Skip to main content

The Fair Jilt: Feminism or Misogyny?

 Aphra Behn's The Fair Jilt details young, beautiful Miranda's exploits as she ruins people around her to fit her fancy. At the beginning of the work, Miranda is portrayed as a frivolous girl with simply far too many options to settle down. Cupid supposedly curses her to fall in love with someone she simply cannot have as a punishment. However, this "punishment" barely phases her. She puts in some work and is still kindly denied, so she ruins Henrick's life. He remains composed and does not even attempt to rectify is wrongful imprisonment. When Van Brune is put to death because of her, he is apologetic for failing his assassination rather than devastated that he was about to die. No matter what Miranda did, Prince Tarquin stayed at her side. Miranda was constantly in the wrong, and no one ever seemed to hold it against her. Was she entirely wrong, though? Truthfully, she did not force anyone's fate except for the friar. Was she a ruthless gold digger or a feminist icon? The lens used in analyzing this work can severely affect the story's meaning.

Miranda, in all fairness, is a badass, especially for her time. She might be a terrible person, but she also does whatever is best for herself in a world where everyone is looking out for themselves above anything. This work was published in 1688 London, where women were treated like absolute garbage. Poor women were essentially forced into prostitution and then called whores and sluts by the wealthy people that paid them for sex. Wealthy women were cheated on by their husbands and expected to look the other way. For Miranda to have independent wealth and refuse to settle down was an entirely foreign concept. Grabbing life and forcing it to work to her benefit, even while her methods were extremely unethical, is honestly somewhat impressive. Almost every man in this work was effectively destroyed in her path, and she made it out without much damage to herself. Granted, she nearly faced a much worse fate than the one she ultimately did. Comparatively, though, she did quite well for herself.

Conversely, it is undeniable that Miranda made some terrible choices that negatively impacted every person that she got involved with. All of the men in this story are portrayed as kind men that are desperate to make her happy even if it hurts them; they are selfless and noble. "Francisco" kindly turns her down and chooses to maintain his vocation. Van Brune gave his life in an attempt to make hers better. The prince ignored all of the people that told him she was no good and stuck by her through everything. Miranda is seen as a sort of tyrant that abuses the effect she has on men to get what she wants. Readers are not made aware of any feelings of regret or sorrow that she might feel; she simply uses someone and moves on when they are no longer useful. The men are the victims, even when they are the instruments of their own demise.

How did Behn intend for this to be read? We cannot be sure. However, it is interesting to wonder if this fluidity of meaning was intentional or accidental. I myself change my own mind each time I consider one argument or the other. Is Miranda the hero or the villain? Was the jilt indeed fair or rather patronizing? Did Cupid intend for all of this to happen when he released that arrow?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Jury's Still Out on Aphra Behn

 Between Oroonoko and The Fair Jilt , I'm entirely puzzled by Aphra Behn as an author. In an entirely Swiftian manner, I simply cannot decipher if her writing is meant to be a commentary on unsatisfactory happenings or if she is actually racist and sexist. If you've read my previous blog on Behn, I further explained this situation in relation to The Fair Jilt and the different lenses it can be viewed through. Where Oroonoko is concerned, she could either be explaining the issue of the noble savage concept or genuinely have a type of savior complex by inserting herself into the narrative and humanizing a brutal story. I would be very interested to read different analyses of her works to see if there is an answer hiding in all of this.

Hats and Toilet Paper

 As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, I have been reflecting on the various stages of quarantine throughout the year. Some were focused on baking, some obsessed over new Netflix shows. One thing that is undeniably embarrassing is the stage where people hoarded toilet paper like that would somehow save them. In relation to this, I was thinking about A Journal of the Plague Year by Daniel Defoe. When discussing the scene where the ladies steal the hats, we all laughed at the absurdity of it. Who would steal something so mundane and unnecessary in such a serious situation? Clearly, most of the United States would. I think this is a great example of how easy it is to say how you would react to a situation if you aren't currently in it. People will say things like, "Well, if someone broke into my house I would just x, y, z," when in reality they'd likely hide in a closet. There truly is no way to know how you'll act in a situation until it's happening, and you proba...

Swift's Take on 2020 Politics

 Perusing Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels , I was thinking about the various ways in which he utilizes satire to discuss political flaws without being attacked. I genuinely laugh out loud thinking about the kind of content that Swift could have produced during this election cycle and over the past year especially. Swift's style is so unique because everything he produces is such a cosmic joke that you don't understand unless you first can understand that it's a joke. If you take him too seriously, everything makes sense in the way that fictional things make sense. But, if you know it's a joke, it makes sense on such an all-encompassing level. I would love it if he could somehow live again for just enough time to be caught up to speed on everything and write something roasting everything happening today. It would truly make 2020 more bearable.