After Leaving Mr. Mackenzie Short Paper

Wrote this for my Jean Rhys and Virginia Woolf class. Book is lit highly recommend.

Professor Bachner - ENG 311

  Throughout After Leaving Mr. Mackenzie by Jean Rhys, the specificities of the protagonist, Julia, are consistently withheld from the reader. Her background, desires, and physicality, while frequently alluded to, are never explained in full detail. This extreme sense of nonbeing, of paralysis, is emphasized by the varying pronouns used to refer to Julia throughout the first chapter; Rhys alternates between you, her, and Julia to delineate her actions. This jumbling of position emphasizes her perpetual state of nonexistent; specifically the intrusion of the second person almost suggests an implicit first person narration, as if Julia must convince herself of her given thoughts, while simultaneously invoking the reader as the “you”, as if her sense of personhood is so malleable as to even incorporate ourselves. These alternating perspectives are constant throughout Julia’s section of the novel. Subsequently, the narration switches to male characters that encounter Julia, again diminishing her agency as the protagonist. Within this context of non-individuality, the passage in which Julia, from Mr. Horsfield’s perspective, relates her experience of viewing a Modigliani painting is striking; 

“And all the time I talked I was looking at a rum picture she had on the wall - a reproduction of a picture by a man called Modigliani. Have you ever heard of him? This picture is of a woman lying on a couch, a woman with a lovely, lovely body. Oh, utterly lovely. Anyhow, I thought so. A sort of proud body, like an utterly lovely proud animal. And a face like a mask, a long, dark face, and very big eyes. The eyes were blank, like a mask, but when you looked at it a bit it was as if you were looking at a real woman, a live woman. At least, that’s how it was with me. 

Well, at the time I was talking I had the feeling I was explaining things not only to Ruth - that was her name - but I was explaining them to myself too, and to the woman in the picture. It was as if I were before a judge, and I were explaining that everything I had done had always been the only possible thing to do’” (Rhys, 46)

    Julia recalls her experience of modeling for an originally unnamed female painter. She retells this experience to Mr. Horsfield, initiating a long stretch of dialogue that deviates from her expected silence and passiveness. She discusses her viewing of a “reproduction of a picture by a man called Modigliani”. The picture encompasses “a woman lying on a couch, a woman with a lovely, lovely body”; the painting mirroring her experience as a model for a painter herself. The emphasis on the couch specifically draws this parallel, as Julia is frequently described lounging on couches herself. Julia initially describes this model as a “lovely proud animal” with a “face like a mask”, effectively dehumanizing her. However, when she “[looks] at it a bit”, specifically the “very big” “blank” eyes, she encounters a “real woman, a live woman”. The description of the eyes specifically mirror Julia’s own physicality, described earlier in the text; “her eyes, which were beautiful - long and dark, very candid, almost childish in expression. Her eyes gave her away” (8). Both models, Julia and that of Modigliani, have “long” “dark” eyes, which “[give them] away”, or initiate their individuality within their vague personhood. Strikingly, the model of Modigliani is portrayed without eyes, paradoxically diminishing and asserting her selfhood. Oddly, it is only within this lack of portrayal, the void of the eyes, that Julia can encounter her as a “real woman”. This parallel is cemented by her final comment, “At least, that’s how it was with me”, relating not only her interpretation of the art, but implicitly suggesting her replacement of the model, as it “was with me”. 

    Here Rhys sets up parallel and contrasting forms of viewership that emphasize the position of women as paradoxically spectators and subjects themselves. Within this story, Julia observes a reproduction of a Modigliani, while simultaneously suggesting that she also is a reproduction of the art herself, represented through the parallels of the two models. As she relates this story to Mr. Horsfield, another form of viewership is uncovered; Julia retells the story as if attempting to communicate a truth about herself, which entirely evades him. This emphasis on the act of telling is reiterated through the story itself. The painting initiates a desire to explain herself to all that she encounters; “I was explaining things not only to Ruth - that was her name - but I was explaining them to myself too, and to the woman in the picture. It was as if I were before a judge, and I were explaining that everything I had done had always been the only possible thing to do”. Julia reveals the name of the painter, Ruth, which was initially unknown to the reader. This intrusion of specificity subverts the vagueness that usually accompanies all of Julia’s stories, as if she was attempting to claim some sense of personhood. However, within this telling, Ruth, Julia, and the woman in the picture are all flattened into one, both the recipients of Julia’s story and the subjects of observation themselves. Subsequently, Julia feels as if she “were before a judge” “explaining that everything [she] had done had always been the only possible thing to do”, asserting her total lack of freewill and agency. This nonbeing is subverted by the function of her dialogue, however, as she aims to communicate a fundamental truth about herself to Mr. Horsfield, Ruth, herself, the woman in the painting, and the wider world. 

    Rhys outlines a protagonist that mirrors the model of Modigliani. Both are vague, obscured female figures without defining traits or agency. Their apparent sexuality remains their only ascertainable quality. This objectification is explicitly related to an inherent depersonalization of women by the male gaze - apparent in the collapse of Ruth, Julia, and the woman in the painting into one. However, Julia asserts her individuality within this void of nonexistent; as she retells her own vision of the Modigliani in an effort to relate a personal truth to the reader and Mr. Horsfield. Strikingly, she can only discover this personhood within the blanks of the model’s eyes, or through the status of nonbeing.