Anita Obermeier

Wow, I love this question. I’ve noticed this pattern across many (or most? Or all?) of the texts we’ve read this semester: the presence of a prominent female character often indicates that the male protagonist’s choices will be shaped by her actions and/or requests. Does this give the female agency? I’m not so certain that it does. I see this as the flattening of female characters to plot devices. Often, the female acts as a catalyst for male action. She must be present in order to move the plot forward and give the male character(s) something to physically do while the female stays relatively stationary. She is typically merely a signpost in the plot directing the male hero toward his next task. Only because this is a pattern across multiple texts do I see it as a more general flattening of character. Because the female character’s presence is a plot device to shape male characters’ movement, there is no way for the female character to achieve the status of a rounded, realistic character; her desires and motivations exist only to steer the male hero towards conflict, climax, and conclusion.

I love the connection between the contagious nature of leprosy and the contagious nature of female desire. I hadn’t originally made the connection between the two ideas. While Margery does end her sexual relationship with her husband in an attempt to be closer to God, cleaner, saintlier, etc., she remains an extremely passionate character. She is far from being a stereotypically calm, wise saint; rather, she constantly displays dramatic emotions. She weeps openly (and often), she converses passionately with everyone she encounters, and even her inner thoughts and visions are conveyed in a superlatively emotive way. Perhaps the lack of physical expression of sexuality forces her passion to be expressed in different ways; she finds new outlets for her physical nature through a queered love for a mythological religious figure (Christ).

I have a different interpretation of the relationship between Ragnell and Gawain once they are married. The original post argues that Ragnell “holds the power in their relationship and in a way holds Gawain hostage.” While it may be appealing to consider this part of the text (pre-Ragnell’s-death) as bordering on feminist and progressive, the female empowerment and power displayed are flimsy and surface-level. The tale does center on finding out what women want and declaring that the answer is sovereignty, but in Gawain’s granting Ragnell sovereignty in making her own decision as to the outcome of her male-gaze-based curse, Gawain shows that it is truly he, the male who has power. He must grant Ragnell permission to make her own decision, indicating that the norm is zero female agency. Also, Gawain has won the attractive, beautiful Ragnell as a prize—an object possessed—for a simple action. His staying home with Ragnell rather than “questing in the name of his king” do not show Ragnell’s agency, but rather show that Gawain is avoiding activities that are physically dangerous in favor of remaining in the safety of domesticity with an objectified wife as a possession.