In Affinity, it is as Margaret discovers Selina ‘s evident isolation, that “ there [ is ] no-one ” ( Waters 82 ) who cares for her either within Millbank or beyond its walls, that she begins to comprehend Selina as an reverberation of herself. However Waters makes clear the extent to which such designation consequences from her ain yearning. It is through the continual analogue which Margaret draws between Selina and plants of art, particularly the “ Crivelli Portrait ” ( Waters 98 ) , that we learn of the procedure of building through which she creates Selina as her two-base hit. Margaret becomes like “ Michelangelo ” ( Waters 46 ) , an creative person whose place of power allows her to stand for Selina as she chooses ; her diary becomes her “ canvas ” ( Waters 27 ) . Yet it is important that merely as a painter may romanticise the theoretical account they depict, traveling beyond all that they objectively behold, so Margaret undertakings onto Selina her ain similitude. Although she believes that they: “ might hold been painted [ … ] from the same hapless box of watery shades ” ( Waters 27 ) , Selina is non simply composed as her ain mirror image. Alternatively she is conveyed as a perfected vision of herself ; venerated as an “ a saint or an angel ” ( Waters 27 ) . As her every facet is idealised even “ her suspiration ” ( Waters 26 ) becomes “ a perfect suspiration ” ( Waters 26 ) . Her visual aspect is poeticized, as Margaret uses punctuation to indulgently decelerate the sentence down ; enjoying every item: “ Her hair, where it showed at the borders of her cap, was just ; her cheek was pale, the expanse of forehead, of lip, of ciliums chip against her lividness ” ( Waters 27 ) .

It is important that before Margaret has even become acquainted with Selina she is assured, simply by her visual aspect, of her morality. For it is in a province of disbelief that she inquiries: “ What can her offense have been? ” ( Waters 27 ) . The image of Selina, which she has created for herself, is mostly materialised in her head before Selina even opens her oral cavity. Consequently we see that it is through Margaret ‘s “ regard ” ( Waters 327 ) that she erects her feeling of Selina. For case, it is

her beatific “ face ” ( Waters 153 ) which convinces Margaret of her artlessness. Therefore symbolizing the grade to which this feeling is created, in order, to carry through her longings: “ the awful straining of [ her ] passion ” ( Waters 341 ) . It is as she recalls the captive “ whose face was so all right ” that she begins to theorize about “ her name ” and her individuality ( Waters 30 ) . Margaret exercises “ the regard for her ain ( sexual ) satisfaction ” ( Llewellyn 210 ) . This may besides read as a societal remark on the position of sapphism in Victorian civilization, for ab initio, the lone manner in which Margaret may ordain her sapphic desire is through the inactive act of looking. “ Margaret must hammer an underworld for her ain desires ” ( Llewellyn 208 ) .

The duplicating glimpsed throughout the novel can therefore be understood as “ a signifier of ownership ” ( Miller 416 ) in which Margaret ‘s category position, and accordingly her function as a lady visitant, let her to construct a representation of Selina – the lower category captive -in her ain contemplation. For, as Miss Ridley high spots, it is the prison “ which kept [ Selina ] neat and near, for [ her ] to stare at! ” ( Waters 327 ) . Despite Margaret ‘s condemning attitude towards Millbank ‘s oppressive and restrictive government, her actions have a clear analogue with those of the prison wardens. Selina ‘s feminine individuality is denied her as the wardens take “ her hair [ … ] , and her ordinary apparels ” ( Waters 214 ) ; she can no longer understand herself as Selina and must needfully presume a new individuality. She must go “ Dawes ” ( Waters 112 ) . Similarly, Margaret does non emancipate her but offers an alternate individuality of her ain building ; supplying simply another function for her to play.

However, it is important that Selina does non defy this individuality. Alternatively she assumes this label by mentioning to herself as “ your ain affinity ” ( Waters 275 ) : Margaret ‘s supernatural two-base hit. She deludes Margaret that they form two parts of the same spirit: “ We are the same, you and I. We have been cut, two halves, from the same piece of reflecting affair. [ … ] our flesh is the same, and longs to jump to itself ” ( Waters 275 ) . Like a “ crisp small actress ” ( Waters 85 ) Selina performs this function in order to procure her flight. She actively permits Margaret ‘s petition to “ ‘Let me see you ‘ ” ( Waters 309 ) by discasing herself. Yet the description of Selina ‘s bare flesh compares her “ collar castanetss [ to… ] the delicate tusk keys of some fagot instrument of music ” ( Waters 309-310 ) . Therefore foregrounding the manner in which Selina exploits herself through her actions ; exhibiting her ain organic structure to guarantee her freedom. She allows herself to be played, and manipulated, as if she were simply an “ instrument ” ( Waters 310 ) by going “ an object of the regard ” ( Llewellyn 205 ) .

Kohlke has drawn attending the unfairness which allows Margaret to make a representation of Selina and gives her “ paternalistic writing of the Other ‘s ‘real ‘ narrative ” ( 160 ) . However, it is of import to observe that, Margaret ‘s diary entries do non supply the exclusive position within the novel. The reader is to boot asked to see the narration from the position of Selina ‘s diary entries, in the lead up to her imprisonment. Furthermore, although the duplicating which Margaret believes to unify Selina with herself is clearly illusional, and therefore a false individuality push onto Selina, there is an alternate signifier of duplicating set up in the novel which neither Selina nor Margaret consciously recognise. For “ Duality [ … ] can be contrast or resistance [ … or ] similitude. ” ( Herdman 1 ) . Selina is non positioned as Margaret ‘s two-base hit, through analogue or resemblance, but as the converse of everything Margaret is. If we understand Selina through this dichotomy, it seems that there is a sense in which we catch glances of Selina ‘s reliable individuality ; the manner she would seek to specify herself.

There is a clear dialectical relationship established between Selina and Margaret as they come to stand for two conflicting places. Whilst Selina is associated with the Sun, visible radiation and daylight, Margaret is connected with the antonyms of these things ; darkness, dark clip and a deficiency of life. It is no happenstance that Selina is repeatedly depicted “ sitting [ … ] with the Sun upon her ” ( Waters 43 ) . For she is characterised by the Sun ‘s traits ; its “ heat ” ( 45 ) , the life it brings and its visible radiation. Even her “ aureate hair ” ( Waters 150 ) may be seen a contemplation of the Sun ‘s brightness. Significantly, Selina seeks to place herself through these qualities, hence before she is detained she writes: “ I think I shall ne’er be warm once more! [ … ] I think I shall ne’er be myself ” ( Waters 3 ) . Her heat, vivacity and sunshine signifier portion of her self-representation. However her capacity to understand herself through these avenues is limited. For her individuality is continually rewritten by others. Her dazing “ gold ” ( Waters 44 ) hair becomes “ dull ” ( Waters 44 ) within Millbank ‘s four walls. And her visible radiation is consumed by the darkness of spiritualism: “ it is like you are being eaten up by a shadow! ” ( Waters 172 ) .

Yet although Margaret recognises these features in Selina, she remains incognizant of the extent to which these things are at odds with her ain characteristics. This is exemplified as she associates Selina with the figure seen in “ the Crivelli portrayal ” ( Waters 98 ) . Though she associates Selina with a character “ carries the Sun in the signifier of a blaze disc ” ( Waters 52 ) , the miss is besides depicted keeping “ a looking glass ” ( Waters 52 ) , foregrounding the extent to which Margaret sees Selina as contemplation of herself. Yet, whilst Selina sits bathed in sunshine, a beginning of verve and visible radiation, Margaret enters her cell in “ bereaved colors ” ( Waters 24 ) ; stand foring everything to the contrary. Her “ black ” ( Waters 59 ) gown becomes a symbol of the internal “ darkness ” ( Waters 87 ) of her depression, and a representation of the decease of her male parent. Whilst Selina is associated with new life, through, for case, her resurgence of Margaret: “ she sent the life dribbling back into me ” ( Waters 244 ) , and the recurrent mentions to her as a “ lamb ” ( Water 80, 268, 327 ) , Margaret becomes linked with being lacking in life and with decease.

Though her effort at self-destruction was unsuccessful, it renders her “ drab ” ( Waters 206 ) ; absent of life and verve. Thus although Selina is portrayed “ breath [ ing ] ” ( Waters 27 ) new life into a “ violet ” ( Waters 27 ) , Margaret is described “ like a foliage, pressed tight inside the pages of a [ … ] book ” ( Waters 201 ) . Whilst Selina holds a flower still exposing marks of life, Margaret is compared to a dead foliage, who like her is preserved but missing in verve. She lives, both physically and emotionally, in a “ really dark ” topographic point ( Waters 52 ) . She must go forth Selina ‘s cell, a topographic point where the Sun shines – if merely intermittently, to travel into the “ thick midst shadows ” ( Waters 117 ) of the dark, and of her head. Furthermore, there is, hence, a sense in which the line: the “ sun [ … ] made the bruise-coloured shadows really heavy ” ( Waters 28 ) , forebodes the novel ‘s stoping. As Margaret ‘s “ weary ” ( Waters 350 ) being, is enlivened by her presence, so it must be one time once more drained of life in her absence. Thus Margaret ‘s diary entries near with her inquiry: “ when the yarn goes slack, will you experience it? ” ( Waters 351 ) .

Margaret is non a two-base hit in the similitude of Selina, but a contemplation of each of the captives whose individualities blend in to one another ; they are “ all dressed rather similar ” ( Waters 14 ) .

Margaret is n’t a dual in the similitude of Selina but the captives. Her ain ideas.

Her organic structure constricts her – comparison with Rebecca.