lose anything else.

When you mention her having to be told by her father to make her decision and how that nullifies her own choice, I saw it in another light. Red has come to Sorcha to ask to be with her and while she would readily leap into his embrace, her brothers are hostile to him and it creates a quandary for her. She does not want to lose her family for the man she loves. I feel that her father finally seeing her and respecting her is silencing her brothers and telling them that Sorcha endurance has proven herself capable of voicing her own mind and that they, too, should respect her no matter what.

It is interesting that Sorcha does express her decision not with words, but with actions. You can even view this in the perspective that she has transcended beyond just the wild girl in the forest, to the traumatized, strange foreigner in Britain, to the still and resolved woman who knows her own heart so well that she needs no words. She can be the healer and the Daughter of the Forest. She can be a lover to Red and enjoy a relationship that is forged so deeply that she is able to overcome her fears of sex.

She is not who she began as, but if she had no journey then what pull would the story have? If she merely returned to her herb garden and the wild, unmarried daughter of a lord in a castle, I feel like her voice would have been diminished because she had no character arc. Her strengths and agencies are not from the forest, it is from herself. She does not need to be within the forest to be who she is and have a sense of self, she discovers that she can be strong and free in her own right and her own way whether it was in her childhood or within the forest or far off in Britain, or upon her return as a changed woman.