"Spotty-Handed Villainesses": Analysis of Margaret Atwood’s Speech
In "Margaret Atwood’s Speech "Spotty-Handed Villainesses" Analysis" paper we will research the main theme of the speech and analyze the characters. For women to gain equality, there must be an equal representation of women in literature. Atwood calls for diverse female characters, summarising her speech's message using the Jungian term “the Angel/Whore split so popular among the Victorians”, exposing how the traditional representation of women was one-dimensional, reflecting the patriarchal norms that demanded pure women. She also criticises contemporary feminism for equally forcing women in polarised roles of goodness for politics - “women were intrinsically good and men bad; to divide along allegiance lines. ” This dichotomy highlights the archetypes seen in feminist literature and exposes its shortcomings, which to her is “intolerable”, the rhetoric allowing the audience of feminists to challenge the mainstream feminist portrayal of gender and considering Atwood's perspective. This exposes contextual opinions of second-wave feminists, who Atwood had criticised previously, and their separatist view of gender, fostering further division in life.
The cumulation “passive good girls. . . proud ones, and slothful ones, and foolish ones and envious and greedy ones…” underscores the variety of roles for women. She confronts her audience using the rhetorical question “why shouldn't their many-dimensionality be given literary expression?” forcing the reassessment their perceptions of women in literature. Atwood's speech resonates two decades later, due to the continuity of women's unequal representation in media, literature, and academia. Thus, her speech has enduring worth as it challenges the universal value of women's underrepresentation - an equity issue that continues today.
Atwood highlights the importance of writing and the similarities and differences between fiction and reality, as literature reveals truths of human society and nature. The comparison between God and a novelist - “God started with chaos - dark, without form and void - and so does the novelist” - reveals the connection between reality and literature, as external forces influence both; fiction is shaped by a novelist's ideas, and society are shaped by people's changing attitudes. She reinforces this point through the nature metaphor, “a novel is not. . . divorced from real life. . . its roots are in the mud, ” illustrating that a novelist's ideas grow from context and literature represents humanity's values, experiences, and attitudes. However, she argues that in fiction, “something else has to happen. In life, we may ask for nothing more than a kind of eternal breakfast. ” The metaphor “eternal breakfast” symbolises reality and contrasts the normalcy of life with the need for a climax in fiction, as the fundamental difference between literature and reality is the approach to “something else” - it's demanded in fiction but unnecessary in life. Therefore, literature enables novelists to present the truths of culture, and human nature.
Critic Jennifer Hoofard said, “the intersection between the text and the world is something that Atwood advocates vociferously. ” Atwood's speech denotes that storytelling is an inherent part of human culture, allowing critiques of values and perspectives in society, with women's representation in the forefront. Her speech was criticised by many feminists as ‘selling out the cause'. However, Atwood's speech retains its enduring significance and will continue to be relevant until women achieve equal representation.
