Listening To Guinevere Analysis

644 Words3 Pages

In his article, Listening to Guinevere: Female Agency and the Politics of Chivalry in Tennyson’s Idylls, Stephen Ahern examines the treatment of women in the poems, specifically the character of Guinevere in relation to her male counterpart Arthur, and provides a complex view of Tennyson’s underlying message as a critique on the Victorian social constructs of his time rather than a simple representation of it. Ahern builds a solid argument for Guinevere’s treatment as the victim in the story ultimately signifying that she was being used as a model of the wrongs of the standard Victorian expectation of femininity. This complex analysis of the text gives a different, more modern perspective of the poems. The key features of his argument cite …show more content…

While Aherns provides effective evidence for his argument, he seems to project modern views and thought onto the story and make assumptions of Tennyson’s purpose behind the text to fit him into a more progressive role. The details of the story do not typically read as particularly supportive of Guinevere’s rebellious actions or refusal to fit into the role society attempts to impose on her unless the story is being viewed from a modern perspective. Ahern asserts that “Her freedom of choice is limited by the world in which she finds herself, but she has no qualms about asserting her agency in the one arena in which she as a woman of noble stature can exert control –the arena of love” (Ahern 97). While this is true of Guinevere’s character, Ahern does not consider the way in which this aspect of her personality may have painted her in a negative light to many people as ultimately selfish and it focuses overmuch on how a modern audience may view her rebellion positively. There is also the matter of how Ahern argues for the condemnation of Arthur as the real one to blame beyond Guinevere. According to Ahern, Arthur “invests responsibility for his success in the image of ideal womanhood he projects onto his wife” (Ahern 95). While this is true, Ahern attempts to use this as one