JOURNAL
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
LITERATURE
Int. J. Eng. INTERNATIONAL
Lang. Lit & Trans. Studies
(ISSN:2349-9451/2395-2628)
Vol. 4.
Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
AND TRANSLATION STUDIES (IJELR)
A QUARTERLY, INDEXED, REFEREED AND PEER REVIEWED OPEN ACCESS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
http://www.ijelr.in
KY PUBLICATIONS
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Vol. 4. Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
ELISA ALLEN: STEINBECK’S UNCONVENTIONAL REFLECTIONS ON THE FEMALE
CHARACTER IN “THE CHRYSANTHEMUMS”
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
Senior Lecturer, Department of English, East West University
Plot# A/2, Jahurul Islam Avenue
Jahurul Islam City, Aftabnagar, Dhaka-1212.
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
It has been said about John Steinbeck that his “world is a man’s world, a world that
frustrates even minor league women’s liberationists” (Sweet 214). This paper will
seek to debunk the myth surrounding John Steinbeck’s machismo as an author as
well as a narrator who has often been thought to have portrayed women in a onedimensional fashion, spewing gross stereotypes. This paper will attempt to show
that Steinbeck, despite aforementioned allegations, projects in Elisa Allen - the
protagonist of the short story titled “The Chrysanthemums” - an ideal individual, if
not an ideal feminine, who subverts the hitherto rigid construct of the binary.
Steinbeck has been purported to have delineated women characters, be they major
or minor ones, falling under the classification of either a mother or a whore. In “The
Chrysanthemums”, on the contrary, Elisa Allen is a forerunner in the very scanty list
of modern women drawn by Steinbeck. She asserts her sexuality and opposes the
norms of femininity.
Key Words: Animus; Anima; Conventions; Sexuality; Individual
©KY PUBLICATIONS
In “The Chrysanthemums” which was written in the decade of the 30s, John Steinbeck has etched a
female character who averts conformity to male expectations of femininity. Historically, the expectations
imposed restrictions on women as to how they should have accepted their roles and functioned within the
prescribed rules. In this respect, Steinbeck has broken the gender codes, and by doing so he has drawn a
woman protagonist who clearly defies the conventional mindset. Elisa, therefore, has become “the
representative of the feminine ideal of equality and its inevitable defeat” (Sweet 213). The defeat is conceded
by Elisa because her female subjective experiences are circumscribed and simultaneously her masculine
tendencies are ignored by her male counterparts. She reflects against all odds, what can be defined in Jungian
term, animus. She certainly possesses strength and aggression identified as manly traits, besides being a
typically compliant and vulnerable - attributes generally associated with women - wife. This implies that in the
unconscious of Elisa Allen dwells an inner personality which surfaces in the course of the story’s progress.
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
55
Int. J. Eng. Lang. Lit & Trans. Studies (ISSN:2349-9451/2395-2628) Vol. 4. Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
The short story “The Chrysanthemums” appears in the anthology The Long Valley (1938). In it the
character of Elisa lives in an alternative world - an inner world - which is a safe haven for taking refuge from
adversaries in the form of male domination and patriarchy. Disappointed in her marital life, she resorts to
gardening. Gardening appears to be the only vocation approved by her husband who is the very epitome of
staunch conventionality. She finds gardening rather a preoccupation of hers as a reservoir to summon courage
from as she resists submission and restriction. Through gardening Elisa Allen ventures into nurturing her
maternal instincts and fulfilling her desires to achieve inner peace. This pursuit of inner peace and happiness,
which she manages to accomplish with little freedom she has been able to carve out from her routine daily
chores, endows her power to eradicate monotony and cultivate fiery passions unappreciated by her laconic
husband. Steinbeck, although he is allegedly an archetype male author, does create a realistic picture of a
woman conditioned by her time, place, and circumstances. Inasmuch as Steinbeck relinquishes the
traditionally wielded notions of male-centeredness in this short story, he attempts to narrate realistically and
objectively female experiences notwithstanding some intractable tendencies towards misinformed
assumptions. These assumptions have led the author to depict women as occupying two distinct ends of a
spectrum. A woman character in Steinbeck’s reconstruction inherits either nurturing and reproductive nature
or destructive and debilitating nature (Gladstein 17). Sandra Beatty confirms some parts of the above
statement saying, “It would appear that Steinbeck has, either consciously or unconsciously, reduced the
multiplicity of female roles to basically two, that of wife and that of mother, with all his female characters
fulfilling, in varying degrees, either one or both of these functions” (2). The characters of Ma Joad from The
Grapes of Wrath and Juana from The Pearl are positively drawn. They embody all the wholesomeness on the
one half of the binary. At the same time “their appearance is equaled or outweighed by a cacophony of
sometimes monstrous, sometimes vapid women” (Gladstein 244) who complete the other half of the binary.
Conversely though, not all whores or “commodity” women (Gladstein 110) are always the deviant kinds. Their
functions are sympathetically treated by the author, except for a few aberrant ones like Cathy Ames in The
East of Eden. Women like her in Steinbeck’s perspective are the evil incarnate. Certainly there have been
limitations to “the roles he could assign them” given the historical realities (Everest and Wedeles qtd. in
Gladstein 242). However, in “The Chrysanthemums”, Steinbeck has conceived a different approach which has
helped him “to see the world from a woman’s perspective” (Gladstein 120). Although written in the early years
of the 1930s, when almost all of his works rarely invested women with originality and impulses in their voice
and thoughts (Gladstein 120), “The Chrysanthemums” shows Steinbeck’s atypical portrayal of a woman
protagonist.
Set in a pasture land in the Salinas Valley, the homestead of the Allen’s represents a deceptively
salubrious atmosphere. In “a hard-swept looking little house, with hard-polished windows” lives the couple
(Steinbeck 1). The husband, Henry Allen, is a ranch farmer. The wife, Elisa Allen, is a housewife. The
nondescript details of the house resemble the way the characters are described. But this description is
certainly a giveaway, for it reveals the domestic and gender politics at work in the fabric of the story.
Interestingly though, Steinbeck paints a very manly sketch of the wife, not distinctively feminine by the
standards of his time, whose face looks “eager and mature and handsome” (Steinbeck 1). Besides, her actions
resonate with manly fortitude and sparks of energy as is evidenced in the line: “(E)ven her work with the
scissors was over-eager, over-powerful. The chrysanthemum stems seemed too small and easy for her energy”
(Steinbeck 1). Elisa’s gardening attire disguises her feminine grace. She seems to have found comfort in the
heavy gardening costume, man’s black hat, clod-hopper shoes, and big corduroy apron (Steinbeck 1). The
image of the gloves that Elisa puts on and puts off in the course of the story assumes an important motif
showing the protagonist’s wavering between masculine and feminine tendencies. This significantly rings with
dual implications. When she puts on the glove along with the heavy gardening clothes she seems to use them
as cloaks to conceal her femininity. On the contrary, when she puts off her gardening attire and glove she
unravels her gritty stature along with her feminine looks. For one thing, Elisa feels compelled to conceal her
conventional femininity which can be read as resistance. She resists submitting to any naïve notions of
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
56
Int. J. Eng. Lang. Lit & Trans. Studies (ISSN:2349-9451/2395-2628) Vol. 4. Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
stereotypes. For instance, her “blocked” (Steinbeck 1) figure presupposes her disguise. This disguise plays a
subversive role as Elisa upholds her so-called unfeminine features to scandalize the patrimony. Her masculine
gardening attire complements her inherent traits of aggression, vigor and firmness often associated with men.
The narrator’s musings on her clothes show that Elisa is equally at ease with her unfeminine looks and
unfeminine ways. There come times later in the story when this veneer slips off as indicated by when she puts
off her gloves in the presence of the tinker. It is symbolic of her willingness to assert her true femininity
underlined by sexual potency previously repressed and untapped. She becomes emotionally vulnerable and
tender; simultaneously she acts sexually assertive - a quality appreciated in fertile women. And when she goes
through the ritual of decking herself with make-up and “her newest underclothing and her nicest stockings and
the dress which was the symbol of her prettiness” for the purpose of going out with Henry, she is undeniably
feminine (Steinbeck 6). Thus, she blends the two aspects of her nature. She is at the same time both refined
and feminine while striving for manliness (Beach and Kempton qtd. in Osborne 10).
The relationship between Elisa and Henry is a stilted and artificial one. Their conversation bespeaks of
the constrained nature of their marital relationship lacking mutual understanding and admiration for each
other. There is not enough exchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments between them in the story that reveals
the paucity of depth in their emotional and intellectual bonding. Henry is evidently hesitant in acknowledging
Elisa’s flair for gardening, although he laconically lets out: “I wish you’d work out in the orchard and raise some
apples that big” (Steinbeck 2). This sounds as if Henry recognized a fellow comrade’s forte. Elisa, in her reply,
enthuses over her skill: “May be I could do it, too. I have a gift with things” (Steinbeck 2). Ironically, Henry’s
next reaction dampens her spirit as he retracts his compliment to Elisa saying condescendingly: “Well, it sure
works with flowers” (Steinbeck 2), implying gardening to be exclusively meant for women. Henry then shifts
the conversation to fights which according to men is not a realm for womanly pursuits and then to movies more of a domain for women and their entertainment. Henry never suspects that Elisa might have a masculine
sensibility for which she is keen on men’s game like fights. He imposes these boundaries and limits on Elisa
who meekly withdraws herself into submitting to the societal norms. Henry never levels up to her emotional
maturity. This explains Elisa’s taciturnity and apathy toward her husband. Despite such hurdles, Elisa is not
entirely subsumed under the prescriptive rules. She embraces both her feminine and masculine aspects
because she “restlessly seeks fulfillment and identity with a husband who does not particularly need her vigor
and intelligence and does not understand her romantic sensitivity” (Osborne 11). It can be assumed that at 35
she is still childless owing to Henry’s impotence. Kenneth Payson Kempton mentions Henry as a “possibly
impotent” husband (qtd. in Osborne 10).
Thus, alienated and detached, Elisa recoils back to her own little plot of garden, nursing the
chrysanthemums. She dwells in a world of creative solitariness. Her passion for gardening is the fullest
expression of her potency and fertility in the figurative sense. Her demure nature is transformed into an
essentially fierce one, which becomes preoccupied and indulgent with the flowers as she caresses and protects
them like mothers do. In this way Elisa exhibits her female sensibility that has been ignored by Henry. In the
later part of the story, at the intrusion of the tinker, her feminine side unleashes the intuitive and romantic
aspects of her nature. Simultaneously, her ferocity and aggressiveness bring out the masculine side. To
convince the tinker, that she is an equal to her male counterparts and that she is adept at doing chores that
typically men perform, Elisa retorts: “You might be surprised to have a rival sometime. I can sharpen scissors,
too. And I can beat the dents out of little pots. I could show you what a woman might do” (Steinbeck 5). Not
unlike the response she has extracted from her husband, the tinker’s observation regarding Elisa’s imagination
running wild with enchanted fascination for an adventurous life is outright discouraging. He says, “It ain’t the
right kind of a life for a woman” (Steinbeck 5). The two male characters give lip service to the patriarchal
convention and live up to the expectations of the dogmas manufactured by men. They do not see an
intellectual and physical equal in the woman. When Elisa feels elated seeing the tinker sharing her sensibilities
which the man has only been feigning, she is awakened to the virile potentials of her female sexuality. In her
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
57
Int. J. Eng. Lang. Lit & Trans. Studies (ISSN:2349-9451/2395-2628) Vol. 4. Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
encounter with the tinker she asserts her sexuality; the lack of emotional depth in her husband has frustrated
her.
In the tinker… Elisa finds a man whose strength seems to match hers, although she later
discovers his emotional poverty. Their brief encounter reveals an aspect of Elisa which is not
seen in her dealings with Henry - her erotic potential. (Mitchell qtd. in Stanwood 92)
She also sees an intellectual equal in the tinker. Her deluded self blindly conjectures about the tinker as
William Osborne puts it correctly, “He somehow understands her feelings about nature and beauty and spirit,
feelings which no one else apparently has shared with her” (Osborne 13).
For Osborne Elisa’s psyche embodies both masculine and feminine features (11). This recalls to our
mind Jungian archetypes of anima and animus. In the female psyche animus is the image of the male, whereas
in the male psyche anima is image of the female. The perfect amalgamation of the yin-yang forces and their
synergies reflect the fuller potential of an individual - male or female. The complete expression of one’s true
identity and psychological wholeness lies in embracing the deeper self whose innate aspects combine both
femininity and masculinity. Elisa Allen, in the same way, becomes an individuated woman as her vigor and
determination reflects her animus, while vulnerability coupled with sexual potency predominate her female
psyche. Unfortunately though, by the end of the story she feels disoriented and cries “like an old woman”
(Steinbeck 7) when she notices the chrysanthemum stems that she has given to the tinker thrown away on the
road. Finally she dies a spiritual death ending all speculations whether she could balance her masculine and
feminine energies or not. Critics like William Osborne see the pull of the masculine and feminine within Elisa as
ambiguous notwithstanding Elisa’s inherent capacity in nurturing both attributes.
The perfect symbol for Elisa is the ambiguous Chrysanthemum, that hardy, durable, oddly
un-feminine flower, unfeminine because of its strength and massiveness and somewhat
bitter smell and yet oddly feminine too because it is a flower. From its strong, tough stem
comes a fragile, tender bud and bloom and flower. (Osborne 14)
The reason behind Elisa’s disappointing failure to sustain her individuality lies in the most dramatic
point in the narrative thread of the story when after the departure of the tinker Elisa hastily takes a shower.
This particular episode is replete with symbolic implications despite its latent ambiguity. It is symbolic because
this action of hers is an attempt at erasing the memory of her encounter with the tinker who has borne a
semblance of emotional and physical bonding. The ambiguity lies in the possibility that Elisa might be either
afraid of the consequences of the nature of such a meeting, for it may raise questions about her conduct as a
loyal wife, or eager to forge a new identity for her emancipation, no longer subjecting herself to playing a
docile role. This brings out the complexity of Elisa Allen’s personality as an individual.
In the bathroom she tore off her soiled clothes and flung them into the corner. And then she
scrubbed herself with a little block of pumice, legs and thighs, loins and chest and arms, until
her skin was scratched and red. When she had dried herself she stood in front of a mirror in
her bedroom and looked at her body. She tightened her stomach and threw out her chest.
She turned and looked over her shoulder at her back. (Steinbeck 6)
It is difficult to tell what could possibly provoke Elisa to act hostile and violent. In fact, the way she scrubs her
body appears singularly “masochistic” (Kempton qtd. in Osborne10). But, what follows afterwards underlines
Elisa’s transition to “unambiguously female” (Osborne 13) idiosyncrasy. The clash between the two identities is
more than apparent now. Her feminine and masculine sensibilities are here trying to supersede each other,
hitherto so beautifully coexistent. At odds with each other, the collision brings forth Elisa’s defeat as an
individual. She can’t assert her own identity - the identity which accepts the sacred forces of male and female
in her but annihilates them at the same time. If she chooses to remain feminine by the standard of the society,
she cannot live a fulfilling life because she contradicts docility. Yet, she cannot remain the indefatigable spirit
of affirmation, brute power and toughness as is evidenced by the price she pays in the end.
Women in Steinbeck’s works always inspire and provoke unending questions as to what status the
author has intended to ascribe to their presence and role. Breaking the clichés, the character of Elisa presents
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
58
Int. J. Eng. Lang. Lit & Trans. Studies (ISSN:2349-9451/2395-2628) Vol. 4. Issue.1., 2017 (Jan-Mar.)
a refreshingly new take on the way this woman protagonist is portrayed by its author. Steinbeck here reflects
his enlightened attitude toward his women character. The psychological complexity of the character steeps
this thin piece of work into thorough and diverse probing by critics and readers alike. The depth of the
protagonist contributes to the short story’s lasting appeal as a modern work of fiction where Steinbeck does
justice to the individual character who is autonomous, existing outside the manipulation of the authorial voice.
He has not confined the character within the narrow circumference like he has done with female characters in
his other novels and short stories. Here, the central character’s identity does not keep oscillating between
positive or negative forces; instead, the depth of her psyche oscillating between masculine and feminine traits
is explored. This testifies to the range of multiplicity that Steinbeck has offered through his works featuring
women characters. He might have been biased against women, yet as a true artist his creativity and
imagination have sought to shatter the very myths he has had to his credits.
Works Cited
Beatty, Sandra. “A Study of female Characterization in Steinbeck’s Fiction.” Steinbeck’s Women: Essays in
Criticism Monography No 9. Ed. Hayashi, T. Indiana: Ball State University, 1979. 1-6. Retrieved From:
http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/StnbckMngrp/id/1071
Gladstein, Mimi R. “Female Characters in Steinbeck: Minor Characters of Major Importance?” Steinbeck’s
Women: Essays in Criticism Monography No 9. Ed. Hayashi, T. Indiana: Ball State University, 1979. 1725. Retrieved From: http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/StnbckMngrp/id/1071
Gladstein, Mimi R. “Masculine Sexuality and the Objectification of Women: Steinbeck’s Perspective.” The
Steinbeck Review 1.1(2004): 109-123. Web. URL: http: www. jstor.org/stable/41581952. 4 April 2016.
Gladstein, Mimi R. “Steinbeck and the Woman Question: A Never-Ending Puzzle.” John Steinbeck Series Title:
Critical Insights. Ed. Noble, D. Pasadena CA: Salem P, 2011. 242-251. Print.
Osborne, William. “The Education of Elisa Allen: Another Reading of John Steinbeck’s ‘The Chrysanthemums’.”
Interpretations 8.1(1976): 10-15. Web. URL: http;// www. jstor.org/stable/23240414. 6 December 2014.
Stanwood, Les. “Flowers for Carol: John Steinbeck, Joseph Campbell and ‘The Chrysanthemums’.” The
Steinbeck Review 5.2(2008): 86-95. Web. URL: http: www. jstor.org/stable/41582087. 6 December
2014.
Steinbeck, John. “The Chrysanthemums.” Retrieved from:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1220828.files/The%20Chysanthemums-Steinbeck.pdf
Sweet, Charles A., Jr. "Ms. Elisa Allen and Steinbeck's 'The Chrysanthemums.'" Modern Fiction Studies 20
(1974): 210-14.
SYEDA NADIA HASAN
59