by Doctor Science
In Rebecca, Rowena, Puppies, Fanfic, Foz Meadows writes about reading Ivanhoe:
I was struck by the difference in characterisation between Rowena and Rebecca, and what that particular contrast still says about the way we write women in fiction. Rowena, as Ivanhoe’s beloved, is meant to be the personification of all the feminine virtues of Scott’s period — beautiful and pure and obedient and yearning — while Rebecca, reading between the very broad lines, is someone we’re meant to root for despite her Jewishness without ever liking her best.
Except that, for precisely this reason, we do; but even though he wrote her that way, Scott doesn’t seem to realise it. …. Rowena, passive and set on a pedestal, is what he thought women should be, while Rebecca, active and human, is what he grudgingly acknowledged women were; or could be, at the very least, if they actively tried to overcome the handicap of their gender.Like Foz, I’ve always assumed that readers are *supposed* to think Rowena is better than Rebecca, but I’ve never actually met anyone who did.[1]
I’ve been thinking about this for the past few days, and have turned up some interesting stuff about how authors write women, and also about how much control authors (don’t) have over what readers actually think they’ve written.