The Bostonians

A Study Guide

1. Hysteria had already been a major medical, psychological and social issue for some time before The Bostonians appeared. Some relevant aspects of hysteria that you might want to consider in relation to the novel:

--hysteria is linked to an inability to sustain a neutral and consistent subject position. In other words, in contrast to the objective, all-knowing, Father-Law figure of Patriarchal personhood, the hysteric is beset by constant personal fluctuation.

--the terms of this fluctuation are gendered. Most often, the hysteric has identified with both social gender roles. The hysteric displays and feels both masculine (strong, self-reliant, forceful, rational, tough, etc.) and feminine (gentle, self-sacrificing, giving, nourishing, pure, innocent, etc.,). The hysteric constantly moves between these dichotomous terms of gender identity.

--the hysteric experiences "anxiety of the voice." That is, s/he is beset by concern that using a public voice to persuade others to adopt her/his ideas, values, etc. is a violation of others' person; moreover, the use of this power feels like it has been "stolen" from the proper authority--this power never feels "natural" to the hysteric, it is associated with guilt.

--anxiety about voice and fluctuating subjectivity leads to narration and/or speech that moves randomly from one POV to another. We hear in the voice a "tonal instability" rather than an objective, linear, controlled voice.

How do these concepts about hysteria help to explain Olive's actions and words in the novel? Do they also help to explain Verena's?

2. Although this novel ends--as all of our novels have/will end(ed)--with the defeat of the defiant woman, many critics still contend that the "tragic fate" that awaits thoughtful and assertive women in a patriarchal culture is not a resignation to patriarchy. Rather, Judith Fetterly, for one, contends that the text's "contempt for reform and pessimism about the fate of women" shares with feminists a sense of the wrong done to women. Does the narration seem to sustain this notion of a feminist "exposure" of or outcry against the wrongs done to women? Or does the text seem to suggest that feminist resistance is self-defeating and unworkable?

3. Consider the role of social class in the text. We have not discussed the role of class in dividing women and men, but all of our novels contain social class critiques. Is part of the failure of Olive's and Verena's relationship because of the class divisions that they never overcome? Is part of Ransom's ability to "win" Verena due to his closer class connections? Or does Ransom represent the intersection of class and gender, that point where money is thought to reside most properly in men's hands? Does Verena buy into this? Why (not)?

4. The difference between Basil-Verena and Olive-Verena is central to the novel. Brook Thomas has theorized this in terms of privacy. Olive-Verena fails, Thomas argues, because Olive wants to possess Verena--even though she would like to do so as an egalitarian union of souls. The Basil-Verena relationship appears equally doomed and for similar reasons, Basil wants to possess Verena. However, Thomas's point here is interesting: Olive fails because she doesn't allow Verena an "empty space" inside, a space inside herself where she is nothing and no one's (not even herself). Olive insists that all of her person be New Woman. On the other hand, Basil allows her no space between. He doesn't allow her to distance herself from him. The closest the two come, according to Thomas, is when they shake hands at the Harvard War Memorial. That space between them shows Basil's respect for the limitations Verena has just insisted on. Does Thomas's sense of the difference between the two relationships hold up? How does it make sense in terms of privacy or individualism? How does it make sense in terms of gender liberation?