Durham E-Theses Sue Bridehead: A Rorschach Test ROY-CHOWDHURY, SREEMOYEE How to cite: ROY-CHOWDHURY, SREEMOYEE (2018) Sue Bridehead: A Rorschach Test, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12454/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Sue Bridehead: A Rorschach Test Sreemoyee Roy Chowdhury Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English Studies University of Durham 2017 ~ 1 ~ Abstract This thesis is a metacritical survey of the criticism on Sue Bridehead’s portrayal in Thomas Hardy’s novel Jude the Obscure, from the time of its publication in 1895 to now, and is intended to be a comprehensive overview and analysis of the major critical lines of enquiry about Sue’s characterisation. Since the scope of this thesis is to engage with over one hundred years of literary criticism, I keep the focus concentrated primarily on the critical responses to the depiction of Sue. I discuss the reasons behind the sustained critical interest in her; and show how she has global appeal in unifying as well as differentiating reader-responses, and opening up new modes of theoretical analysis surrounding the complexity of her representation. The objective of this study is to demonstrate how Sue’s enigmatic characterisation effectually serves the purpose of a Rorschach test. I display how analysing her representation makes readers and critics commit to certain positions. This leads to a plurality in the critical responses - a development that is facilitated by Hardy, who leaves deliberate narrative gaps in the novel. I discuss how this creates the space for the readers to fill the textual gaps with their own presuppositions, and cultural and theoretical beliefs, while analysing Sue’s portrayal. This thesis draws on Hardy’s letters, literary notebooks, and biographies to contextualise the portrayal of Sue, as a supplement to the main body of analysis of the critical material on Sue that is available in book, essay and article forms. Finally, I suggest a way forward in critical studies of Hardy’s works using Sue’s portrayal as a case study through the application of the theoretical framework of ‘transculturalism’. ~ 2 ~ This research seeks to contribute to the body of Hardy scholarship by providing an overview of the existing critical commentary on Sue, while emphasising the ongoing contemporaneity of his most controversial characterisation. ~ 3 ~ Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 12-32 I: THE CHAPTER BREAKDOWNS .......................................................................... 21-24 II: JUDE: PLOT AND BACKGROUND .................................................................... 25-27 III: THE INTERWOVEN BIOGRAPHICAL STRANDS ........................................... 28-32 CHAPTER 1: TO BE SUE BRIDEHEAD IN VICTORIAN BRITAIN ............... 33-75 §1.1: THE PUBLICATION OF JUDE AND THE NINETEENTH CENTURY CRITICAL RECEPTION ......................................................................... 40-75 CHAPTER 2: THE CRITICAL DILEMMA THAT IS SUE – CRITICISM RANGING FROM EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY TO THE 1970s ........... 76-136 §2.1: SUE AND THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY CRITICS ........................ 79-86 §2.2: SUE BRIDEHEAD: A TRAGIC CHARACTER? ............................................ 87-95 ~ 4 ~ §2.3: “AND JUDE THE OBSCURE AND HIS BELOVED” ................................... 96-114 §2.4: OTHER EARLY TO MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY CRITICISM ON SUE .. 115- 136 CHAPTER 3: MODES OF CHANGING CRITICISM ...................................... 137-184 §3.1: HARDY’S REALISM ..................................................................................... 138-143 §3.2: MARXIST/SOCIOLOGICAL/MATERIALIST CRITICISM ....................... 144-158 §3.3: FEMINISM AND SUE ................................................................................... 159-184 CHAPTER 4: SUE THROUGH THE CRITICAL EYES OF THE LATE TWENTIETH AND EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES ........................ 185-288 §4.1: PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SUE BRIDEHEAD ........................................... 187-205 §4.1A: MOTHERHOOD AND SUE ....................................................................... 206-218 §4.1B: IDENTITY POLITICS, GENDER, SEXUALITY AND SUE .................... 219-229 §4.2: THE NEW WOMAN, AESTHETICISM AND SUE ............................................ 230 ~ 5 ~ §4.2A: THE NEW WOMAN REVISITED ............................................................. 230-243 §4.2B: AESTHETICISM AND SUE ....................................................................... 244-247 §4.3: HYSTERIA, NEUROSIS, NEURASTHENIA AND SUE ............................. 248-270 §4.4: HOMOSOCIALITY, MASCULINITY, ‘SAPPHIC SPACES’ AND SUE ... 271-280 §4.5: IMPERIALISM AND SUE ............................................................................. 281-288 CHAPTER 5: SUE, TRANSCULTURALISM AND DIVERSE IDENTITY FORMATION ......................................................................................................... 289-315 §5.1: TRANSCULTURALISM ............................................................................... 292-297 §5.2: MIGRATION, URBANISATION, DIVERSE IDENTITY FORMATION AND SUE ........................................................................................................................... 298-305 §5.3: TRANCULTURALISM, INTERMEDIALITY AND SUE............................ 306-315 CONCLUSION: PAST AND PRESENT ............................................................. 316-331 ~ 6 ~ BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 332-359 ~ 7 ~ Statement of Copyright “The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author’s prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.” ~ 8 ~ Acknowledgements I relocated from Singapore to India, and then from India to England, all in the course of a brief ten months to follow a long cherished dream of studying for a PhD. The dream came at a price: a split sense of self, a split sense of home, a split sense of belonging, broken relationships, and a deep sense of regret that I could not be there with my grandmother when she passed away. The years spent studying for and writing this thesis has been life changing in many ways, in breaking and remaking my own sense of self, while I researched Sue Bridehead’s identity formation, disintegration, and re-formation. My greatest debt is to my parents for being the biggest support system anyone can possibly ask for. I learnt how to follow my heart and go after my dreams because my parents laid down the foundation from my childhood: ‘be honest and kind to yourself and others and we will support you in everything’. My heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisor Professor Timothy Clark for his unerring academic support and constructive suggestions and advice, for patiently and critically reading my drafts, and most of all, for believing in me when I struggled to have faith in myself. I express my sincere gratitude also to Professor Shanta Dutta of Jadavpur University, under whose guidance I studied multiple modules on Thomas Hardy and Victorian literature while pursuing my Master’s degree. She helped me hone my love for Hardy’s works, encouraging me to pursue a PhD thereafter. ~ 9 ~ I am also thankful to Professor Jane Thomas for giving me the opportunity to present a paper at the International Thomas Hardy Conference at Dorchester (2014), and to Mr. Phillip Mallett, editor of the Thomas Hardy Journal, for generously publishing my contribution in the Thomas Hardy Society Journal (2015). A significant amount of the material used in my thesis came in the form of Inter- Library Loans and I take this opportunity to thank the friendly and cooperative library staff of Durham University. I also really appreciated the help of the Curator of the Dorset County Museum for granting me access to the manuscripts, unpublished letters, diaries and other items of interest in the ‘Thomas Hardy Memorial Collection’. A big thank you is also due to the English Studies Department of Durham University for granting me a research fund to visit the copyright library in Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland. I feel singularly lucky that I have more people in my life than I can possibly thank in any defined space who have made such a positive difference, but I want to particularly name a few. David Varley, with whom I spent many a happy hour engaged in literary debates in the shared kitchen of our dismal student accommodation, who, along with his parents, have been my family and home away from home. Poppy Cullen, who has been a supportive and loving friend