|
knees of putty posted:Surely it's not necessary to identify with a character to be successful. It's a very solipsistic view that in order to gain understanding or insight one has to take that person's viewpoint. That's part of the joy of this book - the viewpoint shifts around, each offering a new vision of a single person's journey. A kind of stretched Rashomon. Was the family so unreal and amplified that they were unbelievable? I'm not so sure. Certain aspects were amplified to draw out some unpleasant features of the male psyche, but the family was sufficiently normal to provoke shock at their reaction to a somewhat benign and trivial move to stop eating meat. We can read into it of course that they were not reacting to becoming vegetarian, but to the refusal to accept husband/father instruction. If you think this is unreal, just have a look at a prominent feminist's twitter feed. Exactly. Hell, one of the candidates for president is a thrice divorced philanderer married to an Eastern European model half his age and we are really supposed to act like the objectification of women by their husbands is somehow implausible
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
I also think it's weird to assume a South Korean author is writing for a Western audience hoping they would pat themselves on their backs and then give her awards. The likely intended audience for this was South Koreans, who would have a very different reaction to the challenges presented in this book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I also think it's weird to assume a South Korean author is writing for a Western audience hoping they would pat themselves on their backs and then give her awards. The likely intended audience for this was South Koreans, who would have a very different reaction to the challenges presented in this book. Especially considered the book was published a decade ago in Korea before being translated here
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
knees of putty posted:Surely it's not necessary to identify with a character to be successful. Of course. What I see problematic is the role of the reader in relation to the book. . I say the book gives the high ground to the reader, that's the issue for me. Lack of identification is instrumental to that. quote:but to the refusal to accept husband/father instruction. The refusal to accept husband is called "you could have chosen better", or "getting a divorce". That's why what's left of the book is just a bad metaphor. About "father instruction", that's interesting because I keep wondering why no one mentioned that the hinted explanation of the protagonist's mental illness is that she was abused by her father when she was a kid. Which is one of the reason why I think is downright terrible as it justified itself through the most trite of the cliches. This whole thing: kid is victim of abuse -> mind falls apart because of it -> writer tries to make it into an universal metaphor about predatory nature -> want to become a tree. I can only see it as ludicrous. It's like the ultimate revelation at the end of the book, and it's so predictable the book was better without mentioning it and just leave it completely unexplained. But again, lack of self-sustenance just cannot be seen as "refusal to accept husband/father instruction". It's really a disservice to those themes: a woman has to kill herself in order to affirm some individuality and agency? Is this the message? It's a disservice to feminism if the message is that a woman can only die if she doesn't want to be instrument to a man. It's a sick message.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:It's a disservice to feminism if the message is that a woman can only die if she doesn't want to be instrument to a man. It's a sick message. That is not the message of this story
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Of course. What I see problematic is the role of the reader in relation to the book. . How about you respond to my complete deconstruction of this argument rather than just repeating it? Abalieno posted:Of course. What I see problematic is the role of the reader in relation to the book. . The entire world doesn't work like the United States. Women in Korea cannot simply get divorced easily if they are unhappy, and women are pressured to marry very young to a husband because of his provider role rather than any particular romantic affection. And before you get all huffy about the idea we are somehow exoticizing Koreans, I haved worked with Koreans everyday for the last ten years. I read another book about Korean feminism "Please Look After Mom" because a Korean woman recommended it to me if I wanted to understand what it was like to be a woman in Korea. For someone so dedicated to accusing the rest of the thread of moral tourism, you seem obstinate about even considering the fact that gender roles don't work in other countries like they do for you. quote:About "father instruction", that's interesting because I keep wondering why no one mentioned that the hinted explanation of the protagonist's mental illness is that she was abused by her father when she was a kid. Which is one of the reason why I think is downright terrible as it justified itself through the most trite of the cliches. Have you considered perhaps that the revelation is not trite and predictable but that you lack the basic critical skills to understand the context of a story beyond cliches? She did not go crazy because her father beat her. She went "crazy" because she longed for an existence free of the burdens of serving as a vessel of male authority and desire and the impossibility of accomplishing that dream. Saying she went crazy because her dad beat her is like saying Ahab went crazy because he really didn't like whales very much. quote:But again, lack of self-sustenance just cannot be seen as "refusal to accept husband/father instruction". It's really a disservice to those themes: a woman has to kill herself in order to affirm some individuality and agency? Is this the message? It's only a sick message because you lack the basic inner moral courage to realize its actual implications. Here is a hint. Get this: millions of women around the world are going to live their entire lives under a system of nigh unbearable male oppression and there is absolutely nothing they will ever be able to do about it. I am sorry if that's not a happy ending but that is the entire point of the book you insipid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Lots of women in the west find themselves unable to just divorce or leave. That's why places like women's refuges exist. Yes it is a sick message - the idea that in order to gain freedom, one has to adopt a form of nihilism and retreat into oneself. To me that empowers the themes, not corrupts them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
in what way is the tree stuff a "revelation" anywayGuy A. Person posted:I also think it's weird to assume a South Korean author is writing for a Western audience hoping they would pat themselves on their backs and then give her awards. The likely intended audience for this was South Koreans, who would have a very different reaction to the challenges presented in this book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
knees of putty posted:Lots of women in the west find themselves unable to just divorce or leave. That's why places like women's refuges exist. Good point Lunchmeat Larry posted:in what way is the tree stuff a "revelation" anyway I really think, not even being a prick, this guy only understands fiction in the context of cliches. He cannot understand that a explanatory scene at the end of the novel is not always supposed to be a twist or big reveal but that it can instead be a final cementing of narrative theme. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jun 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:How about you respond to my complete deconstruction of this argument rather than just repeating it? If that's your reaction I don't have anything to object. quote:The entire world doesn't work like the United States. Women in Korea cannot simply get divorced easily if they are unhappy, and women are pressured to marry very young to a husband because of his provider role rather than any particular romantic affection. Ok, quaint Korea it is then. I guess becoming trees is easier or more desirable than getting a divorce in Korea. (sorry for not taking this seriously, but you either try to make a specific argument, or an universal one. If this is a story of a specific woman, ok. But then it can't also be some universal metaphor that has to be valid outside its context. You cannot on one had say "it's specific Korea culture", and at the same time "it's the predatory nature of society".) quote:You seem afraid to engage with their own selfishness So now you're patronizing *me*, how nice. You are used to that high moral perch, I see. I can see how the childishly simplified psychology in the book has an appeal for you since you seem so convinced to have guessed my deep personality by reading a forum post. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:So now you're patronizing *me*, how nice. You are used to that high moral perch, I see. You don't get to spend the whole thread accusing everyone of masturbatorily pretending to analyze a "fraud" book to make themselves feel better about themselves and then get pissy about being talked down to Abalieno posted:(sorry for not taking this seriously, but you either try to make a specific argument, or an universal one. If this is a story of a specific woman, ok. But then it can't also be some universal metaphor that has to be valid outside its context. You cannot on one had say "it's specific Korea culture", and at the same time "it's the predatory nature of society".) Why can a novel not simultaneously exist in the personal, cultural, and global sphere? Abalieno posted:Ok, quaint Korea it is then. I guess becoming trees is easier or more desirable than getting a divorce in Korea. Why do you think getting a divorce would solve the problem that makes her want to become a tree? Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You don't get to spend the whole thread accusing everyone of masturbatorily pretending to analyze a "fraud" book to make themselves feel better about themselves I'm not accusing anyone, I accuse the book of a false message. The analysis I read are correct, as I said above. I'm only adding a piece by pointing out other things that the book implies. If you say you actually engaged with the book on that level, okay. quote:Why cannot a novel not simultaneously exist in the personal, cultural, and global sphere? If not in contradiction. You cannot say on one hand "you can't understand this because it's Korean culture", and on the other say it's an universal theme. If it's universal then it's valid universally and it isn't anymore "Korean"-only. Up thread someone said: "it's weird to assume a South Korean author is writing for a Western audience" Ok. So it's not universal anymore. It's either or.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:If not in contradiction. A novel having a context for a global reader and a local reader is not a contradiction. A single novel has several simultaneous interpretations dependent on the subject positioning of the reader engaging with the text. It's basic Post-Structuralism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Why do you think getting a divorce would solve the problem that makes her want to become a tree? Because she wants to become a tree only to flatter the literary metaphor. There's no other reason. It's a writer that wants to show off, not a character struggling with a real issue (and so the fraudulence of the writer). Her symbolic protest is understood, in the book, BY NO ONE. So what kind of protest is one that no one understand and no one explains? It's very obvious then that this protest is merely an act of demonstration toward *the reader*. Because only the reader has what it takes to understand it. Which is why we are supposed to praise the book for its challenging feminist message. Her act of protest is solely meant FOR US. Which is why it's such a bed metaphor. It doesn't work in its context. Would you applaud someone's mental illness because you like to interpret it as a pretty feminist message? Can't you see the hubris in this? To put meaning in the metaphor you have to pull it out of the context, but if you pull it out of the context then it doesn't work anymore. That means there's only one way to write this back into the context of the story: she wants to become vegetarian, and then a tree, because her mind is falling apart. And the more time passes the more it breaks. Which is why I interpret the character no more than a passive victim (and so such a bad feminist symbol). She has no power over what happens to her. Being vegetarian is not a *choice*. She doesn't do it because she wants to be healthy or wants to establish individuality. She does it because she's falling apart and no one is able to help her. Without help she only loses more pieces. That's why it's a bad feminist message, because it pictures a woman who's NOT independent and is killing herself since she can't find a way out of her hole. She's a woman who's unable to be independent, not a woman who's NOT ALLOWED to be independent by the patriarchal society, as the feminist message would ideally make her. When she's in the hospital refusing to eat and refusing to speak to her sister there are no more "predatory males" around her to complain about. She's ALONE. And she's going to die without help. There's no "society" oppressing her. The "society" already forgot she even EXISTS. The metaphor kills her. And the reader is supposed to cheer the metaphor, and her death. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:That's why it's a bad feminist message, because it pictures a woman who's NOT independent and is killing herself since she can't find a way out of her hole. She's a woman who's unable to be independent, not a woman who's NOT ALLOWED to be independent by the patriarchal society, as the feminist message would ideally make her. Why would you possibly think only a pro-active woman who struggles nobly against patriarchal society should count for "ideal" feminist literature? By that logic the Yellow Wallpaper, An Untamed State, The Bluest Eye, etc. are all not "ideal" feminist novels. Not everything has to be The Handmaid's Tale quote:When she's in the hospital refusing to eat and refusing to speak to her sister there are no more "predatory males" around her to complain about. She's ALONE. And she's going to die without help. There's no "society" oppressing her. The "society" already forgot she even EXISTS. You completely missed the point of this section and I would explain it again but I feel you would probably just ignore it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You completely missed the point of this section and I would explain it again but I feel you would probably just ignore it again. Nope, please explain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:The metaphor kills her. Yeah I mean you have the basic story down: in a normal metaphor the woman would become the tree but instead we pan out and see it's mental illness instead. I don't see how this is bad, or how a metaphor is bad if the characters within the story don't understand or explain it. You edited this in: Abalieno posted:And the reader is supposed to cheer the metaphor, and her death. I have no idea why the reader is expected to cheer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Nope, please explain. Saying she should stop being crazy because the asylum is not "society" is a literal Catch-22. If the asylum were an escape from society, she would no longer be insane and thus be released back into the patriarchal society where she would just go insane again. You would know this if you ever actually read the middle portion of the book because this is exactly what explicitly happens. The whole reason for her wanting to become a tree is because she already tried to find a resolution to an irresolvable conflict, briefly succeeded, but in the end only became even worse in her failure. Her wanting to become a tree is no longer about her desire to escape patriarchy or society, its about wanting to completely escape all human responsibility because she is unable to deal with the irresolvable necessity of predation. The whole point of the third chapter is not about giving a big "reveal" about Yeong-Hye wanting to become a tree. The point of the third chapter is the way in which Yeong-Hye's response to the burdens of society are contradicted with her sister's response to those same burdens. Her suicidal nature is explicitly ironic because its showing that Yeong-Hye's final desperate attempt to escape from the predatory nature of human existence has only made her a greater predator of her sister. tl;dr - she wants to become a tree because it means she no longer will consume of the lifeforce of anyone other than herself but it ironically only means she has become a consumer of her sister in the same way the men of her life were consumers of her Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Yeah I mean you have the basic story down: in a normal metaphor the woman would become the tree but instead we pan out and see it's mental illness instead. I don't see how this is bad, or how a metaphor is bad if the characters within the story don't understand or explain it. Because there are two levels, one is the fictional context, the other is the universal message meant to the reader. I see a contradiction in how they are structured, and a negative message if you untangle it. Her act of demonstration is to the reader, because she's not trying to convince someone in the book, or obtain something from someone, or even make a symbolic protest like someone setting herself on fire so that people around her might finally react. So, in the fictional context, the desire to become a tree is purely introspective and self-absorbed, while outside that context it's meant as a universal message. But in the fictional context that desire is equal to self harm and seeking death. Usually we do not "glorify" such a thing. We try to help someone in that situation. You don't say: "oh, go on. It will make a beautiful political statement!" So there are these two levels. In one there's a woman in need of help, and is not getting it. On the other we applaud "the message" because it's a pretty statement on feminism, patriarchal society and so on. The metaphor kills her in the sense that the reader does. It's the reader who listens to that message, and the reader applauds it (we say it's a great book). So, consequently, we approve her death and determine it necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I have no idea why you think any reader is applauding or supporting her in the third chapter. The ending is not a victorious statement about feminism and no one is sitting around lauding the profundidity of the metaphor, its about the impossibility of easily resolving the central conflict of the book
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:escape all human responsibility because she is unable to deal with the irresolvable necessity of predation. Oh okay, so the whole feminist angle was just a transitory stop toward a much broader stance? That would be interesting, at least it would mean we can exit that whole feminist angle and declare the book is about something completely different, and deeper. We moved from patriarchal society and its burden on women, to the "irresolvable necessity of predation", which is gender-free and absolutely inescapable even if you wanted to. The final stage is: I hate life in every of its forms. Which may or may not retroactively justify the sins of patriarchal society. So, even working from this angle I'm not sure what kind of positive message the book wants to send.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:So, even working from this angle I'm not sure what kind of positive message the book wants to send. You almost got it, just a little further
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Oh okay, so the whole feminist angle was just a transitory stop toward a much broader stance? You seem to think a feminist message can only have one message: a woman triumphing over the patriarchy. Since that didn't happen it's bad feminism. quote:So, even working from this angle I'm not sure what kind of positive message the book wants to send. Jesus. Why do you think this book was trying to have a positive message. Or that any book requires a positive message.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I gotta say as frustrating as it is for the strange robot man to make the same post ten times as he fails to grasp that every book is not about elf wizards triumphing over chaos lords, it has brought out some interesting analysis so good work y'all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Jesus gently caress me Christ. I'm like "Oh poo poo, the BoTM thread hit 3 pages this months, I should read it" and then it's just three pages of Mel yelling at that one spergy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Khizan posted:Jesus gently caress me Christ. Yeah sorry I went overboard. Look at it this way though, its a book good enough to justify fighting about for three pages. At least there was some really good discussion from other people in-between that right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
I enjoyed all the yelling and the analysis of Mel and others. The extra analysis helped me think through the book all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:That's why it's a bad feminist message, because it pictures a woman who's NOT independent and is killing herself since she can't find a way out of her hole. She's a woman who's unable to be independent, not a woman who's NOT ALLOWED to be independent by the patriarchal society, as the feminist message would ideally make her. There are a couple of much older books you might want to read next. First, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, which is almost the same novel, only set in New Orleans, and which will answer your objections about why the protagonist can't just get divorced or simply change her life. The parallels between Edna and Yeong-hye are quite stark, and though they react to their situations in almost the polar opposite way, the result is basically the same. Society as it stands has no place for them. Next, A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf, a very slim essay about women's roles and available duties, seen through the metaphor of Shakespeare's sister. What if he had had one? What plays would she have written, if given the opportunity? Could she, given that society didn't permit women to be playwrights back in 16th Century England? What great works have (definitely) been lost as a result? Finally, The Makioka Sisters, by Jun'ichirō Tanizaki, which, despite being Japanese rather than Korean, deals with many of the same societal themes as The Vegetarian. It is the story of an upper class family in the years leading up to World War II trying to find a husband for their third daughter, while the world they understood and expected slowly falls apart around them. You may wish to focus especially on the fourth daughter, Taeko, and what the narrative does to her for her choices and desires. Feminism isn't necessarily comforting or uplifting. All of these, despite being terribly depressing works, are extremely feminist in nature because they depict the situation as it is, and ask the reader to confront why it is so. It can be a call to action. Franchescanado posted:"I think they mean that the book about a woman that turns into a plant needs more wizards to be more human and literary"??? Yeah, maybe if they added in Woo-Chi fighting demons, it would be a better book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hL8ODm2yN4
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:Feminism isn't necessarily comforting or uplifting. All of these, despite being terribly depressing works, are extremely feminist in nature because they depict the situation as it is, and ask the reader to confront why it is so. It can be a call to action. Yeah, one of my favorite recent feminist novels "An Untamed State" by Roxane Gay ends with explicit message "It's never going to be ok"
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah, one of my favorite recent feminist novels "An Untamed State" by Roxane Gay ends with explicit message "It's never going to be ok" Oh poo poo I like Gay, I read her book of essays but hadn't checked out her novel yet. Glad to hear it is good. Also I disagree with abalieno thoroughly but let's put a lid on the "spergy" stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Corrode posted:I gotta say as frustrating as it is for the strange robot man to make the same post ten times as he fails to grasp that every book is not about elf wizards triumphing over chaos lords, it has brought out some interesting analysis so good work y'all. I'm with this view too. Not too hopeful for Lud in the Mist though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Arguably Lud-in-the-Mist is about elf wizards triumphing over the patriarchy. Sort of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Arguably Lud-in-the-Mist is about elf wizards triumphing over the patriarchy. Sort of. Give it a chance folks, that's all I ask :P It's ok if y'all hate it. Please save comments on Lud for when I get the thread up though if we can, shouldn't be long. edit: ludthread is up. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Arguably Lud-in-the-Mist is about elf wizards triumphing over the patriarchy. Sort of. Yes, but if I can't relate to the elf wizards then I demand a refund.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Malazan is good even though it has elf wizards honest
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
I am not one to reject a book for having elf wizards outright but I do have to admit elf wizards tend to be something of a red flag for me
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
I enjoyed the long argument in this thread and it helped me, a philistine, think harder about the book. Also while I was the one who was quoted calling them predators I totally sympathised with the first part narrator when his wife's sudden strange behaviour wasted a ton of expensive food and caused him professional problems. Guy A. Person posted:
yeah
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Hey, I'm back and there are still a few things that I'd like to discuss.Toph Bei Fong posted:Feminism isn't necessarily comforting or uplifting. All of these, despite being terribly depressing works, are extremely feminist in nature because they depict the situation as it is, and ask the reader to confront why it is so. It can be a call to action. But this is not a discussion about feminism in general, because this isn't what you expect a standard representation of feminism. This is certainly not "depicting the situation as it is". The book tries to be original and present a situation entirely new. So it's the very opposite of "accurate presentation of society". It's not realist fiction, but the very opposite. That's why the non-feminist angle that was brought up lately is far more interesting and engaging for what the book is. As a feminist novel, or novel having feminist themes, I still think it does a very poor job, because of all the reason I've explained and how it presents the characters. But if we toss all of this, then it's a whole different discussion. And I wonder where it leads (since no one tries to follow up on that). What's the message of this book? Is it just an open ended question? In that case it surely is less trite and shallow than how I described it, but I still have issues about what the book tries to say and how (especially because no one, even the REVIEW). So, the stuff I wanted to discuss: Mel Mudkiper posted:The whole point of the third chapter is not about giving a big "reveal" about Yeong-Hye wanting to become a tree. The point of the third chapter is the way in which Yeong-Hye's response to the burdens of society are contradicted with her sister's response to those same burdens. Her suicidal nature is explicitly ironic because its showing that Yeong-Hye's final desperate attempt to escape from the predatory nature of human existence has only made her a greater predator of her sister. This is an interpretation I haven't seen in ANY official review. Nor anyone discussed here previously. Nor it's something I got when I read the book. As I said, THIS is interesting. Because if this interpretation is correct, its logic overwrites the simple "feminist" angle that I considered very weak and shallow. In this case, if this is correct, the feminist message is only a veil hiding a deeper undercurrent that is more pervasive and moves away from a simple critics of a certain society and gender roles. It actually removes the genders as the focus. It's more universal and a radical description of the whole world. But it's also not as I personally interpret the story. So instead I'm giving you my own interpretation of how I read all of it: I still believe that the woman's mind broke. And the more time passes the more it breaks, autonomously and not because of some patriarchal society that presses on. It's a descent into mental illness and self-harm. She's not autonomous anymore, she's not claiming individuality and agency by making her choice, she's just sending a SIGNAL THAT SHE NEEDS HELP. She needs help putting the pieces back together. But because she's surrounded by horrible people, the only help she gets is a shove. In the final part of the book this woman has completely shut down herself inside. She doesn't speak anymore to the world. She's removed from reality because (like Malazan's Mhybe) she's trapped in a "dreamworld". She shuts in. Now, the only way to survive is trying to breach that wall, trying to connect with her, and try to bring her out again, because otherwise she will only wither and die, exactly as all things that do not connect anymore to the outside world and that don't continue that taking/giving relationship. You give you take, the exchange keeps you living, because "life" is that, a symbiosis with an environment while trying to preserve your sense of self and sustenance. But she's locked in, trapped in that dreamworld and, left alone, she only descends further into that dream, the deep end. Now the sister. The sister tries to connect with her, but she cannot find a good way, so she only ends up empathizing from outside. It's like watching someone who's sleeping and in pain, but without means of waking her up. That's her situation. During this process she actually realizes she's not different. They both share the same origin and the same trauma. That means that also the sister is going down the same path of having her mind breaking apart. She realizes she's the same, that she's going to break too. But in the end there's something that saves her. She has a son. Both women are equally broken and sharing the same story. They are mirrored. But one dies, whereas the other lives. Why? Because one woman descended into herself. She didn't have a "real" husband to care for. She didn't have a real life to begin with. So she slips into her dreamworld where she isolates herself from everything else, until she dies. Further downward the spiral. But her sister, who's moving down the same path since they share the same beginning, has her son. The son is a life anchor to the world. A responsibility that keeps her "sane", in the sense that the son keeps her functional and connected to the outside world. She can't as easily cut the ties to her son as her sister cut her ties to her husband. And that's why, ultimately, it's very shallow: the sister is saved by the power of love for her son. Peel posted:Also while I was the one who was quoted calling them predators I totally sympathised with the first part narrator when his wife's sudden strange behaviour wasted a ton of expensive food and caused him professional problems. That's actually one good reason why I never bit on that feminist angle. How can you even justify that a woman has the right to throw away all that food just because she decided to not eat it. They are married, the food is something they share. That choice she made is completely one-sided and shows no respect whatsoever for her husband. She didn't even ask, or discuss or explain any darn thing. Okay you want to stop eating meat. It doesn't mean your choice has to be forced on the husband *too*. That's still very blatantly sexism if you take it from the gender role angle. She made a choice unconditionally without any care of who's around her. So, morally, why should the husband care about her then? Isn't marriage, ideally, a mutual thing in an equal relationship? She acts the same as he acts: as if they are completely self-absorbed and egoistical to the extreme (and so again my claim that the situation of this couple is just too extreme to be felt as plausible as a story). Behaving like that she simply mirrored the most obnoxious behavior you expect from the "male predator" who uses women as objects. She's no better than her husband. Mel Mudkiper posted:I am not one to reject a book for having elf wizards outright but I do have to admit elf wizards tend to be something of a red flag for me Well, Malazan actually has undead raptor wizards that roam the world in their flying mountain fortress, and magic swords that contain portals to other dimensions (spoiler). Donaldson's says ( http://www.nyrsf.com/2015/03/fantasy-is-the-most-intelligent-precise-and-accurate-means-of-arriving-at-the-truth-s-p.html ): quote:I’m a student of Joseph Conrad, Henry James, William Faulkner, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and I say this: Erikson is as serious as any of them. Notice also that other quote: “Fantasy is the most intelligent, precise, and accurate means of arriving at the truth.” Want serious actual literature? Here some examples: R. Scott Bakker, The Darkness that Comes Before Steven Erikson, The Forge of Darkness William T. Vollmann, The Dying Grass John Sayles, A Moment in the Sun I'm not a lover of Fantasy. I'm lover of big books that have human bones mixed with the paper of the pages, and not the artificially plastic vegan flavor and embarrassing exhibitionism of The Vegetarian. WARNING: they have more than the 135 pages of The Vegetarian and actually require some concentration and effort to be understood. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
Abalieno posted:Hey, I'm back and there are still a few things that I'd like to discuss. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 18:16
|
|