Imagination in Confinement: Women’s Writings from French Prisons by Elissa D. Gelfand (review)

L ’E s p r it C r é a t e u r sa lecture à de nouvelles lectures possibles, la donnant ainsi comme éminemment dialogique. Malgré quelques passages très denses qui auraient mérité d’être développés ou clarifiés, Fram ed Narratives constitue une très riche et stimulante lecture qui a le mérite d’essayer de “ faire sens” d’une écriture tout en évitant un discours monologisant (pour reprendre la ter­ minologie bakhtinienne) sur son objet. Cette ouverture au dialogue est la bienvenue, et le livre de Caplan constitue un apport considérable à la critique diderotienne. M a r ie - H é l è n e C h a b u t University o f Vermont Elissa D. Gelfand. I m a g in a t io n in C o n f in e m e n t: W o m e n ’s W r i t i n g s f r o m F r e n c h P r is o n s . Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1983. Pp. 260. Elissa Gelfand charts some new territory in this most interesting study that draws on criminology and sociology as well as literary history and feminist theory. Describing her methodology as “ socioliterary feminist criticism,” Gelfand assumes an interplay between the social and the literary representation o f cultural myths surrounding women and, in the wake o f Foucault, takes as a premise that women, whose bodies are subject to control even in “ free” life, are in “ double biological subjection” in prison. The texts that they have generated from prison, while few in number, have all in some similar ways reacted to and refracted images o f women in the period in question as well as views o f wom en’s “ monstruous ” criminality. In addition, Gelfand claims, women have always been condemned more for their sex and their sexuality than for their real or alleged crimes. The first part o f the book, called “ contexts,” traces concepts o f female criminality and myths and realities o f wom en’s prisons from the late eighteenth century to the present and then briefly reviews the philosophical and literary tradition o f prison writing in French literature generally. The second part, “ texts,” analyzes the writings o f five women prisoners: Madame Roland, the only political prisoner, condemned to death during the Terror; Marie Cappelle-Lafarge, convicted o f poisoning her husband in the 1840’s; Marguerite Steinheil, accused o f strangling her husband during the belle époque-, and two prisoner-novelists o f the 1960’s, Anne Huré and Albertine Sarrazin. This division makes for some unfortunate repetition, as much o f the material concerning criminality and prisons is drawn from the writings examined more closely in the later chapters. The weakest part o f the book is Gelfand’s attempt to establish a “ male prison canon” as a foil to what she sees as a separate wom en’s tradition. It is never clear what this socalled canon comprises: is it the writings o f men who have been accused o f crimes and imprisoned, writings o f political prisoners, metaphorical prisons? Is it confined to French literature? It appears, for Gelfand, to be crystallized in Camus’s L ’H om m e révolté, in the virile expression o f defiance, revolt, and transcendance in reaction to imprisoning forces. But the imposition o f this stereotype on the writers deemed canonical makes for some dis­ torted interpretations. Taking no account o f feminist readings o f Genet such as those of Kate Millett and Hélène Cixous, Gelfand blithely characterizes Genet’s novels and poetry as representative o f the “ virile penal fraternity” and his heroes as “ true tough guys.” Divine would not recognize herself. Gelfand would not have needed this hastily constructed straw man dubbed the male prison canon, for her analyses o f the specificity o f the female prison texts stand on their own. Her careful and wide-ranging scholarship allows her to portray, in each case, the social and criminological expectations (e.g., female criminality as a result o f “ hyper­ 110 Su m m e...