Sentimental fictions: A study of gender politics in selected writings of Hanasanjin (1790--1858)

This study focuses on language and power in selected works of sentimental literature by Hanasanjin, a writer active during the Edo period (1603--1868). It opens with a critique of prior scholarly studies of this writer, and continues with an investigation into the nature of Hanasanjin's style of sentimentality, comparing it to the Heian aesthetic mono no aware and to the sentimentality of Clarissa (1748) by Samuel Richardson (1689--1761). The core of the dissertation is an analysis of the dynamics of persuasion within Hanasanjin's sentimental world. The licensed quarter figures prominently in this conventionalized world, and an investigation into the interactions of courtesans and clients permits speculation about power relations between the sexes. In these tales, persuasion pertains not to physical relations, but to sincerity of affection. The study dissects the give-and-take of communication by tracking the course of individual interpretations ("stories") on the part of selected characters. Stories set in conflict with one another form "power plots," or dialogues of competing interpretation. Stories grouped together according to similar theme reveal "fictions," or conventionalized patterns of strategic narration---such fictions (of innocence, happiness, sincerity, and so forth) may be considered attempts to influence the way in which a given story is received. In analyzing power dynamics, the study reflects on the play of interpretation and response in three different contexts: between characters within a tale, between narratorial voice and anticipated reader, and between author and historical reader. In each case, the ability to inspire the indulgence (amae) of the audience is found to be particularly important. The ways in which conflicts of interpretation between characters are resolved suggest certain power differences that may be linked to gender. The pairing of narratorial voice and anticipated reader highlights the limitations of narratorial control over interpretation. Lastly, the showdown between (male) author and (female?) historical reader offers scope for speculation about the gender politics of the contemporary scene in general, even as it calls attention to problems in current scholarly interpretations of that subject.