the loneliness of the future when I should be alone, absolutely alone in the world, and compelled to make a new home alone in some strange place among strangers. There were moments when I could not face that alternative either. Viewed in the abstract, without reference to any particular man it honestly seemed to me a choice of evils — and which was the least? I balanced them one against the other — but could come to no decision. In some moods — my morning moods — I am inclined to think that I would be wiser to keep my freedom and trust life. In other moods — my evening and three-o’clock-at-night moods — I am inclined to marriage. In one mood loneliness seemed the greater evil, in another a companionship from which I could never escape even if it should prove uncongenial.44
In this entry, Montgomery articulates the ultimate conflict facing a woman who must choose between the bondage of spinsterhood, which includes loneliness and social rejection, and the burden of marriage, which while involving social acceptability also implies imprisonment to another. Montgomery reveals herself as having to choose between the worst of two evils — in either case she knows she is doomed — a feeling she experiences even more profoundly on her wedding day:
I found myself sitting there by my husband’s side: my husband. I felt a sudden horrible inrush of rebellion and despair. I wanted to be free. I felt like a prisoner, a hopeless prisoner. Something in me, something wild and free and untamed, something Ewan had not tamed, could never tame, something that did not acknowledge him as master, rose up in one frantic protest against the fetters which bound me. At that moment, if I could have torn the wedding ring from my finger and so freed myself, I would have done it. But it was too late.45
Montgomery had experienced sexual passion with Leard, and had recognized its limitations in the absence of intellectual and social equality. She had also experienced intellectual and social equality with Ewan Macdonald, and had recognized their limitations in the absence of sexual gratification. In contrast, Valancy finds complete fulfillment in Barney Snaith.
Despite the suggestion of a fairy-tale ending for Valancy and Barney, the reader is left with a sense of discomfort at the conclusion of The Blue Castle. Perhaps this is because while the relationship between Valancy and Barney represents Montgomery’s own dream of a happy marriage we know that her reality was extremely different. Furthermore, it is significant that in order to find and maintain such happiness, Valancy and Barney must continue to turn their backs on society and its conventions and remain on their island.
Another reason for the discomfort might lie in what Rubio has identified as a counter-discourse that Montgomery embeds in the arranged romantic marriage of her heroines, a discourse that “showed that marriage could pose grave dangers to a talented woman’s autonomy, happiness, and self-fulfillment.” 46 To pursue this idea, it is important to recognize that even at the end of The Blue Castle, Valancy and Barney are not equal. Therefore, while Valancy reports that she “thought they were splendidly free,” 47 that freedom is achieved by Valancy only through marrying Barney Snaith. He, in turn, has the same freedom totally independent of Valancy simply because he is male.
What makes this worse is that it is Valancy’s own feelings for Snaith that imprison her. She claims: “She knew quite well now that she loved Barney. Yesterday she had been all her own. Now she was this man’s. Yet he had done nothing — said nothing. He had not even looked at her as a woman. But that didn’t matter. Nor did it matter what he was or what he had done. She loved him without any reservations. Everything in her went out wholly to him.” 48 Not only is Valancy enslaved by her feelings, she does not wish to be free; she is subordinate to Snaith. While such subjugation might be acceptable to Valancy while she believes she has only a short time to live, it raises a strong sense of conflict in her when that belief is removed. When Dr.Trent reassures her that her heart is fine, rather than being relieved or happy, Valancy is confused and disturbed. Even “Dr.Trent thought she was odd. Anybody would have thought, from her hopeless eyes and woebegone face, that he had given her a sentence of death instead of life.” 49 In a sense, he has. In Valancy’s and in Montgomery’s minds, marriage is equivalent to death — death of the individual, independence, and freedom. While her relationship with Barney has an end in sight, it is beautiful. With that end taken away, it seems more like a prison sentence. She reports, “She must go on living, longing for it. Everything was spoiled, smirched, defaced. Even that year in the Blue Castle. Even her unashamed love for Barney. It had been beautiful because death waited. Now it was only sordid because death was gone.” 50 At this point Valancy realizes she has assumed the role of all wives — she has committed herself to a life of subjugation to her husband. As a result, the freedom in the real world that she had briefly experienced recedes, while her need for an imaginary realm to escape to once more arises. The Blue Castle ends with Valancy smiling through her tears and reclaiming that mystical space in which Montgomery continues to reside:“She was so happy that her happiness terrified her. But, despite the delights before her … she knew perfectly well that no spot or palace or home in the world could ever possess the sorcery of her Blue Castle.” 51
NOTES
1. Mary Rubio & Elizabeth Waterston, Eds. Writing a Life: L.M. Montgomery. (Toronto: ECW Press, 1995).
2. Montgomery began corresponding with Weber and MacMillan through a literary circle started by Miriam Zieber of Philadelphia. Weber’s first letter to Montgomery is dated 1902; MacMillan’s first letter was dated 1903. In both cases, the correspondence to and from Montgomery continued until her death.
3. FAQ, Montgomery Institute, University of P.E.I.
4. L.M. Montgomery, Ephraim Weber: Letters 1916-1941. July 18, 1826.
5. The New York Times Book Review, September 26, 1926, 33.
6. The Times Literary Supplement, September 30, 1926.
7. The Canadian Bookman 8, no. 10, (October 1926).
8. Colleen McCullough, The Ladies of Missalonghi. (London: Arrow Books Limited, 1987).
9. Elizabeth Rollins Epperly, The Fragrance of Sweet-Grass: L.M. Montgomery’s Heroines and the Pursuit of Romance (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 249.
10. Mary Henley Rubio, “Subverting the Trite: L.M. Montgomery’s ‘Room of Her Own, ’” Canadian Children’s Literature 65. (1992), 32.
11. “It was printed by Warwick Bros & Rutter, Limited Printing and Bookbinders Toronto.” The second print run was done by The Hunter-Rose Co. Limited, Toronto.
12. The Blue Castle was first performed in Charlottetown, P.E.I. (Theatre P.E.I) on May 10-20, 1993. Lyrics and music were by Hank Stinson, and Ron Irving directed it. This first performance generally received poor reviews. The following year Stinson and Kelly Robinson took over the direction and the play was received favourably.
13. Mary Henley Rubio, “Subverting the Trite: L.M. Montgomery’s ‘Room of Her Own, ’” Canadian Children’s Literature 65. (1992), 33.
14. In terms of names of animals in The Blue Castle, the two crows on Barney Snaith’s island are called Nip and Tuck, which are also the names of Ephraim Weber’s two horses. Furthermore, Barney has two cats called Banjo and Good Luck; Montgomery also had a cat called Good Luck. Barney has an owl which he calls Leander; Montgomery’s uncle had the same name.
15. L.M. Montgomery, My Dear Mr. M.: Letters to G. B. MacMillan. Edited by Francis W.P. Bolger and Elizabeth R. Epperly. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1980), 108–9.
16. Sylvia Du Vernet, Theosophic Thoughts Concerning L.M. Montgomery. (Toronto: University of Toronto
