Fame, Celebrities, and Recognition
Margaret the First, a novel by Danielle Dutton, explores Margeret Canvendish’s life. Within the text, she faces gender discrimination, both ridicule and praise, and plenty of drama. At points, Margaret is presented as an independent and creative character, being likened to a celebrity. However, Dutton wants the reader to understand fame through her perspective, not that of plainly power and masculinity. For socially estranged or “weird” women like her, fame is an unfiltered expression of oneself and isn’t entirely reliant on other famous ladies.
Margaret is shown to be a masculine character at certain points, mostly her imitation of the Amazonians. She goes out in revealing gowns with bare breasts, calling it “femme forte” (Dutton 140). However, Dutton distinguishes her popularity from that of other strong female characters in the story. She is called “mad madge” for not fitting into her stereotypical gender roles (Dutton 144). Her attempts of masculinity to be independent yield a different outcome than the Swedish Queen who does the same, but is respected by the crowds. However, both characters are famous, just in different ways. A difference with Margaret’s view is that she doesn’t completely rely on masculine portrayals of herself, citing that “the gifts are not the same [as have been] given to men, yet those gifts [] given to women are much better” (Dutton 116). She’s adding on writing, philosophy, and science to her life on top of the attire. Thus, her personal form of “fame” is defined by her acting as herself combined with some inspiration from other powerful women. To an outsider, the quality of her fame seems to be bad (infamy), but Dutton shows that the way Margaret sees that fame to be much more important. To her, “[it] is all admiration” (Dutton 153). She has ambitions not for “beauty, wit, titles, wealth, or power”, but fame. Those qualities are just steps to her. Contrast this to Queen Henrietta Maria, who leads armies and “eat[s] with the men in the field” (Dutton 19). Margaret doesn’t communicate much, especially in the novel's first half. Her presentation doesn’t matter to her, as long as it catches people’s eyes. The queens in the story have some stereotypical male traits, but they’re more of an end than just a means for fame. (I’d imagine a queen who appears as a good leader is crucial for winning wars.) However, there are certain characters who are famous only because of plain power, with no masculinity or personal expressions of art. The queen who Margaret slighted is described poorly by Dutton as “pious, unpretty, [and who has] miscarried four times.” Fame, from just power or royal blood, is different from the masculine, creative type. It is also different from the Amazonian/leader image.
The difference in the definition of the word “fame” today is different than what it was during the 17th century. Today, nearly anyone can become “famous” if they are able to grow a following on some sort of platform, whether that be social media, through the entertainment industry, or in the world of sports for example. We have created new jobs like influencers and content creators where their entire workload is uploading creations, morally sound or not, to social platforms. However, the majority of these individuals don’t need to have any technical skills to perform these tasks and receive above average compensation for it; nothing besides being entertaining to a wide range of audiences. In contrast, “famous” people in the 17th century had either an existing and notable status amongst all or were world renowned for their innovative minds and work in different academic fields. Margaret Cavendish’s search for fame in the novel would not be similar as someone’s search for fame now. Mad Madge is much more focused on her rights to express herself as a woman through her writing, rather than gaining popularity and a following as an artist. It’s the fact that she’s a woman in the 17th century attempting to voice her ideas through her own work that gains her the infamy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of Margaret the First and how Dutton presents Margaret Cavendish’s fame as fundamentally different from that of other powerful women. Margaret’s rejection of traditional gender roles and her bold self-expression set her apart, and you’ve captured that well. Her fame isn’t rooted in power or masculine authority, like Queen Henrietta Maria’s, but in her unapologetic embrace of her intellect and creativity.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find particularly interesting is how Dutton emphasizes that Margaret’s version of fame is self-defined. As you point out, she views the qualities traditionally assigned to women, such as creativity and emotional intelligence, as gifts rather than weaknesses. This redefines the concept of “fame” beyond mere power or influence. It emphasizes personal fulfillment and artistic legacy as worthy qualities of fame. Where Queen Henrietta Maria’s leadership in battle earns admiration, Margaret’s fame is more polarizing. She’s mocked because of her writing, philosophy, and bold fashion pursuits. This challenged the societal norms of the time.