Second Blog

From the many discussions that we have had in class in reference to Ruth Hall, one topic was of particular interest to me. I really liked how the author Franny Fern made her characters have this subtle way of transcending their influence on to others. Mrs. Hall one of the main antagonists in the story is a fickle woman that's very set in her ways. Being in the time period that she was raised in she had learned how to strategically be abrasive to be the dominant figure in her house hold. Though she seems to hold a great disdain for our protagonist Ruth I believe that Mrs. Hall doesn't want to hate Ruth entirely if she knows she could control her.


When Ruth came into the picture Mrs. Hall felt threatened and had to lay down her authority as thick      as she possibly could to make sure Ruth knew her rightful place. One scene in particular came up  
where Ruth and Mrs. Hall had their first encounter with each other. Mrs. Hall was belittling Ruth's     upbringing and then brought up how it wouldn't be wise to allow Ruth to be control of any form of finances.
    "In those cases, it will be best for you to pass it over to me to keep of course you can always have it   


    again, by telling me how you wish to spend it. I would advise you, too, to lay by all your handsome 


   clothes. As to the silk stockings you were married in, of course you will never be so extravagant as to 


   wear them again. I never had a pair of silk stockings in my life; they have a very silly, frivolous look."


(Fern 13)

Mrs. Hall leaves no room for discussion and also makes Ruth feel as if she was incompetent being a woman. After Mrs. Hall continues degrading Ruth it seems that Mrs. Hall wants to make an effort to try and accept her daughter in law if she were to let go of one of her physical attributes such as her hair. This action would be evidence for Mrs. Hall that she does have control over Ruth and can be more welcoming instead of shrewd. "Do you know I should like your looks better, if you didn't curl your hair?" (Fern 13)

Ruth later answers in turn that her hair curled naturally which was representation that she could never conform to Mrs. Hall's ways. There was no way to change Ruth, it wasn't part of her to be a conformist and she would naturally fight to protect what she was as an individual.

Every Rose Has Its Thorn

Women in the early nineteenth century were looked as solely delicate flowers by society. Flowers are Beautiful to look upon; simplistic in their design from the petals all the way down to their stems. For a man, using the flower as a metaphor was the perfect way to describe a women’s attributes given that time period. But, there was a novel by Franny Fern known as Ruth Hall, that shook the idea and made the harsh reality of a women’s oppression come into focus. Linda Grasso explored this topic further in her article, “ANGER IN THE HOUSE: FANNY FERN'S RUTH HALL AND THE REDRAWING OF EMOTIONAL BOUNDARIES IN MID-NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA.” The main idea of the article was how this book was trying to illustrate the frustration behind the masses anger. The general public looked at Franny Fern’s book as an insult to not just men but to her family. The author had put a lot of herself in the book (literally) and the general consensus was they felt that a woman had no right to be so upset and to lash out. For me I did agree with a lot that the article had to offer in reference to the story. But, while reading Ruth Hall for myself I feel that the author could have done it in a more eloquent way to execute her point. I mean, Fern had to get backup to keep bad press off of her and in Grasso’s article she mentioned that Stanton had to act as Franny Fern’s advocate. “Stanton draws a direct relationship between Fern's experience as an oppressed white woman and that of a slave's. Distressed that Ruth Hall received a "severe" review in the Anti- Slavery Standard, Stanton contends that Fern's story should be read as if it were a slave narrative. (255.) Instead of Franny Fern just plowing away and being brash she could have avoided all that. I think that the reason why it worked in favor for the womens movement was because they had to do major damage control. I would have to disagree with Linda Grasso’s article because yes, women have been depicted as dainty little flowers and Franny Fern wanted to make sure that everyone knew that though a flower is beautiful it can prick you. But instead of giving off that particular imagery she could have been describing the man eating plant from little shop of horrors. No one takes someone who wines and moans seriously. Franny Fern caused a ruckus, she was the obnoxious gadfly to stir everyone awake and see what was going on. Luckily, there were others to be at her side and fix it but at times having a loud mouth to every party could work in your favor.

Works Cited

Grasso, Linda. "ANGER IN THE HOUSE: FANNY FERN'S RUTH HALL AND THE REDRAWING OF EMOTIONAL BOUNDARIES IN MID-NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA." JSTOR: Studies in the American Renaissance. Joel Myerson, 1995. Web. 2 July 2012.