Books kept decoratively on shelves have the potential to burn down the Bastille. Poems spoken at the nook of a locality carry the power to overthrow empires. Tyrants’ decision to set libraries ablaze to control citizen’s thoughts is not irrational. Their fear of literature is valid for literature has always been a tool of rebellion.

Amidst the battle of swords and guns, writers have fought national conflicts with the might of a pen. Writing is an act of rebellion; especially for those deliberately silenced by power groups. It is a revolt against the norms that keep a section of society voiceless forever.

Silenced through dismissal of their thoughts are “lacking credibility” and belittling of their books as “novelette”— women writers across generations have fought tooth and nail in their freedom struggle against prejudiced dismissal of their work.

Elif Shafak once wrote, “Male writers are thought of as “writers” first and then “men”. As for female writers, they are first “female” and only then “writers”.”

Society judges a man’s book based on his thoughts and thoughts in a woman’s book based on her gender. Resilient in their decision to be a “writer”, irrespective of social constraints, there are few women who iconically humbled the world with their witty shenanigans. This article is an ode to women writers whose kerosene-laden words burned down all gender barriers.

Jane Austen & Women's Portrayal

“Women”.

Be it a post undermining women’s knowledge about “trade and taxes” or a reel about “women’s dangerous driving”— this word flooded the comment section. Such comments—posted as if out of reflex— stand as proof of a transfer transaction; a transfer of stereotypical mentality, handed down through generations, as ancestorial wealth.

Spoken over, gaslit, and undermined— it is not uncommon for women, irrespective of their professional field, to be challenged for every opinion they hold.

Where do such stereotypical beliefs come from? The answer lies in the portrayal of women in society.

Representation of women as the lesser-intelligent sex has been a trend since time immemorial. Especially during the Georgian and Regency eras, patriarchy largely defined the bounds of women’s life. They were seen as an asset to be passed from one man (her father) to another (her husband). Moreover, in terms of chores, they were limited to the confines of their household; their only task was to handle domestic affairs.

Unfortunately for the new age misogynists, the “women belong in the kitchen” is not an original joke. It has been a reality that deprived women of receiving formal education on “trade and taxes”. Male- dominated professions are not the result of men being intellectually superior; it is the outcome of women’s restricted entry into the workforce until after World War II.

Jane Austen referred to this phenomenon beautifully in her novel Persuasion. She wrote, “Men have had every advantage of us (women) in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything.”

Unlike her contemporaries, Austen outlived the erasure of time with her fearless writing. She wrote female protagonists who had flaws and did not shy away from making them witty and opinionated.

For instance, Elinor from Sense and Sensibility. Contrary to social beliefs that women are emotional fools, Austen wrote Elinor’s character as a lady who held practicality in high regard. Elinor spoke of education and finance. She is even shown to emphasize the necessity for couples to assess their financial compatibility before marriage, instead of running off to marry out of passion.

The beloved couple of Elizabeth and Darcy emerged out of Jane’s genius. The tale of “lovers educate each other”, presented in her Pride and Prejudice, remains a cult classic to this date. While some romance writers still assign an “I’ll fix him” attitude to their female leads, Jane created Elizabeth who believed that her lover will fix himself because he can decide what is good for him.

Daphne du Maurier & Women Who Don't Write Romance

Daphne du Maurier wrote Rebecca—a thriller revolving around a young woman’s marriage with a brooding widower and the mysterious death of his first wife. With her vivid descriptions and interlinking of the two female leads (one dead, one alive), du Maurier created an unpredictable plot that keeps readers strung on for 400 pages.

However, when it was published, it was promoted and sold as a gothic romance. Critics who filled the room like vultures after Rebecca’s publication acknowledged its haunting essence and the gripping narration in the book. But none showed any interest in diving deeper. Most probably due to the book’s representation or the author’s gender. Reviews annotated their description of the book as a “novelette”— a belittling and dismissive word used for novels written by women.

Maurier hated being regarded as a “romance” writer and had to fight an array of critics who were hell-bent on shoving her into the category she abhorred. She wrote two female leads—one submissive to social expectations of a wife and the other determined to disregard them in all ways possible. By the end of the book, readers find themselves sympathizing with a woman who supported a guilty person because she loved him, and admiring the other for her masterful (and malicious) plan of destroying the man who tried to tame her.

The story and its writer challenge society’s categorize women into stringent categories. Like Rebecca’s presence, which haunted Manderley even after her death, du Maurier’s thriller gained massive success despite the critics’ prejudiced dismissal. Daphne’s Rebecca has never gone out of print since its first publication in 1938 and currently enjoys the status of a cultural classic.

Arundhati Roy & Humor in Broken-Heart Stories

One may like her, hate her, or label her as “anti-India” for her political stance. But no one can deny her mastery in infusing humor into tragic tales. Her two beloved fictions— The God of Small Things and The Ministry of Utmost Happiness— dwell in India’s political landscape from the lens of ordinary people; characters whose personal struggles are influenced by national conflicts.

Real life exists in duality— tragedy and comedy reside in each other. Roy’s stories reflect the duality. While writing about caste and systemic oppression, she does not fail to make her readers laugh with her observation of nonsensical rules. She believes that the battle against systemic failure does not have to be a serious one. One can pursue their fights with art and laughter.

In an interview, she explains the humor in her story and says “Generally, women in India are indoctrinated to be the ones that sacrifice and suffer… for me a part of the battle of surviving as a woman in India has been to laugh. And, it is a militant laugh— you cannot take that away from me.”

For politicians, Roy’s writing appears to be a threat to the nation. However, for Roy, it is an act of fearlessly standing by what she believes in. Beautiful, poignant, and yet funny— her books make readers pause before deciding whom to hate; they allow them to see a person as a human and not as a mere representative of a community.

Conclusion

“Women can only write romance”. “Finance and Politics are men’s discussion subjects”. “There is no substance in her book, it is a novelette”— Daphne, Jane and Arundhati not only cruelly destroyed such beliefs; they destroyed them in style.

There are other authors, like Virginia Woolfe and Mary Shelly, whose work shocked the men in publishing and empowered women to break free from their society-imposed-and-self-accepted boundaries. With each story, each sentence, each word— these authors removed the spotlight from the word “women” and repositioned it over their designation of “writer”.