{"id":235,"date":"2024-02-27T21:34:09","date_gmt":"2024-02-27T21:34:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235"},"modified":"2024-02-27T21:34:12","modified_gmt":"2024-02-27T21:34:12","slug":"235","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
Dirty Dirty Lizzie<\/em>: Visualizing Midcentury Narratives of Psychoanalysis and Intimacy<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

By Emily Naser-Hall<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emily Naser-Hall is an Assistant Professor of Film and New Media Studies and coordinator of the Film Program at Western Carolina University. Her research focuses on post-1945 literature, film, and cultural narratives of women's sexuality and domesticity and has been published or is forthcoming in journals such as Journal of Cinema and Media Studies, Arizona Quarterly, New Review of Film and Television Studies<\/em>, and Studies in the American Short Story.<\/em><\/pre>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\u201cI have had a letter from Arabel Porter,\u201d Shirley Jackson writes in a February 20, 1957 letter to Bernice Baumgarten, her editor at Brandt & Brandt, \u201casking if Bird\u2019s Nest is a fictionalization of Three Faces of Eve. I am not going to answer her until I have cooled off some\u201d (\u201cBernice Letter\u201d 331). Jackson\u2019s frustration with the editor at the New American Library foregrounds the author\u2019s complicated relationship with cinematic representations of women\u2019s mental health and Hollywood\u2019s adaptation of her novel The Bird\u2019s Nest<\/em> (1954) in Hugo Haas\u2019s 1957 film Lizzie<\/em>. In adapting Jackson\u2019s novel, Haas faced the challenge of visualizing Elizabeth\u2019s (Eleanor Parker) deviant intimacies and the therapeutic model in a way that would be culturally cogent to contemporary audiences. Jackson critiqued the film\u2019s confused depictions of this model and reviewers\u2019 misinterpretation of protagonist Elizabeth\u2019s mental illness: \u201c[T]hey made her into a lunatic, which she can\u2019t be, by definition\u201d (Franklin 354). The Bird\u2019s Nest excoriates the misogyny underlying psychoanalytic theories concerning female sexuality and sociality in the American midcentury. Lizzie<\/em>, however, rewrites Jackson\u2019s critique as an endorsement of cultural narratives of women\u2019s mental health that link wellness with the performance of socially recognizable intimacies. In visualizing Elizabeth\u2019s intimate disjunctures and dis-integration in Lizzie<\/em>, Haas experiments with cinematography and the boundaries of the frame in order to complicate the relationship between what appears on screen and what the audience can perceive\u2014the unseen or unfocused invisibly directs the seen. Haas communicates Elizabeth\u2019s broken psyche and tenuous intimacies through continuous juxtaposition of cinematic styles. If midcentury therapeutic narratives link intimacies and sexuality inextricably with health or deviance, then Lizzie<\/em> renders those narratives visibly legible and their underlying anxieties justified through Haas\u2019s cinematographic technique.\n\nThe Bird\u2019s Nest <\/em>narrativizes the illness and path to wellness of Elizabeth Richmond, a shy woman with multiple personality disorder. Elizabeth undergoes hypnotic therapy with the vehemently not-a-psychoanalyst Dr. Wright, who discovers that Elizabeth is merely one of four personalities, which also include weak Beth, tricksy Betsy, and miserly Bess. Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration can be traced, Jackson reveals, to two events: her sexual abuse by her mother\u2019s boyfriend, Robin, and her mother\u2019s death, for which Jackson implies Bess was responsible. With the help of Elizabeth\u2019s Aunt Morgen, Dr. Victor Wright coaxes the personalities into a final, singular iteration, who at the end of the novel is called either Victoria Morgen or Morgen Victoria, after her ersatz parents. By dividing her novel into chapters with different narrators\u2014only one of which is even a fragment of Elizabeth\u2014Jackson both represents Elizabeth\u2019s pathology and ironically enacts the psychoanalytic talking cure, revealing the gendered and familial sociality underlying this cure. As in the rest of Jackson\u2019s canon, constructions of the monstrous mother, here \u201ccrafted as a dramatization of psychoanalytic theories of female subjectivity,\u201d are central to understanding and understanding Elizabeth\u2019s cure (Evans 26). In Lizzie<\/em>, however, Haas converts Elizabeth\u2019s four personalities into three\u2014sickly Elizabeth, licentious Lizzie, and kind Beth. Elizabeth undergoes psychotherapy with Dr. Wright, who employs what Jackson called in a 1957 letter to her parents \u201ca very interesting combination of freudian analysis, pre-freudian hypnosis, jungian word-association, and rorshak inkblots [sic]\u201d (\u201cGeraldine Letter\u201d 335). Wright helps Beth emerge as the final personality who vanquishes the others after confronting the repressed memory that Robin raped her after her mother died on Elizabeth\u2019s birthday.\n\nA historically specific reading of Lizzie within the context of postwar psychiatric narratives demonstrates how 1950s preoccupation with gender roles and sexual normativity mandate the performance of an intimate doubleness. Psychoanalysis and the therapeutic model informed dominant attitudes towards normativity and deviant sexuality in an era in which nonconforming behavior could be\u2014and often was\u2014construed as a national security threat.  When Sigmund Freud introduced American audiences to psychoanalysis in his 1909 lectures at Clark University, he signaled the advent of an entirely new therapeutic style. The psychoanalytic imagination intertwines language, science, and interpersonal relationships in a method of managing and comprehending the patient\u2019s emotional interiority. \u201cIntimacy,\u201d Eva Illouz argues, \u201cbecame a code word for health; an absence of intimacy now pointed to a fear of intimacy\u201d (46). This model places sex, pleasure, and the nuclear family at the epicenter of cultural understandings about women\u2019s mental health. Wellness required both healthy intimacies\u2014familial and sexual\u2014and the performance of those intimacies in the form of open discussion. In the two decades following the Second World War, the psychiatric profession grew rapidly alongside increased attention to questions of mental health in popular culture. The 1946 National Mental Health Act expanded the purview of psychologists beyond the army, corporations, and individuals with intense mental disorders to ordinary citizens, all of whom, under Freud\u2019s psychoanalytic model of repression, could be\u2014and likely were\u2014rendered neurotic from childhood trauma and early experiences with sex. The American Psychiatric Association\u2019s 1952 first edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders<\/em> established social nonconformity as a medical condition requiring professional intervention. A diagnosis of sociopathic personality disturbance, for example, indicated that a patient was \u201cill primarily in terms of society and conformity with the prevailing cultural milieu\u201d (Committee 38; see: Cooper and Blashfield 451).\n\nPostwar films such as Spellbound<\/em> (1945) and The Three Faces of Eve<\/em> (1957), which was released five months after Lizzie, depicted Freud\u2019s talking cure on screen to critical acclaim. Lizzie<\/em>, however, transcodes Jackson\u2019s preoccupation with the vagaries and menaces of the fractured mind by engaging directly with midcentury anxieties about the centrality of female sexuality and domesticity to the nation\u2019s mental health, largely by reinscribing these anxieties and reinforcing their validity. When Dr. Wright refers to Elizabeth, in both the book and the film, as suffering from a \u201cdisintegrated\u201d personality, he not only gestures toward Jackson\u2019s source material\u2014Dr. Morton Prince\u2019s The Dissociation of a Personality<\/em> (1905)\u2014but also indicates that Elizabeth\u2019s multiple personalities manifested from her failure to form healthy intimacies, a failing that has rendered her dis-integrated. Her pathology, then, is not personal but social. If emotion functions as both a psychological entity and a socio-cultural one, then postwar therapy constructs the cultural definition of personhood as inextricably linked in concrete and immediate ways with culturally and socially defined relationships. Therapeutic language conflates narratives of the self and identity with the family narrative. The family provides the locus for understanding pathologies of the self, as childhood trauma and parental neglect operate in psychoanalysis as the stoppages that prevent healthy social and personal maturation. The notion of intimacy, then, draws from both domestic and sexual narratives of emotional health and social adjustment. The therapeutic episteme positions the individual within a tenuously maintained public-private borderland, an emotional ontology that diagnoses personal health based on one\u2019s healthy attachments in the intimate social sphere. The disintegrated personality is both psychologically fractured and insufficiently enfolded within society; it is, then, dis-integrated.\n\nThe particular focus on dissociative identity disorder (DID)\u2014at the time called multiple personality disorder\u2014in both psychiatric and literary texts reflects cultural anxieties surrounding these multiple and often conflicting roles that women were expected to play.  \u201cThe idea that a woman\u2019s identity might comfortably encompass more than one persona\u2014wife, mother, and professional, for instance,\u201d Ruth Franklin argues, \u201cthreatened a male-dominated culture invested in glorifying the stability of family life\u201d (332-333). This anxiety lies at the heart of The Bird\u2019s Nest<\/em> and Lizzie<\/em>. In both, a male doctor battles for the disposition of Elizabeth Richmond\u2019s \u201ctrue\u201d identity against multiple personalities who are not easily subdued. However, Nest specifically critiques both cultural expectations of women\u2019s roles and the dual construction of women\u2019s mental health as simultaneously sexual and social, with Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration framed within thematics of domestic, and particularly maternal, trauma. Jackson, then, \u201cpoints a finger at the world surrounding her madwomen, reproaching a fatuous society for inciting this loss\u201d (Young 40). She critiques dominant models of psychological health by ironically casting Elizabeth\u2019s dissociation as simultaneously caused and cured by dysfunctional, patriarchal cultural constructions of the family as the psycho-social model of health. She depicts Elizabeth as lacking healthy intimacies but excoriates the narrative of mental health as mandating sociality as itself ideologically motivated. Jackson reinforces the misogyny of the therapeutic model in her narrative structure; she recounts Elizabeth\u2019s treatment in chapters narrated from pseudo-scientifically objective third person perspectives, only one of which belongs to a personality. The reader\u2019s knowledge of psychotherapy, then, echoes the personalities\u2019 autonomy over their own cure\u2014manipulated and filtered by the dual agents of social and domestic control (Wright and Morgen), reaching resolution only when permitted and on their terms.\n\nThe novel\u2019s opening implicitly links Elizabeth\u2019s fracturing identity with the crumbling museum in which she works; the museum\u2019s sagging foundation brings to the museum\u2019s founders \u201cinfinite shame and a tendency to blame one another,\u201d while the clerks \u201cmade little wry jokes about disintegration\u201d (Jackson 1-2). Elizabeth\u2019s mental state, like the museum\u2019s foundation, are a matter of both public concern and social neglect. The first indication that Elizabeth contains multitudes comes in the form of a letter, later revealed to have been written by the personality Betsy, addressed not to Elizabeth but to \u201clizzie.\u201d But Elizabeth responds to the sender\u2019s threat to \u201cwatch out for me\u201d not with apprehension, but with pleasure that someone\u2014even an enemy\u2014seeks to connect: \u201c[T]he most exciting thing about it was probably its lingering familiarity\u2026it was an act of intimacy from a stranger impossible to picture\u201d (3, 5-6). She hides the letter in an old Valentine\u2019s Day candy box alongside a letter that her mother wrote to Robin. Jackson uses italics to highlight the speaker\u2019s intentional separation of self from other. Upon receiving a letter from Betsy, Elizabeth thinks, \u201cSomeone\u2026is writing letters to me\u201d (17). This link between Elizabeth\u2019s dissociation, her longing for intimacy, and her traumatic childhood drives her therapeutic narrative.\n\nElizabeth\u2019s behavior worsens in the following days\u2014she receives more anonymous letters, experiences blackouts, and spews vulgarities that the reader, experiencing Elizabeth\u2019s breakdown from her third-person limited perspective, learns of from a scandalized Aunt Morgen. An outburst of foul language at a social call with the neighboring Arrows convinces Morgen that Elizabeth needs professional treatment, although the family physician attributes Elizabeth\u2019s illness to sexual anxiety: \u201c\u2018I think she\u2019s worried about something. Boys, maybe. You ever ask her about boy friends?\u2019\u201d (29). Morgen agrees to consider a psychiatrist after confirming that Wright is not the kind of practitioner with \u201ca couch,\u201d metonymically linking therapy (and the therapist) with the sexual neuroses the process uncovers (29). When he meets his new patient, Wright observes Elizabeth\u2019s prudishness, calling her a \u201cdecent and modest girl\u201d (33). Betsy\u2019s letters foreground the slippage in nomenclature that Jackson employs throughout the narrative to distinguish among, and then intentionally confuse, the four personalities. Dr. Wright quotes a passage from Price that informs his diagnosis of Elizabeth\u2019s disintegrated personality: \u201cBy a breaking up of the original personality at different moments along different lines of cleavage, there may be formed several different secondary personalities which may take turns with one another\u201d (58). But as Wright\u2019s own notes show, the personalities do not \u201calternate,\u201d as Prince contends, nor does Elizabeth display an \u201coriginal undisintegrated personality,\u201d but rather the four Miss Rs, while only one may speak at a time, always coexist, the boundaries separating them indistinct (58).\n\nWright employs scientific naming conventions to distinguish between the personalities\u2014R1 for Elizabeth, R2 for Beth, R3 for Betsy, and R4 for Bess\u2014until he and Betsy assign each personality a name. However, even after the other personalities reveal themselves, Dr. Wright frequently refers to \u201cMiss R,\u201d initially his name for Elizabeth before Beth and Betsy revealed themselves under hypnosis but which subsequently acquires a subject in opposition to the other personalities that he names with more specificity. \u201cI never met R2 without a strong impulsive regret for the person Miss R. might well have been for all this time,\u201d he observes, simultaneously invoking his original usage of  \u201cMiss R\u201d as Elizabeth and constructing another, unrevealed yet distinctive Miss R\u2014a personality at once both Elizabeth and an imagined, singular iteration of the four personalities that is at once neither R2 nor Elizabeth yet inclusive of both (53). Darryl Hattenhauer refers to \u201cthe self as a heteroglossia of introjected Others\u201d (1119). Miss R., as a hybridized supplement containing both self and other(s), signifies both Elizabeth and not-Elizabeth, or not-only-Elizabeth. She is, in Wright\u2019s notes, the patient whom he initially diagnosed as \u201ca hysteric\u201d but who ceased to exist when Beth and Betsy appeared, living only as a unified being hypothetically against the reality of her disunity: \u201cMy immediate attempt must be, I thought, to discover the point at which the unfortunate Miss R. had subdivided, as it were, and permitted a creature like Betsy to assume a separate identity\u201d (32, 62). Wright\u2019s failure to draw definitive boundaries between names and the personalities they signify highlights their concurrent simultaneity and distinctiveness. Instead, the performance of appropriate propriety distinguishes the personalities to Wright. He identifies Betsy, for example, by her vulgarity: \u201c\u2026Betsy\u2019s voice shout[ed] a song which surprised me only in that I could not imagine how she came to learn the words during Miss R.\u2019s limited experience\u201d (72). But Jackson echoes her earlier use of italics to emphasize the distinctions that Wright elides in his case notes; for example, Betsy pouts during a session with Wright, \u201cWhy should I think of them just because you care more for them than you do for me? You expect me to give up just because you decide you\u2019d rather have them?\u201d (75).\n\nWright relies on hypnosis to elicit, and then control, the four personalities, although he notes Elizabeth\u2019s apprehension that he will ask \u201cembarrassing\u201d questions during hypnosis (40). Wright induces levels of hypnotic suggestion to call forth the personality whom he believes will be best suited to revealing the information he requires, and the personalities chafe under Wright\u2019s command even when they, in the early stages of therapy, know that they can only communicate while Wright keeps their eyes shut. Even compliant Beth complains, \u201c\u2018But I want to open them\u201d\u2014petulantly\u2026\u2018If I could open my eyes\u2026then I could look at you, dear Doctor Wright\u2019\u201d (47). Betsy refers to her freedom as \u201c\u2018when I have my eyes open all the time\u2019,\u201d a threat that Dr. Wright quiets: \u201c\u2018Do you realize, young lady, that if I find that you are of no use to me in my investigations, I will surely send you away and never let you come again?\u2019\u201d (61, 67). The personalities, however, recognize Wright\u2019s restrictions of their vision as a sign of the masculinist surveillance that defines the therapeutic model. They exist as fully formed entities only when they regain their sight\u2014\u201c\u2018[J]ust as when I first saw Betsy with her eyes open I recognized suddenly that she was an independent personality\u2026I saw that Beth now, looking about her and drawing herself together, was endeavoring to form herself\u2019\u201d\u2014and therefore must be controlled more forcefully (135). Elizabeth\u2019s visual recognition of herself and the personalities she contains is only permissible, then, under controlled, observable\u2014and carceral\u2014conditions. Betsy refers to the synthesis of a final personality in therapeutic language, arguing that when the final iteration emerges, she and the other personalities will \u201cgo under\u201d (166).\n\nWright\u2019s inability to differentiate among the personalities emphasizes not merely the impossibility of separating one Miss R. from another, but also the artificiality of borders between self and other. Betsy\u2019s narrative in particular exemplifies the social model of mental health; she absconds to New York to \u201cgo somewhere where people love me,\u201d yet her ignorance of social relationships and eagerness to belong drive her to a psychotic break that elicits Bess, the most antisocial personality (83). She arrives in New York hoping to be \u201camong friends who were waiting for her here in the stirring crowds of the city,\u201d looking for her mother whom she believes alive and searching for her (95). While Jackson uses italicized distinction frequently with pronouns, two instances in Betsy\u2019s narrative take an ironic turn. First, Betsy sees a man walking along a ledge from her hotel window and thinks \u201che may someday be a friend of mine,\u201d and later, after allowing an unsuspecting Elizabeth to come to the forefront and find herself in a strange hotel, Betsy thinks, \u201cI wish I had a real sister\u201d (96, 99). For Betsy, there is no \u201cmine\u201d any more than there is a \u201creal.\u201d\n\nBetsy\u2019s escape highlights her alienation, driven by her unfamiliarity with the boundaries of acceptable social behavior. Betsy survives by heeding warnings intended to preserve her propriety\u2014\u2018\u2018I\u2019m sure I wouldn\u2019t send you any place you shouldn\u2019t go\u2019\u201d\u2014and mimicking others\u2019 verbal cues\u2014\u201c\u2018Of course I always look for unusual things.\u2019 \u2018Of course I do too,\u2019 Betsy said\u201d (109, 117). Betsy\u2019s attempted cure for loneliness only reveals her disconnection and drives her psyche to strengthen the only intimacies she enjoys\u2014those she shares with her other personalities. She searches a telephone book for her mother\u2019s name, which she shares. \u201cRICHMOND, ELIZABETH. It stood out from the page, blackly, and then below it, RICHMOND, ELIZABETH, and below that, RICHMOND, ELIZABETH, and, again, RICHMOND, ELIZABETH. Who, Betsy thought, staring, who?\u201d (119). Betsy\u2019s mother becomes indistinguishable from every other Elizabeth Richmond, which includes herself, such that Betsy loses the ability to separate herself from her mother, and therefore from all other possible Elizabeth Richmonds, such that she is both all Elizabeth Richmonds and none of them\u2014\u201cwho?\u201d The personalities respond violently to this indistinctiveness, attacking each other to the point of needing medical care.But the nurse at the hospital reinforces the indeterminacy of Elizabeth\u2019s personalities, employing a royal \u201cwe\u201d that deepens Elizabeth\u2019s crisis of differentiation: \u201c\u2018We\u2019re going to be in trouble\u2026if Doctor comes in and find us talking\u201d (129).\n\nBut although Wright pities Elizabeth\u2019s friendlessness and even Betsy\u2019s vulgar desperation to be loved, he devotes himself more fully to bringing about \u201cthe entire final form of the personality\u201d after Bess appears (139). Obsessed with protecting her inheritance from Wright and Morgen, whom she believes conspiring to deprive her, Bess denies needing neither family connections nor psychiatric care. Bess complains, \u201c\u2018[A]ll I want is to be left alone and not bothered and I would be so happy,\u2019\u201d leaving ambiguous whether she wishes the other personalities, her caretakers, or the world at large to leave her be (161). But it is only after Bess confronts Morgen and Wright and contends, \u201c\u2018I\u2026am going to get along very much better without you two\u201d that Wright abandons the case (186). Wright retorts, \u201c\u2018How long do you think you will survive, alone, without a guide or a friend, or an ally? You are at best, young lady, only a slight, only a poor and partial creature\u2019\u201d and recommences Elizabeth\u2019s care only to authorize commitment at Morgen\u2019s request (187). Jackson implies that Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration is not only understandable, but inevitable, the only outcome for women who are expected to juggle conflicting roles and social expectations. \u201c[I]t must be recalled,\u201d Jackson observes, \u201cthat the girl had spent many years with the many Morgens and so, perhaps, deserved a turn of her own\u201d (199). Morgen, in fact, congratulates Elizabeth: \u201c[S]he was more pleased than not with her niece\u2019s unexpected variety of imagination\u201d (199). Wright, however, describes Bess as a \u201ccorrupted\u201d iteration of the original Elizabeth R., invoking language that implies the moral failings of an improperly socialized woman whose paradoxically simultaneous antisociality and desperation for love render her equally ill. Institutional confinement, away from society and family, ironically remains the last resort for re-integrating Elizabeth, although Morgen does question the social acceptability of commitment: \u201cI\u2019ll tell everyone she\u2019s gone off to have an illegitimate child\u2026it\u2019s better than admitting I had her locked up\u201d (218).\n\nJackson writes her strongest critique of the therapeutic model and its patriarchal underpinnings in the final chapter, titled \u201cThe Naming of an Heiress.\u201d The woman formerly known as Elizabeth is referred to only as \u201cDoctor Wright\u2019s patient\u201d and \u201cAunt Morgen\u2019s niece,\u201d suggesting that the eponymous heiress has been named by virtue of her medical and familial associations\u2014the sole remaining identity has been constructed to serve social and domestic ideologies (232). She recalls that, upon awakening in the hospital, \u201cher first clear thought was that she was all alone\u2026the second thought that she ever phrased clearly she phrased almost aloud: I haven\u2019t any name\u201d (234-235). But unlike the initial namelessness of the personalities in Wright\u2019s notes and Betsy\u2019s fractured self-identification in New York, the empty anonymity of the heiress is not a failing of sociality but a blankness to be filled intentionally by her ersatz gender-bent parents: \u201cMorgen said disagreeably, \u2018You can be her mommy, and I\u2019ll be her daddy\u2019\u201d (249). Wright refers to the heiress as an empty vessel who it is \u201c\u2018our responsibility\u2026to people\u201d and voices clearly the objective he has held since commencing treatment: \u201c\u2018[W]e are able, as few others have ever been, to re-create, entire, a human being, in the most proper and reasonable mold, to select what is finest and most elevating from our own experience and bestow!\u2019\u201d (249). Back at the Arrows\u2019, Wright alludes to the sacrificial communion whose rituals Jackson had earlier explored in her 1948 short \u201cThe Lottery,\u201d reiterating the story\u2019s portrayal of sacrifice as social and extending this linkage to the act of creation. \u201c\u2018Each life, I think,\u2019\u201d Wright argues, \u201c\u2018asks the devouring of other lives for its own continuance,\u2019\u201d alluding to the heiress\u2019s integration as a sacrificial offering in which the personalities died to enable her rebirth (254). \u201c\u2018[T]he radical aspect of ritual sacrifice,\u2019\u201d Wright continues, \u201c\u2018the performance of a group, its great step ahead, was in organization; sharing the victim was so eminently practical\u2019\u201d (254). The heiress\u2019s birth, then, resulted not solely from an act of destruction, but from an act of communal creation. Yet, as Judy Oppenheimer argues, \u201cit is actually the reintegration into \u2018sanity\u2019 which somehow feels like a loss\u2014of potential, of self\u201d (164). With his talk of sacrifice and the individual\u2019s responsibility to conform to their environment, Wright congratulates himself on what he earlier called his obligation to \u201cbring a new being into the world,\u201d yet he never discovers the crucial event that caused Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration\u2014her childhood sexual abuse by her mother\u2019s boyfriend (177). Wright and Morgen, in a dual act of therapeutic-familial creation, craft a new personality not so she can form independent intimacies, but so she can serve their financial and intellectual purposes. By christening the heiress either Victoria Morgen or Morgen Victoria, the doctor and the aunt reveal themselves to be the agents of psychoanalytic and domestic coercion that undergird midcentury narratives of mental illness as a failure of social and familial relationships.\n\nJackson leaves open, however, the possibility of an alternative reading of the final chapter\u2014that Elizabeth could, throughout her institutionalization and treatment, have retained her autonomy and plans to name herself. \u201cDoctor Wright\u2019s patient,\u201d the section titled \u201cThe Heiress\u201d opens, \u201cwho had been his patient for a little more than two years, Aunt Morgen\u2019s niece, who had been her niece for a little more than twenty-five years, found unexpectedly that she wanted to run down the sidewalk\u201d (232). Although the sentence\u2019s subject remains unnamed, identified only by her relationship and its duration with her medical and family contacts, the action suggests that one of the personalities has survived the supposed integration. Specifically, the unexpected discovery that the Heiress wants to run down the sidewalk hints that Betsy, the most childlike and impulsive of the personalities, remains. Jackson peppers \u201cThe Heiress\u201d with clues that, despite the outward performance of integration into a new, unnamed personality, Betsy survives: \u201cHer first clear thought was that she was all alone; it had been preceded by a rebellious, not-clear feeling that she had succeeded in remembering absolutely all her mind would hold\u201d (234). Even Wright doubts the Heiress\u2019s total cure: \u201c\u2018Do you think they are gone?\u2019\u201d (238) (emphasis in original). If, as Wright proclaims at dinner, \u201c[t]he human creature at odds with its environment...must change either its own protective coloration, or the shape of the world in which it lives,\u201d then perhaps Betsy has not vanished entirely, but rather adapted to perform integration within a socio-medical therapeutic framework that demands disclosures (255). The Heiress\u2019s few words of spoken dialogue, combined with hints at an interiority in which she experiences sudden impulses and rebellious feelings, demonstrates not that Elizabeth is cured, but that she has learned to perform psychiatric and social health by manipulating and controlling her public disclosures. Both interpretations conclude that Jackson depicts the psychiatric cure as a failure, such that psychoanalysis either erases the patient\u2019s sense of self\u2014thereby failing the patient\u2014or teaches the patient to mediate her own therapeutic disclosures and thereby circumvent the patriarchal and social strictures by which the model is governed\u2014thereby undercutting the cure\u2019s supporting logic.\n\nAlthough Lizzie similarly blames Elizabeth\u2019s mother for her daughter\u2019s psychological fracture, it reinscribes the social-sexual models of familial trauma and the therapeutic relationship that Jackson treats with irony. In translating Jackson\u2019s literary style into the visual language of cinema, Haas opens Lizzie with a clear nod to both the psychiatric concerns that drive the narrative and gendered dynamics of midcentury mental health care. The film commences with close-up shot of Dr. Wright\u2019s (Richard Boone) hands dripping ink from a stopper onto blank paper, then folding and unfolding the paper to create a Rorschach inkblot. The hands then open another page to reveal the title\u2014Lizzie. The novel\u2019s Betsy and the film\u2019s Lizzie play on the homophonic \u201cWright-Right\u201d to tease the doctor with the nickname \u201cDr. Wrong,\u201d but Haas\u2019s title sequence invokes another set of homophones\u2014Wright and Write. By visualizing how the novel\u2019s Wright enacts an artificial distinction between the four personalities with his naming conventions as the film\u2019s Wright\u2019s disembodied hands literally writing the name of the most troublesome personality in the same manner he creates the inkblots, the film suggests that \u201cLizzie\u201d is a construction, and an implicitly masculinist one at that.\n\nThroughout the film, the camera mimics Jackson\u2019s simultaneous erasure and multiplication of Elizabeth. The film\u2019s cinematography and mise-en-sc\u00e8ne emphasize Elizabeth\u2019s loneliness by isolating her from her surroundings through deep focus and deep space composition. The film opens with a deep focus tracking shot of Elizabeth\u2019s coworker Ruth and the other clerks entering the museum. The camera follows as they walk through a dinosaur exhibit so that the audience develops camaraderie with the women, but while tracking the camera is positioned on the other side of the exhibit so skeletons enter the frame between the camera and the women. The camera cuts to a deep space composition sequence in which Ruth and a coworker discuss Elizabeth\u2019s illness in the foreground as Elizabeth enters the frame in the background, clearly visible within the spacious museum lobby yet separated from her colleagues by a vastness that the shot\u2019s mise-en-sc\u00e8ne emphasizes. Visualizing Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration as her physical isolation within social spaces emphasizes the film\u2019s narrative emphasis on Elizabeth\u2019s unhealthy attachments. As Elizabeth approaches Ruth in the initial museum sequence, Ruth accuses her, \u201cWhy don\u2019t you give us a chance to be friends? You act like you don\u2019t want any friends.\u201d Elizabeth counters, \u201cOh, but I do,\u201d but refuses Ruth\u2019s offer of a birthday dinner.\n\nThis sustained experimentation with deep focus and deep space composition demonstrates how characters can share the frame but remain alienated. Returning home after she discovers the first Lizzie letter, Elizabeth prepares hot cocoa while talking with Morgen, who sits in the adjacent room. Morgen appears in the foreground and Elizabeth in the background, her height and distance from the camera underscoring her emotional isolation even from her family. Furthermore, the first shot in this scene is a medium shot of Morgen in a rocking chair, moving constantly yet remaining within the frame. The camera then cuts to a low angle close-up of Morgen. Elizabeth remains static in the background while Morgen rocks in a chair, abruptly entering and leaving the frame in the fore. The clarity of Elizabeth\u2019s separation\u2014physical and emotional\u2014from Morgen and the instability of their pseudo-maternal relationship is made visible through the film\u2019s formal style. This scene exemplifies Haas\u2019s visualization of the therapeutic mode as both visual and haptic, a relationship that in Jackson\u2019s novel consists of patriarchal control but in Lizzie communicates the centrality of human connection implicit within the talking cure. Walter (Hugo Haas), Elizabeth\u2019s neighbor who recommends Wright to Morgen, describes Elizabeth as \u201ca sad girl who never laughs.\u201d Recommending that Elizabeth seek therapy, Walter articulates the midcentury psychoanalytic model\u2019s underlying logic: \u201cThe whole world is in such a mess. Insecurity and panic and frustration. We all need help sometimes.\u201d The public-private binary, parodied in Jackson as a social fiction with ideologically patriarchal underpinnings, becomes both disease and cure in Lizzie.\n\nIn representing the disintegrated personality, Haas transcodes Jackson\u2019s linguistic separation\u2014and frequent befuddlement\u2014of four personalities into the cinematic visualization of three. Elizabeth speaks of her illness as a form of disorienting visual misrecognition: \u201cIt\u2019s as though somebody else is staring back at me.\u201d The most evident cinematic signifier of Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration is the three-way mirror in her bedroom, which both reflects and fractures the woman shown in it. Elizabeth frequently lingers on her reflection, filmed from behind with Elizabeth\u2019s tripartite reflection facing the camera. The audience first sees Elizabeth transform into Lizzie before the mirror. Lizzie, however, recognizes herself through the visual recognition of others; she tells a group of men at a bar, for example, \u201cHope you got your eyes full, boys.\u201d The film maintains Jackson\u2019s emphasis on hypnosis and its required eye-closing; sequences of Wright\u2019s therapy sessions consist of soft-focus close-ups of Elizabeth, Lizzie, or Beth\u2014whoever Wright happens to have evoked at the time\u2014with her eyes firmly closed. However, Lizzie communicates a complex relationship between surveillance and the psychiatric cure. By training the camera on Elizabeth\u2019s face during hypnosis, Haas recenters Elizabeth and grants her the potentiality for introspection; Wright enables, not forces. However, in softening Wright\u2019s control over Elizabeth\u2019s hypnotic states, Haas reestablishes the camera as the surveilling mechanism of the therapeutic gaze. Frequent over-the-shoulder downshots emphasize Elizabeth\u2019s submission, maintaining her presence within the frame as the object of paternalistic care.  During a session, for example, the camera trains on Wright as he hypnotizes Elizabeth from behind the chair where Elizabeth sits, her head peeking atop the chair in the lower corner of the frame. Elizabeth herself meets Lizzie when Wright forces her to consider her appearance in the sane mirror\u2014although Elizabeth cannot truly meet Lizzie, and instead merely sees the makeup and hairstyle that are Lizzie\u2019s traces. Haas\u2019s camera, then, inscribes the cinematic gaze not only as the traditional voyeur, but more specifically as an agent of therapeutic surveillance\u2014while Elizabeth gazes inward, the camera forces the audience to observe, and thereby to control, her.\n\nBut if Haas\u2019s cinematography rewrites the visual domination of psychoanalysis as the camera\u2019s purview, how does Wright coax Elizabeth and Lizzie into Beth? The psychoanalytic cure in Lizzie is enacted not through control of what the personalities can observe of the world, but rather by means of social connections to that world, a shift that Haas communicates by emphasizing the haptic relationship between therapist and patient. Echoing an analogy of Elizabeth\u2019s mind as a clogged pipe that the novel\u2019s Wright employs to explain Elizabeth\u2019s disintegration, the filmic Wright claims, \u201cThere\u2019s been a stoppage. Somehow the girl has stopped up the main pipeline of her mind, probably with some incident or experience in her youth.\u201d To identify and clear this stoppage, Wright asks Elizabeth to hold his hand, summon a memory of her mother, and squeeze as the memory becomes more painful. Elizabeth recalls a day at the beach with her mother and her mother\u2019s boyfriend, Robin. Elizabeth\u2019s mother talks of the burdens of motherhood while young Elizabeth eavesdrops. \u201cThe adolescent girl,\u201d Catherine Driscoll claims, \u201calso became\u2026a standard reference point\u201d for changing discourses of the emerging social order (18). Haas recalls the shot of Elizabeth and her coworkers at the museum; Elizabeth\u2019s mother and Robin lie on the sand in the foreground while Elizabeth, sharply framed with the shot\u2019s deep focus, observes from behind a rock that partially conceals her. As Elizabeth becomes more upset, she smears mud on her dress, leaving dirty handprints across her body that recall the inkblots that opened the film. Young Elizabeth, then, serves \u201cat once [as] a marker of modernity and its dangers, which, according to the socio-scientific imagination included sexual depravity and an excess of worldliness, putting at risk the ideal of the family\u201d (Fern\u00e1ndez 27). In Wright\u2019s office, the camera cuts to a close-up of Elizabeth\u2019s hand squeezing Wright\u2019s. This tactile connection, then, facilitates not only the patient-therapist connection, but also the recollection and release of a memory, a stoppage in the pipeline of Elizabeth\u2019s integrated identity. The film frequently depicts Wright and Elizabeth as reaching for one another or connected by touch; during hypnosis, for example, Elizabeth\u2019s hands enter the frame to reach for Wright, and Wright holds Elizabeth\u2019s face to reassure her when she fears for her sanity. Touch, in Haas\u2019s interpretation of the therapeutic model, communicates emotions and trauma and enables healing or release.\n\nThe film\u2019s climax arrives on Elizabeth\u2019s birthday. The sequence commences with a split diopter shot of Ruth in Elizabeth\u2019s office, clearly irritated that Elizabeth has refused the offer of a birthday dinner. Ruth leaves and Elizabeth, in a daze, climbs to the roof, where the camera repeats the over-the-shoulder shot from Wright\u2019s office as if prepared to push her. Ruth returns to Elizabeth\u2019s office, finds it empty, and rushes to find Elizabeth. The shot of Ruth running to the stairs recalls the initial deep composition of Elizabeth entering the museum at the film\u2019s beginning. Ruth finds Elizabeth and leads her to the lobby, where Wright waits to escort her to a birthday party that he, Morgen, and Walter hope will unlock Elizabeth\u2019s repressed memories of her mother. In a soft focus shot of Elizabeth\u2019s face lit from below by birthday candles, Elizabeth finally remembers the sexual assault that precipitated her disintegration. She runs to her bedroom, where she confronts the three personalities simultaneously in the three sides of her mirror. Elizabeth enters her darkened bedroom and sees herself in the center mirror. As she approaches the mirror, her reflection splits into three, but the audience sees four Elizabeths\u2014the faces of the three reflections and the back of the real Elizabeth. The scene devolves into a hallucination in which Elizabeth runs through the museum where she works searching for her mother. Haas communicates Elizabeth\u2019s breakdown with chaotic visuality\u2014canted angles, dizzying upshots, superimpositions and dissolves, soft focus close-ups of the three faces of Elizabeth. The breakdown ends with a literal break; the woman looking in the mirror, whom the audience can no longer conclude is Elizabeth, slams the mirror shut, shattering it, and collapses, awakening as Beth.\n\nLizzie most clearly reiterates cultural narratives about mental health as visible in healthy social behavior by making Beth, not the unnamed heiress, the final personality. Wright describes Beth as \u201ca normal, lovely girl,\u201d a \u201cwonderful person, the person you\u2019re meant to be.\u201d Beth tells Wright under hypnosis, \u201cThere\u2019s nothing I want more than to be alive, to be liked,\u201d linking her very existence to her social reception. But the impossible balance between modesty and intimacy, between Elizabeth and Lizzie, prevents Beth from becoming fully alive until she confronts her demons. Beth, Haas articulates, or the possibility of Beth, was always within Elizabeth and Lizzie; by confronting her maternal trauma and sexual abuse through the therapeutic connection, she can exist as a healthy, socially adjusted woman. She is, as Wright claims, \u201cthe person you\u2019re meant to be.\u201d Whereas the heiress remains an empty vessel to be peopled by the forceful manipulation of Wright and Morgen, Beth emerges a fully formed personality, a synthesis of Elizabeth\u2019s modesty and Lizzie\u2019s gregariousness. When he commenced treatment, Wright claimed, \u201cI have to try to develop Beth\u2026to the point where she can dominate the others,\u201d then nevertheless implies at the film\u2019s conclusion that Beth has always been the \u201ctrue\u201d personality: \u201c[A]ll that\u2019s left is you.\u201d Beth, then, does not need to be created; she needs to overpower the other personalities. Wright promises, \u201cI\u2019ll help you every way I can,\u201d but the film\u2019s final line\u2014\u201cGood night, and happy birthday\u201d\u2014implies that the filmic Wright acknowledges Beth\u2019s autonomy as a whole identity as the novel\u2019s Wright does not for the heiress. By depicting reintegration as a literal break\u2014\u201cSuddenly I had a violent impulse to smash them, to destroy them\u201d\u2014Haas transcodes the final personality violently and through one of the personality\u2019s intentional destruction of the others, such that Beth\u2019s permanent appearance becomes a triumph of personal will. But simultaneously, the film emphasizes the inherent sociality of mental health; Beth\u2019s disintegration results from childhood trauma and manifests as unhealthy social attachments, only to be resolved at a birthday party, a communal celebration of life.\n\n\u201cThe human creature at odds with its environment,\u201d Wright contends in The Bird\u2019s Nest, \u201cmust change either its own protective coloration, or the shape of the world in which it lives\u201d (Jackson 255). Jackson lambasts midcentury therapeutic models of wellness and performative intimacies by chronicling the patriarchal logics underscoring women\u2019s mental health care as inevitably failing. Elizabeth, that \u201ccreature at odds with her environment,\u201d therefore embodies postwar anxieties about an \u201call-too-powerful woman with contradictory selves that could not coexist in a healthy, \u2018normal\u2019 woman\u201d (Caminero-Santangelo 53). A Bird\u2019s Nest, then, both narratively performs Freudian psychoanalytic logics and rebukes them. But where Jackson critiques, Haas reinforces; Lizzie transcodes Jackson\u2019s ironic critiques of postwar anxieties about the role of sexuality and domesticity to women\u2019s mental health care as a stylized reinscription of those anxieties with a triumphant conclusion. If the psychiatrist\u2019s task, according to Prince, is \u201cto determine which personality was comportable with abnormality and which with normality, and so find the real self,\u201d then Lizzie finds this supposed real self as the personality most suited to a normative social performance (241). Although Haas\u2019s film is often lost in conversations about cinematic representations of mental health in the wake of The Three Faces of Eve<\/em>, Lizzie\u2019s visualization of the dis- and re-integration of a socially unbalanced woman renders the film foundational within the canon of psychiatric cinema. A historically contextual reading of Lizzie specifically as an adaptation of Jackson\u2019s literary preoccupations with gender, isolation, wellness, and domesticity opens space for broader consideration of how widespread fears about non-normativity and gendered performative brinksmanship wrote the scripts for women\u2019s mental health care in the therapeutic age.\n\nWorks Cited<\/strong>\n\nAppignanesi, Lisa. Mad, Bad, and Sad: A History of Women and the Mind Doctor<\/em>, Norton, 2007.\n\nCaminero-Santangelo, Marta. \u201cMultiple Personality Disorder and the Postmodern Subject: Theorizing Agency.\u201d Shirley Jackson: Essays on the Literary Legacy<\/em>, ed. by Bernice Murphy, McFarland, 2005, pp. 52-79.\n\nThe Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-I<\/em>. American Psychiatric Association, 1952.\n\nCooper, R. and R.K. Blashfield. \u201cRe-evaluating DSM-I.\u201d Psychological Medicine<\/em>, vol. 46, 2016, pp. 449-456.\n\nDriscoll, Catherine. \u201cGirls Today: Girlhood, Culture.\u201d Girlhood Studies<\/em>, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008, pp. 13-32.\n\nEvans, Lynne Ann. \u201cA \u2018Brutal, Unprincipled, Drunken, Vice-Ridden Beast\u2019: Maternity in Shirley Jackson\u2019s The Bird\u2019s Nest<\/em>.\u201d English Studies in Canada<\/em>, vols. 43-44, nos. 4-1, 2017, pp. 25-47.\n\nFranklin, Ruth. Shirley Jackson: A Rather Haunted Life<\/em>. Liverright Publishing Corporation, 2016.\n\nGabbard, Krin and Glen O. Gabbard. Psychiatry and the Cinema<\/em>. U of Chicago P, 1987.\n\nHattenhauer, Darryl. Shirley Jackson\u2019s American Gothic<\/em>. NetLibrary, Inc., 2003.\n\nIllouz, Eva. Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism<\/em>. Polity Press, 2007.\n\nJackson, Shirley. \"Letter to Bernice Baumgarten.\" 20 Feb. 1957. The Letters of Shirley Jackson<\/em>, ed. by Laurence Jackson Hyman, Random House, 2021, pp. 330-331.\n\n---. \u201cLetter to Geraldine and Leslie Jackson.\u201d Feb. 1957. Letters of Shirley Jackson<\/em>, pp. 333-336.\n\n---. The Bird\u2019s Nest<\/em>. 1954. Penguin, 2014.\n\nLerman, Hannah. Pigeonholing Women\u2019s Misery: A History and Critical Analysis of the Psychoanalysis of Women in the Twentieth Century<\/em>. Basic Books, 1996.\n\nLizzie<\/em>. Directed by Hugo Haas, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1957.\n\nMay, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era<\/em>. Basic Books, 2008.\n\nNadel, Alan. Containment Culture.<\/em> Duke UP, 1995.\n\nOppenheimer, Judy. Private Demons: The Life of Shirley Jackson<\/em>. Putnam, 1988.\n\nParra Fern\u00e1ndez, Laura de la. \u201cBlowing Up the Nuclear Family: Shirley Jackson\u2019s Queer Girls in Postwar US Culture.\u201d Revista de Estudios Norteamericanos<\/em>, vol. 25, 2021, pp. 25-49.\n\nPrince, Morton. The Dissociation of a Personality<\/em>. 1905. Thoemmes Continuum, 1998.\n\nYoung, Brigit. \u201cThe Empty Vessel: A Dissection of the Worth of Madness and its Cure in Shirley Jackson\u2019s The Bird\u2019s Nest<\/em>.\u201d Modern Language Studies<\/em>, vol. 46, no. 2, 2017, pp. 38-51.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dirty Dirty Lizzie: Visualizing Midcentury Narratives of Psychoanalysis and Intimacy By Emily Naser-Hall Emily Naser-Hall is an Assistant Professor of Film and New Media Studies and coordinator of the Film Program at Western Carolina University. Her research focuses on post-1945 literature, film, and cultural narratives of women’s sexuality and domesticity and has been published or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"blank","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n- Shirley Jackson Studies<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"- Shirley Jackson Studies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dirty Dirty Lizzie: Visualizing Midcentury Narratives of Psychoanalysis and Intimacy By Emily Naser-Hall Emily Naser-Hall is an Assistant Professor of Film and New Media Studies and coordinator of the Film Program at Western Carolina University. Her research focuses on post-1945 literature, film, and cultural narratives of women's sexuality and domesticity and has been published or […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Shirley Jackson Studies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"drjillelizabeth\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"drjillelizabeth\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"drjillelizabeth\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32\"},\"headline\":\"No title\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235\"},\"wordCount\":13,\"commentCount\":0,\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235\",\"name\":\"- Shirley Jackson Studies\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?p=235\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"Shirley Jackson Studies\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32\",\"name\":\"drjillelizabeth\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"drjillelizabeth\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"- Shirley Jackson Studies","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"- Shirley Jackson Studies","og_description":"Dirty Dirty Lizzie: Visualizing Midcentury Narratives of Psychoanalysis and Intimacy By Emily Naser-Hall Emily Naser-Hall is an Assistant Professor of Film and New Media Studies and coordinator of the Film Program at Western Carolina University. Her research focuses on post-1945 literature, film, and cultural narratives of women's sexuality and domesticity and has been published or […]","og_url":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235","og_site_name":"Shirley Jackson Studies","article_published_time":"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00","author":"drjillelizabeth","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"drjillelizabeth","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235"},"author":{"name":"drjillelizabeth","@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32"},"headline":"No title","datePublished":"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00","dateModified":"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235"},"wordCount":13,"commentCount":0,"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235","url":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235","name":"- Shirley Jackson Studies","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-02-27T21:34:09+00:00","dateModified":"2024-02-27T21:34:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?p=235"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/","name":"Shirley Jackson Studies","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5f8451e4ac28b42b7c48f6ebc4c1ea32","name":"drjillelizabeth","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ff1196d047b8a7c634f9272e4cea404581400781d487628a5c773b1722cda1ba?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"drjillelizabeth"},"url":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/?author=1"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=235"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":243,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235\/revisions\/243"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shirleyjacksonstudies.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}