Bertrand, Fuller vs. Alcott

Both these women writers are writing before their time. Although, one can be labeled an overt feminist and the other can be labeled a controversial feminist writer. Fuller, would be the feminist of the two. She uses more historic and literal analogies to prover her point of of women not submitting to the ideals of the Victorian era and not being subdued by the labels of men. She also goes on to talk about femininity; in order for a women to be on an equal level with a man, she must be viewed as a man possessing no feminine qualities. Fuller derives this example for her own childhood. Fuller presents an argument as a critical essay or a critique on femininity and the rules for women in the Victorian society. Alcott, on the other hand, presents her commentary on feminism as a story. A the main character of the piece is a woman who eventually gets what she wants, despite the wrong doings she has done to others. This idea is revolutionary because although in literature, women are typically presented as conniving deceitful characters, they get their comeuppance by the end. In Alcott's piece, Miss Muir does not attain justice she gets exactly what she wants and marries Sir John, despite all the others efforts. This would have been shocking and revolutionary for the time.

In all, while comparing the two as writers, I believe that Alcott is the better literal writer. Fuller, is a better analytical writer. Although both women are equal in their efforts to end the systematic control of men over women.