Show Hide image

Lyndall Gordon’s Outsiders builds links between women writers across the generations

If you are looking for inspiration for the fight, this book will be your companion.

In 1929 Virginia Woolf reworked a set of talks she’d given the year before to the women’s colleges at Cambridge, Newnham and Girton; talks in which she’d imagined the fate of Shakespeare’s imagined sister. “She was as adventurous, as imaginative, as agog to see the world as he was. But she was not sent to school,” Woolf had said, and so her fate was sealed. Woolf called her edition of these talks A Room of One’s Own: a title that resonates even for those who have never read a word of her writing.

In Outsiders, Lyndall Gordon picks up something else Woolf wrote that year, a brief biographical essay on Mary Wollstonecraft. In this essay, Gordon argues, Woolf set out to redeem Wollstonecraft’s image from the biographers who had painted her as “depressive and wanton”. Woolf wrote that Wollstonecraft, pioneer of women’s rights, mother of Mary Shelley, “cut her way to the quick of life”, and that what mattered was not her melancholy but her desire for experiment. This was a strength that Woolf, battling her own melancholy, shared. And so Gordon loops elegantly back to the opening of her thought-provoking group biography of five writers “who changed the world”.

Emily Brontë, George Eliot, Olive Schreiner, Shelley and Woolf: these are the women Gordon calls “Outsiders”, women who struggled against the conventions of their time to live the lives they wished to live. Gordon is an imaginative and rigorous biographer who has already addressed the lives of Wollstonecraft, Charlotte Brontë and Woolf in full-length books, but the pleasure in this compact volume is the way in which she weaves these lives together, building links across the generations. Her object is simple: “I’m curious how an outsize voice came to each of the five writers. How did they become writers despite the obstacles in a woman’s way?” A simple question demands a sophisticated answer, one which this subtle book amply provides. But there is at least a straightforward answer to the question of what these women had in common. “All were on the margin or outside society in one way or another, and all were readers,” Gordon writes. “Books were their companions across time, seeding a new kind of woman.”

One of Gordon’s strengths is always to recognise the tension inherent in biography’s form: finally, how can we know anything? Evidence of anyone’s life is only ever fragmentary. “Twenty-five years ago a biographer tried to nail Emily Brontë as anorexic; now it’s Asperger’s syndrome. It was ever thus. The personal will remain largely unknown,” she writes. The truth of these artists’ lives can be found in their writing, and it is to their writing that Gordon listens, closely, attentively, always resisting easy biographical links, and noting an early, unsigned review that Woolf wrote of the Carlyles’ love letters: “the more we see the less we can label”.

This is no primer to the authors’ works, but it’s not meant to be. That said, it is never rebarbative to the reader with a lesser knowledge of those works – indeed it is enticing. I’ll confess I’ve never read a word of Schreiner, but now, with an understanding of the place this writer holds in both feminist and colonial history, I will add The Story of an African Farm to my reading list. The real strength of Outsiders, however, is its vivid portrayal of its subjects’ energy, their ability – often at great cost – to find ways to speak. If there is an argument to be had with this book, it’s with that subtitle, and the cliché of “changed the world”. I have a sneaking suspicion that Gordon would be among the first to admit that – alas, just look around – they didn’t. The battle is still to be won.

If you are looking for inspiration for the fight, however, this book will be your companion. Gordon quotes Schreiner in Woman and Labour:

I should like to say to the men and women of the generations, which will come after us – “You will wonder at passionate struggles that accomplished so little… but what you will never know is how it was thinking of you and for you, that we struggled as we did and accomplished the little which we have done; that it was in the thought of your larger realisation and fuller life that we found consolation for the futilities of our own.” 

Outsiders: Five Women Writers Who Changed the World
Lyndall Gordon
Virago, 336pp, £20

Erica Wagner is a New Statesman contributing writer. A former literary editor of the Times, she has twice judged the Man Booker Prize. Her books include Ariel's Gift: Ted Hughes, Sylvia Plath and the Story of “Birthday Letters”, the novel Seizure and, most recently, Chief Engineer: The Man Who Built the Brooklyn Bridge

This article first appeared in the 30 November 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The most powerful man in the world

Show Hide image

“Lick it up, SJWs”: Will the Heathers TV reboot become a cult classic… for the far right?

Will a twist find the left embracing the show, or is it the anti-SJW screed the right wing have been waiting for? 

No one really wanted a remake of the 1988 cult classic Heathers. When the TV reboot was announced in 2016, fans of the dark comedy (which saw Winona Ryder on a murderous rampage against her school’s popular, pretty clique) were concerned. Would it be any good? How on earth could it live up to the original? Yet after the pilot episode was released online last night, Heathers fans gained a new concern. Will the TV show also become a cult classic, but for the far right?

Heathers (2017) turns the premise of Heathers (1988) on its (Diet Coke) head. The popular trio of Heathers is now no longer made up of thin, privileged, white blonde girls, but a black lesbian Heather, a genderqueer Heather, and a “body-positive” Heather (“Fat kids can be popular?” is a line in the trailer).

This change was met with scorn from much of the left, who noted that turning marginalised people into the popular, powerful and privileged was not only 1) not true to the lived experiences of many minorities, but also 2) intensely problematic when the premise of the film is that the powerful deserve to be brutally murdered.

This idea, however, has become unsurprisingly popular with those who identify as “anti-social justice warriors”, Trump supporters, and conservatives.

“I already know SJWS are going to collectively lose their shit,” reads one tweet, with nearly 500 retweets and over 1,400 likes. Cassandra Fairbanks, a reporter for Sputnik News and an outspoken Trump supporter, replied that she “kind of loves” the show. Ian Miles Cheong – a writer for the Daily Caller and also Milo Yiannopoulos’s – tweeted repeatedly while watching the pilot.

“I absolutely love the new Heathers,” he wrote. “The new Heathers completely wrecks SJWs and makes fun of their sensibilities and virtue signaling [sic]. It’s great.”

Jason Micallef, the series showrunner, has explained that actually, the Heathers in the original Heathers aren’t villains, so the new Heathers aren’t either. “In the original film, the Heathers were the ones I always loved, and it’s the same with the series. The Heathers are the aspirational characters,” he told Entertainment Weekly.

Unfortunately, barely anyone else read the original Heathers in this way, and the right wing doesn’t see the new show this way either. “They’re the bad guys,” tweeted Cheong of the series’ “SJW” Heathers, rendering Micallef’s intent immediately irrelevant.

The show’s creators should’ve been prepared for this, because it’s 2018. Pop culture is now inherently political, and new releases find their fans on either the left or the right. Beauty and the Beast (2017) was boycotted by conservatives because of its “gay moment”, while Wonder Woman (2017) became the highest-grossing superhero origin movie because of its feminist credentials. Shoes aren’t immune. In 2016, Neo-Nazis declared New Balance “the official shoes of white people” after a company representative tweeted seeming support of Donald Trump.

If the rest of Heathers episodes (released in March) continue to vilify identity politics, then it wouldn’t be surprising if every frog avi on the internet gleefully told the left to “lick it up”.

Yet, Heathers might still anger its new right-wing fans. On Twitter, the creators deny that the show is “a power fantasy about a straight white couple murdering minorities”, cryptically stating that “you’ll get it when you watch it.” Presumably, then, there’s a twist. Micallef has even tweeted that the teachers in the show get guns and it “doesn’t end well” in episode 8, which may lose the show some conservative American fans (Trump is currently suggesting that teachers should be armed to protect students from mass shooters).

So while Heathers may still become an alt-right classic, it also may remarkably end up with no fans on either the left or the right. All in all: fuck me gently with a chainsaw.

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.