Wicked Women...
*versus Angels and Goddesses
Photo credit: still from Valley of the Dolls film. Patty Duke playing the iconic Neely O’Hara.
“Feminism means knowing that women can be evil too,” as one of my students recently and succinctly put it during a discussion of Lady Macbeth and Eliza Clark’s disturbing novel Penance (it was a wide-ranging discussion). And I agree. Yet the continued and renewed cultural prevalence of the pedestal, Goddess, (New-Age- reclaiming- the -Ancient- Age), view of womanhood in this the instagram-age strikes me as an affront to this truth. The Goddess-Woman fixation typically comes from a righteous place, an over- correction in terms of ye olde misogynistic trope that all women are inherently evil, original-sinning, temptresses yet it remains, despite its worthy origins, just another box to put us in and a very boring box at that.
The Goddess-Woman is, to my mind, an updated but equally inhibiting version of (terrible) poet Coventry Patmore’s Victorian Angel of the House ideal. At first the Angel of the House and the Goddess-Woman appear polar; the Angel is restricted the Goddess is powerful. The popular nineteenth-century Angel-Woman is depicted as: “passive and powerless, meek, charming, graceful, sympathetic, self-sacrificing, pious, and above all--pure”. The Goddess-Woman on the other hand is supposed to be a symbol of powerful matriarchy, she is of the if -grandmothers -ruled the-world-the world- the world-would-be -better school of thought. However, any scrutiny of this latter type of womanhood instantly highlights the similarity between her and Patmore’s impossible vision, the Goddess-Woman as well as being powerful, is after all, lauded as nurturing, emotional, kindly, and also pure of heart. She sounds, well, a little bit like the Angel sans the passive bit. Yet her active self too seems to be largely rooted in the spiritual rather than the socio-political and material world of change. And so like the Angel she is a little too one-dimensional, a little too limited and static, a little too other, a little too good to be true.
Thus in the spirit of this fulmination this week I wanted to share my five favourite books featuring “bad” women. Although the female characters in the below books are far from evil in any Lady M murderous way - for the most part - all are, to a greater or lesser extent, wayward. Rather than a full review I have attempted to sum up the female character, or characters, in these novels with but three (seemingly negative) adjectives*….
Veronica by Mary Gaitskill. Escapist, destructive, vain.
Eileen by Otessa Mosfegh. Wallowing, unstable, violent.
The Wallcreeper by Nell Zink. Adulterous, idle, user.
Boy Parts by Eliza Clark. Violent, superficial, exploitative.
Valley of the Dolls by Jacqueline Susann**. Power-hungry, needy, wild.
Beyond this fiction-focused list honorary mentions ought go to Gina Frangello’s incredible memoir Blow Your House Down, a story of Family, Feminism and Treason and to film -studies treaty Unlikeable Female Character by Anna Bogutskaya (more on that here). Plus in the Drama category there must be a shout out to all of Tennessee Williams’ women, as well as classic slammer of doors Nora of Ibsen’s Doll’s House. Finally a nod has to be nodded to almost all of Angela Carter's heroines. OK I'll stop there but I would love to hear about your favourite wicked women below so please do….
*for more of a flavour of these books follow the links through to Good Reads.
**considered trash by some Feminists. But I love it. I also love the bonkers, hysterical, so -bad -it’s -good 1967 film adaption.
As always thank you for reading, subscribing and sharing ❤.
Love,
Emma x o x o
Thought provoking ... as always !