The Curious Case of Walter Blythe
Where to begin with Walter Blythe?
Of all of Anne's children, the narrative repeatedly denotes Walter as an "other," so to speak. He stands out, particularly in contrast to his siblings like Jem. Where Jem is dashing, Walter is sensitive; where Jem is bold, Walter is dreamy; where Jem is brash, Walter is poetic. Jem marches off to WWI like the typical naively gallant soldier, while Walter, from the beginning, recognizes its cost and horror. Walter, due to these characteristics, can sometimes come across as a bit of a shrinking violet. Although he's intended to be sympathetic, child me didn't really appreciate him in comparison to the more practical and humorous characters. Now that I'm older, I recognize just how complex Walter is. Child me saw a dreamy, high-strung boy with nothing deeper; adult me realizes the rock firm sense of character underlying that dreaminess.
As we continue with the Anne series, we learn one of the reasons for LM Montgomery's emphasis on Walter: he dies in WWI. His last words to Rilla in the form of a letter stick with me:
Rilla, the Piper will pipe me 'west' tomorrow. I feel sure of this. And Rilla, I'm not afraid. When you hear the news, remember that. I've won my own freedom here—freedom from all fear. I shall never be afraid of anything again—not of death—nor of life, if after all, I am to go on living. And life, I think, would be the harder of the two to face—for it could never be beautiful for me again. There would always be such horrible things to remember—things that would make life ugly and painful always for me. I could never forget them.
This closes Walter's intended narrative arc. From when he was a child, he had the shadow of death over him--LM Montgomery marks him as doomed in Rainbow Valley--and as an adult, he has to grapple with his fear of the war (a sensible fear, a moral fear that bestows his character with a rich legitimacy I failed to notice as a child) until finally, he accepts it in the above passage. It's a powerful yet heart wrenching acceptance, too, because the passage recognizes there is no happy ending for him here--even if he were to live, he'd suffer from PTSD for the rest of his life (yet another entry in my, "lm montgomery stories do have grit, you know" list).
So, what about Walter's unintended narrative arc?
Or perhaps intended, although LM Montgomery might not have had the vocabulary for it (we can never know). But what I'm referring to here is that Walter could be read as gay. This goes beyond the stereotypical dreamy sensitive man, to the fact that Walter never shows an interest in women at all. Even when his supposed love interest Una is discussed, it's in very tepid terms. After ignoring her and her interest in him for years, he remembers her the night before he dies and hopes all is well with her. Not the usual gushing passages we see from LM Montgomery.
For years, I absently understood this interpretation as reasonable but unintended--until I came across as fascinating academic article that discusses Walter in the context of LM Montgomery's other work, Walter's closet. The article begins similarly to what I've just stated:
Already, we see the themes broadly discussed. Walter as somewhat of a misfit, a social outcast of sorts, in comparison to his male peers of the day. The article expands on the contrast between Jem and Walter:
It also comments on Walter's flouting of gender roles and gender expectations. As the article describes, Walter has "a lack of masculinity" relative to the other characters. Now: this is stereotypical masculinity. Being loud and pugnacious does not make a man. But in LM Montgomery's times, it did. See the following:
it also shows the reaction of the other characters, a reaction that is--possibly--somewhat outsized to someone who simply likes poetry. The implication here is that like the audience, the characters also believe that Walter's characteristics mean that he could be gay.
So, so far we have evidence of Walter not fitting into stereotypical gender roles--but wait! That doesn't mean that he's gay. That just means that in LM Montgomery's time, gender roles were a very tight box to fit into, and so someone with less masculine interests could have a hard time and be viewed as an outcast, a "sissy," as Walter is called.
That brings us to the next point: although Walter's interest in poetry hardly means he's gay, his complete lack of interest in women could.
Here we see the phenomenon from earlier, where the character's reaction to something about Walter seems outsized for what the something is--as if the character knows something, or understand something, we don't.
Beyond the curious lack of interest in romance for a LM Montgomery character, there are also loaded statements that--to be fair!--could mean a thousand things, but in the context of what we've seen so far, seem pointed towards Walter's unique struggles as a non-masculine man.
The author recognizes that LM Montgomery could simply be writing against typical notions of manhood but once again, we hit the issue of Walter's asexuality. Perhaps LM Montgomery simply wanted to go against the grain there too, but the author notes the oddness:
and lastly, here we reach the part of the article that made my jaw drop. While it's impossible to know LM Montgomery's intentions, this example is what cemented my theory--just a theory!--that perhaps LM Montgomery deliberately based Walter on someone or someones she had observed in real life as a pastor's wife.
Now, here's the thing. We can't know whether Walter was intended to be gay, whether LM Montgomery simply wanted a foil to the typical masculine hero, whether he's simply LM Montgomery's pet idea of the ideal man, someone who is more emblematic than real. But to me, the evidence is there. It's not just the lack of traditional masculinity, it's the lack of romantic interest in general. It's not just the fretting over Walter's sensitivity, it's the implied slurs and worries over his salvation. It's not just the lack of romantic interest in general, it's the fact that LM Montgomery implies, even if accidentally, that someone--a boy--similar to him has a crush on him, or is at least, drawn to him.
My theory--and I have literally no evidence for this, to be clear, so I guess it's more something I wonder about--is whether LM Montgomery observed men like this in her work as a pastor's wife and wrote them into her stories. She claimed that she never based her characters on anyone real, but I think it's fairly obvious that her life on the Island, working with its residents, was a source of creative ideas for her. I don't necessarily believe there would be someone specific, but rather, as the passages above state, people with "tendencies" that she had observed over the years. Muddying the waters further is Walter's status as an emblem rather than a character. He doesn't come across as a real person in a lot of ways, unlike the rest of LM Montgomery's characters, which makes my idea much less likely.
If you made it to the end of this long post, I'd love (I mean it) to hear your thoughts!!
83 notes
·
View notes
“…the documentary will still, sooner or later, slip the limits of anyone of those genres. Where one might expect horror, the supernatural, or traditional paroxysms of dread and fear, one discovers disturbing sadness, a sequence on radioactive isotopes, or even laughter over a Simpson’s episode.” (3)
“…this short was not a continuous shot, prompting many to speculate that the eight minutes making up “Exploration #4” were in fact bits of a much larger whole.” (5)
“Then back to Navidson: “Nothing but this tape which I’ve seen enough times, it’s more like a memory than anything else. And I still don’t know: was he right or just out of his mind?” (5)
“Then a new voice: “I’m lost. Out of food. Low on water. No sense of direction. Oh god…” re’s something here. It’s following me. No, it’s stalking me. I’ve been stalked by it for days but for some reason it’s not attacking. It’s waiting, waiting for something*. I don’t know what…I’m not alone here. I’m not alone.” (5)
“What did Holloway mean by “lost”? How could anyone be lost in a house for days anyway***?…And again, was this artifice or reality?” (6)
“However, the most unnerving aspect about both pieces is their ability to convince us that everything really happened, some of which can be attributed to the verifiable elements (Holloway Roberts, Will Navidson, et al.), but most of which must be chalked up to the starkness of the production —— the absence of make-up, expensive soundtracks, or crane shots. Except for framing, editing, and in some cases subtitles, there is virtually no room for creative intrusion.”** (6)
14 notes
·
View notes