I'd post it but it's not on line. If you still have Saturday's rag you'll find it on p. 27 of the Life&Style section.
But there was a quibble, and it's given me the irrits, particularly as I've heard it before. Essentially, it is an assertion that a strong, independent "female role model" type character can't love or lust over a man.
"The Book of Rachael clearly aspires to find a more central place for women in the central narrative of Western civilisation. Yet...Rachael herself has a panting and breathless sexual relationship with Judah that...seems to sit uncomfortably within the broader agenda of the novel."
Are you kidding me? Didn't "feminists must hate men and sex" go out with the printing press? Not to mention the no-no of constructing fictional characters as one dimensional stereotypes. Yes? No? What do you think?
'Didn't "feminists must hate men and sex" go out with the printing press?'
ReplyDeleteSadly no, Leslie, they didn't. You only have to go the, er, internet, to see how many bigots are roaming the earth, blinded by ideological blinkers. To take one (almost random) example: http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2011/04/comment-is-anything-but-%E2%80%9Cfree%E2%80%9D-at-the-guardian/#comment-7408 (ie. 'Why won't The Guardian censor comments from men that we disagree with, whine, squeal...')
If I were you I would have the irrits over that nonsense as well. I didn't know about your book as I have had other things on my mind, but I'm on the lookout for it now! (Twitter was the source of my discovery.) deniswright.blogspot.com My (strong) wife will love it.
ReplyDeleteEither women choose - a life of the mind/work or a life of 'breathless passion'. Or rather, women have this 'choice' foisted on them. Men select women who are shorter, earn less than them and are younger and less intelligent than them to be with (on average in western societies) - just take a look at the weddings pages in the newspapers. I hate generalisations but this is presented in the media all the time and if you go against it, it gets attention and a stupid label (like cougar). Women, like men, can be all things or somethings, but men and women fail to realise this.
ReplyDeleteGreat Denis. Hope she loves it. Make sure you try independent shops to get it or Dymocks. All redgroup shops - Borders & A&R - struggling for stock. Or order it online from Readings or Booktopia.
ReplyDeleteRe: annonymous, I agree that the stereotype is everywhere, but I guess I would have seen a reviewers as praising a non-stereotypical depiction of women as being both able to be strong and to strongly love men, particularly as I find the stereotype so stupid and non-reality based in the 1st place.
Says (as always) more about the reviewer than the book reviewed. Will read it as soon as I can get it from the library.
ReplyDeleteThe world would be a much less exciting place if strong women didn't harbour strong feelings for men.
They always do say much about the reviewer who was - for twenty years according to his bio - a Priest. Anyway, he did mostly love the book so I don't want to be mean, it was a very generous review but just that bit bugged me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway hope you love The Book of Rachael. If want to read in near future you may want to place a hold at your local library. My latest intelligence from Geelong (!) is that even with three copies they already have a big queue. And I figure if that's the intel from Geelong, it could be busy elsewhere too xx
Bindy herself seem to be worried about it...
ReplyDeleteShe did not doubt Rachael's ability to love passionately, but she seemed worried about Rachael's ability to follow her heart (in a very sexist society) without paying a significant price.
I suspect, reading between the lines, that the reviewer is saying both 'strong women don't like men' *and* 'strong women are not attractive to men so, good luck with that, Rachel'. I can only imagine the reviewer does not enjoy acquaintance with many strong women. Or perhaps he has just has not struck one who happened to fancy *him* :)
ReplyDeleteI have often thought this type of thinking about strong woman shows we are still living in a post-Victorian society, & the "Damsel in Distress" is seen as normal. I guess it's always a surprise to me, as when I was young I read a lot of Robert Heinlein, who had lots of strong female characters
ReplyDeleteBindy's comment was socially contextualised. In a world where married women must sleep with their husbands but can't control their fertility means being married = being pregnant and a mother early and often.
ReplyDeleteSo many kids meant Rachael wouldn't have had time to work and travel alongside Bindy healing. Bindy's comments about the practical costs to Rachael of marriage, not about being in love and lust with a man per se. Though of course, Bindy was also not that way inclined and likes to speak her mind...
@anonymous who wrote:
ReplyDelete"Men select women who are shorter, earn less than them and are younger and less intelligent than them to be with (on average in western societies) - just take a look at the weddings pages in the newspapers."
This is absurd. Even if what you're suggesting is true, women have choice too. Men don't just go out and 'select' women.
I mean I agree with the overall point you're trying to make sort of, but I really hate it when it's presented this way.
That women are easily manipulated, passive and at the mercy of social forces - while guys, somehow, aren't at all forced into various positions and roles and instead just 'choose' and 'select' what they want.
I agree with you having the irrits Leslie. How much more valuable then is the love of a strong independent woman? What sort of man doesn't want to be loved (and love) someone who is an equal? That sort of stereotype is demeaning to both men and women, but sadly still very true for many. And thankyou Shockwave for the Heinlein reference - a writer ahead of his time.
ReplyDeleteI really like James' point.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I understand that Bindy's comments are about the practical costs to Rachael of marriage, she does however tend to roll her eyes (I think, I am going to see if I can find any quotes) when she sees the way Rachel reacts to Judas.
She probably does so because she is aware of the practical costs of a relationship for a woman in a sexists society. She does not doubt Rachael's ability to love passionately but I did get the sense that she feels that a strong woman, aware of the consequences, would resist such feelings and that Rachael is naive (once again, I need quotes I should see if I can fins some tomorrow). That she should understand the consequences and therefore resist her feelings.
Judas does have problems understanding Rachael's priorities, and at the end of the book, after Judas' death, Rachael ends up with Miriam's Mourners, a female only group. So while the book asserts that strong women can love passionately it also seems to point out that any relationship that results from those feelings can be difficult, requires an "exceptional" (only in the "out of the norms" sense of the word) man, and may not be entirely possible for practical reasons.
(Apologies if the above is hard to read and about any grammatical errors, English is not my first language)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Yael, I posted a response to you but for some reason it didn't go up, so only just realised it appeared I hadn't answered you.
ReplyDeleteThe scene you are speaking of is where Bindy and Rachael are catching frogs My intention in that scene was certainly to continue building the case that in that society marriage meant unprotected sex which meant relentless childbearing. Then, as now, saddling women with full-time care of countless children severely reduces their chance to do anything else. Particularly, as concerned Bindy, act as a mobile apprentice to a healer. She was also making a comment about Judah, whom she didn't approve of, though again her assessment was coming against a background of self-interest and a personal disinterest in men (she is inclined towards women), and needs to be seen in this light.
The Miriame Mourners represent what historians believe to be a truth about women in such societies. That if they wish to escape the oppression of marriage and childbearing in a sexist society, they can only do so by remaining - or appearing to remain - celibate. Otherwise they were seen as too dangerous.
None of this was to suggest that women who yearn for independence and freedom don't lust after or love men, but rather as you say, that in a sexist society following the logical course of these desires becomes problematic. Then as now, I believe, women would would have "wanted it all."
Interestingly - and for what it's worth - someone who knows the reviewer whose comment I was addressing in this blog has interpreted the review as follows: "He loved the book but was uncomfortable with the sex scenes"
Your English expression is elegant and flawless by the way.
best, Leslie