Daniel Anderson: I have a question about the ending of the story. What does the narrator mean when she says "In spite of you and Jane." The editors of the anthology seem to think that Jane is a typo or something. maybe, but I doubt it. Who is this Jane?
burton: I don't know about anyone else, but I was less than impressed by the comments we read regarding this story last Thursday from Nick Evans class. They all sounded exactly the same.
Brandi Mahon: i think the movie had a different interpretation than what I would thought. the movie sort of showed the narrator as insane before she went to the estate to "rest'. As i read the story I tended to believe that the isolation is what caused her to doubt reality and nonreality.....
Daniel Anderson: burton, what would you have said differently?
Greg Hyzak: Does using the color "yellow" for the wallpaper have any significance to the story?
Daniel Anderson: Brandi, what details from the movie showed the narrator as already insane?
Brandi Mahon: the way she acted.... she definitely was not all there
Daniel Anderson: Greg, good question. I think that the whole passage about the smell being yellow is interesting. Also, you might do somehting with the figures of the suna nd moon which are important in the story. Daylight as oppresive male light, etc.
Bert : The narrator seeing herself outside is a good sign of that
Samantha Smith: I agree with Brandi. I didnt feel like the wife was really insane to begin with in the story but she seemed to be well on her way in the beginning of the film.
Rogue: I found the movie version of Y.W. to be mildly remnicent of old BBC adaptaions of Edgar Allen Poe stories. Among other things, they all make use of the same cheesey mid-seventies music.
Domingo A. Rochin: The movie didn't show the same details as the story did.
Brandi Mahon: I did concurr with the interpretation about how the narrator looked at the woman outside creeping as herself....
Daniel Anderson: Brandi. Do you think that the movie gives any indication as th what is making the woman insane? Do you prefer the stories depeiction to thatr of the movie?
Unk: I agree with Brandi in that the movie definitely portrayed the narrator as much more paranoid and insane than I believe the book portrayed her. The movie presented her as a classic "nut" whereas the book showed her as a product of bad therapy.
Melinda Baggett: One main thing I did not like about the movie was that it showed the narrator taking pills and in the book she was not. It made the viewer infer a different casuality for her "craziness" in that it could have been the drugs that made her crazy and not the isolation.
Gilbert S.: The movie took certain liberties. The author was resumed insane and the woman in the paper was the same as the doctor's wife. Does anyone know if these things change the story drastically? or if they just add a diferent gloss to whole thing.
Domingo A. Rochin: If the Gilman wanted to discredit the "rest cure" technique, the movie did no such thing
Greg Hyzak: The movie version seemed to make the wife seem more like she actually was mentally disturbed, which was slightly different from the text, which made it look as if her husband and brother made her believe she was sick.
Brandi Mahon: I definitely prefer the story rather than the movie..... I might be bias though..... being a feminst i tend to believe that the narrators trouble began with her husband..... and without knowing i would assume the director of the movie was a man.
Daniel Anderson: Rogue, dn't you think that the movie was also trying to make an interpretive point What about the extra scene where th e woman isvbery clearly outlining her needs and is dismissed by her husband. This exact scene does not take place in the story, so might the mpovie be making its own statement in addtion to playing cheesy msuic? What ststement is it?
Consuelo Richardson: I felt that the movie did not show what happened according to the story. From the stand point of just viewing the movie you could get lost. The movie made little sense with out reading lots into it.
Bert : I agree with ou Consuelo the movie would make no sense if the story hadn't been read.
Brandi Mahon: consuelo.... definitely right!!! Glad i read the story first before viewing the movie
Daniel Anderson: Brandi, an interesting bit of information: The film version was produced by a group called "Women Make Movies" It may have been directed by a man, but the production company name itself carries a certain force.
Gilbert S.: The woman in the movie seemed more of a victim than an actual person. Brandi, i agree the movie seemed a bit too dense in the direting asssuming that women like the doctor's wife would be possible in any age.
burton: I would have gone more into the fact that depression is seen today, accurately, as a disease of the mind. Back then, it automatically painted the sterotype of "Looney" across your forehead. Society, I believe, rejected her more for this than the women's oppression in a male-dominated society, as every single member of Evan's class seemed to think. Maybe it's just me, but I think overlooking at least part of the biological causes and roots of depression would be a substantial error regarding this story.
Domingo A. Rochin: Daniel, I believe that in the movie the producer was trying to convey the same idea as the text did. However the enphasis was not the same
sam: I was also wondering about the significance of the colour yellow. That's a good point, Daniel, that the light was seen as oppressive. She did feel much more comfortable at night, it seems. Night was the only time she felt she could really see what was going on in the paper, even though the darkness probably lent to her ability to see because of the tricks one's eyes can play in the darkness.
Brandi Mahon: gilbert .... i dont understand your statement.... please clearify...
Rogue: I believe the director tried to substitute the music for much of the internal dialogue chronically her deterioration which was not effectively tranmitted by the voice over narrator(the woman). I think the director was attempting to make us feel the discomfort the woman was going through when she saw the wall paper. However, I did not sense that discomfort when reading the story. I sensed more of a fear from the woman.
Melinda Baggett: I feel the movie showed the man as more of an evil figure, but in her story, Gillman indicated that John had cared for his wife and was deeply concerned.
Daniel Anderson: Burton, so would you say the story is more of an investigation of the medical community, than the male community? Can the two be so easily separated?
Consuelo Richardson: Sam maybe yellow because it is the color your skin turns when your sick
Bert : The nighttime was soothing in the text, but the movie showed that she was distressed at night.
Brandi Mahon: good point bert
Bert : or green?
Daniel Anderson: Melinda. What about the irony in many of the lines about John. He seems caring but a lot of it is the "don't trouble your pretty little head ' patronizing and I think the reader can sometimes sense this hidden criticism.
Brandi Mahon: daniel i would say that it would be an investigation of both.....
Bert : That is a good point Daniel I agree totally, the husband would not let her think for herself!
Rogue: I agree, daniel. the husband in the movie was just annoying half the time and irritating the other half. none of his concern seemed real in the movie while one got the feelng he actually cared for his wife in the book.
Daniel Anderson: Connie. Interesting point about the skin. remember in the story when she hints that she might be alright in body but not in soul. Perhaps coming out of the wallpaper is like coming out of your skin, in a sense. I again think of the character of Jane at the end who just show up. Could she be the real name for the narrator, wh finally has gotten out of her old self?
Brandi Mahon: ooooohhhh definite symbolism daniel
Daniel Anderson: How many would agree that the husband in the story actualy was concerned for his wife?
Bert : It is a shame that when she left herself that she probably could never return.
Gilbert S.: Ok, brandi. the woman in the movie seemed like she was a victim to her "sensibility" (ohh poor stupid woman" we are to think) the fact is that she is depressed and that her being a woman only makes it easer for her quack husband to diagnose a "disease" and prescribe dubious treatment. The movie portarys a woman diagnosed with "femininity" as the movie would like people to see that Evan is a victim of her evil Y-chromasome..i blive that is why i dislike the portaryal of women in that movie..the men too..
Brandi Mahon: or could Jane be the name of the woman in the paper????
Unk: Burton... Interesting point about the biological background and knowledge we have today of depression. But, don't you have to make the assumption that she IS depressed (as opposed to being oppressed into submission or loss of control...both of which can be misconstrued(sp?) by uniformed "authorities") from the beginning to use that arguement?
Daniel Anderson: Bert, why do you say it is a shame. How happy and viable was her old self?
sam: In the story, the husband was described as being caring an d "deeply concerned" but i thought it was all part of some big charade. I thought he was trying o make her feel like he really cared while making it all the more difficult for her to get better because of the guilt he was putting on her for being sick in the first place.
Domingo A. Rochin: Daniel, to me the story says that men were not evil, just paternistic. It was this over protection, the constant watching over womem that restricted the freedom of women
Greg Hyzak: I think the husband was not very concerned with his wife in the text either, but more so than in the movie.
Daniel Anderson: Domingo. Paternistic has interesting resonances here, Don't you think?
Domingo A. Rochin: Has anybody thought that most of our "right" interpretations of the story are derived from our knowledge of the author's stance toward men?
Bert : He seemed concerned, but the movie protrayed him the same all movies of that era portrayed husbands. Not only was he the protecting husband taking careof and providing for his wife but he was a doctor who was suppose to know better than most normal people.
Ducky: I think that the husband was really concerned about his wife and did not know how to deal with it in the story. But in the movie since his wife seemed more crazy he was portrayed as being totally caring and supportive.
Brandi Mahon: i dont think the husband felt gulilty at all.... he was probably oblivious to the fact the his "rest cure" was sending her off the deep end
Daniel Anderson: Domingo, what if you kenw nothing about the author. How would your interpretation of the story differ. What if Charlotte were actually a pseudonym for a man writing the story?
Gilbert S.: Domingo: no. the movie and the story are both seen independent of what the author felt...to tell the truth i don't remember exactly what she thought.
Consuelo Richardson: I do not believe the husband cared at all about the narrator she was his possesion therefore he had to keep her healthy or look bad
Joe Pedroza: One thing that confused me was that the woman in the story says she sees a woman trapped in the wallpaper but in the movie she is not shown, only outside the window.
burton: I think, Daniel, that it is a look at the ignorance of society as a whole which seems to result in the rejection of anything "different." While it is true that the medical field at the time was completely dominated by males, I can't help feeling that it would be a "cop-out" to place the blame regeading the entire conflict of the story on the shoulders of the men in that period of time.
Melinda Baggett: Yes, but I did not see it so much as pattonizing. It just showed that he wanted to take care of her. He thought he was doing the best he could for her, I think it was more the time period the story was depicted in that caused John's behavior toward his wife. Regardless, in the movie the husband seemed to be more short with his wife and not near as caring.
Bert : How do we know the "rest cure" was the reason for her insanity, maybe there was something physically happening to her.
Daniel Anderson: There seems to be some disagreement over the husbands intentions in the story? I wonder how the significance of him fainting at the end changes, depending on which tack you take. If he is the oppressor, his fainting gives a different signal, then if he is the concerned husband.
Domingo A. Rochin: Greg, I do believe that the husband was caring. The fact that he would thake her to a special place to see if she would get well is indication of this
Greg Hyzak: Domingo, the main reason the husband kept her locked up, was because if she acted crazy in public, then it could make him look bad and probably discredit his reputation.
Daniel Anderson: Domingo and others. What about the fact that the woman asks to leave the special place. To go to another room. To visit her relative, etc and all of these requests are ignored. If he has her best interest at heart, why doesn't he listen to what she wnats?
Brandi Mahon: i read the story first before reading about the author..... i still came up with this overwhelming feeling to help the narrator escape the oppression she felt before the hands of her husband/doctor
Rogue: Bert, if we begin to consider that option, which is not supported i the text, we could go off and say she was suffering from anything from bad and endless PMS to Syphillis.
Gilbert S.: I think the husband acts as best he could. I'm not sure if we could opine if he is good or bad withiout passing judgement on the entire era..
Bert : because he the protector/provider and a doctor.
Melinda Baggett: The rest cure was the reason because in the beginning of the story she was mildly "crazy" whereas in the end she became "insane". This type of situation occurs to many people that are in isolation, i.e. mental state hospitals.
Daniel Anderson: Gilbert, interesting point about the entire era. Do you thinkthat the story is more of a comment on the time? In what way?
Joy Nichole Goodie: In the book, she seemed to have a classic case of schizophrenia. I wonder now, if the author might have suffered from this disease, and if so, the impact on her life.
Bert : yes.
burton: Unk: I'm sorry what was your question, again, Unk.?
Consuelo Richardson: Bert I do not think that being a doctor denotes a good person what about Dr. Giggles
Daniel Anderson: Rogue. Do you know anything about the history of the word hysteria. The note in the story refering to Mitchells cure mentions hysteria. You might check it out some time. PS have you ever had PMS or syphillis? Or are you jkust offering your own perspective?
Gilbert S.: daniel, it is dangerous to say that one man in one story is a representative. but if he is it seems that the time was most cruel to men and women. much ike all times when people decide to act on flawed principles.which i find too broad to even mention here..anyone have a clue?
Domingo A. Rochin: Daniel, I will try to make an assesment of the story without the knowledge of the author beliefs. The first thing that I would say is that the movie is about a woman going crazy
Bert : I did not mean that he was a better person, that is just the role played by those people in the society at the time.
Melinda Baggett: I do not think the doc's wife was locked up because of his own repuation. I believe it was the "best" cure of the time.
Joy Nichole Goodie: Let's look at medicine in this time period. Doctors in this era were not very familiar with such mental diseases. Hell, they still amputated legs.
Rogue: Melinda, please do explain where you get your evidence for you statements concerning mental hospitals turning mildly crazy people insane
Consuelo Richardson: Not to mention those leeches ughh
Greg Hyzak: Didn't they have funny farms during this time period for all the crazy people?
Daniel Anderson: Gilbert, I think I know what you have in mind. The open boat that we read which comes frtom a similar time also expresses some of the sultural anxiety that might be driving the story Trying to find a meaningful interpretation for the world goes through diffeeent transmorphings etc. Soemtimes in history it might be more difficualt than other. I amy be missing you poijnt though?
Domingo A. Rochin: Gilbert, it is already in your subconscience. The very fact that you know that the author is a woman you have already set a bais jugement
Bert : The husband may have disregared the opinions of the narrator just because he thought she was sick and could not thingk straight.
Rogue: Daniel, very true. I cannot say first hand what a bad case of PMS is about, and the others... well, we just leave that alone... But you are right about the hysteria. I had forgotten that point.
Domingo A. Rochin: Consualo no!
Brandi Mahon: gilbert why do you say that the times were cruel to both men and women.... what do you mean about the statement regard men????
Joy Nichole Goodie: I think the Dr. was very representative of this time, and so was our lady. She must be well for the sake of her child. Thank God that she should endure the dreadful wallpaper instead of the child. Children can not take such morbidity! And the good Dr. How he must make his wife get better.
Daniel Anderson: Melinda. good point. The rest cure is a real historical phenomena. It may help alleviate some of the criticism of the husband if he is implicated in the general practice of the time. I think Gilbert might have been getting at this.
sam: There is an obvious conflict over the intentins of the husband in the story,and in the film. Initially, i thought that she was sinking into a dementia and he was using the best of his knowledge to help her recover. But then he wouldnt allow her any of the liberties she requested and wouldnt allow her to do anything that she thought might make her feel better...i think that surpassed his medical "opinion" and was venturing on being oppressive.
Brandi Mahon: you gotta to be kidding melinda....
Unk: Anybody want to take a stab at the fact that the husband has a "god-complex" and thus feels that he is always "right" no matter what. (This kinda gives it a new twist becasue then its not really the husbands "fault" he is as much a "victim" of his own disease)
Rogue: hello joy. how was the tacky yellow wallpaper morbid?
Daniel Anderson: Joy. what about the way that the woman is infantalised. She is a child, crawling around and casrried to bed, etc. Then the statement that it is better for her to be in the room than for her child to be there takes on a certain irony, I think.
Joy Nichole Goodie: "Funny farms" of the day were not anywhere near to the standards that we have today.
Melinda Baggett: Rogue i worked in one last semester and every person that came in became worse, and more unstable.
Gilbert S.: domingo, i think that since it is in my "subconscious" (as the great Fried would say) i cannot say other wise..but what i do know for a reality is that in my active conscious, where by the way i do decide to act and say, i know that the author is just somebody who worte the story...i am actively denieng the subconsicous fact to allow a free thinking time...it doesnet matter in the end..
Bert : Daniel, the husband treats her like a child too.
Domingo A. Rochin: Daniel, suppose Gilman was a men, then the story is not only ironic, but sadistic too
Joy Nichole Goodie: I agree bert.
Greg Hyzak: I agree bert also
Daniel Anderson: Unk.