Fannying the Flames: Furor Over Fern and Feminism From Before

My name is Raheem Miah, and I'm a student at LaGuardia Community College.  In my class "The Novel", we are discussing Fanny Fern's novel Ruth Hall.  This post summarizes and discusses the essay "Anger in the House: Fanny Fern's 'Ruth Hall' and the Redrawing of Emotional Boundaries in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America" by Linda Grasso.

In the essay, Grasso discusses Elizabeth Cady Stanton's praise of Ruth Hall for demonstrating an obvious gall and righteous anger towards a male-dominated idea of outspokenness.  Stanton believed that the novel expertly defines the injustice of private censure from men and speaks toward "woman's public expression of anger [as] a strategic political tool" (Grasso 252).  Other women's rights activists like Paulina Wright Davis saw that dissent from the patriarchy must be made with just indignation.  However, this anger was seen as impropriety and behavior unbecoming of a woman from men and women alike, notably Caroline Dall in regards to Ruth Hall who felt that Fern's use of "manly wit and the sarcasm of a soured soul" belies the author to "a male-styled confrontational approach to sexual warfare" (Dall, Grasso 256).  Even Stanton's comparison of the novel to slave narratives speaks beyond the white middle-class women who agree with Dall's and the 19th-century's viewpoint of rational self-restraint.  Grasso ends by stating that the move away from Calvinist beliefs to more humanitarian perspectives, Ruth Hall is called into question as a loud cry for more bold action in achieving humanity for all people.

A notable example of Ruth's anger made apparent within the novel comes up in Chapter 73 whereupon Ruth leaves "The Pilgrim" and faces the ire of the editor Mr. Tibbetts, incensed that someone whose reputation was built by him would seek to leave his employ.  Ruth counters this sentiment by calling it "a question open to debate" (Fern 156).  When Tibbetts threatens to release her essays himself before she can publish them, Ruth boldly states, "I am not to be frightened, or threatened, or insulted..." (Fern 157).  Ruth Hall's demonstration of standing her ground exemplifies Stanton's praise of the book's uncompromising gall at taking down a fascist patriarchy.  This chapter was not well-received, as Grasso explains: Mr. Tibbetts was likely based on a real editor of Fern's, and he slandered her to the public, "[identifying] Fanny Fern as Sarah Payson Willis", and thus opening her to the public's censure (253).  Moreover, the chapter shows what was characterized as "unfemininely bitter wrath and spite" when Tibbetts describes Ruth's promise of editors coming to her aid as "a manly act", so unheard of it is for a woman to retaliate against a man (Grasso 253, Fern 157).  Ruth Hall does not herself express much anger or bitterness to men, however, nor does the narrative in itself.  It merely shows a reality of discreet and indiscreet disrespect towards women portrayed with an honesty not seen often in Fern's era.  Still, Ruth on this occasion openly stands against male tyranny and succeeds beyond her feminine limitations.