Why I hate Maragret Atwood

Of course almost every woman in the 21st century would argue in favour of gender equality, as would the majority of men.  When these ideals are argued against they are usually in jest; jokes which even females make and laugh at.

  Why do women have smaller feet?

             

                 So they can stand closer to the sink.

Modern feminist literature is everywhere, yet many people would immediately think of writers such as Carol Ann Duffy, Sylvia Plath and Margret Atwood.  These authors/poets all make their work overtly purposeful regarding a feminist stance.  However I do not believe that a dramatic, surreal stance is necessary to prove such points.

Saying this however, I believe Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market to be a masterpiece within the canon of feminist literature despite its adopting of the two qualities listed above.  This works however due to the retrospective elements; that is that it looks back onto the injustice that women would suffer as apposed to the more automatically thought of "up and coming" woman that we think of.

Atwood

In her works, Atwood too presents the way in which women are mistreated and marginalised in society by men (take The Handsmaid's Tale for example) however whether this is retrospective or not is debatable.  The way in which the novels seem to be set in a more futuristic setting suggest that it is more of a current state of affairs, or a perception that society is in the process of moving towards a more chauvinistic stance.

This is contrasted by her other works, mainly poetry, which present the "new woman", or even the "ideal woman" who is in possession of a powerful stance. 

  This is what I find crazy.

Atwood's "modern women" are so powerful that they dominate men.  This is not feminism.  It does not advocate the equality which is fundamental to feminist belief.  By doing this Atwood's women appear evil, hardly something that a female would aspire to be.

Through supplying her women with power, Atwood has created monsters.  The balance is not there.  It is easy to understand that a melodramatic portrayal can be used to make a point, especially one that many people feel strongly about but it has gone too far and essentially, Atwood has put herself back to square one.  These women will not be respected nor idolised and it is not modern.  Parallel with the old stereotype of the innocent damsel is the caricatured corruptress/whore and it is easy to see how Atwood's characters neatly fit into this category.  Yes, she breaks away from the what is now "negative" damsel perception, but not from the outdated labels.

Another feminist writer who makes similar mistakes to these is Angela Carter.  Throughout her collection of short stories The Bloody Chamber we constantly see the same damsels and corruptresses that were common in middle age tales, the only difference being the modernity of the language used.  Even the setting is hard to determine as to whether it is modern or not.  Although a writer may adapt fairy tales which show women as either weak or evil in order to create a parody, readers may not be convinced that this is what Carter is attempting to achieve.  This is because very very occasionally, Carter manages to break away from these old ideals.  For example in her story The Bloody Chamber, the heroine is an old woman (who is also portrayed as being sexually attractive).  However Carter shoots herself in the foot again as many readers find this ending hilarious.

Even though there are so many miserable failures surrounding feminist literature, I am confident in believing that it is not a lost cause altogether.  Many pieces of work that one would never think of portray the modern woman wonderfully, with no humorous or negative connotations.

Take Bram Stoker's Dracula for example.  Here there are two conflicting women presented: the stereotypical outdated damsel Lucy (who, it could be argued, is being used as a form of parody) and the modern woman Mina.  Despite my odorous hatred towards this novel, I much favour the way in which Stoker puts forwards ideas of feminism than the likes of Atwood.


Let's face it, it's pretty embarrassing how these women have been prematurely beaten at their own game by a man a hundred years in advance.

Saying all of this Margaret Atwood reminds me of Meryl Streep so maybe one day I'll find it in my testosterone fuelled heart to forgive her.

The Great Gatsby

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Published 10th April 1925
Ranked #2 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library

Sorry for the obvious choice

  The ultimate exploitation of the American dream and conspicuous consumption of which was entailed, Fitzgerald highlights the danger of the shallow nature which occurs around material wealth.  Compatible with Aristotle’s tragic theory, the reader may feel sympathy towards all characters as there is not one who does not suffer, neither is there one who we completely admire.  The irony of tragedy occurring after the Great Depression only insinuates further the way in which material cannot compete with genuine human compassion.  The scene in which the eponymous character Gatsby is portrayed to throw all his shirts onto his own bed before the character of Daisy to try and achieve impressing her (a feat which he has striven to do for years) evokes a cringe-like sympathy from the reader.  The way in which the character of Daisy does in fact admire this gesture only makes the reader more disgusted at the conspicuous nature which is present in almost all characters in the novel.  Consequentially when the novel ends the final reaction evoked is not as cathartic as most tragedies; instead we are left with a feeling of emptiness.

One of my favourite aspects of this novel is the irony in the fact that Fitzgerald presents the reader with what was allegedly a wonderful time, America had just overcome the 'Great Depression' and people were supposed to be happy again.  Perhaps critical of possession and over-indulgence, Fitzgerald may cause the reader to conclude that in the absence of material riches, human beings are no longer blind to the true core of happiness and the things that really matter.  After all, it isn't a bottle of perfume or a library full of unopened books that people battle for throughout The Great Gatsby, it is each other.

"It is in the thirties that we want friends. In the forties we know they won't save us any more than love did. "

5/5

The House of Mirth

Edith Wharton
Published 14th October 1905
Ranked #69 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library

Yes, this front cover rubs the ironic feminism in your face just a bit too much but it was the prettiest one on Google so there.  Yet again this is another why-the-hell-have-I-not-seen-this-film entry, reminding me of how badly I need to visit our good old pal amazon.com

  A fabulous modern classic: when F. Scott Fitzgerald meets Jane Austen –a heart wrenching conventional tragedy with significant feminist issues.  Wharton presents the instinctive lust towards hedonism, as well as the tug-of-war between animalistic desires and material want.  With deep characters and major issues such as love, jealousy, social class and exposure, Wharton’s novel is empathisable to any reader at any time in any culture, making this a timeless piece of artwork.

  Throughout this novel I was constantly reminded of the quotation in Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey whereby his character Henry Wotton says:

'People say sometimes that beauty is only superficial. That may be so. But at least it is not so superficial as thought is. To me, beauty is the wonder of wonders. It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.'

Entirely relevant to current day with regard to jealousy, beauty is beautiful in itself.  It is delicate and should be treasured, it shouldn't evoke such ugly reactions from those who are envious, nor those who are dubious in a Shallow-Hal "oh she's pretty so she can't possibly be nice" type philosophy.  This novel realistically presents the reader with the true horrors of jealousy.

I also like this book because Edith Wharton was born exactly 130 years before me, yay!

4/5

The Catcher In The Rye

J. D. Salinger
Published 1951
Ranked #64 of the 100 best novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library

I'm sick of not having the courage to be an absolute nobody

  Although targeted at adults, the themes and language used by Salinger tend to appeal more to the adolescent readers.  The casual lexical choices make this novel somewhat “approachable”, enabling the usually younger reader easily capable of grasping deep concepts such as rebellion, sexuality and self awareness.  The use of a male protagonist is especially effective, as it breaks away from the age old convention for men to maintain a strong exterior.  Unlike many other novels to which ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ can be compared to such as ‘Vernon God Little’ by D.B.C. Pierre and Lionel Shriver’s ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’, Salinger successfully portrays the awkward turbulent battles a young man must endure without melodrama; through excessive profanity or over-sexualising his novel, thereby making it easier for the reader to empathise with his protagonist.  Arguably through the use of what is often regarded as a groundbreaking new style of writing (which many following authors unsuccessfully emulate) and a subversion of classical gender roles, Salinger has created a modern masterpiece.

  I am so happy that this can never be turned into a film, the action within this novel is too thin of a veneer to make it watchable.  No amount of theatrical technique could do this beautiful piece of work justice.

4/5



The Postman Always Rings Twice

James M. Cain
Published 1934
Ranked #98 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century by The Modern Library

  An ideal novel for a "light reader" who would like to head in the direction of something a bit more highbrow.  Like many modern classics, The Postman Always Rings Twice can be received on a very basic novel, the action perhaps overshadowing the true morale if this is the reader's chief focus.

  An extremely sexually fuelled passionate crime novel is presented to us, with the stereotypical femme-fatale and carpe diem attitudes of our characters cleverly adapted so to not become cliché.  The fiery infatuation that Cain portrays is effectively reflected through the use of shortly structured paragraphs and fluent casual language.  This almost staccato style of writing gives the reader a sense of urgency and allows us to empathise with the character of Frank, who we read of as left in a terrifying limbo and agonising internal struggle.

  I find the end to this novel extraordinary, a very similar scenario to James Baldwin's concluding chapter of Giovanni's Room.  Haunting and traumatic, both are bound to move every reader.

  One of my main praises of Cain is the way in which in minimal words, his characterisation is stunning, something a lot of shorter novels fail to achieve.  In only a few pages we are presented with three characters which we may empathise with, judge, hate or love.

Why oh why have I not watched this film!  Not unlike Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon, this novel begs to be adapted for the screen.  Indeed if you ask anybody of this piece of Cain's work, they will assume you are referring to the film.  I need this.

4/5

The Wasp Factory

Iain Banks
Published 16th February1984

I absolutely hate books like this.  It's not trash eg. Jodi Picoult, it's mock-modern classic.

Here is a man who is clearly incapable of writing anything with any meaning or depth.  If you don't believe me, look at the final page and the number at the bottom in the centre.  Banks attempts to create an exploration of warped psychology.  Instead of using more subtle (and often more effective) techniques, 'The Wasp Factory' has absolutely no structure or change of tone and just rubs vile visual illustrations into the reader's face.  Yes it will disgust you, but it won't disturb you because it is as shallow as a puddle of piss.  The only disturbing aspect of this "novel" is that it has been published and that Iain Banks was named in The Times' list of the 50 greatest British writers since 1945.  Such a rubbish twist as well. Too far.

1/5

The Lord of the Flies

William Golding
Published 17^th September 1954
Ranked #41 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library

I read this about 4 years ago during my GCSE's and I'm so grateful I was given this as apposed to 'Of Mice and Men'!

 

Perhaps one of the most successful novels to bridge the gap between children’s and adult literature, Golding portrays the issues of adolescent evil occurring under the suspension of system.  Loosely based around the classic children’s favourite ‘Treasure Island’, Golding converts what could be perceived paradise into a hellish environment. Arguably influenced through witnessing the psychology of pre-pubescent boys whilst teaching himself; Golding conjures a frighteningly believable yet far-fetched scenario in which a group of boys are left to their own devices which consequentially leads to dire circumstance.  His use of Christian analogy is made all the more vivid through his use of colour imagery, emphasising the devilish features of his antagonist Jack, and the fair innocence of the character Ralph, who’s weeping for its loss finalises the novel.

 Adaptations

The film which is surprisingly (at least co-) directed by Disney is abysmal, like many screen adaptations of classics the most important parts are left out, arguably because these are more subtle happenings with a more symbolic purpose which are less appropriate for a film whose purpose is to portray action.  Apart from that painful adaptation of 'The Great Gatsby', I really don't think they left a single thing out -yawn!
Despite this, I saw the most fantastic stage adaptation of 'The Lord of the Flies' at the Ipswich Regent Theatre (https://online.ipswich.gov.uk/PEO/).  Another of my friends performed at Doncaster Theatre playing the role of Piggy which I sadly missed, it looked superb.  Either way, even if you have not read the book I would strongly recommend watching this script put into play anywhere

4/5

Lolita

Vladamir Nabokov
Published 1995
Ranked #4 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library

  I read this two years ago and chose it for my comparative English Literature (drawing parallels to James Baldwin's beautiful Giovanni's Room on the way in which shame is portrayed).

  This daring and previously censored novel is a real toying with the reader’s own psychology. Through the use of a confessional first person narrative, Nabokov effectively manages to evoke sympathy towards a man who is essentially an incestuous paedophile. When we discover ourselves empathising with this devious character, we are disgusted. These personal discoveries not only emphasise the powerful way in which Nabokov writes, but also deeply trouble us as we see how easily these feelings can be induced; perhaps posing as a feasible explanation for e.g. Stockholm Syndrome. One of the most heartbreaking novels I have ever read; Nabokov leaves no space for any hope as all characters mentioned meet an extremely tragic end which left me haunted for months.

Two brilliant film adaptations have also been produced; my favourite being the colour version as it remains true to the book as well as Dominique Swain flawlessly encapsulating the character of Dolores Hayes' mischief, beauty and tragedy.

5/5

Slaughterhouse Five

(or the Children's Crusade: A Duty Dance with Death)
Kurt Vonnegut (JR)
Published 1969
Ranked #18 on the 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century by the Modern Library

  A wonderfully subtle and amusing short novel which allows the reader to draw their own conclusions of the terrors of war rather than over-exposing its repulsive sights and nature.  With references to determinism and a Boethian outlook; Vonnegut not only advocates pacifism but comforts us on the acceptance of death.  Perhaps Mr. Vonnegut's finest quality is that in Slaughterhouse Five he has written of one of the most morbid occasions that there has ever been within humanity, but presents it as something that we are able to laugh about without being disrespectful and it is through this that he comes across as a philosophical, likable, obviously brave, even-minded and extremely intelligent man.

4/5

"Humour is an almost physiological response to fear"

November 11 1922 - April 11 2007

Go Tell it on the Mountain

James Baldwin
Published 1953
Ranked #39 of the 100 greatest novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library.

"When I was a seeker

I sought both night and day,

I asked the Lord to help me

And He showed me the way"

  This heartfelt semi-autobiographical novel gives the reader a deep insight into the emotions that one human being can evoke from another; love, fear, shame but most consistently, the element of surprise.  The clear moral message of equality is put into play so shockingly and vividly, allowing us to very literally conclude that everybody bleeds the same blood.  It is red and it is never something that you want to see spilling out of another body. 

  I honestly dream about James Baldwin, I think he is absolutely amazing in portraying whatever it is that he wants to in a vast variety of ways that always evoke a major reaction from the reader.  I would always recommend watching Baldwin's interviews; he comes across as extremely humble and considered.  Here is a little taste of the beautiful nature of our author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-rfiG6ubVc

4/5

We Need To Talk About Kevin

Lionel Shriver
Published April 14th 2003

  Fair enough, this is not the most groundbreaking of modern novels but I read it a couple of years ago as a number of other people in my literature class had chosen it for their comparative coursework.  Despite reading this from a sceptical angle, my reluctance to enjoy this book was greatly overpowered by Shriver's narrative charm.

  The concept of innate evil is one that arises within psychology, biology and ethics and I believe that this book brings to life every parent's nightmare and has a haunting aura.  Although this book is written from the perspective of the character of Eva (the eponymous character's mother), the idea of somebody being born evil may evoke some feeling of empathy towards our antagonist as we're led to believe that there is nobody to blame.  This sympathy towards the character of Kevin is of course shocking and may leave the reader with feelings of guilt and disgust; not dissimilar to Vladamir Nabokov's character of Humbert in Lolita.

  Another key feature of this novel which I found particularly well portrayed is that of understanding.  As this is written as an epistolary and first person narrative we automatically learn to empathise with the narrative voice of Eva.  The struggle that Shriver creates between husband and wife is heartbreaking.  The way in which the character of Franklin (Kevin's father) fails to see a single flaw in his son is almost pantomime-esque as we see the antagonist expertly fluctuate between evil towards his mother and clichéd "gee-wizz" enthusiasm towards his father.  This is extremely frustrating as the reader knows the depths of Kevin's deviousness whilst Franklin remains completely ignorant.  The rift that this creates between the characters of Franklin and Eva, and we see how Eva becomes unable to vocalise her concerns towards her husband; which is received as all the more tragic as we read of the strength and beauty of their lives before Kevin.

  Remaining within the boundaries of conventional tragedy, we read of Eva's flaws which present her as human thus making it much easier to empathise with her.  Another feature of this novel which I found particularly genius was Shriver's use of foreshadowing which was subtle enough not to give anything away to the reader, yet explicit enough for us to immediately trace back to the roots a certain scenario (eg. Kevin's favourite book was Robin Hood).  This tied in with the way in which Kevin is established as diabolical with deep schemes and surprisingly high inter-personal intelligence which allows him to know exactly how to cause a range of human emotions to another person with minimal effort.

  Despite my opinion that this is an extremely well written novel, I have several criticisms.  Firstly is the length of the novel.  Although I do not regard almost any of this book to be irrelevant, Shriver could have easily conveyed the same message and feelings if half of the chapters were taken out.  For example we read several times of eg. Franklin's unconditional positive regard of his son; we needn't read every time something bitter occurs due to Kevin that the character of Franklin will automatically forgive or excuse him.  I found it dangerously close to spoon feeding and rather tedious as after a while it became predictable.  A second downside to this novel is the way in which some things could easily be predicted.  I don't want to give away any of the plot but it did immediately strike me that the character of Franklin never wrote back.

  However Shriver is vastly forgiven on the basis of her genius yet understandable complexity, beautifully accurate insight into a woman's mind and insecurities and the brave portrayal of a taboo which both entices and terrifies us.

  And apparently they've started filming the screen adaptation -can't wait!

    3.5/5

Genesis

"I hope I will be able to confide everything to you, as I have never been able to confide in anyone, and I hope you will be a great source of comfort and support"

So I'm brand new to this whole blogging business, but I thought I'd have a stab.  I adore discussing literature so what better place to take part than on the internet?

I'm currently working my way through this list  http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html (the one on the left) but will also use this page to document other novels which I regard modern classics.