Written on the Body - the end
September 14, 2007
First, I want to talk about Gail Right because she was such a huge (literally and figuratively) part of the end of the novel. I don’t know exactly how to take Gail except that I think she’s pretty disgusting. I think there’s a difference between being forward and classy and forward and trashy and she managed to fall into the latter category. For example, on page 143 it states, “‘Busy day,’ she said. ‘Busy day. Makes me think of other things. Dark exciting things.’” What gets to me the most is that before this the narrator has already hinted that he/she does not want Gail staying and yet she comes out with a stupid, completely unsubtle line about sex. The only part where I actually mildly liked Gail is at the end when she calls out the narrator’s actions and makes him/her realize how stupid and selfish it was to leave Louise and think it was the best situation for both of them without consulting Louise as well (159).
In class we were discussing how the narrator doesn’t seem to truly know Louise and I think this point is further evidenced during his/her conversation with Gail when he/she thinks:
Louise, dipterous girl born in flames, 35. 34 22 36. 10 years married. 5 months with me. Doctorate in Art History. First class mind. 1 miscarriage (or2?) 0 children. 2 arms, 2 legs, too many white T-cells. 97 months to live.
In all of this there’s nothing abstract about Louise; it’s all very factual and concrete. The narrator never seemed to get to know her and what she was all about, but hey, if you need to know her breast, hip, and waist measurements, Sam’s got you covered. On page 189 the narrator asks Gail if he invented her and Gail states, “No, but you tried to… She wasn’t yours for the making.” This relates to the subject/object we were talking about during class. The narrator always saw Louise as the object to his/her subject and Sam saw in Louise what he/she wanted rather than what Louise actually was. Because this book is from Sam’s perspective, Louise will never be the subject until he/she admits she is and gives up some power or Louise’s side of the story gets told in some other manner.
In terms of the very ending of the novel, I take it a different way each time I read it so I don’t really even feel like getting into that, but overall I really liked the book a lot more than I thought I would. I expected to hate/struggle to get through almost anything postmodern so reading this and really getting into was a nice surprise. I’m one of the few/only people in the class who haven’t seen Fight Club yet so I’m hoping I enjoy it and it keeps the postmodern goodwill flowing.
Entry Filed under: ENG 377 - Postmodernism. .
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
kimh23 | September 16, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I always seem to agree with your posts. I had the exact idea when it came to the narrator’s detailing the stats of Louise. Where was the abstract? Or what about little details of her personality or her quirks? The things she listed off could be given by her doctor (but maybe it ties into the narrator’s research obsession). Why can’t she tell us something as personal as what Louise’s favorite coffee mug was or what section she turned to first in the paper? That would have required an eye for detail beyond the body.
2.
Kim Clune | September 17, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I agree when you say:
I think that “factual” and “concrete” are interesting terms to use. They generally give a sense of reality by describing dimension as in The object takes up space and this is how much. As you point out, this misses the mark. A person is far more than a measurable object. In fact, everything that makes them come to life is immeasurable. How do you measure, as Kim H said, a favorite coffee mug or first read section of the newspaper? In this sense, reality is what slips through the cracks of descriptive language. Winterson seems to be illustrating how its limits fail us once more.
3.
Self Analysis « BRA&hellip | October 15, 2007 at 11:51 pm
[...] H. on Winterson 2007.09.07 To Alex on Winterson 2007.09.17 To Michael on Winterson 2007.09.17 To Christine on Winterson 2007.09.23 To Marina on Fight Club, the film 2007.09.23 To the Class Experts on [...]