03.25.07
The Edge of Reason
In their article “The Edge of Reason: the Myth of Bridget Jones,†Stephen Maddison and Merl Starr state that because so many women, indeed, people in general, identify Bridget Jones “is far more than the patron saint of single women: she is everyman, or rather, everyperson. She is the most enchanting heroine for the millennium†(4). Yet Maddison and Star believe she is “a symbol of conservatism, neo-liberalism and post-feminism†(4). In fact, Maddison and Star believe “the effect of the comedy in these texts is rather more insidious than progressive†(5). Maddison and Star focus on “three predominant sites of recognition†(5). The first is Bridget viewed as a “neurotic sex symbol,†second is Bridget as a white goddess, and the third figures into the entire discussion as the author’s examine the way class functions throughout the novels.
First, Bridget’s ditziness is the predominate quality of her character, and it is this quality, that renders her attractive; Maddison and Star refer to this quality as a “Neurotic Sex Symbol†(6). In the case of Bridget, the “lack of control and the irrationality it underwrites will become unproblematic with the consummation of heterosexual romance†(6). They read Bridget’s friends as functioning “not only to offer the pleasures of female bonding which mitigate[s] their ‘man trouble’ with shopping sprees and bouts of boozing, but to naturalize and normalize Bridget†(6). They point out that “despite the first person confessional idiom of both novels, there are numerous instances in which Bridget shares information with her diary where Fielding is offering us insight unavailable to Bridget herself†(7). This knowledge situates the reader in a position where they feel protective or sympathetic to Bridget’s character. But in fact, Bridget’s naiveté works in advantage for her where he “detailed knowledge of the TV game show Blind Date makes her far more attractive to the hero, for whom the women talking about high culture are pretentious and undesirable†(7). Maddison and Star also examine the role of Bridget’s gay friend Tom, who becomes much more marginalized in the Edge of Reason, so much so that they believe the novel is homophobic. This homophobia “prevents Bridget’s continual ‘dating hell’ from turning heterosexuality itself into a problematic category†(9).
Secondly, Bridget is viewed as a white goddess. Maddison and Star point out that in the 19th century “while women in particular, especially those of more ‘refined’ classes, were regarded as prone to collapse under the strain of modern living, particularly the strain of romantic emotions and relationships†(9). Bridget’s whiteness comes into sharp relief when paired with both novels’ depiction of “funny foreigners.†In fact, Maddison and Star notice, “Bridget and her white friends have no interactions with black or other minority ethnic British people at all†(10). While Julio is Latino, he “highlights the white masculinity of the hero Mark Darcy, who at the climax of the novel reveals, in a ‘thrillingly authoritative’ manner, that Julio is a con man†(10).
Maddison and Star conclude their discussion of Bridget by observing “the cultural and emotional landscape presented in the diaries is intensely conservative in terms of gender, race and class†(13). They believe “Bridget’s ‘cries’ are entirely neurotic rather than material; nothing happens, from losing her job to taking out a second mortgage she cannot afford, ever has any permanent consequences in the material sphere†(13). They also believe what makes the texts of Bridget Jones neo-liberal because they “abstract ‘the individual’ from social and cultural power relations, and treat all problems as individual and emotional rather than as social and structural†(14).