Reviewed by:

• Margaret Oliphant by Valerie Sanders
• Katerina García-Walsh (bio)

Valerie Sanders's study of Margaret Oliphant forms part of the Key Popular Women Writers Series by the Victorian Popular Fiction Association, which aims to invigorate research on underrated yet influential women writers. Sanders deftly weaves together Oliphant's extensive journalism, biographies, historical writing, literary criticism, realist literature, and final turn toward ghost stories, all while noting the difficulty of choosing among Oliphant's hundreds of works. When comparing Oliphant to other writers of her time, Sanders characterises her not as "a lesser Austen, Eliot or Trollope" but as a writer who matched her contemporaries in rich realist literature and, at times, surpassed them in wit and humour (26). This book not only discusses Oliphant's oeuvre and critical reception but also explores aspects of Oliphant scholarship that have, until now, received scarce attention. Beyond serving as a sophisticated introduction, Sanders's [End Page 162] primary achievement lies in the new directions she offers for reading Oliphant through material culture, embodiment, and masculinity.

Sanders's opening chapter, "'General utility woman' or Critic of the Age?," reflects her earlier Eve's Renegades: Victorian Anti-Feminist Women Novelists (1996), which classified Oliphant as an anti-feminist. In revisiting this line of argument, Sanders does not shy away from challenging Oliphant's journalistic writing on the Woman Question; indeed, she highlights Oliphant's scathing appraisal of other female novelists' "nasty" sensation fiction, so dubbed for their recourse to vice (50). Sanders devotes much of this chapter to Oliphant's recurrent discomfort with and disapproval of women's rights activism, remarking how her journalistic voices, as a man or an old widow, allow Oliphant authority and distance from the women she criticises. Oliphant's often anti-feminist journalism notwithstanding, the remainder of the book focuses on her literary depictions of women as highly capable and underrated. Sanders concludes that Oliphant was engaged in "a lifelong protest against taking women for granted and assuming men are the stronger sex" (192).

Sanders's second chapter, "Mothers, Daughters, Wives, Widows," addresses Oliphant's portrayal of women's social roles. Following Judith Butler's theory of performativity in Gender Trouble (1990), she interprets Oliphant's characters as deeply self-aware, "affirming their role by exaggeratedly performing it" (88). Sanders then turns to body language as a means of communication by which Oliphant's women can voice interpersonal tensions, desires, and themes of marital control. For instance, descriptions of hand movements serve as "involuntary signalling systems when individuals come under increased pressure from a society intent on surveillance of relationships," drawing the eye toward unspoken yet overwhelming emotions (97). Both the controlled and "unstable bodies" of Oliphant's characters determine their social roles (102–3). Noting that Martha Stoddard Holmes's Fictions of Affliction (2004) fails to mention Oliphant, Sanders urges us to apply a feminist disability studies approach to three of Oliphant's novels in which disabled women occupy unique narrative positions: The Wizard's Son (1884), Janet (1895), and Salem Chapel (1863).

Embodied descriptions of the "elderly female invalid" prompt a turn to dress (111). Sanders emphasises Oliphant's appreciation of material culture and awareness of the exploitation of needleworkers and seamstresses while also acknowledging clothing as a signifier for men and women's interpersonal relationships, socio-economic roles, outsider status, and character psychology. Her section on men's clothes seamlessly transitions to a penultimate chapter on Oliphant's masculinities. Drawing once more from Butler's Gender Trouble and Herbert Sussman's Victorian Masculinities [End Page 163] (1995), Sanders considers the roles of men, who range from abusive to simply "disappointing" in Oliphant's writing (140). The young and idealistic clergymen in the 1860s Carlingford novels are notable exceptions. Sanders asserts that, after Salem Chapel's Arthur Vincent, Oliphant "rarely writes again with such effusion and optimism about the future of her male protagonists" (146). Instead, Oliphant highlights their irresponsibility, inefficiency, and impracticality, especially when compared to their highly competent and "domestically undervalued" female counterparts (2). These men attempt to achieve and maintain elusive...

审核人：

• 瓦莱丽·桑德斯的玛格丽特·奥利芬特
• 卡特琳娜·加西亚-沃尔什（生物）

瓦莱丽·桑德斯 (Valerie Sanders) 对玛格丽特·奥利芬特 (Margaret Oliphan) 的研究构成了维多利亚流行小说协会的关键流行女性作家系列的一部分，该系列旨在激发对被低估但有影响力的女性作家的研究。桑德斯巧妙地将 Oliphant 广泛的新闻、传记、历史写作、文学批评、现实主义文学和对鬼故事的最后转向编织在一起，同时注意到在 Oliphant 的数百部作品中进行选择的难度。在将 Oliphant 与她那个时代的其他作家进行比较时，桑德斯将她描述为“不是一个次等的奥斯汀、艾略特或特罗洛普”，而是一位在丰富的现实主义文学中与同时代人相匹敌的作家，有时在机智和幽默方面超越了他们 (26) . 这本书不仅讨论了Oliphant' 作品和批判性接受，但也探讨了 Oliphant 奖学金的各个方面，直到现在，很少受到关注。除了作为一个复杂的介绍，桑德斯的[第 162 页结束]主要成就在于她通过物质文化、体现和男性气质为阅读 Oliphant 提供的新方向。

桑德斯的开篇章节，“‘一般实用女性’还是时代评论家？”反映了她早期的夏娃叛徒：维多利亚时代的反女权主义女性小说家(1996)，将 Oliphant 归类为反女权主义者。在重新审视这一论点时，桑德斯并没有回避挑战奥利芬特关于女性问题的新闻写作。确实，她强调了奥利芬特对其他女小说家“令人讨厌的”耸人听闻的小说的严厉评价，因此被称为对恶习的追捧（50）。桑德斯在这一章的大部分时间都用在了 Oliphant 反复对女权行动主义的不满和反对上，并评论了她作为一个男人或一个老寡妇的新闻声音如何允许 Oliphant 权威并与她批评的女性保持距离。尽管奥利芬特经常发表反女权主义的新闻，但本书的其余部分侧重于她对女性的文学描述，她们是非常有能力和被低估的。桑德斯得出结论，奥利芬特参与了“

桑德斯的第二章“母亲、女儿、妻子、寡妇”讲述了奥利芬特对女性社会角色的描绘。在性别问题中遵循朱迪思巴特勒的表演性理论（1990），她将奥利芬特的角色解释为深刻的自我意识，“通过夸张的表演来肯定他们的角色”（88）。桑德斯随后将肢体语言作为一种沟通方式，奥利芬特的女性可以通过这种方式表达人际关系的紧张、欲望和婚姻控制的主题。例如，手部动作的描述充当“当个人受到来自社会意图监视关系的越来越大的压力时的无意识信号系统”，将目光引向不言而喻但压倒性的情绪（97）。Oliphant 角色的受控和“不稳定的身体”决定了他们的社会角色（102-3）。注意到玛莎斯托达德福尔摩斯的痛苦小说（2004 年）没有提到奥利芬特，桑德斯敦促我们将女性主义残疾研究方法应用于奥利芬特的三部残疾女性占据独特叙事地位的小说：巫师的儿子（1884 年）、珍妮特（1895 年）和塞勒姆教堂（1863 年） .

对“老年女性无效”的具体描述促使人们转向穿着 (111)。桑德斯强调 Oliphant 对物质文化的欣赏和对针线工和裁缝剥削的认识，同时也承认服装是男女人际关系、社会经济角色、局外人地位和性格心理的象征。她关于男装的部分无缝过渡到关于 Oliphant 男子气概的倒数第二章。再次从巴特勒的性别问题和赫伯特·萨斯曼的维多利亚时代男性气质中 汲取灵感[结束第 163 页]（1995），Sanders 考虑了男人的角色，他们在 Oliphant 的作品中从辱骂到简单地“令人失望”（140）。1860 年代 Carlingford 小说中的年轻理想主义神职人员是显着的例外。桑德斯断言，在塞勒姆礼拜堂的亚瑟·文森特之后，奥利芬特“很少再对她的男性主人公的未来表现出如此热情和乐观的态度”（146）。相反，Oliphant 强调了她们的不负责任、低效率和不切实际，尤其是与她们高度称职且“在国内被低估”的女性同行相比时 (2)。这些人试图实现并保持难以捉摸的......