“
Mrs. Beazley
’
s Deeds
”
(1911) also critiques systems of language that disem-
power women, but in this text Gilman indicates even more explicitly how women ’ s
voices can transform discursive structures (such as the system of law). The story
concerns a woman completely cut off from discourse, so much so that she is reduced
to getting information through holes in the fl oor, as the story
’
s opening vividly
depicts: “ Mrs. William Beazley was crouching on the fl oor of her living - room over
the store in a most peculiar attitude. It was what a doctor would call the ‘ knee -
chest ’ position; and the woman ’ s pale, dragged out appearance quite justifi ed this
idea. She was as one scrubbing a fl oor and then laying her cheek to it, a rather
undignifi ed little pile of bones, albeit discreetly covered with stringy calico ” (207).
Mrs. Beazley is reduced to a pale “ little pile of bones ” crouching without dignity
before the superior linguistic power of her husband. But Maria Beazley is also dis-
empowered in her personal situation, for she is married to a lazy, tyrannical man
who overworks her and beats their children. Mr. Beazley forces his family to live
over the store he runs, rather than in the more spacious house his wife owns. Mr.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
113
Beazley is now on the verge of selling this home, Maria ’ s last piece of property, and
Maria is listening at the hole in the fl oor in a desperate attempt to get information
about this transaction.
With the help of a clever female attorney, Maria is eventually able to subvert this
transaction, retake her maternal property, and divorce her husband. Language is
central to her struggle for control, for Maria must overturn both a patriarchal discourse
that has been used to silence her, and a patriarchal story that has erased her agency.
Mr. Beazley is a discursive tyrant who exercises complete control over his wife ’ s access
to information and knowledge. When she asks questions about the legal documents
(deeds) he continually forces her to sign or when she tries to protest his actions, he
simply ignores her: “ Mr. Beazley minded her outcry no more than he minded the
squawking of a to - be beheaded hen ” (208). Mrs. Beazley ’ s speech is not even consid-
ered to be human “ language, ” but rather the “ squawking ” of an animal. Marie Beazley
believes herself to be completely disempowered by her husband ’ s physical, legal, and
discursive power. At this juncture, she appears to have no voice that can be heard by
anyone.
Yet Mrs. Beazley does fi nd her voice and she does fi nd a listener to hear her tale
in Miss Lawrence, the lawyer who comes to board with the family. When she fi nally
does tell her story to her friend, Mrs. Beazley states she is telling “ no great story ”
(213). It is simply the sad tale of her life, a tale full of sound and fury, but ulti-
mately signifying little because, as Mrs. Beazley declares, “ girls don ’ t know nothin ’ ! ”
(214). It is not even a unique story for, as she states, most of the women she knows
are
“
near dead
”
(212) from overwork. Yet in telling this story, Maria begins to
swerve from the patriarchal plot, the language game that insists women remain
silent and disempowered. The act of telling her story to a friend (which is, after all,
an act of authoring her story) and the act of asking for advice (which is, after all, a
way of asking how the story can be changed) destabilize the text ’ s prior construction
of Maria Beazley. When Miss Lawrence learns that Mr. Beazley has been putting
his property in his wife ’ s name to shield it from creditors, she helps Maria take legal
action to gain control of it. So one day Mr. Beazley returns from a business trip to
fi nd that his store and house have been sold, his wife and children have left him,
and his money has been withdrawn from the bank. Most importantly, Mr. Beazley
no longer wields linguistic power over his wife, as Miss Lawrence informs him: “ Any
communication you may wish to make to her you can make through me ” (219).
Clearly, this is a legal change, but also a linguistic one. And language is the key to
Maria ’ s empowerment – authoring her story is the fi rst step toward freedom, a step
that enables all the others.
Gilman also depicts women taking command over their stories in “ Dr. Clair ’ s
Place ” (1915). Medical discourse is reconfi gured in this piece, and so Gilman comes
full circle, revising the patriarchal story that initially caused her breakdown into a
narrative of women learning to read and write their way to mental health. S. Weir
Mitchell ’ s “ rest cure, ” of course, prescribed that women do nothing but eat, rest, and
raise their children; women were also confi ned to their homes and allowed little
114
Martha J. Cutter
exercise. In “ The Yellow Wallpaper ” the narrator initially longs to be out walking in
the garden
–
in
“
those mysterious deep
-
shaded arbors, the riotous old
-
fashioned
fl owers and the bushes and gnarly trees ” ( “ Yellow Wallpaper ” 7) – but she is seldom
allowed to do so. So it seems important that in Dr. Clair ’ s treatment, women are not
kept confi ned in any way but are instead rejuvenated through intellectual activity and
through physical regimens that include hiking, climbing, swimming, and sleeping
outdoors under the stars ( “ Dr. Clair ’ s Place ” 287).
The husband/doctor in
“
The Yellow Wallpaper
”
authoritatively diagnosed his
wife
’
s disease and dictated its course of treatment; moreover, when she tried to
protest, he only ridiculed her concerns. Conversely, in “ Dr. Clair ’ s Place ” the patient
(Octavia Welch) plays a participatory role in diagnosis and treatment: “ Dr. Clair
came in twice a day, with a notebook and pencil, asking me many careful questions;
not as a physician to a patient, but as an inquiring scientifi c searcher for valuable
truths. She consulted me in a way, as to this or that bit of analysis she had made;
and again and again as to certain points in my own case ” (286). This active, col-
laborative, language
-
based therapy helps the patient understand her disease and
participate in its cure. The story concludes with Octavia ’ s statement that she is now
an employee of Dr. Clair and “ a well woman ” (288). Quite literally, then, the patient
grows from someone who has a diagnosis infl icted upon her, to someone who can
diagnose herself.
As we have seen,
“
The Yellow Wallpaper
”
depicts a frightening antagonism
between a feminine subject and the masculine world of authoritative patriarchal and
medical discourse she inhabits. Gilman resided for part of her life in this frightening
world, but unlike her
protagonist she did not go insane. Instead, she wrote short
stories such as “ An Honest Woman, ” “ Mrs. Beazley ’ s Deeds, ” and “ Dr. Clair ’ s Place ”
that renovate language. Like Gilman herself, Gilman ’ s unruly women insist on con-
trolling and at times even creating the language that describes them, rather than
being created by it. As the next section illustrates, women writers from our time
period continue to examine how women can amend patriarchal (and racist) languages
and fi nd unique modes of identity.
Carrying Forward the Tradition of Protest: Contemporary
Feminist American Short Story Writers
As Gilman ’ s later fi ctions suggest, women may fi nd voice by understanding exactly
how and why they have been silenced, and/or by becoming part of a feminist com-
munity that allows them to tell and retell, fashion and refashion, their stories until
they become authorized. They may also fi nd voice, Gilman suggests in “ Dr. Clair ’ s
Place, ” by inhabiting the natural world, or by creating a balance and harmony between
nature and culture. Stories by contemporary writers show women achieving freedom
through a feminine community that can only exist when women fi nd equilibrium
between the natural and
“
man
-
made
”
worlds. Some of these stories depict a
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
115
coexistence between women and nature that rewrites not only the mechanical quality
of patriarchal society but also its erasure of women ’ s voices.
In an homage to, but also revision of, “ The Yellow Wallpaper, ” Pat Murphy ’ s
“ Women in the Trees ” (1990) tells of a battered wife who sees imaginary women in
the trees around her house, women who invite her to “ stay with us ” (Murphy 263).
For the abused young wife of the story, the trees offer safety and community, absent
from her real life. They also offer a way to reclaim her mode of expression. To her
husband, she has lied in order not to be beaten, or been silent: “ So you stopped
stating your opinion, and he called you stupid because you had nothing to say ” (258).
The young woman cannot fi nd expression in traditional (male - centered) language,
even though, like the narrator of “ The Yellow Wallpaper ” she tries to write: “ You
have a red notebook. … Sometimes you write in your notebook, trying to tell the
truth. … The truth is a slippery thing, as elusive as the women in the trees ” (263).
One night, to escape a beating, the woman runs and hides in her favorite tree. There,
after a long night of fear, she either dies or fi nds an ambiguous freedom and voice:
“ Your body is stiff and you are starting to wonder what to do. ‘ Leave it ’ the oak
women say. ‘ Come with us. ’ … You stand up and look back at the small body, curled
in the fork of the tree. … You feel the wind in your hair ” (267). The protagonist
joins the community of women in the trees, leaving behind her body. In so doing,
she appears to fi nd a truth - telling voice: “ But you will not be sorry, not sorry ever
again. Eventually, you will forget how to lie. And then you can come back down ”
(267). Overtly paralleling, but also rewriting, the ending of “ The Yellow Wallpaper ”
in which the narrator appears to go insane yet triumphs over her doctor/husband, in
Murphy ’ s short story the narrator fi nds community through other women and nature.
Unfortunately, as in Gilman ’ s story, it is unclear whether the woman actually survives
to speak aloud her new vision of selfhood, to articulate the new mode of language
she appears to have found.
Two other contemporary short stories typify how women can invest in natural,
ecological, and feministic communities that move beyond patriarchy; these stories
parallel, yet also rewrite, the linguistic struggle encoded in “ The Yellow Wallpaper. ”
In Estela Portillo Trambley ’ s “ If It Weren ’ t for the Honeysuckle … ” (1975) three
women – Beatriz, Sof í a, and Lucretia – are abused by their mutual lover/husband, a
man named Robles. But they form a community together, building a house and caring
for the plants and vegetables that grow around them, living in harmony with nature.
One night when Robles returns drunk and ready to beat and rape the youngest
woman, the other two poison him with a naturally growing plant they have discov-
ered, thereby insuring their own liberation and the preservation of the natural com-
munity they have created. Like the woman in Murphy ’ s story, they also fi nd a voice
in/through nature: “ I believe in the greenness of the earth. Listen! The river ’ s singing
again. Can ’ t you hear it? ” (Trambley 69). While in “ The Yellow Wallpaper, ” the
narrator fi nally does not want to be in the natural world ( “ you don ’ t get me out in the
road there! … I don ’ t want to go outside ” [18]), in Trambley ’ s story the women
discover community, power, and voice by growing plants, caring for the land, and
116
Martha J. Cutter
creating a home together. Gilman ’ s concerns about women and language are, in a
sense, transplanted to the natural world, where they can grow, fl ourish, and have a
more positive outcome.
Similarly, in Sandra Cisneros ’ s “ Woman Hollering Creek ” (1991) the legend of
La Llorona
–
or the weeping woman
–
is rewritten so that women fi nd voice
within it and within the natural world. In most versions of the original Mexican
legend of La Llorona, a woman is abandoned by her husband, and in revenge she
drowns her children; she then spends eternity wailing for them alongside the river
in which they died. In the original myth, then, women are defi ned through men
and children, and they have no voice outside of lamentation for the “ crimes ” they
commit. Cisneros ’ s short story, however, revises this myth when a female character
named Felice helps an abused pregnant woman named Cle
ó
fi las escape from her
husband:
But when they drove across the arroyo [river bed], the driver opened her mouth and let
out a yell as loud as any mariachi. … Every time I cross that bridge I do that. Because of
the name, you know. Woman Hollering. Pues [then], I holler. … That ’ s why I like the
name of that arroyo . Makes you want to holler like Tarzan, right? … Who would ’ ve? Pain
or rage, perhaps, but not a hoot like that one Felice had just let go. (Cisneros 55 – 6)
Felice refuses the pejorative association of the creek – its story of an evil woman who
destroys herself and her children. Instead, she transforms the creek into a symbol of
her (and women
’
s) independence from patriarchal dictates; yelling loudly like a
“ mariachi ” or “ Tarzan, ” she converts “ rage or pain ” into joy. Finally, her joy is trans-
ferred linguistically to Cle ó fi las, who also appears to fi nd a way out of the patriarchal
plot that has silenced her: “ Then Felice began laughing again, but it wasn ’ t Felice
laughing. It was gurgling out of [Cle ó fi las ’ s] throat, a long ribbon of laughter, like
water ” (56). Silenced throughout the story by her abusive husband, Cle ó fi las achieves
articulation and a transmuting of pain with the help of the natural world – the beau-
tiful river bed – and another woman (Felice).
“ The Yellow Wallpaper ” articulates a confl ict between masculine and feminine
modes of discourse, and between a male authority which defi nes women in limiting
ways and a feminine need for more commodious modes of self - defi nition. It sets out
these confl icts in graphic detail, but it does not resolve them. However, as seen in
these contemporary short stories, the questions raised by “ The Yellow Wallpaper ”
are vivid in our own era, when women still must struggle against pejorative patri-
archal myths and a language that seems to be androcentric, or man - made. On many
levels, “ The Yellow Wallpaper ” is an archetypal text for women short story writers,
but they constantly transform and transfi gure it. Rather than being confi ned in the
room of Gilman ’ s infamous nursery, with its seething yellow wallpaper, they move
out into the external world of feminine and natural community – the world of riotous
fl owers, gurgling natural creeks, and startling oak trees fi lled with female forms that
welcome them into a renovated linguistic community and innovative modes of
self - defi nition.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
117
References and Further Reading
Bauer , Dale . “ Cultural and Historical Background . ”
— — — . “ The Yellow Wallpaper. ” 1892 . The
The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman .
Charlotte Perkins Gilman Reader . Ed. Ann J.
Ed. Dale Bauer . Bedford Cultural Edition. New
Lane . New York : Pantheon , 1980 . 3 – 20 .
York : St. Martin ’ s Press , 1998 . 3 – 27 .
Glaspell , Susan , “ A Jury of her Peers. ” Women in
Christensen , Carolyn , ed. A New Woman Reader:
the Trees: US Women ’ s Short Stories about Battering
Fiction, Articles, and Drama of the 1890s . Peter-
and Resistance . Ed. Susan Koppelman . Boston ,
borough, ON : Broadview , 2001 .
Beacon Press , 1917 . 76 – 93 .
Cisneros , Sandra . Woman Hollering Creek and Other
Golden , Catherine . “ One Hundred Years of
Stories . New York : Vintage , 1991 .
A Companion to the American Short Story Page 26