FASHIONS IN HEROINES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1342, 20 January 1912, Page 11

FASHIONS IN HEROINES.

. THE YEAItNEES. When "tho supporter! of the Women's Movement wero once accused by an opponent of the cause of "manifesting a supreme contompt for what should be the most revered beings en earth, their mothers and their grandmothors," ho was answered by the suggestion that it was not mothers and grandmothers, in their individual capacity as such, who vere held up to scorn and ridicule, but tlio heroines in the fiction ot their 'iiy. ivlio were no longer considered worthy of the admiration 01 the idealistic modern young woman. The modern "heroine" 11.) longer "swoons" at any rough word addressed to her, nor does slio overcome a difficult situation by fainting into the arms of either tlio hero or one of her female "protectors." Modern science, in dealiiig vith "Eugenics," ridicules the supposed chivalry of the valiant and princely suitor who rescues the consumptive charity-girl from a life of toil and privation,' and marries her in order to soe her die in comfort and luxury, after giving birth to a delicate child who ought never to have been born, but who lives to comfort the father for his loss. It was further suggested that "the self-reliant independent modern maiden was more worthy of admiration than her clinging, cringing, whimpering forerunner. 1

Womanliness and weakness are no longer considered synonymous terms. The modern heroine, whether sho bo the dashing princess of Mr. Anthony Hope's romances, or tho witty clear-brained dames of Mr. Meredith's creations, or Mr. Henry James's passionless puppets, of whom I feel inclined to ask in his own words, "How do you so wonderfully exist?" tithe virile virgins Mr. Thomas Hardy has taught us to love, whom Mr. Wells transfers from their own invigorating nativo air to tho murky atmispiiere cf dingy cities, to the conspicuous detriment of their charm and bloom, all (to mention the heroines of a few male novelists only) possess the same predominant characteristic which can be slimmed up in the expression, strength of character. Those Yearners. And do wo miss her "whimpering forerunner"? I feel inclined to >.sk, why shonld we? But there was a transition stage. It is hardly possible that it could be otherwise. And tho woman of this

period 'was not altogether a pleasing creature. Mercifully she was short-lived. Sho was a- neurotic, hysterical female who went about screeching "Away with sex distinctions!" while she herself emphasised her sex in a way it had never been emphasised before. She yearned—above everything else she yearned—yearning was tho keynoto of her existence, she yearned "to live her own life," whatever that might mean. As if anybody, cxcept Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Chilcote, M.P., had ever been ablo to live another person's own life; or their own very own for that matter. And, failing this, her mission seemed to be to make everyone else's life with whom she was brought into contact as unpleasant as it was in her power to mako it. Another thing she wished to do was, I think, "to realise herself," whatever, again, that might mean. Whether sho succeeded I know not, but perhaps the present eminently sane and es-' sentially well-educated modern heroine is tho outcome of this realisation.

For now we havo a heroine who is neithor wholly bad nor impossibly "good," as tho heroine of tho cver-belovcd Dickens invariably were. How "grateful and comforting" to this very day are. Dickens's novels! I hever read _ anything by Dickens without a sensation of trustful repose creeping over me. To know that at the right moment and in the right manner tho villain will bo removed from the hero and heroine's path to happiness, and hope that ho has been obstructing only just enough to make tho eventual, haven more triumphantly securo for ever and ever! Between Dickens and Providence I see no earthy distinction. Why, even the gentle, unassuming Doras are gently and quietly removed if they obstruct in tho small gentle way the eventual "self-realisation" of the hero. It is tho business of Providence to see that tho hero does the best for himself in tho end, the female element is merely one of the means to this all-important aim. Henoo the revolt of the novelists of what I have called the transition stage, and the determination on the part of their heroines to 500 to it that it Bhould not bo only the prerogative of tho male to "realiso himself." So in these novels the element becomes merely omo of the means whereby this supremo "end" is brought about. So the woman began to do. Sho went on "doing" until she "did" for herself; thon camo the reaction.

Joint Partnership,

And now novelists are beginning to understand the joint partnership concern. Present-day writers aro beginning to recognise the fact that as in life, so in fiotion, even when dealing with types, as all fiction must more or lea) deal, that men and women in thoir relationship to each other must necessarily act and react upon each other's lives, independently of their purely sexual relations. Not even the greatest and wisest of the ancients, not even Shakespeare himself, took sufficient account of this undeniable necessity. Moreover, it is only comparatively recently that this fact, by the law of evolution, has been recognised as a fact in that 'it has emerged from the vague regions of speculation, and entered the luminous portals of established truth. It may still be necessary for women to "weep," but the "work' of the world is no longer confined to men.

Regarded in this light the siwcial aptitude and characteristics of the type of heroine who, each in her own day, can lx> if! to Jiavc held the .sway of fashion, boconi'e conijvirativ-cly imiinport-ant; but it is noae the less interesting to watch

their development and to examine what writers took a sufficiently firm hold of the public mind lo warrant a liordo of imitators springing uj> in their wake, and naturally claiming each for him or herself the originality wliich posterity with the withering doom of silcnco has denied or will deny to them. Foremost amongst the famous women novelists Charlotte Bronte (and in a lesser degree her sisters) stands out preeminently as tne creator of a new typo in fiction. To interest hor readers in her woman-kind slio discarded the lainiliar trappings of tile attractive heroine. She mauo her neither tall and stately nor petite and inignonne (lor tins typo French phraseology was invariably bor-l-owed), ner darK hair did not wave in heavy folds over a low thoughtful (.irecion brow (as was the habit ot tlio serious heroine's hair), nor lloat with bewitching and rebellious ringlets over mischievous dancing eyes (as the more frivolous heroines hair generally floated), nor did it act as a God lvalue veil when the sragle hair-pin, with which both types economically dressed their hair, fell out in a moment of agitation. .No; she had, in the words of Mr. Bret Harte's somewhat cruel parody, "A palo sandy and freckled fuco, eyes of a laint ashen grey; but abovo Uiam rose—hex only beauty—a high massive, dome-liko forehead with polished temples, like door-knobs of the purest porcelain." She was neither of noblo descent nor of "origin unknown," but the perfectly legitimate daughter of an obscure and uninteresting family. But Jane Eyre is nevertheless 0110 of the immortals.' For a short time ugly, or as they are preferably called "plain," heroines became the fashion, but lacking the master's vivifying touch she died from inanition, and gradually they, improved in looks, becoming first "piqua.nte" with irregular features, and a tip-tilted nose, till they re-assumed their pristine loveliness, and thenceforward re-emerged in all their glory. The Ideal Not Yet Attained. Then the sporting heroines of Mr. Surtees and Mr. Whyte Melville held and still hold their own, thought the period in which they abounded has passed; the venturesome heroine who "stooped to conquer"—only to find that her hero was like the ancicnt Beast, a prince in disguise—prevailed at one time, to give place to the beggar maid and her kingly adorer. Mercifully the political heroine as depicted by Mrs. Humphrey Ward, was not perpetuated, for a drearier and more wearisome prig never strutted between the covers of a book from which by any [known law it would be impossible for her to emerge. The ideal heroine has yet lo be created. Tho woman, who is first a human being, then Eister. lover, wife, or mother.