Bridget Jones Synopsis...

'Bridget Jones is the thirty something we are all frightened of becoming. Or know that we have already become.'

Bridget Jones is a thirty-something single girl, with her own flat and a group of supportive friends. She also has man problems, weight problems, mother problems, and career problems. Sure, it sounds trite, but Helen Fielding has that true genius of a writer whereby every small detail is a delight to read and serves to create a masterfully told story.

"Bridget Jones's Diary' is a novel about a single woman facing every day life in Britain. There's the not very inspiring job (brightened a bit by an attractive boss), the benefits and occasional annoyances of friends, and the struggle with the scales. On top of all that, after all these years of marriage, it looks like her parents are about to spilt up.

Bridget's diary, written (as you could imagine) in the first person, is written in an authentic shorthand and provokes a close empathy with Bridget, and her story as she lives from day to day and her experiences with work, men, friendships etc. The diary begins in January with a list of New Year's resolutions and ends with her measurements of how she did. It is lots of fun to live Bridget's live with her while she consumes alcohol units, cigarettes (v.bad) all manner of food stuffs, has an affair with her boss, and tries to cope with her mother dating a deeply suspicious European named Julio while she remains married to 'Daddy'. All the characters are three dimensional and completely living, and the novel is referential to outside events while remaining timeless in the story.

I think that the real strength of the book is that the character of Bridget is very recognizable. She's a reflection of many 30-something women. She's looking for love, critical of her looks and figure, struggles to climb the career ladder, has her hopes and dreams that sometimes seem within reach but often feel so far away... Other fictional characters sometimes feel too perfect. Bridget isn't perfect. Bad hair days happen to her. Because of all this, the reader wants her to do well. I wanted a happy ending and for her to find love and everything she hoped for. Throughout the book, you can't help but journey along with her and feel involved.

The self doubts, disgraces, highs, victories and disasters of Bridget Jones's life provide a hilarious catalogue which is over the top but close to the bone. Our laughter is fuelled by our own painful memories. We've all been there. We just wish that we could be half as funny when we recount it to our diaries.

As far as I’m concerned, this is one of the defining books of the “chick lit” genre; so defining, in fact, and followed by so many pale imitations, that Bridget Jones’s Diary should probably surpass this tired and overstuffed genre into something else with the emphasis on “literarty”. There have been so many awful books that have tried to sneak into a similar category, but they just can’t touch the wit and style and glorious lovability of Bridget Jones’s Diary.

I would recommend this book to anyone. It makes for a lovely read when curling up in bed, or to take along with you to the beach. There's something in Helen Fielding's writing style that kept me smiling and giggling all the way. It sure made it hard to close the book before I had finished it.

Tomorrow, I will analyse how this relates to masculinity within the 1990's.

Until then, take care Jonesy x

Reconstructing Masculinity?

Basically, in preparation for my dissertation for next year which is Masculinity and the Male Confessional Novel, my English tutor Ben pointed me in the direction of this Article 'Deconstructing Masculinity' by Sheryl Plant. Here's the link:- http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2006/02/deconstructing_masculinity.

Basically I have a few problems with it as an student of English Literature. Basically in my own view Plant highlights the following:- 'What is it about men that makes them violent?' Critics such as Niva and Goldstein have argued this point for many years and it just seems that Plant has taken this perspective more radically using phrases such as 'Common sensical', Using Jackson Katz's perspective of race, gender and race considerations, femininity etc.

I do tend to agree that Plant does have valid points throughout this piece even if I overall I personally disagree. I agree that Masculinity is rarely deconstructed in the same way as Femininity. (If you need to know more about that I would suggest looking at Kristeva's work). However, I don't think that Plant should have used Domestic Violence in stating this claim. There are other issues such as discrimination, relationships with women, murderers, writers, public sections etc. These issues would been to further suggest why men act the way they do and behave the way they do.

As for Plant claiming that men see their behaviour as the 'norm' seems to imply that men do get away with quite a bit even though nowadays, men seem to be getting the blame for a lot of things such as discrimination, equality etc. However, back to the issues of domestic violence. Plant argues that male victims of domestic violence are often treated with 'ridicule' and 'hilarity' by 'losing their masculinity because they were beaten at the hands of a woman'. I think personally that Plant's argument here has one major flaw, that the domestic violence surrounding a man doesn't take taken very seriously by the public. If the tables were turned, then things would be getting done about it. I think Plant is trying to argue that equality is needed to tackle this issue maybe?

Plant argues that the book 'Stiffed' (very good book) that men are becoming 'hyper-masculine' having been betrayed by society. This statement could be taken back to the end of the First World War and the promise of Lloyd George promising 'A Land fit for heroes' and also the end of the Second World War with the promise of the Welfare state. Plant then goes on to state that the identity crisis within males could be to blame for this. But then argues that the construction of masculinity allows this to happen. And who constructs masculinity? We all do. People tend to have a view surrounding what makes a man such as his lifestyle, the way he constructs himself using fashion, war, politics etc. I do agree with the point that Plant makes about films such as Fight Club and music such as hip hop that construct an identity of masculinity in 'acts of aggression' that needs to make a 'real man' in the 21st century.

To end my argument, I agree with the perspective that Plant believes that masculinity links strength with its aggression. It could be argued to be seen as weak. But however, the way society has constructed Masculinity over the years, I feel that men have no choice but to 'recapture' their own masculinity using the methods that society has constructed for them over the years. By using the perspective of Plant, by trying to act calm in a situation of 'aggression', I think this would then promote the overall idea of Masculinity being in a constant crisis and that men have no way of turning away from the constraints placed upon their own masculinity and never will be able to due to the media's constant and changing developments using films trying to define Masculinity within the 21st century.

What is Masculinity?

Just what is masculinity? In general? A dictionary definition states that masculinity is 'possessing qualities or characteristics considered typical of or appropriate to a man, The term can be used to describe any human, animal or object that has the quality of being masculine. When masculine is used to describe men, it can degrees of comparison- more masculine, most masculine.'

I guess you are wondering why I provided this definition. I want to discuss and analyse this using some seminal critics and texts to provide that the definition from the dictionary is partly right and partly wrong.

Firstly, I do believe that qualities and characteristics are given to men that are to be expected. For example, men are supposed to be the 'breadwinner' of the family and go out and provide for the family, while also protecting their offspring from any harm. However, you could argue that this changes during the Second World War when men were expected to fight in the army in France/Germany or Russia which left the men unable to provide for their family.

From this, women who during this period were expected to look after the home and the family had to fill in the gaps but also had to work in order to support the war effort. This would seem to have resulted in a change into how masculinity was viewed within the private and social spheres. For example my dissertation supervisor (Ben Brabon) and Stephanie Genz in their book Postfeminism:Cultural Texts and Theories argue that due to the changes and freedoms that women had seem to have changed how masculinity is viewed.

Obviously, during the 1960's, the emergence of Feminism seemed to critique and challenge concepts and views surrounding masculinity but also seem to highlight just how much power men had within social and private spheres. [Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking feminism, I'm just saying that many critics seem to believe that this emphasises the strong social and private powers that masculinity can have. ] Feminism as a whole during this period is a collection of movements that were aimed at defining, establishing and defending political, economic and social rights and equal opportunities for women on the same EQUAL basis as men.

Now, critics have argued that within this period, Feminism seems to have scared alot of men due to the 'liberation' aspect being a part of the movement. As this 'liberation' would effect how masculinity and men's masculinities in particular are seen and analysed. As firstly, if women stick to the 'expected' traditions imposed on them, they would be looking after the family and home and dependant on the husband. But if they choose not to, they would be seen as 'dangerous' by men as they could go into education, work or, OR not have children. If the latter was not provided by a women, this would in the private and public spheres seem to impact on a man's masculinity as he has NOT been able to do what he should be able to do. Which is partly wrong as I believe it should be an individual’s choice to choose if they would like a career and children or just a career or children individually or not at all.

As masculinity goes through 70's and 80's, it seems that masculinity seems to be entering into chartered waters. As we go into the 80's, it would seem that masculinity within the eyes of the media seems to be under scrunity under public figures such as Freddie Mercury. We all know Freddie Mercury as the leader singer from Queen yes, but during the 80's, Freddie came out to the public and the media as an openly gay man. Which is great... not in the eyes of the media. Due to the scandal surrounding Homosexuality both publically, socially and legally under the Thatcher government and also an HIV/AIDS scares, this would seem to put masculinity under the public eye and reinforce all the 'expected' traditions and assumptions of what men should be.

Combined with this, the publication of Backlash by Susan Fauldi and also Iron John by Robert Fly seem to tackle what it means to be a man and what is expected of them. Backlash argues for the existence of a media driven 'backlash' against the advances of Feminism of the 1970's. She then extends this idea further to suggest that this is the sources of the problems that are showing within women in the late 1980's. From reading this book, it would seem that the media are fuelling this and would seem to based it without reliable and proofworthy evidence. This would seem to generate a 'clash' between masculinity and feminism firstly but secondly, seems to tackle and challenge the 'expected' assumptions for women but also men too.

Iron John argues that men need to find lessons from the past and look at previous generations of men in order to understand the cultural, political and personal context facing them within this period. Bly uses traditional concepts such as battles and history to illustrate this point. This would seem to reinforce the power and allusive history that men have but also it would seem to suggest that men are having a crisis within themselves....

Which leads me to the 1990's. A period within 60 years that masculinity seems to bear the brunt of all problems... well not like world peace or anything.... It would seem that within the 1990's masculinity seems to be according to Managan to be 'in a constant crisis and that masculinity itself is crisis'. Managan raises an interesting point. Masculinity could be seen as a 'crisis' as due to the aftermath of the Thatcher government (really don't like her btw), men didn't know what was expected of them as many men lost their jobs and had to rely on the public benefit system in order to support their offspring which seems to be explored in the male confessional novel genre by writers such as Nick Hornby, Mike Gayle etc.

However, you could say that the female confessional novels by writers such as Helen Fielding seem to also fuel the crisis surrounding masculinity. As Bridget Jones, seems to project an 'fantasy' of what her man should be... 'no emotional fuckwits or perverts' etc. Meanwhile, Bret Easton Ellis protrays masculinity within American Pyscho has in a crisis. Patrick Bateman seems to be a typical American man, working in Wall Street, loads of money and material things. But seems to have problems in his relationships with women (not being in a committed relationship and using prostitutes), and also issues surrounding his relationship with his father. But yet goes out and kills people for the fun of it. Why? Just why?

So what is masculinity? Is it just showing that you are male? is it showing that you can produce children? Is it showing you can be in a committed relationship? Is it providing for your offspring?

Hopefully, I'll be tackling these questions when commentating further on some critical texts and books that demonstrate or tackle what it means to be a man.

I hope I haven't bored you too much.

Until next time Jonesy x

1st Blog...

First off, a huge welcome to the 'Mascujonesities' blog!

Let me introduce myself. The name is Sarah but I'm better known by people as Jonesy. At the moment, I'm in the final stage of completing my degree in English Literature and History at the fabluarse Edge Hill University in Ormskirk. While also applying to do a two year part-time MA at Edge Hill University in English and specialising in Masculinities within Literature. Hopefully this will then lead onto a PHD study of Masculinity within Literature and becoming a University Lecturer in the field.

With the main introduction of myself out of the way, I would like to move on to discuss what this blog will hopefully be about. Firstly, after discussing with my good friend from University (when she reads this, she knows who she is!), I decided to embark on blogging. A number of reasons for this. Firstly, the thought of blogging on Literature and masculinity that I haven't read within my degree and commenting on it appeals to me. Secondly, I am so passionate about the subject and feel there sin't enough commentary on the topic. And finally, I wanted to share my views to the world.

Why masculinities I guess your wondering? Ever since my second year and completing and enjoying a module on the topic with one of the most amazing lecturers ever, I decided I wanted to research into this topic further.

As I love reading in general, but from reading books such as Bridget Jones' Diary, About A Boy, Fever Pitch etc, I was interested in how writers portray men within novels in the wider social context that it was written in. (For example, Bridget Jones' Diary was written in 1996 and was a publishing success that provided a revision of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice that seems to highlight the notion of not just feminism in the character of Bridget but also the concept of the 'gentlemen' in characters such as Daniel and Mark).

Taking this into account, I then decided during my third year to write a dissertation on men and masculinities and how they are represented within the 1990's and 2000's in works such as Helen Fielding, Mike Gayle and Nick Hornby with the apart from a very nice tutor in Switzerland! Also, I had the opportunity to write a short project in my Victorian Literature module, writing about 'Men and masculinities in the fiction of Elizabeth Gaskell' using the novel North and South. And I have to say even though the novel wasn't Gaskell's best work, it was really interesting and challenging to write, especially as I could have written a dissertation on it as my tutor said. While studying Victorian Literature this year, my expectations of Victorian Literature have changed. Within the space of 100 years, men were projected within the 1800's as the breadwinner, strong, an authoritian figure. But however, during this period, men changed from maintaining certain characteristics surrounding their masculinities, but moving onto new ones such as the concept of the gentlemen, the dandy-saint, homosexual etc. (In Gaskell's novel, you have characters such as Thornton who seem to be projecting the expected version of Victorian Masculinity, while also becoming more liberal and seem to be experiencing a crisis of masculinity (such as Richard Hale) and characters such as Higgins and Boucher becoming more dangerous and lethal (it has been suggested by critics such as Adams that these characters who be hiding homosexuality but there is no evidence to argue this case academically and correctly). And after this project, I'm extremely keen to research Victorian Masculinity even further using novels such as Dorian Grey.

Over the course of maybe two years, with this blog, I would like to share with you some novels/articles and bits of masculinity theory too to discuss and hopefully make you see what other academics don't see.

That's all for now folks. Hope that introduction hasn't put you off.
I'll write soon.
Take Care
Jonesy x