Advances in Humanities Research (2024) Volume 8
Published online: 25 September 2024
EWA Publishing
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7080/8/2024101
The Contemporary Transformation of Mythical Women: Helen
and Penelope in Margaret Atwood’s Reconstruction
Yining Zhou
Department of Western Languages, Greek Major, Shanghai International Studies University, No. 1550 Wenxiang Road, Shanghai,
China
Josephine.Zhou.sisu@gmail.com
Abstract. The feminist movement has driven the reinterpretation of classical texts such as Homer’s epics, with Margaret Atwood’s
works exemplifying this trend. Atwood has created poetry and novels rooted in the tradition of feminist rewriting, utilizing
mythological female figures like Helen and Penelope to explore their inner worlds and unveil the long-concealed mechanisms of
patriarchal power. Employing techniques such as multiple perspectives and nonlinear narratives, she disrupts the constraints of a
singular authoritative discourse. By merging the ancient with the modern, Atwood highlights the shared experiences of women
while portraying the awakening of female consciousness. She transforms the stereotypical images of the “whore” and the “virtuous
wife” into complex, autonomous individuals, challenging traditional gender role definitions. Atwood’s rewritings are not merely
retellings of the original stories but also explorations of the deeper structures of gender power. She weaves a rich cultural network
of women, opening new frontiers for “literature of their own.”
Keywords: Atwood, Penelope, Helen, feminism
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview of the Theme
The reconstruction of mythological archetypes through contemporary perspectives often breathes new life into them. Margaret
Atwood, the queen of Canadian literature, employs the reshaping of classics as a creative method, reconstructing a range of
mythological characters and skillfully incorporating a modern female perspective into their portrayal. In works such as Helen of
Troy Does Countertop Dancing and The Penelopiad, Atwood brings Helen and Penelope—figures exiled and obscured in ancient
Greece—into the spotlight, questioning the inherent gender roles and power dynamics in myths, and further challenging the
patriarchal mindset and discourse system. In doing so, Atwood provides readers with a unique perspective to re-examine literary
traditions and the construction of gender in society, while also constructing what Showalter calls “literature of their own.”
1.2. Classical Tradition and Postmodern Thought
In the classical Greek literary tradition, Helen and Penelope represent two extremes—the virtuous wife and the whore—embodying
the typical portrayals of women in a patriarchal society. Helen, as “the most beautiful woman in Greece,” symbolizes unparalleled
beauty that elicits desire, while also harboring the roots of danger and war. Her image has become a complex and enduring symbol
in Western culture, where the struggle for her possession serves to highlight male values and honor. In contrast, Penelope stands
as the paragon of the virtuous wife. In The Odyssey, she faithfully waits for Odysseus for twenty years, using her wisdom and
patience to safeguard the family’s honor, and thus earns the highest praise under the standards of a male-dominated society—
κλέος (glory)—becoming a model for women. In some ways, their greatest significance lies not in themselves but in their role in
completing the male image.
Since the latter half of the 20th century, political movements have surged alongside the rise of postmodern thought, with
feminist, postcolonial, and deconstructionist theories flourishing. These theories advocate rebellion against tradition and the
subversion of authority. It has been recognized that so-called literary classics are the result of the construction of mainstream
ideology, with patriarchy and Eurocentrism both playing roles in the canonization process. These theories continuously question
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://ahr.ewadirect.com
76 | Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024
and challenge the literary works that symbolize authority and model status, calling for a “broadening of the canon” by focusing on
multiculturalism and opening more space for the voices of minorities and women.
The “reconstruction of classics” is a crucial component of the “broadening of the canon,” representing a literary phenomenon
that reinterprets and reimagines literary classics. It is clearly situated in a postmodern context, arising from deconstructionist
foundations, and seeks to subvert traditional subjects and central ideologies, granting “the Other” new status and significance. This
broadens the scope and enriches the diversity of interpretations. The theoretical support for reconstructing classical texts originates
from Roland Barthes’ deconstructionist views, which align with feminist literary theory’s rebellion against patriarchal ideologies
and its effort to establish a female discourse system. It is based on this intellectual premise that Atwood and others began offering
new interpretations of classical mythological themes.
Atwood is a writer who actively engages with social issues, and she “enjoys bringing odd or non-mainstream subjects into the
center stage” [1], while also participating in political movements in practice. Heavily influenced by classical literature and her
teacher Northrop Frye, Atwood skillfully applies mythological archetype theory to her literary creations, juxtaposing tradition and
modernity to infuse her works with more contemporary significance. She excels in uncovering marginalized social issues, and
through the “reconstruction of classics,” she deconstructs the hidden power structures within the classics, giving a voice to
disadvantaged groups. Feminism is a central perspective in Atwood’s “reconstruction of classics.” Influenced by Foucault’s
discourse theory, Atwood emphasizes the empowerment of female characters in her reconstructions, using this to resist the
dominant male discourse and establish female subjectivity, thereby restoring the true nature of women. Helen and Penelope in her
two works are prime examples. Atwood strips away the labels imposed by the male gaze, allowing these women to take control of
their own destinies, reveal their full humanity, and forcefully counter patriarchal myths.
1.3. Literature Review and Research Significance
The image of Helen has long been a focal topic in classical studies. International scholars have produced abundant research on this
subject, with numerous monographs dedicated to it. Gunter’s Grafting Helen: The Classical Legacy creatively applies the concept
of “grafting,” combining classical studies with Derrida’s deconstruction theory and post-structuralist thought. The book traces the
evolution of the myth and image of Helen from ancient Greece to modern French literature, exploring the connections between
Helen’s image, rhetoric, poetics, and politics. Helen of Troy by Oxford University’s Margaret Maguire is a comprehensive study
of the reception of the Helen myth from classical to modern times, focusing on literature and narratology, offering a detailed
examination of the different facets of Helen’s image.
In contrast, domestic scholars have paid relatively less attention to Helen’s image, with most of the research concentrated in
journal articles. Yang Hui analyzed Helen’s image in classical writers’ works from a historical interpretation perspective [2]. Liu
Hao examined the origins and symbolic meaning of Helen from a mythological perspective, focusing on her as a historical and
cultural symbol of the Trojan War to understand the social consciousness and its evolution during the Archaic period [3]. Chen
Rongnu and Yu Xuan focused on a textual analysis of Helen’s image in The Iliad to explore the status of women during Homer’s
time and the reasons for its formation.
Penelope, as the central female character in The Odyssey, has also garnered significant attention from international scholars
for a long time. Nancy Felson used a narratological approach to explore how Homer constructed Penelope’s image, analyzing it
from the perspectives of the male gaze and subjectivity, and introduced the concept of “Penelope’s poetics” [4]. Barbara Clayton
interpreted Penelope’s weaving as a form of female discourse, exploring its emphasis on process, multiplicity, and ambiguity as a
means of resisting patriarchal discourse [5]. Comparatively, domestic scholars have shown limited interest in Penelope. In Women
and Desire: The Greek World, Chen Rongnu examined the ambiguous and complex feminist perspectives in Homer’s Epics,
analyzing Penelope’s paradoxical position of being both celebrated and denied in this context.
From the above review, it is evident that scholars have conducted systematic research on the images of Helen and Penelope
from multiple angles and at different levels, yielding significant results. However, there remain gaps in the existing research,
particularly in the comparative analysis of the traditional and contemporary reconstructed images of Helen and Penelope.
Furthermore, there is a lack of intertextual comparative analysis of these two female figures as portrayed by the same author.
Therefore, this study will build upon the existing research by employing comparative analysis, feminist criticism, and
archetypal criticism within mythological studies to provide a comprehensive interpretation of Atwood’s phenomenon of
reconstructing classics. Through a comparative analysis of the traditional and contemporary images of Helen and Penelope in
Margaret Atwood’s works, this research will delve deeply into the purpose, methods, characteristics, and inherent meanings of
these reconstructions. It will also reveal feminist critiques of traditional narratives and gender concepts, and reinterpret and
transform the meanings of classical texts from a feminist perspective. This approach not only greatly aids in exploring Atwood’s
understanding of gender politics and culture but also holds significant value in understanding the inner motivations and cultural
significance of contemporary feminist literary creations.
Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024 | 77
2. Female Imagery in Epics—Helen and Penelope
2.1. The Flames of Desire: Helen’s Tragedy
Helen, the captivating icon from the epics, has been manipulated by patriarchal ideology since her birth in the Bronze Age,
becoming a symbol used to oppress and discipline women. Though her physical appearance is never explicitly described, the
power of her beauty is universally known: “Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?” [6]. On one side, she represents the
temptation of desire; on the other, she is linked to savagery, violence, and death. She is the “sweet curse” that brings destruction
wherever she goes. Men both desire and despise her, embodying the patriarchal culture’s contradictory attitudes toward women.
Exploring the etymology of Helen’s name may help unravel her complexity. There are three main interpretations of the name
Helen (Ἑλένη): “torch” (ἑλένη) [7], “shining” (σελήνη), and “the one who destroys ships” (ελω+ναυς). Regardless of the
interpretation, this radiant name destined the infant to bring turmoil to the world.
Helen was born into a connection with lust and violence. Legend has it that Zeus transformed into a swan and raped her mother,
Leda, turning Helen into a victim of desire and power struggles. From her youth, Helen became a femme fatale, a source of conflict.
She was desecrated in a sanctuary by Theseus and abducted, sparking the war between Sparta and Athens. As an adult, Helen
became a prize for heroes at her betrothal ceremony, symbolizing supreme honor. After Paris’s “Golden Apple” incident, she
chose to elope with him—one of the rare moments in her life where she exercised her own choice. Yet this act of free will made
her the common source of suffering for both Greeks and Trojans. On the one hand, wherever she went, people trembled, giving
her the name “Helen of the Terrifying Gaze.” On the battlefield, heroes fought in her name, seeking κλέως αφιθίτον (immortal
fame) [8]. After the war, Menelaus, once again captivated by her charm, brought her back to Greece without punishment, and she
faded from the epic stage.
As a mother, Helen also neglected her daughter. The Roman poet Ovid criticized this promiscuous mother through her
abandonment of her daughter Hermione in Heroides: “You are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen / Yet you ask, who is
your daughter?” [9].
With the spread of Christianity, Helen came to be regarded as the root of evil and sin, becoming synonymous with the “whore.”
The theologian Alain de Lille condemned Helen in his writings: “Why should I beautify Tyndareus’s daughter with celestial beauty,
when she relies on her beauty and refuses to accept the shame of being labeled a whore?” [10]. The true cause of the war—male
lust and arrogance—was obscured. Helen was shaped into an object of male aesthetic desire, with her life at every stage intricately
linked to sexuality.
As the initiator of war, Helen only appears three times in The Iliad, and she is always mired in self-blame, referring to herself
as “horrible” and “the root of all evil,” internalizing the misogynistic views of the patriarchal society. Her final appearance is at
Hector’s funeral, where she weeps and sings a heartfelt dirge, revealing her plight in the war: she belongs neither fully to Greece
nor to Troy, bearing both heavy guilt and the role of victim. This complexity and contradiction open a vast space for exploring
Helen’s inner struggles and the motivations behind her choices.
2.2. The Bond of Fidelity: Penelope’s Dilemma
In stark contrast to the “wanton” Helen, Penelope’s unwavering loyalty and endurance of humiliation earned her the praise of men,
establishing her as a model of womanhood. As a wife, she symbolizes Odysseus’s warm home, both the starting point and final
destination of his journey. In The Odyssey, the stories of Odysseus’s and Agamemnon’s returns are deliberately juxtaposed,
highlighting the vital role a wife’s virtue plays in maintaining the stability of the household.
Penelope’s name in Greek, Πηνελόπη, is composed of πήνη (thread) [11] and λέπω (weaving) [12], underscoring her profound
connection to weaving. In patriarchal society, weaving was a primary social role for Greek women and a quintessential feminine
image. It became the defining metaphor of Penelope’s life: like a spider skillfully weaving a web, she used cunning to fend off
suitors, yet this web also imprisoned her in the confines of the household, reducing her to an endless laborer at the loom.
Weaving earned Penelope the male praise of “excellence (ἀρετή),” but it also symbolized her predestined fate—being trapped
in the gender roles constructed by patriarchal society, endlessly repeating the cycle of weaving. This depiction of women reflects
the patriarchal ideal of the “perfect wife.” Penelope’s name is also linked to the “Penelope bird,” symbolizing fidelity and sorrow
[13]. Whether it refers to the meaning of “fidelity” or the metaphor of “weaving,” both hint at her life’s mission: as a wife and
mother, she is bound to serve the family for life.
In the male-dominated epic narrative, Penelope has almost no opportunities to speak in public, and weaving becomes her only
means of expression. After Telemachus comes of age, he begins to issue orders to his mother, diminishing her influence by
restricting her speech. Penelope’s first appearance is at the banquet of the suitors, where she requests a change of song, only to be
commanded by her son Telemachus to “return to the loom” and stay out of the men’s affairs. In the context of ancient Greek
society, the public sphere was viewed as an exclusively male domain, while women were confined to the private realm. “Whenever
women dared to enter spaces controlled by men, they inevitably faced rebuke” [14]. By stripping his mother of her public voice,
Telemachus was reinforcing this gender segregation and denying Penelope the right to participate as an independent individual in
78 | Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024
public affairs. Telemachus thus repeated and intensified the pattern of female repression established by the previous generation,
ensuring the continued dominance of patriarchy in the public sphere.
As a subject of the narrative, Penelope rarely has the opportunity to reveal her emotions; her presence is largely defined by the
accounts and evaluations of others. It is precisely her intelligence, cunning, and long-term silent submission within the moral and
power boundaries set by men that make her the idealized “perfect wife and daughter” and earn her the condescending praise of
male-centered society. Even in the underworld, Agamemnon lauds her, claiming that she has earned immortal fame for her “virtue
and goodness.”
2.3. Binary Opposition: The Wanton Woman and the Virtuous Wife
The portrayal of these two female archetypes in Homer’s Epics reflects the binary opposition created by patriarchal society to
regulate women—the “virtuous wife” versus the “wanton woman.” Ancient Greek society believed that female sexuality would
bring disaster, labeling women with desires as “wanton.” In contrast, the so-called “virtuous wives” were depicted as embodiments
of reason and wisdom, renouncing their desires. This binary opposition is, in fact, a projection of patriarchy’s one-sided idealization
of women—preserving their femininity while stripping away the threat of their desire [15].
In The Odyssey, Penelope’s judgment of Helen reflects the internalization of this binary opposition. Homer reveals Penelope’s
view of Helen’s actions in Book 23: “It was the gods who urged her to commit such shameful deeds; she had never before
committed such a serious sin, and it has plunged us all into great misfortune” [16].
Although Penelope recognizes the dominance of divine will, she still subtly criticizes Helen as the instigator of the war, whose
reckless indulgence led to catastrophe. However, Penelope seems unaware that her criticism itself is part of patriarchal discourse.
By obscuring Paris’s responsibility, she inadvertently reinforces unequal gender norms, suggesting that women should bear
responsibility for men’s actions.
Nevertheless, the relationship between Helen and Penelope is far more complex. There is an underlying interaction between
them, a bond independent of men formed under multiple layers of constraints. Weaving, as a primary household activity for women,
created a feminine space, becoming a unique form of expression within patriarchal society. In The Odyssey, Helen weaves a robe
for Telemachus and entrusts it to Penelope. This weaving-related gift, passed between the women’s domestic spheres, connects
them and establishes a hidden network of social relations outside the male-dominated realm. This independent space, concealed
behind the act of weaving, provided a platform for women’s agency. Within the interwoven threads, they expressed themselves,
took action, and influenced the fate of both their families and themselves. As time passed, weaving became intertwined with
language (μύθος), symbolizing women’s deconstruction and reconstruction of existing narratives. Through words and texts,
women wove their own stories, challenging the mainstream patriarchal narrative and laying a solid foundation for the reshaping
of contemporary feminism.
3. The Poetry of the Body: Helen’s Awakening Power
Helen and Penelope have been the subjects of countless literary works over the centuries. However, as Woolf describes in A Room
of One’s Own, “She [woman] is all but absent from history, yet she pervades poetry from cover to cover” [17]. As projections of
male desire and aesthetics, their appearances and voices are determined by men, and their true thoughts and feelings remain
obscured beneath male narratives.
Margaret Atwood, a prominent contemporary Canadian writer, imbues her poetry with a feminist sensibility, creating new
spaces for the long-marginalized experiences and voices of women. The political dimension of her later poetry is even more
pronounced, as she delves deeply into the politics of gender, paralleling her exploration of similar themes in her novels. Morning
in the Burned House, written in 1995, marked a resurgence of Atwood’s influence on the poetry scene, aligning with the second
wave of feminism. In her poetry, Atwood uses delicate yet bold descriptions of the female body to depict women’s unique life
experiences and emotional worlds, constructing a language system imbued with feminine qualities. This approach echoes Hélène
Cixous’s concept of “écriture féminine” (writing the body) and Elaine Showalter’s theory of “gynocriticism.” Atwood reinterprets
ancient mythological motifs and historical events, blending feminist theory with myth, history, and contemporary reality, restoring
the true identity of women as independent individuals. For too long, women in literature have been treated merely as
representations of the entire gender, stripped of individuality and uniqueness. “Perhaps we should remove the capital W from the
word ‘Woman’” [18].
3.1. Subverting Perspectives: Helen’s New Self
In the poem Helen of Troy Does Counter Dancing, Atwood skillfully draws upon the tensions inherent in the Greek epic’s portrayal
of Helen—beauty and danger, allure and fear, passivity and agency—and amplifies them into a force of subjectivity. Through
shifts in narrative perspective and voice, she subverts the mythological archetypes of women, allowing Helen to reclaim control
over her body and recognize her own power, thereby breaking the rules of the patriarchal order.
Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024 | 79
The title of the poem reveals that Helen is no longer a passive victim but a stripper in a modern commercial society, using
seduction as a means of livelihood. The poem adopts a personal voice that draws the reader into the inner world of a woman. Helen
is given the opportunity to express her nuanced psychological states and intense emotions. Rather than seeing herself as an
exploited object of the male gaze, she responds to her admirers with a playful and defiant tone. She views her actions as a choice,
taking pride in her clever manipulation: she uses men’s desires and cruelty against them, toying with them even as they watch her.
In the latter part of the poem, the use of the word “you” creates an attempt to establish a direct dialogue with the reader, even
provocatively offering the promise, “You could take me out to dinner.” This “you” is positioned as someone who could understand
her, setting them apart from the others. This intimacy subtly draws the reader into the scene of the poem, prompting them to reflect
on whether they truly grasp the female experience.
3.2. Language Liberation: A New Voice After Silence
Throughout the text, rhetorical techniques of cacophony are employed, contrasting sharply with the smooth and orderly writing
style typically favored by male authors. Male writers often emphasize logical construction and rational expression, but Atwood
intentionally disrupts this rational order through the use of jarring sound effects, creating a distinct, unregulated feminine discourse.
For instance, in the lines “but ready to snap at my ankle” and “The speech here is all warty gutturals,” Atwood densely packs
plosive sounds into a relatively small space, resulting in a harsh and rough auditory effect. There are few pauses between words,
with closely spaced syllables intensifying the brief but sharp sounds. This sonic effect serves to convey a sense of female power,
contrasting with societal expectations that women should always produce sweet sounds and conciliatory sentences. Susan
Brownmiller once noted, “If there’s a defining feature in the way women speak, it’s their reluctance to use declarative sentences”
[19].
Atwood’s poetry is calm, concise, and clear in its language, skillfully employing various narrative techniques. As the translator
Zhou Zan observes, it carries a “distinct narrative quality and dramatic flair” [20]. This poem uses free verse, breaking away from
the constraints of traditional poetic meter, aligning with the poet’s intent to subvert traditional images and empower women’s
subjectivity. Moreover, Atwood’s use of enjambment takes advantage of the loose connections between the lines of blank verse,
allowing thoughts and phrases to flow naturally across line breaks. For example, in line 71, “wall me up alive” evokes a terrifying
image of Helen being imprisoned in a narrow, dark space. However, the subsequent line, “in my own body,” links this violent act
to Helen’s physical self. Through enjambment, the reader comes to realize that this “imprisonment” symbolizes the deprivation of
Helen’s control over her own body. The poet uses this technique to connect violence with bodily autonomy, delivering a powerful
indictment of patriarchal oppression.
Atwood staunchly opposes confining women’s creative expression to the outdated and narrow notions of “boudoir literature.”
She bluntly declares, “The poetry that moved me during that time was about slaughter, war, mutilation, sex, and death, while
women’s poetry was expected to be filled with embroidery and flowers” [21]. In this poem, Atwood employs a wealth of realistic
vocabulary and unexpected imagery, depicting scenes of violence and bloodshed without any emotional filter, crafting a distinctive
language style—cold, direct, and powerful—which enhances the poem’s vividness and impact. Terms like “meat sandwich” and
“slab of ham” starkly expose the objectification of women by men. Phrases such as “chain-saw murder” suggest the violent
fantasies patriarchal society holds toward women. These words construct a brutally realistic scene, condemning the trauma women
endure. Meanwhile, the use of such raw language, combined with themes of sex, war, and slaughter, challenges and subverts the
traditionally graceful and reserved style of feminine writing, elevating the scope and depth of women’s literature to new heights.
The first stanza of the poem begins with female disdain for Helen, revealing the misogyny centered on women themselves [22]:
“The world is full of women / They’d tell me I should be ashamed of myself / if they got the chance. Stop dancing.” Atwood
keenly captures the hatred that women who conform to traditional patriarchal structures feel toward those who break free from
such constraints. By aligning themselves with the patriarchal system, these women gain privileges, so when Helen decisively
reclaims her autonomy, their vested interests are threatened. As Simone de Beauvoir noted, “Refusing to be the Other, refusing to
collude with men, for women, means forfeiting all the advantages that come with being allied with the higher class” [23]. These
women often shame those who break free and elevate themselves by denigrating other women in collusion with men, asserting
their privilege and their authority to define “appropriate” behavior [24].
3.3. Bodily Resistance: From Imprisonment to Ascension
Additionally, Atwood bluntly depicts Helen’s body, directly confronting and exposing the objectification and male gaze toward
women’s bodies. Yet at the same time, she uses this as a breakthrough point to subvert the subject-object relationship between the
sexes, achieving an effect of anti-gaze and anti-objectification, offering a method for constructing female subjectivity. This writing
technique can be traced back to the French feminist theorist Hélène Cixous’s concept of “écriture féminine” (writing the body).
Atwood uses words like “thighs, buttocks, ink blot, cracks, breasts, and nipples,” placing the body at the center of the narrative
and challenging the traditional Western idea of prioritizing the soul over the body. As Baudrillard stated, in modern society, “the
body has replaced the soul in terms of moral and ideological function” [25]. The female body becomes a weapon of explosive
80 | Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024
power, as women, in writing about their bodies, explore power relations and free themselves from the shackles of patriarchal
ideology.
When portraying Helen as a stripper, Atwood shows how the male gaze dismembers and objectifies the female body. Through
detailed descriptions of Helen’s body parts, the author reveals how the female body is reduced to a tool for arousing and satisfying
male primal desires. This depiction reflects Lacan’s mirror theory, where women become the “Other” for men to construct their
own identity, positioned to be gazed at. The pervasive male gaze forms a hidden yet effective power mechanism that continually
reinforces gender inequality. As Foucault explains in Discipline and Punish, the female body has long been subjected to this
mechanism of oppression, deprived not only of its subjectivity but also forced to internalize this state of being watched and defined,
eventually becoming humble under the weight of this pressure [26].
However, Atwood’s writing goes beyond merely describing the objectification of the female body. Helen uses her damaged
body and sexuality as weapons to resist, rebuilding her denigrated sense of subjectivity and challenging the patriarchal system that
disciplines the female body. In the latter half of the poem, Helen specifically references her divine nature—daughter of Zeus and
Leda—possessing primal powers capable of causing floods, earthquakes, and disasters. In the end, she ascends by her own strength,
radiating divine light and completely shattering the image of the Other in captivity. Helen’s ascension subverts the “eternal female”
figures depicted by writers like Dante and Goethe, whose women, after the decay of the flesh, are abstracted into symbols, with
their transcendence often relying on male power. In Atwood’s depiction, Helen achieves transcendence entirely through her own
power. The image of the swan egg in the poem is particularly significant, symbolizing Helen’s rebirth and suggesting a kind of
creation in another sense. Here, Atwood cleverly reverses the traditional narrative of sublimation: Helen first experiences
degradation as a stripper and then ascends, demonstrating the richness, dynamism, and growth of women, rejecting the notion of
the static “eternal” concept. Through innovative narrative techniques and imagery, Atwood constructs a new expression of
women’s literature, providing a way to break the male-dominated literary order.
The final line, “Touch me, you’ll burn,” further reinforces Helen’s power and danger. The torch symbolizes both enlightenment
and strength, while also hinting at destruction and rebirth. Helen becomes an inviolable goddess and ruler, with her blazing vitality
signaling endless possibilities for self-liberation and fulfillment.
4. Song of Weaving: Penelope’s Wisdom and Resilience
In The Penelopiad, Atwood employs postmodern parody, transforming the traditional hero narrative into a playful deconstruction,
reversing moral judgments and uncovering neglected histories. She conducts a comprehensive examination and reorganization of
Penelope’s background, adhering to Frye’s “death-rebirth” theory. Penelope undergoes a complete life cycle: from birth to the end
of life, and ultimately, a resurrection in the underworld, corresponding to Odysseus’ heroic cycle.
Unlike The Odyssey, which centers on Odysseus as the singular hero, Atwood adopts a dual narrative perspective. Penelope’s
first-person recollections intertwine with a chorus sung by twelve maids, elevating reflections on individual destiny into a broader
insight into the plight of women as a whole.
In The Penelopiad, Atwood transforms Penelope into the central figure of the narrative, delicately portraying a reimagined
character. Penelope’s rich inner world allows her to evolve from a one-dimensional mythological symbol into a tangible and multifaceted character. Through this transformation, readers gain an understanding of the multi-layered oppression she faced in a
patriarchal society, as well as her awareness and resistance to it.
4.1. The Patriarchal Cage: A Silent Predicament
As a child, Penelope was betrayed by her father, Icarius, who, following an oracle’s prophecy, threw her into the sea in pursuit of
his own immortality. This betrayal became the earliest symbol of patriarchy in Penelope’s life and marked the beginning of her
distrust toward men and family. “I learned to rely on my own virtues. I understood that I had to take care of myself and could not
expect support from my family” [27]. In adulthood, Penelope’s marriage was viewed as a political bargaining chip, transferring
her from the control of her father to that of her husband. The marriage was essentially a transaction: “And so I was handed over to
Odysseus like a sack of meat” [28], a microcosm of women’s predicament under patriarchy. After losing the competition for Helen,
Odysseus made a political agreement with Penelope’s uncle, marrying her and receiving a substantial dowry.
Within the family, the double standards imposed on men and women further exacerbated the unequal power dynamics.
Odysseus treated Penelope more as a family obligation than a partner, yet he also failed to fulfill this duty. His lingering obsession
with Helen emotionally harmed Penelope: “Why did he still—perhaps always—think about Helen?” [29], intensifying the conflict
between her and Helen. While Odysseus spent twenty years away, indulging in the company of goddesses, society and family
demanded that Penelope remain faithful, confined to a large bed that symbolized her “chastity belt.” Odysseus repeatedly doubted
and tested her, even jokingly threatening to kill her if she were unfaithful [30]. Moreover, Penelope endured silent condemnation
from her mother-in-law and harsh criticism from an old servant, lamenting, “Did I have any wise advisors beside me? Honestly,
who else could I rely on but myself?” [31]. Despite being queen, Penelope’s worth was reduced to childbearing, and she was
excluded from broader family decisions: “They had a consensus: it couldn’t be up to me” [32].
Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024 | 81
As a mother, Penelope also lost authority to her son, Telemachus. Fearing that his mother’s remarriage would threaten his
inheritance, Telemachus even wished for her death. His journey to find his father can be interpreted as a pivotal stage in accepting
and internalizing patriarchal culture. In seeking his father, he was not only pursuing personal identity but also learning and adopting
the values and behavioral patterns of the patriarchal system, which enabled him to grow from a boy into the next generation of its
enforcers. Upon his return, Telemachus proudly declared, “Father would be proud that I freed myself from the control of women”
[33]. These actions collectively form a complete chain of patriarchal oppression, reflecting how patriarchy sustains its control over
women through familial power structures and generational transmission.
4.2. Feminine Wisdom: Penelope’s Subtle Resistance
However, despite her disadvantaged position, Penelope is far from a passive victim. In Atwood’s portrayal, Penelope is not the
traditional narrative’s “tearful wife” but a sharp, composed woman with high self-awareness. Her story is not only about waiting
and loyalty but also about how a woman navigates a patriarchal society to protect herself and preserve her dignity. Her cleverness
and cunning match Odysseus’s, with her fluid wisdom allowing her to find space for survival and growth in unfavorable
circumstances.
Atwood blends the characteristics of women with those of water. Water symbolizes fluidity, softness, and infinite potential,
much like Penelope’s wisdom: seemingly soft but containing immense power; seemingly going with the flow, yet capable of
adapting to any environment. As Penelope’s mother taught her, “Remember you are half water; if you can’t overcome an obstacle,
go around it” [34].
Penelope has a deep understanding of patriarchal power relations and skillfully maneuvers within them. She recognizes her
disadvantaged position but knows how to carve out the most space for survival within an unequal structure. In family, gender, and
political relations, she balances her actions wisely. First, she has a keen insight into her husband’s deceit and arrogance but chooses
not to expose him. She understands that maintaining male dignity, especially that of Odysseus as the head of the family and ruler
of a kingdom, is crucial for the stability of both the household and the kingdom. Faced with Odysseus’s return and the ensuing
suspicions, Penelope cleverly designs the bed test. She shrewdly taps into Odysseus’s obsession with his wife’s chastity, using a
secret known only to the two of them as the key to verifying her faithfulness. This not only meets the expectations of the “dutiful
wife” role but also subtly shifts the balance of power into her hands, achieving a delicate reversal in their relationship dynamic.
This strategic “submission” is actually a sophisticated form of self-protection, allowing Penelope to safeguard her interests and
dignity without overtly challenging the established social order. As the bed symbolizes the institution of marriage [35], Penelope
turns this core object of the marriage system into her tool of power, securing for herself a degree of agency and decision-making
power in her marriage, “transcending the assigned, inscribed meaning of a symbol to become a vocal subject, a producer of
meaning” [36].
Additionally, weaving serves as a multifaceted metaphorical image, which Atwood uses to reinterpret the classical concept of
mētis and connect it with female experience and narrative. The concept of mētis (craftiness) holds a central place in the Odyssey,
embodying a key aspect of Odysseus’s heroism. At the same time, mētis also refers to skill, pointing to Penelope’s own display of
wisdom and strategic ability through weaving, rivaling Odysseus’s.
Firstly, weaving provides Penelope with a private space of her own. In the confines of a patriarchal society, this activity,
considered a women’s task, grants her a legitimate reason to remain free from others’ interference while maintaining the
appearance of fulfilling societal expectations. She transforms a constraint into a source of power, secretly weaving her plans while
seemingly performing her female duties and engaging in broader public affairs.
More importantly, weaving creates an independent female space for Penelope and her maidservants, a space that transcends
traditional, unequal power structures and demonstrates female solidarity. This cross-class relationship among women challenges
the social stratification of patriarchal society, hinting at the possibility of a new social relationship based on gender identity. “Their
‘Yes, ma’am’ and ‘No, ma’am’ were almost said with a smile, as if neither they nor I took their servile postures seriously” [37].
By participating together in this female labor, Penelope and her maids, to some extent, escape male control and surveillance,
establishing a warm, supportive female culture and shared experience, where they can freely express, communicate, and act. “There
was a festive atmosphere during those nights, even a sense of revelry” [38]. The maidservants also played a key role in Penelope’s
survival strategy, acting as bridges between Penelope and the outside world. By seducing the suitors, the maids successfully
delayed the process, buying Penelope precious time and concealing her ambiguous relationships with the suitors. Through this
process, they gradually broke the boundaries of the master-servant relationship and developed a sister-like bond. This relationship
was particularly crucial for Penelope, as in the twenty years of Odysseus’s absence, these maids became her only reliable support
in her husband’s household. Female solidarity provided her with both emotional support and practical help, enabling her invisible
resistance to the patriarchal system.
From a narratological perspective, weaving is closely related to storytelling. Atwood uses this connection to transform an
activity that traditionally binds women into a powerful mode of expression, offering new perspectives and possibilities for feminist
literary criticism. As the feminist scholar Clayton proposed in her concept of the “Penelopean Poetics” [39], Penelope’s weaving
is also a metaphorical act of creation. In The Penelopiad, Penelope is not only the protagonist of her own life story but also its
creator and narrator. Through weaving, she is essentially “weaving” her own narrative, including her twenty years of waiting for
Odysseus’s return and her reinterpretation of the entire Odyssey.
82 | Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024
However, Penelope’s narrative is not singular. Atwood employs a dual narrative perspective, with the maidservants’
storytelling line complementing and contradicting the main story. The maidservants’ ballads hint at Penelope’s private affairs with
the suitors, challenging the image of Penelope as the perfect chaste wife and revealing her desires and struggles as a flesh-andblood woman. Yet, Penelope vehemently denies this, attempting to cover up the scandal. Atwood uses these narrative
contradictions to highlight that, like Odysseus, Penelope also occupies the role of an “unreliable narrator.” She finds herself in a
dilemma—yearning to express her true experiences and feelings, yet compelled to conform to the pressures of mainstream
narratives.
4.3. The Twin Flowers: The Entanglement between Penelope and Helen
In The Penelopiad, Atwood presents two women who are both distinct yet closely intertwined: Penelope and Helen. Their
relationship skillfully reflects the concept of “twin flowers” in feminist literature. As cousins, Penelope and Helen resemble two
petals of the same flower, embodying different facets of womanhood: fidelity versus temptation, intelligence versus beauty, family
versus freedom. Through their contradictions, competition, and mutual understanding, Atwood authentically captures the
complexity of women, exploring their circumstances, choices, and the internalization of patriarchal values in a male-dominated
society.
The psychological conflict between Penelope and Helen is written into the narrative repeatedly. Atwood devotes significant
space to depict their rivalry, filling in the gaps left by the epic, and contrasts it with the relationships of Odysseus, Agamemnon,
and Achilles. These three heroes’ interactions involve clear hierarchical differences, mostly taking place in public settings,
revolving around power struggles and contests for honor. Although their competition is cruel, it is premised on mutual recognition,
and even the loser has a fallback—returning home to reclaim dominance. In contrast, relationships between women are more
obscure and intricate. The interaction between Penelope and Helen primarily occurs within the family realm and public opinion,
centered around the competition between beauty and intelligence. However, their circumstances are more difficult because, in a
patriarchal society, women have almost no fallback. Losing this silent battle means falling to the lowest level of servitude,
permanently marginalized.
Despite their vastly different life choices—Penelope choosing family, while Helen seeks self-fulfillment through seducing
men—Atwood sharply points out that these seemingly opposing lifestyles are both products of patriarchy. Although Helen appears
freer and bolder on the surface, she never truly establishes an independent identity; her self-worth is still rooted in the approval
and admiration of men. As Beauvoir analyzes in The Second Sex: “A woman who uses men depends on self-worship... seeking
the deification of her narcissism” [40]. Behind Helen’s goddess-like demeanor lies her deep dependence on male approval and an
avoidance of her authentic self. Her narcissism is, in fact, the internalization of the male gaze, and her so-called freedom remains
confined to the framework defined by male desires.
In the text, Penelope’s disdain and jealousy toward Helen are magnified. She portrays Helen as an empty and vain woman,
unwilling to live in obscurity: “At my wedding, she cast radiant smiles, not missing a single man” [41]. On one hand, she condemns
Helen’s promiscuity, elevating her own moral standing by belittling Helen. On the other hand, Penelope cannot escape the mindset
of evaluating women by male standards, feeling insecure about her own lack of sexual allure and secretly envying Helen’s dazzling
appeal. This reveals her underlying discontent with the restrictions placed on her life. Regarding the war, Penelope holds Helen
accountable for all the suffering, positioning herself as the voice of justice. She leverages narrative justice to correct Helen’s false
innocence, questioning why Helen was absolved of responsibility after inciting the war, thereby achieving a form of revenge.
Penelope appropriates the traditional male judicial process to pass judgment on another woman [42]. Even women like Penelope,
who possess a certain degree of self-awareness and recognize their oppressed state, find it difficult to entirely break free from their
identification with patriarchal values.
Through the portrayal of Penelope and Helen, Atwood vividly presents the complexity of women, offering both self-reflection
and an empathetic understanding: “Women, whether fictional or real, should be allowed to have flaws... I wanted to show that they
possess the full range of human emotions—hatred, jealousy, malice, desire, anger, fear, as well as love, compassion, tolerance,
and joy—and not be condemned as monsters, blemishes, or poor role models because of it” [43]. Atwood also reminds readers
that women’s liberation requires not only external changes in their environment but also an internal effort to reflect on the
patriarchal values they have internalized.
5. Atwood’s Gender Politics: Female Consciousness and Cultural Construction
5.1. Reconstructing the Classics: Literary Innovation in the Postmodern Context
Margaret Atwood’s reinterpretation of classical myths is deeply rooted in the wave of deconstruction that swept through Western
academia in the latter half of the 20th century. This literary practice reflects her keen engagement with social issues and illustrates
the complex interaction between literary theory and social movements of the time.
The “May 1968” movement marked a pivotal moment for the reconstruction of classical thought. This social movement, which
began in France and quickly spread across Europe and North America, challenged existing political and social structures and
Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024 | 83
profoundly influenced the intellectual landscape. The anti-traditional, anti-authoritarian atmosphere in society resonated with the
academic embrace of “multiculturalism,” where issues of race, gender, and class gained more attention. Structuralism’s focus on
stability and closed systems seemed out of place amidst social turmoil, paving the way for the rise of post-structuralism and
deconstructionism.
Roland Barthes’ theory of “the death of the author” and Michel Foucault’s discourse on power and knowledge provided the
theoretical foundation for feminist literary critics to revisit the classics. Barthes emphasized the multiplicity and openness of
language, arguing that writing unlocks a diversity of meanings. By proclaiming “the death of the author,” he gave rise to “the birth
of the reader,” allowing readers to interpret works based on their own experiences and break the traditional monopoly on meaning.
This aligns with the feminist literary critique’s rebellion against patriarchal ideology and the creation of a female discourse system.
Foucault revealed how knowledge and power are constructed and reinforced through discourse, offering feminist scholars a new
perspective to uncover the mechanisms of power at work in language. This provided the theoretical tools for understanding
women’s struggles and for exploring literary expressions that authentically convey women’s experiences, emotions, and desires.
In this context, the trend of “reconstructing the classics” gained momentum, and Atwood’s reinterpretation of mythological
figures like Helen and Penelope stands out as a significant cultural endeavor. By reshaping these female characters, Atwood
challenges the long-dominant male-centric perspective in literature and breaks the deeply entrenched binary oppositions—such as
ruler and ruled, spirit and body, male and female. She creates new spaces for women’s expression, presenting richer and more
independent portrayals of women.
As a “novelist with a clear moral and political stance” [44], Atwood views “politics” not merely as the narrow realm of state
machinery and institutions, but as a broad spectrum of power relations [45]. This understanding allows her to keenly capture the
pulse of social change and respond through her literary works, bringing marginalized, lower-class, and non-mainstream matters to
the forefront. Additionally, Atwood’s writing often aligns subtly with social movements. For instance, when multiple U.S. states
tightened abortion laws in 2017, The Handmaid’s Tale gained renewed attention, and Atwood herself participated in related
protests, supporting the women’s rights movement.
Atwood’s subversion of female mythological figures is greatly influenced by her mentor Northrop Frye’s archetypal criticism
while incorporating her unique feminist perspective. Frye believed that literature is a displaced myth, where myths, as expressions
of primal human desires and psychological needs, penetrate texts through “transformation,” continuing to articulate humanity’s
deep psychological layers. This inspired Atwood to critically examine the portrayal of women in myths, uncovering the cultural
psychology and collective unconscious embedded within. She realized that the female figures in traditional myths were often
distorted and misunderstood, shaped by a male perspective, and fundamentally products of a patriarchal society. “The authorities
on women have generally been men. Because they are men, they take it for granted that they understand women, just as their
gender bestows upon them other knowledge” [46].
Atwood’s innovation lies not only in her recognition of these archetypes but in her critical reconstruction of them. She gives
voice to the female characters in myths, granting them new life. As Yuan Xia notes, women’s experiences have long been hidden
within male-dominated narratives, and only through women’s self-expression can they “surface in the history” [47].
Atwood’s reconstructions do not emerge from thin air but are based on her sharp insights into the latent feminist elements
within classical texts. In The Homeric Epics, although female figures are largely constrained by patriarchal narrative frameworks,
they already exhibit complex traits. Helen is not only beautiful but also possesses near-divine insight and mysterious powers;
Penelope transcends the traditional image of the virtuous and faithful wife, becoming a heroine of wisdom. These characters’
multifaceted and contradictory nature, along with the limited agency they display within a patriarchal society, provide Atwood
with the foundation to explore women’s roles within power structures.
5.2. Mythological Women: Transformation and Rebirth
Atwood’s reimagining of Helen and Penelope represents a fundamental subversion of the female archetypes in the Western literary
tradition. She transforms abstract symbols of women into tangible, living characters within specific contexts. In Helen of Troy
Does Counter Dancing, Atwood places Helen in a modern bar setting, endowing her with agency through bodily expression. Helen
is no longer a passive object of beauty but a subject who controls her own body. She openly reveals her desires and sees her body
as a sharp weapon and a source of power. By leveraging her sexual allure, she manipulates situations, making women’s bodily
needs a crucial part of her discourse, challenging traditional literary suppression and avoidance of female sexuality.
Similarly, in The Penelopiad, Penelope is no longer merely a symbol of passive waiting but an individual with a complex inner
world and the capacity for independent thought, standing alongside Odysseus with her unique feminine wisdom. Penelope also
candidly acknowledges her desires, even fantasizing about her suitors: “Sometimes I even daydream about actually sleeping with
one of them” [48]. Moreover, Atwood hints through the chorus of maids that Penelope may have had an affair with one of the
suitors, showcasing her internal struggle under the repression of a patriarchal society: on one hand, she desires fulfillment, while
on the other, she must uphold the reputation of the faithful wife. This reconstruction not only questions the gender power dynamics
within marriage and family structures but also explores how women seek autonomy and equality within established social
frameworks. Atwood is, in essence, examining how women redefine their identity and value in a culture that has long marginalized
them.
84 | Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024
However, Atwood does not merely subvert the male-centric narrative to create an idealized female narrative but presents
individuals within social structures and a more authentic, complex world of women. Although Penelope exhibits exceptional
wisdom, her actions and thoughts are still deeply influenced by patriarchal societal structures. Her long wait for Odysseus, while
it can be interpreted as an active choice, also reveals her psychological dependence on men. This dependence manifests not only
emotionally but also in her pursuit of social status and the identity of the “faithful wife.” Helen’s self-centeredness is evident in
both works, exposing an internalization of the male gaze, as she cannot fully escape the tendency to define her self-worth by male
standards. Helen’s character reveals that, in the pursuit of autonomy, women may fall into another form of self-objectification and
dependence on male validation. This approach reminds readers that the awakening of female consciousness is a gradual process,
inevitably involving entanglements and reversals.
More importantly, Atwood is acutely aware of the limitations and pitfalls that feminism may encounter. She remains vigilant
about female centrism, dismantling its authority while constructing female narratives, thereby opening possibilities for equal
dialogue between genders. Her work extends beyond women’s issues, advocating for the establishment of mutual understanding
and respect, ultimately achieving the ideal of harmonious coexistence between genders.
5.3. Narrative Techniques: Juxtaposition of the Classical and the Modern in Diverse Narratives
Thus, in her creative methods, Atwood emphasizes openness and diversity in writing. Firstly, she employs multiple perspectives
and non-linear timelines. For instance, in The Penelopiad, she retells the story of The Odyssey from Penelope’s viewpoint while
incorporating the collective voice of the maids. This polyphonic narrative breaks away from a single authoritative discourse,
presenting a multifaceted view of history. Simultaneously, the jumping timeframes—from ancient Greece to modern times and
then to the underworld—blur the boundaries between past, present, and future, suggesting the enduring and ongoing impact of
historical issues in contemporary contexts.
In terms of narrative structure, the open-ended conclusion is another hallmark of Atwood’s work. She refrains from providing
a clear, closed ending, instead leaving numerous possibilities open. For example, in Helen of Troy Does Counter Dancing, Helen’s
fate is intentionally left ambiguous. This approach challenges the causal logic and inevitability found in traditional narratives and
invites readers to engage in dialogue and reflection.
Additionally, Atwood closely links ancient mythology with modern society, revealing the enduring aspects of human nature
that have persisted over millennia, particularly pointing to the patriarchal societal structures that have long oppressed women. She
skillfully interweaves various literary genres, such as ancient Greek choruses and modern courtroom trials. The combination of
cross-era genres not only enriches the narrative form but also underscores the continuity of history. In The Penelopiad, the maids
trace the historical changes in gender power structures, likening Penelope to a goddess of a matriarchal clan. As the maids are
murdered and Penelope marries, the matriarchal clan is overthrown, and patriarchal order is established. Atwood also incorporates
modern courtroom elements, directly connecting ancient injustices with contemporary judicial systems. Even in the 21st-century
courtroom, the grievances of the maids are still ignored, indicating that women’s historical and social status has yet to undergo
fundamental change. In Helen of Troy Does Counter Dancing, Atwood reveals the violent tendencies lurking behind the male gaze
and emphasizes the process of objectification—dissecting the female body into a series of consumable parts. The complex
psychology of desire and fear towards women in patriarchal societies has existed throughout human history, from reverence for
goddesses to the persecution of witches and the objectification of women in modern society, reflecting different manifestations of
this psychology.
By juxtaposing ancient and modern settings, Atwood illustrates the enduring nature of human nature and social structures over
thousands of years. Although the eras of Helen and Penelope have long passed, patriarchal-centered social and cultural norms have
remained unchanged, resonating with contemporary issues faced by women, such as their status in marriage and societal
expectations.
From another perspective, Atwood, through the portrayal of women from different periods and social classes, creates a crosstemporal dialogue, constructing a unique female culture. This provides a space for mutual support and solidarity among women
and forms a counter-narrative against the grand narratives of patriarchal society. In The Penelopiad, Atwood redefines the
relationship between Penelope and the maids, highlighting the complex dynamics within the female community—Penelope and
the maids experience both class conflicts and shared oppression from patriarchy, suggesting the necessity and possibility of
collective resistance. This depiction breaks the traditional stereotype of female competition and hostility, revealing how gender
oppression intersects with other forms of social inequality, such as class and race. This construction of female culture can be seen
as a resistance strategy. In patriarchal societies, women are often isolated and divided; by creating a shared culture and experience,
women can find a basis for unity. This unity is built on understanding and empathy for each other’s experiences.
6. Conclusion
In summary, Atwood’s reconfiguration of mythological women not only breathes new life into ancient myths but also provides
rich material for contemporary feminist criticism. By reexamining and reconstructing Greek mythology, she successfully connects
the unchanged gender relations and power structures of thousands of years with contemporary social issues. Helen of Troy Does
Advances in Humanities Research | Vol 8 | 25 September 2024 | 85
Counter Dancing and The Penelopiad are not only innovative retellings of classical literature but also profound reflections on
modern gender issues, showcasing insights and reflections on feminist thought that can serve as a model for feminist practice.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
Sullivan, R. (1998). The red shoes: Margaret Atwood starting out (p. 54). Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
Yang, H. (2008). History and interpretation: A re-examination of the image of Helen. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Philosophy
and Social Sciences Edition), 2008(05), 82-85.
Liu, H. (2022). A study on the evolution of the image of Helen in the archaic period (Doctoral dissertation). Southwest University.
Felson, N. (1997). Regarding Penelope: From character to poetics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Clayton, B. (2004). A Penelopean poetics: Reweaving the feminine in Homer’s Odyssey. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Marlowe, C. (2014). Doctor Faustus (Y. Ye, Trans.). Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology Press.
Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (Eds.). (1996). Greek-English lexicon (p. 532). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vernant, J. P. (1991). Mortals and immortals: Collected essays (p. 56). Princeton University Press.
Ovid. (2004). Heroides (H. Isbell, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.
Alanus & Sheridan, J. J. (1980). The plaint of nature. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Επιτομή του Λεξικού Λίντελ-Σκοτ, Λεξικό της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας (Επιτομή του Μεγάλου Λεξικού, εκδ. Πελεκάνος, 2007).
Ψηφίδες στο Κέντρο Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, 2012.
Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1940). A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Plutarch. (1967). Moralia (B. Perrin, Trans.) (Vol. XII). Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beard, M. (2018). Women & power: A manifesto (p. 36). Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Publishing House.
Walcot, P. (1984). Greek attitudes towards women: The mythological evidence. Greece & Rome, 31(1), 37–47.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/642368
Homer. (2014). The Iliad (W. H. Wang, Trans.) (p. 218). Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House.
Woolf, V. (2001). The essays of Virginia Woolf (W. Y. Wang, Trans.) (p. 527). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Atwood, M., Muo, F., & Xia, Y. (2012). Curious pursuits (p. 37). Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House.
Brownmiller, S., Wu, Y. (Ed.), Xu, B., & Zhu, P. (Trans.). (2006). Female qualities (p. 93). Phoenix Publishing & Media Group; Jiangsu
People’s Publishing House.
Atwood, M., Zhou, Z. (Trans.). (2015). Fire (p. 574). Kaifeng: Henan University Press.
Atwood, M. (1996). Why I write poetry? This Magazine, 29.
Callaway, A. (2008). Women disunited: Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale as a critique of feminism (Master’s thesis). San Jose
State University, 9.
Beauvoir, S. de. (2014). The second sex (Z. Ke-lu, Trans.) (p. 14). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.
Scanlon, D. (2015). The Odyssey’s re-vision: Female agency and women shaming women in Margaret Atwood’s ‘Helen of Troy Does
Countertop Dancing’ and the Penelopiad (Undergraduate thesis and capstone projects, 145).
Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society: Myths and structures (C. Turner, Trans.). London: Sage.
Foucault, M. (2016). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (L. Bei-cheng & Y. Yuan-ying, Trans.) (p. 227). Beijing: Life,
Reading, and New Knowledge Sanlian Bookstore.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 24). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 47). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 63). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 70). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 81). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 69). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 113). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 49). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Katz, M. A. (n.d.). Penelope’s renown: Meaning and indeterminacy in the Odyssey (p. 181).
Weng, J. (2000). The eternal wanderer, Odysseus: Homer’s epic (p. 39). Taipei: Owl.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 101). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 101). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Clayton, B. (2004). A Penelopean poetics: Reweaving the feminine in Homer’s Odyssey (p. 24). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Beauvoir, S. de. (2014). The second sex II (Z. Ke-lu, Trans.) (p. 417). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 49). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Kapuscinski, J. (2007). Ways of sentencing: Female violence and narrative justice in Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad. Essex Human
Rights Review, 4(2). https://doi.org/info:doi/
Atwood, M. (2006). The curse of eye: What I learned in school. In Curious pursuits (p. 34). London: Virago Press.
Hutcheon, L. (1994). Canadian postmodernism: Studies in contemporary English-Canadian fiction (Z. Fa & C. Guo, Trans.) (p. 26).
Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.
Meese, E. (2017). The empress has no clothes. In E. G. Ingersoll (Ed.), Margaret Atwood: Conversations (p. 185). Princeton: Ontario
Review Press.
Atwood, M. (2012). Curious pursuits (F. Muo & Y. Xia, Trans.) (p. 25). Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House.
Yuan, X. (2009). Resistance and survival: A study of themes in Margaret Atwood’s works (Doctoral dissertation, Soochow University)
(p. 22).
Atwood, M. (2020). The Penelopiad (Q. Wei, Trans.) (p. 94). Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House.