Little Lord Fauntleroy

Frances Hodgson Burnett's Little Lord Fauntleroy brought to our discussions the topic of gender in association with authorship. There was much debating as to whether Burnett being female versus male alters the reader’s perception and response to the text. I do not think that Frances Burnett being a woman makes any difference in the meaning drawn from her novel. I do think that there are phrases and textual elements that seem to make more sense from a female mind, such as descriptions of Cedric as “beautiful” and with flowing blonde locks. But I do not see any reason why those same phrases could not have been said from a male author. Cedric is a character composed of numerous exceptional qualities, ultimately developing him into a “perfect” child and future leader.

I think another interesting thing in regards to male and female authors is that so far this semester of our selections of novels, we have seen the American girl as portrayed by female authors, and the American boy as told by male authors. Until this text, where a female author has broken the mold and become the creator of another image of the American boy. With this addition we have a completely different view of boyhood in the nineteenth century. We are given Cedric, a boy who is beautiful, clever, wise, focused on helping people, trustworthy, etc. and we contrast this with Tom and Ragged Dick who are street savvy, somewhat misleading, and focused on themselves. I think it would be very easy to take a stand and say that we see different views because men created Tom and Dick and a woman created Cedric. But, there is no support saying that one gender could or could not have created a boy with the opposite qualities just as easily as they created their own characters.

Tom Sawyer

Something that really got me thinking this week about Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer, was the comment made comparing Aunt Polly and Nan Grant as parents. Throughout the semester we have seen varying roles of parenting in the nineteenth century. And interestingly enough, in most of the novels we have read, the parenting was the responsibility of adults other than the parents. For Ellen it was Aunt Fortune, for Capitola she was taken in by Ira Warfield, and Gerty’s caregiver was Nan Grant. Tom is no exception. His primary caregiver is his Aunt Polly.

I enjoyed the conversation comparing and contrasting Nan Grant and Aunt Polly in class and I wanted to continue the discussion. Nan Grant was not the ideal “mother figure,” “pulling the child into the house, amidst blows, threats, and profane and brutal language.” (Pg 81). Gerty was “scolded, beaten, and deprived…” (Pg 81). This physical abuse proved Nan Grant to be an evil character. As the reader we might have been able to see some kind of emotional attachment if we were privileged with the internal workings of her character, but they were absent from our pages. Aunt Polly provides us with a contrast to the parental role. Though Aunt Polly is upset with Tom and constantly having to investigate his activities and mischief she still has love in her heart for him (an emotion lacking completely from Nan Grant). Aunt Polly even after being tricked again by Tom says, “poor thing, and I ain’t got the heart to lash him, somehow. Every time I let him off, my conscience does hurt me so, and every time I hit him my old heart most breaks.” (Pg 399). Later in the text as she is about to strike Tom for stealing the sugar “her conscience reproached her, and she yearned to say something kind and loving…” (Pg 421). Aunt Polly showed remorse when she caused Tom pain and in these actions we see her love towards him.

Ragged Dick

Horatio Alger’s Ragged Dick provides us with a view of the American boy in the nineteenth century. This perception is very different than our view for the American girl. In our field of view, we know that the American girl was expected to be well kept, clean, and put together. We would never see a young girl in the nineteenth century in rags alone and helpless in the streets. Ragged Dick on the other hand represents the American boy who can be dirty and funny and charming in rags. He is described as a one with “no particular dislike to dirt” and “in spite of the dirt and rags, there was something about Dick that was attractive.” (Pg. 336) This text seems to approve of boys being dirty and wearing rags by showing a charming funny boy living happily on the streets.

Dick is a very hardworking boy. And although he lies about many things, especially is clothes, “This coat once belonged to General Washington…” (Pg. 337), Dick is an honest boy with his finances and work ethic. “You don’t catch me stealin’, if that’s what you mean…I wouldn’t. Lots of boys does it, but I wouldn’t.” (Pg. 334). I feel like that this character trait teaches boys that they can be funny and “cool” but also “good” and honest. They must work hard for their money to make an honest living. I think it was interesting that Dick worked hard and made quite a lot of money by midday when Johnny who admits to stealing earlier in the text had not even had one customer yet.

I also thought it was interesting that in our texts on the American girl we learned that the countryside was best. But in Ragged Dick, the countryside was not as popular for the boys. Johnny was provided a wonderful opportunity and life really, but turned it down because he was “lonely.” The city is portrayed as a home place of adventure and thrill.