Welcome to your The Edible Woman discussion! This discussion will
take the place of the traditional questions for your outside reading novel this
quarter. I want to see a well-developed discussion here--one that would mimic
the type we would have in class. Your outside reading grade will be based on
this discussion, so please take it seriously and comment the way you would in
class.
Your discussions can (and should) be varied, with several
topics being discussed at the same time. You can comment on a topic that
someone else has posted, or you can start your own. Each person is responsible
for posting AT LEAST 10 well developed comments for this discussion. This means
that you cannot read someone's post and just say, "I totally agree with John . . ." If you agree with someone, you need to explain why. You will
need to include your idea and back it up with examples from the novel that
support what you are saying. Remember, you are being graded on this!
At least ONE of those 10 posts needs to be a discussion
starter, meaning that you are the one initiating the topic. You can piggy back off of someone else’s
ideas, but you cannot only comment on what other people are saying. Dare to disturb the universe with your own
ideas! :)
Please remember your manners if/ when you disagree with
someone! Happy discussing!
While Marian visits Clara in the hospital, Clara remarks about how one really doesn't know a person until one is married for a while. She states that she had idolized her husband as god like, but after finding out about some of his habits, she only regards him as a minor saint. I think this can be connected to Jane's idolization of Rochester, and subsequently his fall from her built up pedestal. Both women set themselves up to be disappointed, and this disappointment causes problems with their relationship satisfaction, and that these problems cause further issues in other aspects of their lives. Clara seems to be lacking in both physical, mental, and emotional areas of her life. Marion describes her as almost not existant due to her frail frame, she doesn't seem to exhibit much interest in anything or have any ambitions, and she lacks an emotional attachment to her children. Clara seemingly just retreats from reality and depends on her husband for everything. Jane, on the other hand, creates a reality that has no meaning without Rochester. She only finds happiness in things associated and dependent upon him. This facade is quickly shattered leaving Jane facing the consequences of forgetting the true reality. Both these novels discuss the consequences of idolizing a man (or any person for that matter), and the consequences that this unrealistic action has on their lives.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that this was a very interesting connection Jennifer, and I agree with the majority of your points. I do, however, have some questions pertaining to your description of Clara. Do you think that Clara and her husband no longer love one another? That since her moment of downfall after marriage, that she resents her husband slightly for "domesticating her" and thus resents her children for being the cause of this? When I was reading the book I personally thought that Clara had no connection with anyone anymore, and was so obviously discontent with her life that she pushed those friends (like Marian) away from her. It might just be the optimist in me, but I want to believe that the marriage between Clara and her husband might eventually lead to represent the marriage between Rochester and Jane. That although one of the partners has fallen from the pedestal they were placed upon, they still are able to move forward from that and see each other as equals.
DeleteI agree, Jennifer. Perhaps the issue is not that she had high expectations in and of themselves, however, and is rather that her expectations were misplaced? As I can remember, the erroneous traits Clara's husband is guilty of are objectively trivial, shallow issues upon which to find dissatisfaction. This suggests an incorrect idea of love more appropriately seen as infatuation. Clara's expectations of marriage are entirely selfish - she desires a husband who is in every way conformed to her will so as to ultimately achieve personal happiness. The goal in this scenario is consumeristic; she married for the same reason she purchases a product or service, the intention being customer satisfaction with performance. Jane, however, is willing to gloss over many of Rochester's minor incongruences with her own nature, such as his bent toward arrogance, impetuousness, and swings of emotion. She does, however, hold him to a standard of uncompromising morality, which is not so much intended to end in her happiness, but their mutual success. When he fell from his pedestal, Jane was unhappy not because he was a lesser man in her eyes, but because she saw the error as being an impediment to the health and purity of their relationship. She was forced to leave Rochester not out of selfish defiance for his actions, but in order to protect both of them from further decay.
DeleteI agree that both of these women depend on their men for happiness. Clara's husband is both the man and woman in their house hold. He not only works to provide for them, but he also does the laundry and keeps the house clean. In the mean time Clara sits around all the time; she is completely dependent on him. Then, Jane can not seem to get along without at least the thought of Rochester. Even when she chooses to abandon him, she decides to return. However, I think both women are happy this way. Although their idolization of these men doesn't necessarily shatter, but just cracks. Clara, although she now only thinks of her husband as a saint, still loves him. She even says that she thinks he is a wonderful husband. Then Jane's problem was her love was married to a crazy woman. This was not entirely Rochester's fault and once Bertha was out of the way their relationship continued on fine. So, while I don't think that idolizing a man is a good thing and that a woman should completely depend on them, I also don't think that the consequences with idolizing men in these women's lives turned out to be so horrible. I mean they were both happy with the choice they made in the end.
DeleteGabby, I agree with you. Towards the end of the book Marian goes to visit Clara, and Clara is home alone with the children. Joe is off at the university, and Clara even makes tea for Marian. This is not the Clara that you had seen previously. This new Clara was able to co-exist with Joe, not just be dependent on him. I guess I kinda answered my own question, because this scene adds to my belief that the marriage will not fall apart, or be a representation of the negative side of society, although in that scene, Clara still does not fully comprehend Marian.
DeleteI wouldn't say that they don't love one and other, but that they both seem to have lost parts of their identities. I think this could just be a result of reality setting in and distorting their perfect ideas of what a marriage and the future would be like. I think for Clara, being a woman with an education, she probably did not expect her future and family to be quite how it turned out. Her brass and forthright speech gives off a tone that is not necessarily bitter, but simply realistic. I think Clara and Joe's relationship caused her to take a complete 180. She realized her perfect reality was never going to happen, and she is extremely realistic about her current life. So I don't think I would agree with Gabby that Clara is happy, but rather that she has just come to terms with the situation that she is in. I think she also makes the best out of this relationship by accepting the help that Joe offers. To disagree with Lauren, I wouldn't classify the marriage as being based on a consumeristic ideal. I think Joe's action as a husband are not so much as to satisfy his wife's expectations, but rather as a kind of repentance. At Peter's party, he talks about Clara's 'core' being destroyed, and from his insight I think it can concluded that he feels responsible and somewhat sorry that Clara's identity is being taken away from her. From my perspective, Clara is coping with reality with a very practical outlook, and Joe is acting out of a kind of repentance.
DeleteThis post has totally sparked my annoyance with Clara. When Marian and Ainsley go to visit Clara for the first time, it was obvious that Clara's husband was doing all the chores. It seemed that, although Clara was pregnant, she seemed to laze about, letting the children roam free. Clara lacks ambition and has settled. Perhaps she's comfortable with her family, but I think this relates to the theme of consumption throughout the novel. Marian has this struggle at the beginning of knowing where she belongs both in her workplace and in her love life. She is unsettled when her job makes her sign up for a pension, and Clara's lifestyle is inescapable. Initially, I never saw a correlation between Clara and Jane Eyre. Perhaps in that they both settle with a men. However, Jane was on a much larger spiritual journey than Clara. Clara portrays characteristics of listlessness and boredom. Jane Eyre's deportment could be likened to one of persistency. Jane's always concerned about the consequences of her actions. From what I can tell, Clara went for a marriage because it seemed like what mot people do. Perhaps she is very happy with the way her life has played out but in Marian's case, it's one more example of what Marian does not want to end up being.
Delete(Commenting on the original post, not as much the replies), I think this is pretty spot on, Jennifer. I would even like to take a little bit farther and say that the reason Clara is the way she is (I would identify almost exactly the way you described her) is because she decided to idolize a man instead of defining herself by own existence. Jane succeeded and was able to live independent of Rochester because of the way she was able to build her own life and her own confidence in herself regardless of where Rochester happened to fall in her life. And I think that her returning to him makes that reality even more acute because the traditional gender roles were switched seeing as Rochester was having a hard time living without her (in the day, the opposite seemingly "occurred" more). I would agree with Jenna that I don't have a lot of respect for Clara as a character because she is weak emotionally and cannot function on her own.
DeleteI can definitely see a correlation between Jane and Clara based on their dependence on a man. However, I do believe their situations were a little different. Clara depends on he husband because she doesn't know what it is like to be independent. She is not necessarily unhappy with this life either. Clara doesn't seem to mind the fact that her husband controls the household completely. Jane on the other hand gets annoyed by the fact that she is dependent on a man. This sparks her desire to leave him. I believe she does not return simply because she cannot independent. She knows who she is and returns because she realizes she needs him in her life; not controlling it. She establishes her identity, and then returns to coexist with Rochester. In this way, I believe the two characters' situations are completely difference and their levels of "dependence" are greatly varied.
DeleteI agree with you, Molly. I do see similarities in dependence between Jane and Clara as well, however, their styles of dependence are not the same at all. Like stated several times above, Clara is dependent because she idolized her husband and allowed him to overtake her independence and, essentially, her entire life. Despite popular belief though, this does not make me lose respect for Clara. She is a domesticated wife, yes, but it seems as if that is precisely where she is content staying. I do not think that Clara's dependence on her husband makes her weak; it is merely her life choice and style of coexisting in a relationship. I believe that Clara is capable of functioning on her own but she has chosen not to, and her dependence has grown from this decision. Jane, much like Clara, has defined her own style of coexisting with a man and functioning within a relationship. While the style that she finds to suit her character and place in life is much more independent than Clara's, I don't think that makes any less of Clara's character or any more of Jane's. Their dependence is different due to personal preferences and I believe levels of dependence in a relationship do not necessarily show weakness or inadequacy - the standards of a content, functional relationship are not the same for everybody.
DeleteI believe that Clara's dependence on her husband can be a good thing. I believe, as a man, the father should take care of his wife and children-especially when the wife is 7 months pregnant. That mindset may be because I still believe that women should have car doors opened for them, but the man of the household should assume more responsibility when his wife is so far along with her pregnancy. It would be absurd to say that women are incapable of managing a full household while pregnant, but why put that extra stress on yourself while carrying a child? At the same time I believe that Clara could be more independent and gain more happiness satisfaction through more responsibility and self-upkeep. She can still idolize her husband, and perhaps gain an appreciation for what he does, but she doesn't have to let her "god" do all her poopy-work.
Delete-In reply to the original post- I think this is a fantastic observation of similarity between Jane and Clara. In both cases, I noticed the changes described such as Jane's feelings for Rochester almost dimming in time, but still remaining nonetheless. Such is the same as Clara describing her marriage. Although I think Clara strikes one as the "helpless" type, I have to agree with Aaron that it's good that she's letting the father take more of the load off her back. But at times, it's almost painful to read. Clara's idolization is an embarrassment that she doesn't seem to notice, but instead enjoy. Any kind of relationship will fail if it's one-sided. Clara needs to put her end in and help instead of just laying down for him.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA major metaphor used throughout the novel Edible Woman is her direct connection from Marian's eating disorder to how society was crushing Marian with its expectations. This metaphor is fully brought to light when, at the end of the novel, Marian bakes a cake in the form of herself, and consumes it in a representation of how society is consuming her. The connection between Marian’s inabilities to eat to society’s expectations of her is blatant throughout the novel. This connection is essential to the development of Marian’s character, as well as her relationship between the two main men in the story. It is here that I raise my question. Who do you believe was making Marian’s condition worsen? Duncan or Peter? I thought that it was interesting that almost directly after the kissing scene with Duncan, the writing style changes to third person, and after she becomes disenchanted with Duncan (ensuing the sex scene) she bakes a cake and the writing style switches back to first person.
ReplyDeleteI disagree :) I think that the eating disorder was a metaphor for the crushing pressure of Peter's expectations. Not once does Marian say to herself "This is how wives are supposed to act (in the view of society), so I have to act like this". There are many times when Peter reprimands her behavior or attitude for being unusual. The change in person can be connected to Peter. Right before the third person started, what was happening? Marian had accepted Peter's proposal of marriage. Then when did it switch back to first person? Right after Marian scared Peter away by acting like a crazy person, offering him a person shaped cake. Duncan is a catalyst for Marian's discovery that Peter is really not the right kind of person for her to be marrying, but he is not the one who caused or worsened Marian's condition; I think Duncan inadvertently opened Marian's eyes to the oppression imposed on her by Peter.
DeleteI agree with both of you...in a way. At the end of the book when Marian and Duncan are talking they are speaking of who destroyed who. While I think both society and Peter played a large role in Marian's eating disorder I think the end shows that it was a lot of everything. They way that Duncan makes the whole "destroying" situation a mass confusion shows that all factors played a role. Marian was putting pressure on herself to marry Peter because she thought it was what she wanted, while Peter was pressuring her to not be so odd. Then there was Duncan who was uncovering thoughts in Marian she never knew existed. She also felt that she needed to a line with societies thoughts of woman, which I felt because she was okay with quitting her job to get married and become a house wife. But then there were the subtle hints that she wanted to stay single which came out with how awkward it was for Marian to be around the three single ladies while engaged. So I agree with both of you, but I think it was everything balled up into one big compressing pile that caused the disorder.
DeleteSorry, I probably should have phrased that better. I was trying to say that Duncan was the one making Marian have this "eating disorder" and causing it to worsen because he is the catalyst to the situation. Sure, Marian's condition is caused after Peter places the bond of engagement and rules of society upon her, but I believe that Duncan is the one that allows these immense changes in Marian to take place, causing this disorder. Sorry!
DeleteAlthough you may be right Mere Bear, I don't know for sure, I still feel like the eating disorder is Peter's fault. I see it this way because The eating disorder starts when they get engaged and ends when their promise to each other breaks. Even after that Duncan returns to talk to Marian and there is no harm done. They share cake and talk about destroying people.It seems that Duncan has little to do with the actual consumption of Marian, then again he does eat her cake replica in the end which could represent that he was the one who caused it.
DeleteI think that both theory's can tie in here. It seems as though Marian latches onto Duncan because he provides a drastic change of scenery to her life; he is so void of expectations for her that she believes this polar opposite to Peter may bring her back to a time before she was held to the high societal expectations of being a fiance and similarly back to a time where she could eat. However, being held completely below these expectations does not help her or even slow the progression of her disorder. As she finds that she can not even eat anything that was once alive (as she herself could have been considered "once alive") it can be reasoned that her ability to eat only returns once she both displaces herself from expectations and holds enough value in herself that she creates standards for herself that she personally may strive to meet.
DeleteThe cake at the end of the novel, was in my opinion, meant to portray the consumption of Marian (I know that's a bit obvious), but the person who ate the cake was meant to symbolize what actually consumed her. Peter, although not the most fond-of character, denied consuming the cake when it was handed to him, but Duncan devoured the whole cake. Marian felt oppressed by Peter, when really, her affair with Duncan was her oppression of herself. For a moment, she could escape what felt like the confinement of Peter and her marriage, but really, she didn't have to agree to marry him. She didn't have to date him. She didn't have to do anything. She felt like she had to, and then she felt like she had to have an affair to feel free, when really, she was doing everything to herself, and in the end, marked by a look-alike cake, her "escape" became what consumed her.
DeleteThis novel highlights society's standards of what it means to be the "right kind of woman." Woman are lead to believe that if they do this diet, if they dress this way, if they have this kind of makeup, if they marry this kind of man or that kind of man, that they will "fulfill their task" as a woman. A narrow scope is presented to women trying to convince them that doing one thing is better than doing another. And even when a woman gets married, has kids, or doesn't marry and doesn't have kids....people will talk anyway. So worrying so much about what society will think is just a waste of time because not everyone will be happy with the choices we make as women anyway. I wish this is something that Marian could see. She wants happiness but Duncan and Peter are two opposing extremes that do not bring her relief. She seems so confounded by standards of what it means to lead a "good life" that she never really gets to that point. Her caution suspends her above the potentially happy life she could lead, and I think this is what really causes her eating disorder. All these factors of men, relationships, food, jobs...she perceives them all in a smothering way. perhaps if she understood that there isn't one correct way to be a woman, she would have felt less consumed. So in answer to Meredith's question, I think that all of your opinions are true, but my personal belief is that we control what we think, Marian was unable to think in a way that brought about peace and happiness in herself, and the perpetuation of her thoughts manifested into an eating disorder. That or Margaret Atwood could do what she wanted. Marian could have gotten stomach cancer, but it was her choice. DON'T QUESTION IT!!!!!!!!
DeleteAs far as my interpretation went, I considered the eating disorder to be corollary of societal confines: an amalgam of the interplay between the veneer of civilization and fundamental urges, functions, and actions. Marian is repeatedly perturbed by advertising and the archetype of the functional ideal of women, appliances, and households. Couple this with the fact that Peter seems to be polishing her and building a display case subsequent to their engagement (flaunting her at parties, cleansing her of any aberrant trait), and it seems evident that the elimination of natural, fundamental instinct to the ends of standardized perfection is the cause of her, uh, disillusionment with organic matter and the physicality of womanhood. Duncan, though, she feels comfortable indulging: while the others (serving only what is essentially the market, in the conventionally understood economic definition, but particularly in broader, social terms: the interchange of appeal and influence) manipulate her womanhood to make a doll of her, he, though still assuredly exploiting her, allows her to fulfill roles perceived as feminine without assimilating her: their relationship is natural. The, at length discussed, conclusion of the book seems to tie in with this: Peter, appalled, refuses the cake, unable to reconcile with himself the veritable nature of consumption without the mollifying facade of societal abstraction, while Duncan eats it readily, as he no doubt consumes Marian. This does not seem to represent Duncan as a malignant parasite, though; rather, it is with him that Marian finds herself able to countenance the roles associated with women, that she fully embraces the role of self-effacing caregiver, of maternity, forever feeding that which offers no reciprocation. Their 'tryst,' considered in this fashion, was not the product of lust and torrid abandon (it is often described in the book as if a clinical procedure), but merely the expression of the fact that she has come to terms with the notions of fertility and nurturing associated with femininity.
DeleteI think Peter is the main stressor in Marian's situation. The writing style actually changes after Marian accepts Peter's proposal. It is almost as if her becoming engaged made he lose her identity. The writing stops using the word "I" and instead speaks as an outsider. This shows how Marian seems to have lost herself and seems like an outsider in her own life. Her eating disorder begins with a resistance to all things once living. Almost as if she feels no longer alive herself.
DeleteAs a side note I think I learn at least 4 new words every time I hear or see Ben or Lauren talk. That's a good thing, thank you for aggrandizing the insipidity of my vernacular! To annex this conversation, I'd like to accede with Molly's comment that Marian loses some of her ipseity shortly after she becomes engaged with Peter-until she consumes the cake to rejuvenate her identity, that is. With the alteration from first person to second person, Marian seems to lose many of the traits we see earlier as she struggles to find herself as a fiance and as a woman. This is manifested through the pressures encumbered on her that we see, whether that be from Peter or Duncan or society, she develops an eating disorder that advances to even more identity confusion.
DeleteBoth of these are very interesting points, Meredith and Mary. I agree with you but I also had another theory on the cake metaphor. We have to remember that Peter chooses not to eat the cake and instead leaves. I think Marian eating the cake may represent some stress that she's managing to put on herself. When I first read through, the first thing I thought by not eating the cake, it was showing that Peter really wasn't putting so much stress on Marian. I thought maybe it was Marian doing so when she proceeded to devour the cake. I've seen a lot of interesting points here and they're all salient. I think the best proof here is the shift from third to first person which-as you've said before-represents Marian being able to merge back into herself as one person. This ties into the "alienation" theme which manages to boil down into the same idea as mentioned before.
DeleteThe Edible Woman predominantly explores the idea of freedom, especially in terms of gender roles, interactions, and sexual liberty. Time and time again, marriage is associated with bondage, while alternative exploration provides the key to liberty.
ReplyDeleteBeginning with Peter's comrades from adolescence who finally "succumb" to the siren song of marriage, the institution is seen as the source of intense misery; Peter is repeatedly thrown into a lament reminiscent of a mourner's wails. His fallen fellows are then neglected to be referenced further, as though their marital status has dehumanized them in a manner unworthy of further contact, save for the isolated, impersonal party in which they may be trusted to robotically play the dutiful husband role.
Clara and her husband are perhaps an even more dramatic example. Marian pines over her friend's previous ethereality and otherworldly beauty, now dashed by the accumulation of a smothering husband and nuisance children. Despite the unspoken fact that neither her husband nor her children are of any remarkably dreadful stock, Clara has been mercilessly stripped of her humanity, and is referenced several times as a bloated, ineffectual insect. Marriage, in her case, included the loss of all individuality, identity, or potential she once held in abundance.
As Marian approaches her own marriage, similar symptoms to those aforementioned begin to manifest: she is consumed - by her eating disorder, her obsessive unwanted thoughts, and her social responsibilities. As the condemned march horribly to their gallows, so Marian slowly deteriorates in preparation for her marriage.
On the other hand, those uninhibited by the prospect of such a repressive institution are free. While Ainsley's schemes undoubtedly do not come without tribulation, ultimately her eccentric individuality is undeterred - even her marriage is different than those preceding her in spontaneity and a casual air reminiscent more of a juvenile fling than a serious commitment.
Duncan, also, possesses a certain lack of encumbrance, floating freely to think and explore and write sexually charged term papers without responsibility or social obligation. Marian's relationship with him is, ultimately, the catalyst to her repossession of herself, loveless and meaningless as they both acknowledge it is.
Why do you think sexual liberty is so closely tied to personal liberty in this book? In this case, Marian's spirit was being consumed but the repression of expectation and gender customs specifically. Is it possible to be truly free in a marriage? Outside of a marriage? Why do you think sexuality is so often the cornerstone upon which proponents of women's freedom stage their cause?
I don't think that Marian was being consumed by gender customs per se. Peter's idea of what Marian should be didn't match up with Marian's idea of what she should be, it's as simple as that. Duncan did not expect Marian to be anything and vice versa, thus the two of them were able to coexist without any problems. It is entirely possible to be free in marriage, if both parties enter marriage understanding each other. Each marriage is different just like each person is different, but in Marian and Peter's case I don't think it could have ever worked because Peter expected Marian to fulfill his idea of femininity and Marian just wanted to do her own thing. Freedom is not so much a question of what the people around you impose on you but more a question of what you will submit to. Sexuality is a cornerstone of feminism because women have been the more sexually repressed of the two genders for generations. It's easy to continue playing to a stereotype, much harder to break out of one. Feminism is about sexuality because at one time sexual freedom was what women did not have and wanted. People continue to delude themselves that women are sexually repressed because it fits the myth.
DeleteI agree with Mary. I think that if marriage is what a person wants and they can find the right person then they can be happy in marriage. However, if marriage is not what a person wants and they don't subject themselves to it, then they can also be happy. I also agree for her reason as to why sexuality is a cornerstone. Women still face many stereotypes dealing with sexuality, such as the often referenced situation in which sleeping with many people makes men cool but woman sluts(Pardon the naughty word...). I think that woman want equality in all aspects of life and that is the one that is hardest to break and that's why it is used so often, because if women push with that it is more likely to break.
DeleteHAHA! Gabby! "Naughty word" lol!
DeleteAnywaayyy, back to being professional.
I personally agree with the combination of the three of you. Peter definitely did "succumb" to the call of marriage, because he was being pressured by society. All of his other friends were settling down, so Peter thought that the rules and restrictions of society were now applicable to him as well. When Peter and Marian originally began their relationship, it was mostly physical, and without any expectations of marriage or true commitment. When these ground rules changed, so did Marian, and not in a positive way.
:)
Replying to Lauren's original comment, I think gender roles are an easy scapegoat in books like this one. People like to blame some of women's problems on the way society expects them to act. While there is some truth to this, I think women aren't as oppressed by society or men as is commonly believed.
DeleteI think Marian was being consumed less by gender roles and more of fear of not succeeding in her marriage and not wanting to end up like Clara, stripped of any identity and happiness she ever had. Sure, Marian is conscious of the pressure for her marriage to happen and succeed, but she is experiencing more pressure from herself to see that she doesn't end like the clear picture of failure in her eyes (Clara).
Suzanne, I think that is an excellent point! I hadn't thought of it like that before, but now that you bring it up I think it makes perfect sense. I also believe that a lot of Marian's actions, the eating disorder included, are driven in large part by her inner fears. While society and gender roles may have a minor impact on Marian's psychological state, I feel that she has developed so much built-up anxiety about entrapment within marriage from viewing Clara's life as it is after marriage and children. Like Lauren said, Marian becomes consumed by her obsessive unwanted thoughts as she approaches her own marriage and worries over individual repression.
DeleteIs Marian truly embracing her feminine rights by having an affair with Duncan? Is this a battle for internal freedom, or a lustful and immature act of infidelity?
DeleteGoing off of the question of freedom in marriage, I believe that marriage is not the oppression of each individual's freedom, but rather the joining of two individuals into a "team." This does not mean that each person cannot function without the other, nor does that mean that each person has to sacrifice their own freedom for each other. Yet each person bends a little bit for the other in times of compromise. So in a way, yes, there is a level of personal freedom that is lost: there is no more chasing people of the opposite sex around tacky night clubs, and sometimes compromise is the only answer to a problem. In a healthy marriage, there shouldn't be a feeling of being trapped, but a feeling of security. This can relate to the idea of political freedom as well. There needs to be a balance: we cannot live in a society where their is no personal freedom, but we cannot function in a society that allows everyone to do what they want (anarchy). In order for either a societies to function, we would need to live in a perfect world. Since we lack perfection, or uniformity, we need to adjust our rules to give everyone enough freedom to be able to accomplish whatever we wish to, but enough restrictions as to not infringe upon other's freedom. In marriage, there has to be enough freedom for each individual to feel free, but in order to have a successful marriage, there have to be some restrictions and compromises for the marriage to function as a unit.
DeleteLauren, you make a great point. This book revolves around the negativity and finality of marriage. In real life, men and women were programmed to be attracted to one another and designed specifically to be together long enough to rear a child together. Thousands of years ago this was the case. I think in romantic love, three things have to occur. 1. You have to appreciate that person for who they are, given their flaws, vices, and inclinations that do not parallel with your own. 2. You have to be sexually, chemically attracted to them. 3. You have to feel this urge of sexual territory over that person. These three qualities generally consumate the ingredients for marriage and will occur when we fall in love.
DeleteLiberation can be found in marriage, as long as women will only settle for someone who accepts liberation within coexistence. It takes time to realize whether a man will be right for a woman initially. A honeymoon phase ensues upon dating and marriage, because both the man and woman are trying to flaunt their better sides, but what really counts is how two people interact when they aren't trying so hard. Not everyone finds liberty in marriage because of their own impulsivity, and oftentimes men have a way of swindling us into a relationship that they aren't even sure they want, sometimes visa-versa. I think the majority of our class is compiled of free-thinkers: Independent people who have their own opinions, interests, hobbies and do not really care much whether or not other people care what they're doing. I believe that we can all find someone else who appreciates our good and bad sides, as long as we do not try to be someone else. Acting unlike ourselves brings about people who appreciate the qualities we try to force. All the media, all the jargon about "Improve Your Marriage" "50 Ways to Spice Up the Bedroom" or in Seventeen magazine, "How to Flirt over Text" it's all smoke and mirrors. If we only accept others who accept us for who we are, if we can face our own truths and accept the demons and baggage in our own lives, weren't we free all along? If we accept ourselves first, then we can find others who accept us too. Life isn't always supposed to be perfect, marriage isn't either. But self-realization is a great place to start. In this way, a marriage will bring out the best in us, instead of being deemed a lifetime sentence.
As far as a woman's own sexuality, I think we should all stop caring so much about about living up to the double standards set for us. Why atomize or scheme the human race, females in particular? Beauty is subjective anyway. No one wants to look back on their life and see that they spentall their time constructing a facade...and for whom? If no one accepts this "pressure" of society, then it doesn't become a part of anyone's reality. It's just a great way to accept ourselves. Don't listen to what the media says, the media doesn't really care. The media wants us to buy things. We're all beautiful, accept it, move on. Let's tell Marian to relax a little. No one gets out alive anyway, not ever. Marian dies whether or not she has an eating disorder. We all do.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Ainsley?
ReplyDeleteI think Ainsley starts out as an ideal radical Feminist symbol by the way she takes charge of her life and claims that she only needs a man to help in the act of making a baby, but then can be completely independent from there. As the book goes on, though, I fell as if she changes to a more moderate feminist symbol because she realizes that a man is just as important as a woman in a baby's life. She realizes that men and woman are rather co-dependent on each other and that they are equal in both importance and life. So, pretty much I think Ainsley is a predominant feminist symbol in this novel.
DeleteI was very confused by what Atwood was attempting to represent with Ainsley. I think that Gab's explanation was very good, but it left some of my questions unanswered. Why did Ainsley end up getting married? Why did she marry her "knight in shinning armor" if she is such a feminist symbol?
DeleteBy originally making Ainsley such a radical feminist figure, I feel that by digressing her character to the point of a desperate marriage, Atwood decreased the message that I was originally receiving from the character.
Merideth, is your name misspelled on here or on Facebook? ...anyway, I think the reason Ainsley ended up getting married was because Atwood intended her to be a caricature. By showing Ainsley's character development from one who thinks of men only as the provider of sperm to one who is perfectly happy to get married, by tracing her evolution from a radical feminist to a more "normal" woman, she meant to poke fun at Ainsley's brand of feminism and to show that it does not necessarily make a woman weaker if she decides to get married.
DeleteAlternatively, Ainsley's change over the course of the book was not intended as an evolution, a softening of her radical notions, but a scornful look at her kind of feminism. Ainsley was a character who insisted that women must be independent and strong in their convictions, but isn't a big part of being independent coming up with your own ideas and formulating your own opinions? Ainsley certainly never does that; the reason she decided to have a baby was that she heard that women are not really women unless they've had a baby. Later she insists that he must be raised with a father figure or he'll turn out a homosexual; that's what she's read so it must be true. All in all, I think that Atwood wrote Ainsley as a scornful/mocking look at radical feminism.
Mary, you make a great point. Now that you say that it seems to me that Atwood is making fun of what Ainsley represents. It is almost as if she is meant to represent the woman who WANTS to be a feminist and make her own decision but doesn't actually have the power to do so. She almost represents her as ignorant in the way that she thinks she is making her own decisions but is actually just taking them from other places. Ainsley wants to be independent, that is shown by the way she decided to become a single mom, but she isn't actually capable of living on her own. She needs someone to take care of her and when she sees she is loosing Marian she must do something about being alone.
DeleteI think Ainsley was meant to portray the compromises of feminism. Ainsley is never described in the book, but rather portrays herself through her actions, leaving much room for reader interpretation. She embodies the idea that being a strong and independent woman, one does not have to give up everything feminine. Ainsley at several points, discusses the importance of women shaping their own femininity. She by no means adheres to the mold set forth by society, but Ainsley still maintains her femininity through her looks, and her want to be a mother. Ainsley creates her own definition of feminism, which in my opinion, is exactly what feminism should be. She determines what aspects of the movement, like free will, she likes and she tweaks them to fit to her life.
DeleteI think it is also important to note that Ainsley definitely maintains a very strong set of moral convictions. She has a lot of faith in what she believes in and she never compromises on her morals. Many people will disagree with this point, I think, because they don't agree with Ainsley's morals, but I that is what makes Ainsley a truly feminist character. She exemplifies the very traits of determination, hard work, and ambition that she believes in through her actions. In the end of the novel, Marion even goes so far as to compare Ainsley's morals with that of the land lady below, driving home the point that just because someone's morals differ from yours doesn't make them any less important to that person. The entire feminist movement was about changing morals, and Ainsley's character portrayed these changes through her actions.
When Ainsley realizes that she wanted her baby to have a father figure, Atwood allows men to have a place in the feminist world. Marion's story does nothing to propagate the importance of men in a woman's life. There are also several points in the novel where the family institution is portrayed in a less than wonderful light. By giving Ainsley a husband and her baby a father, Atwood exemplifies the important role that men and families do play. Ainsley makes the point that to be an independent and self sufficient woman is not a bad thing, and to be a mother and wife is not a bad thing either.
Atwood utilizes Ainsley to create a middle ground in her feminist theory, to exemplify the importance of excepting morals that are different from one's own, and makes being feminine and changing one's mind out to be things that are ok. Ainsley was the ideal feminist hero, but she changed her mind, and of her own choice decided to become a mother and wife. Ainsley's interpretation of feminism is by no means conventional and is always changing, but I think that is why she is such a great feminist character, because she makes feminism her own.
I think I would agree with most of what you all say about Ainsley. If a movie were to be made out of this book, I would imagine Judy Greer playing the role (she was in 27 Dresses and always the sarcastic sex-crazed best friend to the heroine).
DeleteIn the beginning of the novel, Ainsley is the picture of a woman who doesn't really know what she wants in life. Then, there comes a time when she realizes that everyone around her has someone to love and she panics and wants to reverse her predicament and create something to love and the way she thinks she can do that is to have a baby. As she gets deeper into the process, though, she realizes that her child needs the love of both parents and that she can't provide the love for both roles.
She takes control of what she wants in her life which makes her a feminism symbol, but at the same time that conception is a little bit contradictory because of her decision to include a man in her life plans. She grows quite a bit as character in what she learns through the novel, though.
I agree and believe that Ainsley shows compromising Feminism. Ainsley is no doubt a feminist, but as the novel goes on she becomes less radical. To me Ainsley shows practical feminism. She knows what she believes and is strong but she displays it in a way that fits into society. She doesn't necessarily conform, but at the same time she doesn't stand out so radically.
DeleteAinsley is, in the very beginning, a very stubborn radical feminist. She holds the idea of femininity very close to her heart, and throughout the novel is looking for ways to strengthen her femininity. Once she comes up with the idea of having a child, her notion almost seems contradicting; in order to have a child, one needs something from a man. Yet Ainsley looks at this fact as only a minor setback as she searches for an eligible bachelor for her planned "one night stand." Her gaze sets on Len, who after being courted with such diligence, submitted to Ainsley-unknowing of the plan she kept hidden in the depths of her mind. Another minor setback exposed itself once Ainsley became pregnant. While at one of her classes, it was said that a child needs a father figure or else it will grow up to be disobedient and confused about its sexuality. Ainsley then sought out the use of Len again, except this time with a little larger request. She wanted him to marry her and be a father to the child that he never wanted to have. At the very end of the novel, Ainsley had found another man that would fit into her plan. Ainsley's character is, in my opinion, paradoxical. She believes that as a woman, she must fight oppression from men who only seek to destroy her, yet is seeking help from a man for the conception and later upbringing of her child. These differing concepts somehow work systematically to form her character.
DeleteAinsley is my kind of girl. She represents my ideology. She sticks to her guns in pursuit of her own happiness, (granted, she could have tried a little harder to help Marian. if my best friend developed an eating disorder I would really try to get her some help.) and gets married to a man that makes her happy. She sees her marriage as a transition that will only add more to her life, instead of bogging her down. Ainsley isn't too worried about society's ideas. She's got her own.
DeleteAinsley is a very complex character because her actions and thoughts are sometimes very opposed. I agree that Atwood put her in the story to mock the ideals of radical feminists. Ainsley tries so hard to avoid male oppression, except herself when she realizes that she obviously needs a man to have a baby. I do believe that everything she did throughout the novel was from a feminist standpoint. She is also a selfish character. She needed Len to have a child and later insists for him to stick around to become a father and never seems too interested in what Marian is going through. She does what she needs to do to secure her own happiness as a women, which is what feminism is about. She represents that there is a line that must be drawn when it comes to feminism.
DeleteLike Marian, Ainsley has her person point of views and a way in which she enjoys to live her life. I think the two girls contrast each other very well but share the same motivation towards their will to live life the way they choose. Ainsley is definitely a feminist in how she is determined to have a child without a man. She believes that she doesn't need a man to start her life and she can take hold of the reins and lead her life alone. Unfortunately, Ainsley's strange approach to life gets her into a few predicaments as she blows men off as if they don't mean anything in her life. She is able to manipulate the mind of men and other people in general in order to get her point across and live her life.
DeleteAinsley definitely represents a radical feminist. She also represents a progressive, alternative woman. I do agree that it wasn't a very good friend move for her to up and leave Marian for a guy when she was dealing with her eating disorder. Ainsley does see to be trying so hard to avoid clinging to a male but then realizes that she wants a baby and in order to have a baby she needs a male. Ainsley is always about doing what will better her life. I agree with Gabs that Ainsley wants to be a feminist badly but just doesn't seem to have the power to do so.
DeleteHm. Well, I consider Ainsley something of a dilettante, as well as the embodiment of the other pole of sexism - misandry. On the first point, her convictions seemed entrenched in the thin pages that comprise whatever ephemeral child-rearing manual or didactic feminist treatise she happens to be reading, and consequently, they vacillate prodigiously. But moreso than the 'tourist' approach she takes to philosophy, the way her mind operates is truly where her problems as a character lie. She seems consciously chosen by Atwood to display the pitfalls of feminism; the double-edged sword of sexism, and uses her character to convey the fact that a progressive ideology can verily be corrupted by charlatans. She seems to represent what the feminist movement abhorred in the male division, transposed into the person of a female. Initially, she views men as nothing other than catalytic sperm-guns, to be used for children and thrown away, much like the wombal oven of yesterday's housewife. Her perspective changes only by the fact that she has an idealized conception of man, and balks at the thought of a homosexual son. She callously pursues Leonard 'Cohen' Slank in this regard, with no sense of empathy, and wants him only to use to her own uncertain and ever-changing ends, making stabs at persuading him with logic consistent only in its constant changes.
DeleteI found Ainsley to be a complex character put into a shell of simplicity. What seems like a simple decision that she's going to be happy with (having the child out of wedlock) is deep symbolism for feminism and the happiness that is absent in Marian's life. In this time, having a child without being married was still a huge deal (not worthy of getting its own television show.) Pushing this threshold of what's normal for women is what Ainsley is best at. Ainsley also plays a great role in developing Marian's unhappiness with her place in life. Ainsley is happy, adventurous, and seemingly care-free. These are the things Marian craves but just can't have. I feel as though Ainsley is selfish though; trying to get pregnant without telling the father about her plans is definitely a questionable action. But Ainsley is a person of questionable action with her role in the story.
DeleteBefore Marian's engagement she participates in two weird activities. First Marian runs away from the bar that her friends are at and lets them chase her, then she slides herself under Len's bed. I think that these were both rather childish acts that presented themselves through Marian's subconscious. Their reason for appearing, I think, is because Marian realizes, in her subconscious, that Peter is not the right man for here, or maybe it is marriage in general. I think this was her running and hiding from something that she really didn't want to participate in, but that she couldn't figure out what. After she gets engaged she developed the disorder which I think supports my point. What are your opinions on these strange behaviors?
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, Gabby. It reminds me of Freud's idea of regression; it the event of a traumatic occurrence, the reversion to a prior psychosexual stage. I wouldn't necessarily call running away or hiding under the bed indicative of a particular Freudian stage, but they both exhibit behavior typical of a distressed child who knows little other coping mechanisms save to flee or to hide oneself - to cut off the stimulation. In such a way, Marian is overstimulated and overwhelmed by the abundance of social and peer pressure exerted upon her and, unable to properly handle the cacophony of emotions, she reverts to habits that once served her purpose. She continues to act in impulsive and bizarre ways that, while strange to us, seem logical from the lens of a child. Until her needs are met, which she perceives to happen through Duncan, she is unable to move forward from this earlier developmental state.
DeleteLauren, that was an excellent psychology reference. (:
DeleteI believe that Marian was running because she did not want to deal with the situation at hand. Have you ever experienced the feeling of total overwhelming panic and all you can do is just hide? I believe that this was what she was doing, although she refused to consciously admit it.
I love the connection to Freud's theory of psychological regression - I was just studying that! According to Freud, regression is a type of defense mechanism employed when an individual is faced with a sort of anxiety, causing them to retreat to a more infantile psychosexual stage. Like you stated Lauren, I don't see a particular Freudian stage that correlates perfectly to Marian's actions, but I do believe that her actions of fleeing from her friends and hiding under the bed are undoubtedly defense mechanisms. At this point in the novel, I think that Marian is beginning to, at least subconsciously, pick up on the fact that her relationship with Peter isn't quite right or where she wants to be. However, her feelings are not fully developed and are more than likely confusing, leading her to become ultimately overwhelmed, as demonstrated in the restaurant scene and back at Len's apartment. Instead of confronting any unsettling or confounding feelings that are growing within her, Marian chooses to protect herself by hiding away when she encounters any anxiety-arousing thoughts, feelings, or situations.
DeleteI think the theory of these actions as a defense mechanism is very interesting. It makes a lot of sense that Marian is running from what she can't see coming. She is nervous for what lies ahead and the people that will be involved in her future. This probably makes her very uneasy and that would explain the need to protect herself.
DeleteYes, even though I took AP Psych last year, I am sort of remembering what you all are talking about! I think a key to understanding Marian's actions is realizing (or so in my opinion) that Marian doesn't understand Marian's actions. Margaret Atwood does a remarkable job of telling readers what goes on inside Marian's head during these incidences, and none of it is coherent. "If I went under the bed, I wouldn't have to participate in conversation and it looks comfortable." These are the kind of thought processes that would go through the head of a 4 year old. Marian doesn't have any idea why she is getting these urges to things that others wouldn't approve of and that don't make sense. As a reader, I like to think that she really knows why and isn't saying, but she doesn't. I think it's really interesting how she digresses in her maturity so that her head doesn't reflect that she has no idea where her life is going and is fearful of what could happen.
DeleteBut is it fair to say she was running from what was coming or running because she didn’t know what had been happening at the dinner. Though she blames it on the beverages, which it very well could have been, the discussion of her old friend and her boyfriend were almost bothersome along with her teenage looking roommate who came as a surprise. As she stepped out to get some air, were her activities due to fear of what was to come or fear of her feelings and not knowing how to handle them? She goes from believing that they weren’t as involved as she had thought, to believing they really were that involved after being proposed to. Though you bring up the valid point of her eating disorder, but she seems so happy when discussing with her work gals of the engagement, and being able to choose whether to work there still or not.
DeleteI feel like the reason Marian stepped outside was a combination of what you were talking about, Callyn. She is afraid of what's to come because of her newly discovered feelings towards herself and her way of life. She doesn't know how to handle these thoughts and it frightens her to think of what could happen. I think that Marian's realization of herself was difficult to overcome; she never knew she had these feelings inside her until they were brought up. Now, feeling as though she and her body aren't communicating on the same level, she feels detached from reality. She wants to find an escape, but yet still feels trapped in the confinement of her own mind. Once she separates herself into Marian, Peter's fiancee, and Marian, Duncan's sort-of lover, she looks for a sense of stability and control of the situation, yet at the same time, drives the situation out of control.
DeleteThis is all great, I like Melissa's idea about infantile psychosexuality. Didn't Freud say we were all initially attracted to our parents sexually? Gross. In answer to your question, these strange behaviors are reflections of Marian's jumbled mind. Everyone has their own ways of physically flashing their feelings....the more disturbed and abstract the feeling/thought, the more unexplainable resulting action. Marian's actions support this theory. Marian only sees the tip of the iceberg in most cases, not frequently asking "why". The more she looks outwardly for answers, the more her own feelings build up inside. She's pretty bad at managing her emotions and gauging circumstances in a pragmatic way. Also, Peter is pretty awful. I would hide from him too if I could. Perhaps under the bed was the most convenient place, maybe the closet was overflowing?
DeleteI think Marion's run from the restaurant and her refuge under the bed, are both the affects of too many emotions, and not being emotionally ready to handle them. Marion's life changed very quickly, and while at dinner with Len, Peter, and Ainsley, her old life (Len) and her new life (Peter) are literally sitting right before her. She realizes for the first time what she is giving up and what she is walking into. This realization is simply a lot to handle, and Marion reacts instinctually by running away, connecting to the flight-or-fight instinct. In another instance of 'flight', Marion again retreats from her feelings when she gets another glimpse of her future at the party. The entire novel follows Marion as she attempts to learn how to deal with her emotions, and these two instances where her attempting to simply escape.
DeleteI think you're very right saying these acts reside in the subconscious. I feel like almost all of her actions and opinions are created there and a majority of her confusion is the result of not being able to contemplate these feelings. As you said, these acts are childish but I feel like they represent the idea that she really doesn't want to spend her life with Peter. Peter bores her and she craves adventure and to break the normal threshold for this time-period.
DeleteMarian's eating disorder is extremely far removed from traditional eating disorders in its driving psychology, although perhaps similar in causation. Eating disorders, as understood today, usually manifest within a set of co-occurring disorders. Anorexia Nervosa, for example, often co-occurs with generalized anxiety disorder. In this form, eating disorders are coping skills for less obvious psychological or environmental factors, a form of achieving and maintaining control over an aspect of one's life. This is evidently applicable in Marian's case, as she struggles with the lack of autonomy she feels under the burden of her engagement, her employment, her landlord, and her companions. The psychological processing of actual eating disordered behaviors, however, varies interestingly from the norm. Those who suffer from eating disorders usually label food as "bad", as judged on a variety of scales: nutritional content, social or personal connotation/experience/association. Other disordered behaviors, while driven by a deeper issue such as trauma, anxiety, obsessions, or genetic disposition, purposefully focus on rationally irrational laws and rules of eating, exercising, and body image.
ReplyDeleteMarian, however, frequently notes how often she desires to eat - the few foods she is able to consume are painstakingly chosen for optimum nourishment. Routinely, also, her acquired disdain for foods involve an association between them and something living. Meats, muscles, sinews, textures, shapes, etc that remind her of something alive automatically become off-limits. She is tormented by associations between her food and a living organism.
Eating disorders are often treated by facing "fear foods", thus her ultimate consumption of a cake in the image of a human is indicative of the nature of her disorder and the necessary resolution. Could this fear of partaking of life represent her difficulty with the social expectations of sacrifice she is expected to succumb to?
This is a very interesting viewpoint and question. I am not completely sure though what you mean by all this. Are you saying that Marian's condition was caused by the stress of society or by her psychological analysis of the food that she was eating? Or the combination of the both? Does she believe that she is doing to the food is what society is doing to her, and this is why she ultimately makes the cake at the end of the book? By Marian constantly personifying her meals, she does in fact limit what she can eat, but doesn't stop her desire to eat them. How is that significant?
DeleteSorry for the magnitude of questions
Interestingly enough, although we are able to trace Marian's eating disorder to societal expectations, from her viewpoint the influence of society seems even less obvious that it does to others who suffer from eating disorders. Many ED patients are aware that cultural expectations and standards of beauty have, at least in some regard, played a role in their disorder. Marian, while objectively suffering from heavy expectations, seems not to notice them as much as the increasing personification of her food. In answer to your first question, Meredith, I would argue that her condition was caused more by her psychological analysis of her food on a conscious level, and by social expectations on an unconscious level. Through Duncan's aid in "enlightenment", I think she ultimately comes to believe that social expectations are the true cause of her disorder, and therefore by the time she makes the cake in the end it is less a declarative statement against the personification of food and more against oppressive social institutions. Your last point is very interesting. Perhaps this is an unconscious manifestation of the battle between her desire to conform and her simultaneous desire to break free - to eat the food and yet to abstain from partaking?
DeleteThe eating disorder seems like the most appropriate reaction from Marian. After all, the book is called The Edible Woman. Explaining simply and as non-objectively as possible, I think that Marian's obsessive idea that society is consuming her leads to her being unable to consume certain foods that formerly were alive. She feels so awful that society is consuming her, that she doesn't want to consume other animals. "No I won't eat you, you already processed pork chop, I refuse to consume others because it's mean and makes me feel sad!" (Even though the pig is many days DEAD.) Her eating habits can be deemed "anorexic" however, I don't know if it can actually be Anorexia Nervosa. Eating disorders have been deemed genetic too. Her inability to eat is a result of her thoughts that society is eating her.
DeleteI don't think I would classify Marion's condition as Anorexia, but possibly a very selective type of veganism. People, generally, become vegans for two reasons; health and/or ethics. I think Marion's approach is a combination. Throughout her 'disorder' (for lack of a better term), Marion continually strives to seek out the foods that will sustain her health. Similarly, she looks to her world in an attempt to cling to those aspects that maintain her mental health, for example, Duncan. On an ethical basis, Marion justifies her disgust with certain foods as she feels conflicted about consuming something that had once been, or still was, alive. This translates to her feelings of being consumed as a person, and keeps her from hypocritical and following the golden rule.
DeleteI agree with you, Lauren, but I feel like a lot of people nowadays (including doctors and specialists) try to put these kind of diseases and eating disorders in a box with parameters saying "this is how they work" without really knowing the variation that can go on. Just because someone isn't grossly underweight and doesn't look like she is scared of food, does that mean they "cannot" have an eating disorder such as anorexia? I would argue that eating disorders are much more unique case to case than is commonly realized or even thought about by people that have never experienced anything like that.
DeleteSo the fact that Marian's eating disorder doesn't resemble a "typical" case doesn't seem as significant to me.
While I am far from understanding Marian's food issue, I think I agree with Jennifer, and some of the other opinions expressed. However, I don't see it so much as a choice in lifestyle/eating disorder specifically as a psychological defense mechanism. Perhaps her "eating disorder" stems from her subconscious reaction to her own personal feeling. It seems to me, whenever Marian begins to feel oppressed by something, she then selects a type of food that she no longer feels the ability to eat. Maybe it is some sort of inner attempt to dissociate her own actions from the feelings she is receiving from the world around her (similar to Jennifer's golden rule idea). If that is true, then Marian would be taking a feeling, and projecting her desired response (the opposite of what she feels...to not be devoured) onto a inatimate object (food). Then, her final act would be an attempt to get a step ahead, to make the food into a feeling (say, the expectation of an "ideal woman"). By devouring this ideal woman, she is turning the tides, she is no longer being "eaten" by the pressure of society, but is instead "eating" (and therefor removing) the expectations that used to be placed upon her. Does that make any sense at all? Just a thought...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEdible Woman did a fabulous job of placing a spotlight on gender stereotyping, and doing so in a very comedic way. I believe one of the funniest scenes in the book is when Marian is invited over to Duncan's place to meet the "parents". The way Atwood had Trevor show off his cooking and china sets clearly has him representing the part of the mother. The way Fish discussed his thesis and flaunted his intelligence clearly demonstrates his representation of the "father" role. This leaves Marian to fill the role of the suitor of Duncan (aka the boyfriend). This representation was not only comical, but a metaphor, used to represent gender stereotyping in the funniest way.
ReplyDeleteThis is very insightful, Meredith. Perhaps what's most interesting of this dynamic is how willingly and consciously Duncan subscribes to this distorted family model. He consistently refers to his roommates as his parents and he interacts with them in a manner that prompts parental responses, all with the full declarative awareness of his behavior. I wonder, then, what Atwood is saying about the inevitability of such social constructs? Do we, as humans, desire a "traditional" family model at such a deep level of need that we - even consciously - construct families for ourselves where there are none? Notice that the trio doesn't evolve into a relationship of brothers, as would perhaps seem more natural, but a mother/father pair with a child. We see this happening presumably unconsciously with Fish and Trevor, and consciously with Duncan, who plays his role with precision complete with deviance and adolescent behaviors. This seems indicative of an inherent human need for the specific belongingness attained within this sort of family model.
DeleteAtwood, as other threads of this discussion have noted, seems to mock outlying examples of philosophy, such as extreme feminism. Could this be a continuance of that critique, in which she displays the dysfunction of alternative institutions which inevitably revert to a fundamental organization?
I think you are making a very good point Lauren. I think it is true that, as human, we desire a "perfect" family. Because of this Duncan created one where there was none. This family setting helps comfort the child like moods that we go through. Even adults like to have their parents around to comfort them and help them through life.
DeleteThis was one of my favorite scenes! The graduate students all lived a live that was very bizarre and seemed to be stuck in their own minds. They all seemed to have a very unclear definition of themselves and the world. I think creating the family dynamic was a means for them to give themselves and their existence a definition and a meaning. Their reality seems extremely skewed, but I think reality is what you make it.
DeleteI think that the only way to consumate the "perfect family" is to find appreciation in the quirks and individuality of all family members. We don't all have to have designated roles. We don't have to do anything society says we should. (Except follow the laws of the nation.) This scene was my favorite too, for it shows that life can be more exciting when you leave people to their own devices. Life would perhaps be a lot more fun this way!!!
DeleteI can dig this entirely. But rather than the using the family-oriented approach taken here, I feel that the true resonance of the vignette lies in its portrayal of the inveterate human tendency to factionalize and the insignificance of sex in determining gender roles. The graduate students, occupants of an apartment hermetically sealed from female presence, are left limited means to form distinct identities in this context. The same dichotomy forms here, however, as it does in more orthodox climes between the two sexes. This illustrates the inexorable need humans evince to distinguish and identify others with the highest possible clarity. It could even be posited, then, that it is only because of incident, and consequent precedent, that women have been assigned 'efferminate' dispositions.
DeleteAs stated above, I think it is very interesting how Duncan, Fish and Trevor take on these specific roles. Atwood did an excellent job of developing each character during the dinner scene, which helped develop the rest of the novel. I also think that Atwood was poking fun at the idea that there really is no such thing as a "normal" family. Every family is dysfunctional in its own way. Also, it shows a human's desire to have that stability of family in a person's life. Whether it's real or not, people's need that structure. they need to have something that connects them to the norm in order to confirm their sanity.
DeleteI never saw the dinner scene in this perspective. I really like how each person has their own role. It really shows how metaphorical this book really is. Seeing as how Duncan is an extremely different person, it is necessary for the author to build accepting people around him, or else the story would have no plot. The dinner scene shows how each of the people have their different roles unlike the typical stereo types of how peoples such as them should act normally in society. Everyone has their own distinct personalities which differ dramatically but they also share the desire to be different from the stereotypical people of the world.
DeleteI fully agree with this viewpoint. Atwood does a great job of giving Duncan a "family". Duncan is obviously a man who prefers to do things solo. He is even turned off to the idea of Marian's presence at first. But the family Atwood supplies for him shows the basic human desire for belonging no matter how untraditional and dysfunctional it may be.I also like how instead of the novel focusing solely on Marian's problems, Atwood gives Duncan,Ainsley, and other characters flaws overcome as well. Duncan's flaw being his inability to function normally with others. She shows this by describing Duncan's relationship with his roommates in a detailed yet comedic way. Bringing Marian over to "meet the parents" is a big step for Duncan. It shows him making progress.
DeleteWhat do you think the triad of "office virgins" is supposed to represent? I believe they are meant to show society's expectations of women, as well as the pressure that they place upon them.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you, Meredith. The "office virgins" completely embody the stereotypical characteristics that society seems to expect to see in a young woman. I think that their presence in the novel sets up a contrast for Marian's character. While the three young women carry out feminine roles and appearances through their makeup, as well as their ladylike clothing and mannerisms, all of these constructs make Marian increasingly uncomfortable. Like you said, I believe the "office virgins" are purely a distinct reference to the pressures of femininity in society that drive home the notion that Marian's thoughts and behaviors as a woman are "abnormal."
DeleteI am going to agree with the interpretation of the "office virgins" as the representation of society's ideal women. I also think they serve to make the ideal woman, seem like a very undesirable thing to be. The descriptions of the characters are not flattering, they never offer anything to the story that makes them particularly likable or engaging. I always associated them with ugly and stoic vultures sitting on the side of a road. The inclusion of the office virgins, especially at Peter's party, only makes Marion's rejection of society's standards seem justified and relatable.
DeleteI agree with Jennifer on the roles of the "office virgins." They help set the scene as to what society would like a woman to be but at the same time makes them undesirable. By doing this it helps show why Marian chooses the path she does in her life instead of falling into that stereotypical role. It also helps to contrast the two when they make Marian seem well put together for the most part, even during her breakdown.
DeleteI had a little different take on the "office virgins." I feel like they are the women that Marian is scared to end up like. To me, they were described as squeaky clean people Marian doesn't want to end up like. I think they're sort of embodying Marian's fear that she won't end with a normal life and a normal husband and a normal romance. Marian is scared of working at Seymour Surveys for the rest of her life because in her mind, this isn't where she is supposed to be; I think she really wants to find a real job that fulfills what she wants to do with her life and she is scared that if she continues in the way she's going before she gets engaged, she will end up like the like the office women.
DeleteI believe the author portrays the office virgins as Marian's social contrast. Marian reaches for higher aspirations in the very organized life she leads. The office virgins are content with the lack luster lives they lead and the only thing they aspire for is a man to complete them. Marian finds womanly social standards to be a burden to maintain. Even during her fiance's party she dreaded going, melted into the background, and even ended up leaving. Whereas, the office virgins were excited about the invitation and tried to make the most of their party experience, hoping men would notice them. The office virgins are content with filling typical social standards that Marian does not want to comply with. In this way, they serve as social contrasts to Marian.
DeleteI believe that the "office virgins" aren't so much present in the book to push Marian to see fault in her life and "abnormal" choices as much as they are present to show fault in society. They are giddy and dumb, and seek the presence of a man not out of love but because they may be used as a crutch and as an accessory-- something that may be leaned on in times of need but carried around like a trinket to make them appear more important and, for that matter, more "normal" during average times.
DeleteAs Molly said, the "office virgins" are not only content to fill societal standards but strive to fill them.
The office virgins made me laugh. In a way, they represented something Marian didn't want to become either. Marian was surrounded by people and circumstances that she constantly didn't like, but never did anything to change them really. But as far as the scenes with them, I didn't focus so much on what Marian thought of them, I found them to be silly.
DeleteI agree with you completely, Jenna. Marian never showed much of any emotion as she attempted to live her life to the fullest. She and the office virgins differed dramatically in many ways. The office virgins, as Meredith said, represent the typical "dumb blondes" per say in todays society. The girls are only concerned with fashion and the need to find a wealthy, yet attractive, husband. When Marian tells the girls of her engagement, they are ecstatic because, they finally think Marian is beginning to act like them and be on their level.
DeleteI agree with Jenna's statement of how the office virgins represented what Marian didn't want to become.Though this can be seen as a contradiction when she accepted Peter's proposal, she shows her personal struggle through her affair with Duncan. She just like these "office virgins" succumb to the ways of society. They settle for the man that can provide for them and shows interest, but they don't think about the male that will help them, yet allowing them to remain independent and their own person. Through Duncan, however, she separates herself from these typical woman.
DeleteThe office virgins played a larger role than expected during the novel. I have to disagree a bit with the statement that they were what Marian was afraid to become. All of the office virgins were single and I think Marian feared marriage more than she feared becoming one of them. She did not mind being around them, showing she enjoyed their company more than anyone else who worked at the office. I do think that she was afraid to have the same ideals as them, but I think she would have preferred being an office virgin to becoming more like Clara, who I think scared her more than anyone. At least the office virgins knew what they wanted in life.
DeleteI think the reason Atwood threw the office virgins into the story was to completely contrast Marian's character. When compared, Marian's ideals look far more radical. I think they also added some humor to a novel that was, for the most part, very dark.
The very term "office virgins" attacks abstinence in a sex-driven culture. Even in the mid-20th century setting, we can see that it is rare and even frowned upon to be a virgin at that age. While she doesn't mind being around them that much, she doesn't exactly want to adapt their lifestyles either. These ideals culminate to be just another pressure that society exerts on Marian, on top of not eating to society's standards.
DeleteI have to agree with both Meredith and Suzanne. The "office virgins" represent this thing that Marian is so afraid to become which is the expected woman in this time setting. They're too clean and high-strung for Marian to admire. Marian craves rebellion and being able to get "dirty" if you will. It's a lifestyle that Marian completely contradicts by kissing Duncan and having so many resentful feelings towards Peter who is the stereotypical "good guy" of the time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this book, it made me depressed. I was watching "Lars and the Real Girl" the other night and it gave me the same vibe and I realized that it was because that movie does not have music in the background. I think it's the same in this novel; there is not underlying action music (I mean that figuratively) that takes Marian in her ups and downs because her life isn't very positive and most certainly not what she wants it to be: she doesn't have her dream man, her dream job, she is confused with the direction her life is going, one of her best friends is in a marriage that isn't really built on love and is having children because it's what is expected of her not because she loves them; the premise just seems grey. Thoughts on why and other ways Atwood painted the picture of Marian's life? I tend to unconsciously associate it with the decade and the times, but I have no evidence of that. The obvious reason could be to set up her story for failure, but I'm interested to know what anyone thinks.
ReplyDeletethe "music" you're referring to reminds me of the sort of idealism so often present in fictionalized accounts in books, movies, plays, and other media representations. there are a set of expectations we have established as society as the proper components of good fiction, a good pattern for the basis of the construction of real life. unfortunately, these ideas are often built on unrealistic concepts of love, interpersonal relationships, success, and social living; yet have become so ingrained in us that their absence leaves us feeling deprived. as an example, the concept of "perfect" love, or the "dream" spouse. i just heard a fascinating study on this by timothy keller. in pop culture, we view relationships in one of two ways: consumer or covenant. in a consumer relationship, my relationship with you is based on what you can give me, how you can satisfy my needs, how i feel when i'm around you. i'm constantly, if unconsciously, seeking to determine if i can do better, if i can find someone who better serves me. in popular culture, this is often the style of relationship depicted, making for the dramatic emotional swings and deluges of passion we so often associate with successful, ideal, romantic relationships. in "real life", however, or at least what has been tried and proven as the most long-term healthy and successful, relationships are covenant, in which each partner sacrifices and adapts equally to the other in full commitment despite ebbing emotions or external circumstances. aesthetically this seems much more dull, yet it is both more realistic and profound. at wood's writings are interesting because she seems to satire both ends of the spectrum. clara and peter's married friends, albeit perhaps distorted versions of covenant relationships, are ostracized as backward and foolishly ignorant. yet ainsley and leonard, perfect examples of selfish consumerism, are equally mocked. marian floats somewhere in the limbo between consumeristic desires and half-hearted covenant realities.
Deleteanother interesting point, which may have been discussed above, is the definition of love. whether we view it as a feeling or an unyielding commitment will sharply color our interpretation of marian's "grey" life.
Life would be a lot more exciting if there was music playing in the background all the time Suzy! Atwood really painted a reason why society continues to win. In that I mean, society still sends the same kinds of materialistic, consumeristic messages to its listeners, and nothing changes. Instead of questioning why, Marian wallows in her pity and sadness about how her her life isn't perfect. In reality, this happens on a daily basis. People complaining, but never doing anything to challenge or change the psyche our current culture. I suppose it's hypocritical for me to say this because I am not doing much on a global scale to change society's standards, but I think that Atwood portrays Marian such a helpless, sorrowful way not unlike many people in society today.
DeleteJenna, I like how you mentioned that Marion was like many people in society. Atwood created many different sides to Marion, and I think there is something relatable to everyone in this character. Marion is by no means ideal, and the traits that we possess that are not necessarily the best, are definitely reflected in Marion. This relatable aspect makes it easy to take something away from the novel.
DeleteI never thought of it like that, Lauren, I really like the points you made. That sounds like such an interesting study and I believe that's true with all of my heart.
DeleteMaybe one of the main reasons (I am realizing now) this book saddens me is that in a traditional work of fiction opening on a failing protagonist, there is the figurative background music because typical novels that start with failure end with success. This book doesn't end with success, so there I feel like the undertones of the entire book from start to finish kind of point to that. I suppose there are a ton of novels that don't end happily, but I am bias because I really haven't read very many.
Lauren, I really like your response to this.
DeleteAnd I certainly agree, both with you Suzanne, as well as with Lauren's response. Much of the focus of this novel is the topic of society and the expectation that it creates within all of us. For Marian it was the pressures of the expectations put upon her, of the conflict between her life and who she thought she wanted to be. For Suzanne, it was the expectation that there should be something more meaningful, more profound, and--in some sense--more fairy tale-like for Marian (a fact Marian herself certainly probably struggled with). Society has formed for all of us a preconceived idea of an "ideal" life. Reading a novel that doesn't end in such an idealized existence depresses us, and perhaps depresses our own hope for such a "happy ending." This may not have been the purpose behind the novel, but I think it is an important lesson for all of us. Atwood writing a novel that doesn't have such an ending reinforces the entire purpose of the novel, to move away from the expectation and pressures created by society. If we can move away from these idealized, perfectionistic ideas, we could perhaps begin to see the world and our lives in a more realistic and more appreciative manner.
I am very much into the topic at hand here. The fact that John Cage's 4'33'' (4 minutes and 33 seconds of recorded silence for those not so fond of arcane references) accompanies the vicissitudes, or lack thereof, of Marian's life is, for me, a point where the novel succeeds admirably, and one which it shares with many other works of great permanence. To beat further the path made by those above me, the minimal, spare atmosphere of the novel helps Atwood circumvent the trap of romanticized convention, one she doubtless cannot afford to sacrifice a work of protest to. Expecting the linear, orderly development of a commercial venture, and the social mores they sell through comforting organization and conclusions, one is then unsettled by the book's vague terminus and the desolation of its characters. This is good, though. Atwood, I can only assume, set out to strike a few chords, whichever her story might fall upon. Marian's journey is, in all certainty, an unpleasant one, and there is no better way to convey this by inducing discomfort in her audience. Any truly affecting piece of work, too, has to challenge, unsettle, or somehow galvanize, and the best of culture is that with which some pains must be taken. I rememeber the difficulty I had in appreciating cut-up, improvisation, minimalism, and many other alternative techniques in cinema, music, literature, et al --- the stimulating is often guarded by frustration.
DeleteWhen Ainsley first presents her desire to have a child, it is immediately opposed by Marian. When Ainsley's final decision is made to carry out the process of "obtaining" a child of her own, Marian still inwardly opposes this, but nonetheless, just stands idly by while Ainsley's seduces one of her old friends, and ultimately carries out her plans. Why do you think Marian opposes Ainsley's desire to have a child and how do you think this whole situation reveals the differences in the two ladies' attitudes towards men and marriage?
ReplyDeleteI think Marion opposes Ainsley's plan for several reasons. The first being the most practical, that she doesn't believe Ainsley is ready to be a parent. Marion is a bit more practical and realistic than Ainsley and she is able to see the flaws in her plan easily. A second reason, is the experiences that Marion has had with children, with Clara. She understands the effects a child has on a woman's psyche and she see's the dirty and grueling side to being a parent. I think it is interesting how the women's opinions and situations concerning men seem to flip-flop. Marion begins the novel as the typical girl, in a relationship and engaged to be married- as is expected. While Ainsley disregards men as things and has no interest in marriage. As they both experience what it's like on their side of the fence, they realize the negatives of their position and both make drastic decisions to change their situation.
DeleteI agree with you Jennifer, and well Ainsley never really had a man or a stable relationship before, in the sense of wanting a child I feel she’s doing it to be independent where the feminism takes place. Is it possible that Marian opposes her wish to have a child because she can barely keep herself organized, and also the way she goes about doing it? As for the marriage, Marian had thrown herself a little distant and wasn't all that worried about marriage because Peter was always so worked up about it, she considered their relationship not as involved, until later he proposed and she changed her mind that they were more involved than she thought. Perhaps the difference is Ainsley hasn't had that relationship and doesn't want to be married with children for fear of ending up like Clara and depending on her man, and doesn't support Marian in her engagement due to "the thing that ruins families these days is the husbands." But what are your thoughts?
DeleteI believe Marian does not feel like she would have any control over Ainsley because of Ainsley's stubborn personality. Marian disagrees with her for many reasons, and they were very well elaborated upon by Jennifer. Marian believes that Ainsley is not mature enough to be a parent (which is very well proven when Ainsley attempts to turn back the clock on herself for Len to sleep with her), and also, Marian's whole philosophy on children has been linked to Clara's "consumption" by her children and her sour attitude towards them. Yet, she will not deny Ainsley her wishes because she would have gone through with them anyway, and besides, Marian was a bit preoccupied with her affair with Duncan, her strange eating disorder, and her upcoming marriage with Peter, to feel like she needs to try to put yet another uneatable problem on her plate.
DeleteI feel like one of the reasons that Marian opposes Ainsley's plan (other than the fact that her good friend is being haplessly taken advantage of) is that she is jealous of Ainsley's free spirit. She doesn't want to think that her friend, who doesn't have it "together" as much as Marian does (or thinks she does) and would think appropriate is daring to do something for herself rather than wait and do it the conventional way like Marian is doing.
DeleteIt would be like me being engaged to a guy that I am in love with and me being perfectly happy and excited until my little high school sister (I don't have one, but bear with me) goes out and gets pregnant after a night on the town and she gets all the attention and love from our parents, even though I'm the one doing "the right thing". I think Marian is jealous that someone else that she doesn't believe she is on the same level with is making the kind of big decisions that Marian herself doesn't have the guts to make.
I agree with all of the above that the ladies have posted. I would like to also through in my opinions as to why exactly Ainsley wants a baby. I feel it is near a cry for attention, and she doesn't necessarily want a baby per-say but she wants to know that she can be independent and productive with another being to care for. Ainsley is determined to do this with or without a man, and it draws to my attention the fact that maybe she is doing this so men look at her and think "She is a very independent woman." While Marian on the other hand is a more passive type person and she doesn't like to be outspoken, Ainsley makes up for Marian's lack, and overdoes her feministic independent role.
DeleteI agree with all of you ladies, I like the insight that Jennifer has on the fact that Marian knows, by seeing Clara how the hardship on having children really has a toll on the parents' well-being. Seeing as how Ainsley would have to care for the child by herself, It would be extremely difficult for her to properly care for him while also living her life. Ainsley just isn't thinking rationally or is ready for that matter.
DeleteTowards the beginning of the book, it is clear that Marian and Ainsley have different perspectives on men; which is clear as Marian accepts an engagement offer and Ainsley doesn't care for the male species. As the book goes on and Marian is no longer acting like herself, she become dependent on Duncan and deserts her soon to be husband. Clearly, Marian does not have the same perspective on men as Ainsley, but she changes her view and sticks to Duncan by seeing him more as a best friend rather than an alpha male.
While its possible Marian is jealous of Ainsley's free spirit, I feel more that at this point in the novel, Marian's opposition has more to do with her idea of society. At this point in the novel, Marian is still very much in line with society's standards, and I believe that Marian rejects Ainsley's plan because it goes against all of her preconceived notions of what motherhood should be. Ainsley is not married, nor does she desire to be. Not only that, but Ainsley plans to trick a male into impregnating her, most likely against his own will. And finally, Ainsley wishes to have a child, not for desire to build a family, carry on her lineage, for her love and hope of starting a new chapter in her life, that sorta thing, but rather she wants a child because she feels that is what is necessary to, more or less, be a woman. I think that Marian rejects the plan on a moral level. At this time Marian's morals are a product of social influence, so therefore she rejects Ainsley's plan because of its deviation from the social norm.
DeleteThere is an obvious difference in the two girls' attitudes towards men and marriage. Ainsley feels a need to fulfill the motherly role and therefore devises a plan to get pregnant. Marian obviously opposes this because she opposes the conformity to all traditional women roles. However, I believe she does not bother to stop Ainsley because Ainsley is not looking for a husband. Ainsley's decision to have a baby out of wedlock does not fulfill the traditional motherly role. Marian highly opposes of the idea but does not stop it because Ainsley is being somewhat rebellious and not totally conforming.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI interpreted Marion's reluctance to become involved a little bit differently. Marion portrayed an utter revulsion to being controlled and I think this feeling fueled her reluctance to not control anyone else. There are several points in the novel in which Marion could control, or attempt to do so, other people, and she never takes advantage of them. Ainsley is the perfect example of this. When Ainsley first made her plans known, Marion did voice her opinion, but she never attempted to force her opinions or Ainsley's actions. As more control is exerted over Marion, she responds by decreasing the control she exerts over others. Her warnings and opinions concerning Ainsley are never voiced and Marion allows Ainsley to do as she pleases. Marion's experience with being controlled contributes to her lack of controlling tendencies because she knows how it feels.
DeleteThough Ainsley may have promoted her choice as being nonconformist in that her decision to have a child without an important and present male figure having conceived it is abnormal to typical societal gesture, I believe that this specific choice displays more that she is wanting to conform to society rather than forsake it. Ainsley referred to childbirth as being a woman's duty-- she attempted to prod Marian into believing that she could not be wholly considered a woman without having brought a child into the world. If also tied to the fact that Clara has three children, it can be easily believed that Ainsley's choice is more conformist to society than nonconformist, especially when she later sobs over the absent father figure that her child will be brought up to miss merely because he or she will see that other children have fathers.
DeleteThough Ainsley does rebuke society, her decision to have a child is a choice that she makes outside of these angst-filled desires.
It is almost like a hidden message that because Ainsley is still rebelling Marian is okay with her decision to have a baby. Marian though she doesn't like to follow the typical path that ladies her age follow, she still waits for that little push from men such as Peter. Whereas Ainsley is willing to do it all alone. Ainsley refers to her baby as a "strategy" and although Marian is very against the whole baby without a man deal, she seems to go along with Ainsley's strategy, whether it be because she supports it or she doesn't want to push Ainsley away, because as different as the two girls are they really build off of each other. Some of the things Marian would never do, Ainsley does and it's more as if they can both live the life they wanted not through themselves, but through the other, and then not have to deal with the consequences that follow those decisions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I found interesting about this story were the differences between Peter and Duncan. Peter seems to have it all together and proposed to Marian out of his want to get married (I never the part where he really specifies that he really loves Marian, just the idea of getting married before it's too late). Duncan is a graduate student without adequate personal hygiene habits and is sort of, for lack of a better word, a doof. Why do you think Marian was attracted to Duncan over her "perfect" fiancé?
ReplyDeletehuman consumption can be divided into two categories: needs and desires. there are very few actual physical human needs imperative to enduring survival: food, water, clothing, and shelter from harsh environmental conditions. all other objects of consumption are technically extraneous, perhaps necessary for comfort but not for survival. a proper understanding of the difference and distinction between these two is arguably imperative to healthy response to one's circumstances. marian, much as post-modern culture in general, has confused the two, and has become utterly discontent to the point of physical and psychological malady in response to her deprivation of certain emotional and sexual desires that she has exalted to the level of needs. this growing discontent leads her to seek out the satisfaction of these wants from a cause that will not impose any complementary demands upon her. as we discussed earlier in covenant vs consumerism, marian's new ravenousness for emotional and sexual gratification is a purely selfish, consumeristic drive. she is not looking for a new fiancee or a transformed peter, which would place obligation upon her to act in a reciprocal manner appropriate for a mutual relationship. she wants only to take and be filled. duncan, scattered and unstable as he is, is in no position to evolve into a permanent figure. he is essentially invisible, no threat to her current paradigms, no burden that may impose upon her, no possible competitor to peter. he is merely a product - and a promiscuously willing one at that. his personal qualifications are irrelevant, for those are the things that matter only in a committed type of long-term relationship. his body alone is the criteria marian looks to exploit in a misguided effort to satisfy her desires.
DeleteI think Marian didn't want the "perfect" guy to begin with. It seems that she struggles throughout the novel with how dull her life is, and is constantly looking for an escape from reality. Duncan is everything a girl shouldn't want: he's dirty, totally uncommitted, and self centered. Yet, Marian seems uncannily attracted to him as if he was honey attracting a bee. Peter is described as the poster-child of a perfect man. Charming, caring, and successful, Peter should win out the competition between Duncan, yet Marian is so fed up with the way things "should work" and wants to live the life of how things "shouldn't work." And for that, Duncan is the perfect candidate.
DeleteIn teenager terms, I think that Marian found that she desperately needed a "bad boy." Now, I know that Duncan wasn't really the quintessential bad boy-- but he played the part of an uncaring partner that, frankly, did not care if she was herself or not and was personally unaffected by her moods, emotions, and sense of urgency. Peter noticed her downfalls and took them almost as personal attacks; he played the part of a bad boyfriend but not of a bad boy.
DeleteI agree. For Marian with the whole bad boy type, I think not only is Duncan not effected by her moods, emotions and sense of urgency, I think she seeks the feel of being needed or wanted to talk to. He calls her to get laundry to iron, talks about whatever it is that is on his mind, shows how he feels, but Peter everything seems to be perfect and in line as she should be. I think Duncan is her way to break free from the 'tidy' life she lives and he interests her. I think Duncan and she leaned on eachother, though she may have wanted Peter, but needed the bit of change.
DeleteOkay, I am trying to start a thread here SO HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU ALL!!!!! (Sorry, I'm just not sure if I am doing this in the right place.) How do you think that Marian could be happy? Why is she so unhappy and having feelings of consumption in the first place? Why do people get anxious an scared about the circumstances around themselves? Why is it so hard for people to face their underlying feelings? The truth sucks sometimes, but then you feel better. I cannot help but think that Marian's woes have to been self-inflicted from her own perceptions based on past life experiences...we all have demons and anxious thoughts that manifest into certain tendencies, but why is it so hard for Marian, and mankind for that matter, to face their demons?
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, I don't think Marian knows how to be happy because throughout the novel she feels like she is being oppressed, when really she is her own oppressor. How can she ever find happiness when she is looking for it in someone else instead of herself? Marian desperately searches for an escape from her life, thinking it will make her free and happy, when really she is only tangling herself deeper in. Instead of cutting some strings loose (let's face it, she didn't HAVE to say yes to Peter), she created a dirty web of lies and unfaithfulness, dragging her down into the mud. Naturally, humans have a hard time facing their demons because it's easier to blame it on someone else and let the demon thrive within you, than to take the more difficult route and exterminate it. We don't want something to be wrong with us, but when we do find something-that is, if we take the time to actually see it-it's much easier (and common) to point the finger at someone else, and go on with life. That way, we don't feel like we are different, but that we were made different by some external force that is beyond our control. Humans usually are wary of change, we don't like the unknown. That's why we find reason, and whether that's a good reason, as we've learned from Marian, is completely up to the interpreter.
DeleteI completely agree with Agatha! We cannot decipher the exact source for Marian's unhappiness so it is impossible to devise a cure. Marian seems to be the only one who is holding her back. Peter is not doing anything wrong but Marian still views him as the villain in this situation. Marian's lack of communication about her feelings also leads to more problems. I believe that if Marian discussed the feeling she has been having with Peter, he would accept that she needs some space and independence. Instead, she tries running away or hiding. These events only make Peter suspicious, confused, and relatively annoyed. The only solution I can come up with would be for her to try and explain the situation to others around her. Other than that, she is her own oppressor and therefor a solid, complete solution is difficult to devise.
DeleteI also agree with Agatha, that is such a good point! Throughout the novel we like to blame one of the male characters or society for the reasons of her unhappiness. Her unhappiness doesn't come from Peter or his standards of who she should be, but rather her inability to confront her feelings and talk to him as Molly said. Instead of trying to face her problems, she just tries to distract herself with someone like Duncan who doesn't make her feel confined. If she would chose to tell Peter how she feels he would understand, but her ways of just avoiding and acting like a child(running when the going gets hard)don't fix anything. If you are living a life where you don't even know what you want/ what will make you happy that's usually where you need to evaluate it all and make the right choice. The idea of having an affair does nothing, but create more of a mess for Marian. Unhappiness definitely will come from not being true to yourself and your feelings.
DeleteIn the beginning of the book when Marian starts to run through the streets, and then after when she has returned to Len's home and wedges between the bed would you say she is running from her internal problems, running away from what society has done, or just plane crazy?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wouldn't go as far as crazy, but possibly between the internal and what society has done. Her actions could have been due to her confusion of feelings and what she was letting happen between her roommate and old friend, and society for making her into an image she might not be completely fit into yet. Her actions could have been her breaking out or a way of rebellion to the confusion,or possibly to run away from.
Deletein line with callyn, i wouldn't deem her behavior "crazy". rather, during this time she is experimenting with the limits of her social boundaries, seeing how far she can press and stretch the norms of convention before they snap back against her. in her mind she is mulling over the evolving ideas of rebellion, weighing the potential costs and benefits while simultaneously rehearsing, in a small measure, the actions which she will eventually fully manifest. this is her dress rehearsal, in which she gauges the reactions of her peers and empirically tests the limits of what she has always assumed to be unquestionable.
DeleteI agree with both Lauren and Callyn, I do not think Marian is "crazy." Rather, I think she's just trying to deal with the oppression that is beginning to bubble up within her. Unable to cope with the overwhelming feelings she is experiencing, Marian flees the situations. I really like what you pointed out about this being a sort of dress rehearsal. Perhaps subconsciously, Marian really is testing her limits and seeing how the people around her will react to her seemingly "crazy" behavior. Marian is running away from her problems, quite literally, instead of facing them head on.
DeleteAll three. From what I interpreted, Marian is not one to face her problems. Feeling pressured to marry Peter society's firm grasp, Marian engages in unfaithful activities in spite of her engagement to Peter. She wants to hide away and take some time to settle her feelings in her head, but she feels like she has no time. Her internal problems are sprouted from society's expectations (or at least what she believes society's expectations are). The way Marian handles her problems by running, hiding, and having an affair, is in my opinion an immature act of rebellion. In a sense, Marian is crazy-she has a very extroverted way of looking at the world and believes she has no control. Yet, instead of talking to Peter and telling him she's not ready for marriage, not having an affair with Duncan, and maybe seeing a doctor about her eating disorder, she chooses to run away from dinner parties, have inappropriate relations with Duncan, and starve herself. Not the best way to handle problems in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs others have stated earlier, reverting to childish behaviors is a form of coping mechanism. Marian does not know exactly how to act or how to cope with the feelings she has so she decides to hide or run away from her problems. In her mind she believes these things might actually solve her problems. We see that in the end they do not, but they temporarily delay the need for her to come up with a solid solution at that moment.
DeleteMarian definitely copes in a very childlike manner. For example when she went and hid under and bed without really understanding why shes doing it or what was really upsetting her. To me, it seems as though its more childlike than even portrayed, when looking deeper into it. She is struggling with what she wants/whats right/ her place in society, and instead of trying to face it and think of ways to help solve all of this, she goes and hides under a bed as if shes a little kid that got in trouble and runs away. Then she goes to extremes like accepting Peter's marriage proposal. I'd say it's her way of trying to be babied and give her problems to him by accepting to have him there to avoid and try to fix her struggle, without really thinking it through. Just as a kid who gets hurt runs to mommy when the going gets hard.
DeleteJust as like Rachel was saying, Marian even says "I'd rather leave the big decisions up to you." when asked when she would like to be married. I definitely agree that Marian chooses mostly to run from her problems than to face them. She runs from dinner, hides under the bed, runs from dinner parties. The habit is clear. However, it seems to me as though this could possibly stem from her own misunderstanding of her problems. I think, to some extent, Marian runs because she feels she has no other choice because she doesn't understand the nature of her own issues. Marian doesn't understand why she desired the solace of the space beneath the bed, or why she is running. She either doesn't realize, or isn't willing, to accept her own dissatisfaction with her life, which leads to her child-like responses. It's hard to face your problems when you don't fully understand what's causing them.
DeleteThere is confusion behind the relationship that Marian and Duncan share. Marian does not seem to particularly like Duncan's personality, but finds herself always returning to him. What do you think is the driving force behind Marian's attraction to Duncan? Does Duncan possess a desirable trait to Marian, or is he only an escape from her current situation?
ReplyDeleteI personally I feel that the attraction Marian has towards Duncan is purely out of his lack of interest in her. Marian doesn't know what she wants and struggles, so to try and cope she ends up turning to Duncan. Even when she is engaged to Peter she continues to go to him. In a way he helps dull the confusion with Peter and his constant standards he places on her. With Peter she feels trapped and falls into his wishes because of society, but her sort of rebellion from society is seen in her relationship with Duncan, which ultimately is her journey of finding herself. Peter constantly wanting her to change to what he desires pushes Marian away and Duncan is the one she falls into due to his lack of preference, which in turn makes her desire a reaction from him.
DeleteI agree with that entirely Rachel, but also that Duncan seems to be someone who isn't put together, who is odd, and a bit wild, with no plans. Possibly that attracts her because she is so unsure about what she wishes to do and perhaps relates to Duncan for that reason and less with Peter for him being so sure of things. Along with what you have already recognized of course.
DeleteI agree with Rachel completely, Marian is used to everyone sort of liking her or at least having interest in her enough to talk to her and keep up a normal conversation. She is drawn to the abnormality of his personality and wants him to actually like spending time with her.
DeleteI also think that Duncan is a symbol of Marian changing. Duncan is totally unlike any person that Marian has ever met or spent time with. Typically, Marian is very prim and proper, spending time with Peter and his wealthy friends. Duncan is the complete opposite of those types of people. Duncan is basically Marian's form of escape from the almost surreal world that she lives in.
Like Callyn, I believe that the main reason Marian likes Duncan so much is due to his mysteriousness. She likes how unpredictable he is. It seems as though before she met Duncan, Marian's life was pretty ordinary. She lacked any kind of excitement in her life, really. She had an ordinary job, ordinary boyfriend, and a fairly ordinary bunch of friends. I also think that she sometimes saw Peter as "too good to be true," which scared her. Duncan on the other hand was different. She did not particularly care what he thought of her most of the time, so she was more willing to be herself around him. The fact that he did not seem to be too interested in her either was also a new experience for her. It is as though Marian went through her mid-life crisis twenty years too early. She begins to act recklessly, and is therefore attracted to reckless people, like Duncan. Bottom line is, he's young, he's new, and he's different.
DeleteI agree with everything you ladies have pointed out here about Marian's attraction to Duncan. On one hand, Duncan really is indifferent to Marian's actions, feelings, and lack of life direction. Their relationship is founded on chance encounters and, within their relationship, nothing is expected of Marian, which I believe is a welcome break from the confines of a traditional union that she is forging with Peter. To Marian, Duncan really does hold an element of mystery, which intrigues her even more. Additionally, she and Duncan share a lack of definite life direction, and are both quirky and weird in ways that other people may deem "crazy." Duncan accepts Marian for who she is, mostly because he really doesn't care, and this is a perfect distraction from Marian's other conflicts.
DeleteI believe that Marian is attracted to Duncan as an escape from her life and also like you guys have said the uniqueness and unexpectedness of Duncan. He is such an odd guy and she seems to not have many qualities similar to Duncan and I dont see how she can like him besides an escape from her life and his mysteriousness. This relationship with Duncan is a new experience and so Marian jumps on it the first chance she gets.
DeleteWhat struck me as particularly interesting, and, uh, jocular, was the fact that, for a book so thoroughly imbued with symbolism, metaphor, and the like, the graduate students appear to be devices in place to mock the absurd, baseless, and ultimately futile dissection of literature with psychoanalytic theory. They seem painted as caricatures of Freudians and their attempts to interpret every work as laden with symbolic incarnates of atavistic sexual impulses, particularly works the creator of which could not possibly have had such an intention with ('Womb Symbols in D.H. Lawrence?' Despite his clear Oedipal fascination, the guy was a noted enemy of Vienna.) This of course, is a fairly jesting and humorous gesture in a novel that allegory is so integral to, but it seems also to caution against overly-fervent analysis of this book. Though the subjective element of art is as valid as the veritable, concrete work itself, allowing for experience, as opposed to consumption, it does make you (or me, at least) wonder if Atwood is having a laugh as you grapple with meaning and interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Atwood probably laughing as the readers try to grasp and understand the meaning of the novel through her many uses of symbolism and metaphors. It's just so absurd how she uses Marian's distaste of food as a metaphor for her struggle with the role society has put on her and the role she is trying to discover for herself. At the end of the novel when she does actually start figuring out her self worth and role in society, her relationship with food then begins to get repaired. This is only one instance of Atwood's crafty and absurd incorporation of her themes and ideas into her novel. This metaphor can be fairly easy to pick out, but others are far more hidden within the art intertwined into her writing.
DeleteBen, I find it interesting that you bring up Freud in association with this novel. While I may be falling prey to the trap that Atwood may very well have set for those attempting to over analyze the novel (The humor is very pronounced, and I certainly agree with the idea that the grad students are a satirical jab--even looking at their attitudes about their education and their failure to find success, even in writing, as Duncan tells Marian in the laundromat). As I said before, I may simply be over analyzing, but in reading this novel I couldn't help but notice the parallels of Marian's troubles to Freud's psychoanalytical approach of treatment. Throughout the novel Marian is overwhelmed with feelings that she never seems to fully understand. From her compulsions to act out during her evening out with Len and Peter to her confusion with her engagement, and her dissatisfaction with her life and her disassociation from her bodily instincts, Marian seems to be overwhelmed by a inner-tension so to speak. A tension that, to me, seems to stem from her conflict between what her conscience tells her is "morally" right to do, and the basic, sub conscience instincts that overwhelm her desires. While this comment may completely fall into the very category your comment is describing, your reference to Freud brought to mind the similarities I saw to his work.
DeleteDo you think that since the Edible Woman was written during a time where feminism had a big movement going on, in political views which were colliding with the actual experiences, that the Atwood used the metaphor of food not only to portray Marian's personal struggle, but also a way to convey the actual problems and health of women(such as anorexia)? The book definitely sets a tone of society's expectations and that in which Marian discovered to be true for herself, but along the way was her struggle with food and not just the typical struggle with her role as a woman.
ReplyDeleteI can see this, in a sense. The repugnance that food progressively cultivates in her seems to imply a vague disgust incurred by the melding of naturality to industry: adverstising somehow infiltrating her life and distorting it to mirror its shining, functional burlesque; Peter grooming her for a cocktail-party window display; the mental apparition of the cut-out cow that kicks the affair off and inextricably binds in her the conception of a cooked, savoury, and dressed restaurant item and the contours of a sentient, lumbering, bucket of organs. But as to the question of its relation to the feminist movement, this was likely a pretty bold statement for its time. Of course, you had Valerie Solanas and her whole trip around this time, but for a writer trying to appeal to those outside the radical sphere, this must have been something of a gamble. Written in '65, the book was undertaken, if my limited knowledge serves me, at the dawn of the sexual revolution and the consolidated feminist movement, at the very latest. It no doubt raised a few brows in a time when even the counterculture was pretty male-centric and apathetic toward gender issues (even objectifying and misogynistic at times), and, as can be seen on several occasions in the book, 'a womern attending university' was still something to be scoffed at.
DeleteIt's easy to overlook the literal role of anorexia nervosa in the story. I think it's interesting that you noticed that with the domineering idea that her eating disorder is solely for symbolism. But the symbolism you're describing is particularly interesting. I almost completely forgot that this book was written during one of the bigger movements for the feminist idea and the anorexia represents the struggle being endured by feminists.
DeleteThat's an interesting question, Rachel. I think that Atwood used a lot of metaphors in her novel, and the eating disorder could very well be a metaphor for not only the personal struggle Marian has relating to society's norms, but also metaphor for women who try to conform to society's image of an ideal woman. At that time, woman were known to be the ones bending over backwards to achieve whatever was the criteria for being the perfect woman. Only recently has it been acknowledged to society that men too, are trying to live up to the rippling six-pack, Greek-God looking male models that most girls gawk at (although this information is not "new," there has been evidence that the reason behind it was the "typical male" stereotype that men are not supposed to talk about their feelings-yet another fabulous social norm.). Marian's eating disorder portrays her inner consumption by crossing it with her outer starvation, yet on a bigger scale we can see the consumption of woman as a whole into society's norm with both our mental and physical deprivation.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the Edible Woman is a fairly modern book. Feminism is obviously not a new concept, but it is interesting how much more exposed to it that society has become. The feminism of today is far more radical and daring. Margret Atwood is from Canada, and although it is close enough to the United States culture wise, I would not know what kind of feminism movements have taken place there.
DeleteBringing up the idea of eating disorders is a good point. It would seem to be an obvious idea, but is lost when analyzing the story on feminism alone. The disorder that Marian develops is caused by the stress she has put herself under, and slowly takes over her life entirely, just like an eating disorder. The ideals for men and women nowadays are unrealistic and becoming dangerous to the happiness, and therefore, health of people everywhere.
I think all of you make great points, and I certainly agree. While the eating disorder is clearly a metaphor for the relational/cultural pressure Marian is under, I believe that Atwood's chosen method of conveying can also be viewed as a direct issue, not a vague representation. Even though this book was written in 1969, the pressure for society's "ideal woman" is still a very prominent issue today. Between photoshopped supermodels and plastic surgery, the cultural idea of an "over idealized, perfect woman" is certainly still contributing to eating disorders such as anorexia and bolemia today. Whether or not this was an intentional device I do not know, but it can certainly be interpreted as such.
DeleteI also think its important, however, to note that in the novel itself the eating disorder is the result of relationship/societal issues, not just personal image issues, which opens this novel up to be applicable either as a direct issue or as a metaphor for harmful societal pressures.
So there has been a few comments about Duncan and also his comparison with Peter. But what are the thoughts of Duncan in general? His character, how he acts, how he acts towards Marian in the laundry mat and at his home? In my opinion he is a difficult character to understand or decide about, odd.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, Duncan is my favorite person in the book, weird enough. I see him as being a symbol for Marian's change of persona. He shows Marian that there is more to life than just what she is doing, even though his idea of fun isn't necessarily the typical person's fun. I don;t think he acts any different around Marian than he would while he is alone. He isn't afraid to show her who he truly is and he is totally comfortable around her. Marian doesn't know how to handle that at first; she sees him as being weird but is somehow drawn back to him each and every time. She can't explain this urge, but it only her heart and body telling her what she really wants.
DeleteI agree with both of you. Duncan opens Marian up to all of life's possibilities. Marian seems particularly drawn to Duncan because he's dangerous and intriguing to her. I think the fact that when Marian bakes the cake at the end up the book and Peter runs from it but when Duncan shows up Marian becomes hungry again just shows that Duncan is better for her than Peter. Duncan is a very hard character to understand but he's at the same time, I think, the most interesting character in the book.
DeleteI agree with both of those, and they are good observations and points. Interesting is a good way of putting it, not to mention I think Duncan is like unkown to Marian. Something or someone she is unsure about, out of the ordinary, someone that society hasn't shaped, and I think she enjoys that. Just as both of you have said.
DeleteDuncan is definitely one of my favorite characters as well. Sure, he's completely weird and most of the things he does make him seem mentally unstable, but oddly enough, that's what I like about him. I thought the most interesting scenes in the book were the ones that Duncan was in, even if he was just sitting in the Laundromat watching the machines go around and around. He thinks so philosophically and really does not care about what other people think of him - it's awesome! I still don't think that Duncan is right for Marian, but he definitely does make the book more interesting.
DeleteWhen I read the parts involving Duncan I just got this feeling of extreme weirdness. He kind of is just going through life trying to figure things out but then its just not how he wants it. I agree with you guys in saying that he really doesnt care what other people think about him. He answers the beer questions extremely odd showing that he doesnt care too much of what other people think of him. I guess to me he is just odd.
DeleteThe book begins from a first person point of view and suddenly changes to third person. It finally changes back to first person for the conclusion. I believe that she does this to signify the fact that Marian is losing herself, but as far as the first switch goes, why do you think Atwood chose to switch points of views during that particular part of the story? And what exactly do you think was her point was for making the switch in the first place?
ReplyDeleteAs Kayanna started to say below, I think the shift in point of view is an reflection of the changes happening within Marian. The novel is written in first person before Marian's engagement to Peter and before her interaction with Duncan, exemplifying the control (somewhat) that Marian has over her own life. However, following her kiss with Duncan, just before Marian begins to feel overwhelmed and begins to develop her eating disorder, the novel shifts to third person, showing her gradual loss of control over her own body. While the shift represents the changes in Marian, I think the location of the shift was a device used by Atwood to highlight the cause for the shift. The change to third person does not occur after Marian's engagement, but rather after her kiss with Duncan. I believe that Duncan is the catalyst for Marian's feelings of dissatisfaction. If he were not there, she may have convinced herself to be happy, or at least content, with her life with Peter. However, with Duncan there, Marian is forced to face her underlying feelings of discontent which leads to stress and tension causing her disassociation from her body.
DeleteI agree with your point completely, Delaney. Marian is in essence losing herself and the connection of her brain to her body. I think that the author chooses to make the switch from 1st person to third person to third person so early in the book purely for a form of foreshadowing to what Marian's soon destiny is. It is a way of showing that since Marian no longer has the power of being the narrator, she also no longer has the control of her body. The switch shows and predicts the slow process of Marian slipping away from her body. At the end of the book she is once again the narrator, once she gets a hold of her life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, Duncan seems to appear everywhere that Marian chooses to go. Do you think that Marian is knowingly trying to find Duncan seeing as how she is desperate, at times, to see him? Or do you believe Duncan just happens to be in those places, given how his persona is so strange and random?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning I don't think Marian necessarily goes out searching for Duncan because the places she finds him are places she would never think him to be. After the first time meeting him in his home, he first pops up at the movie theater. This is a place she wouldn't go looking for him because she only just met him and would not know he liked quiet empty movie theaters. However, as the novel progresses I do think she begins purposely visiting Duncan's typical spots. The laundromat begins to be a place they run into each other often. After escaping Peter's party, Marian expresses her need to find Duncan and the laundromat is the first place she seeks out in search of him. He offers a welcome escape from the pressures of society so eventually I believe she becomes accustomed to longing for his company and searching for that escape.
DeleteNow, I don't think that this is very probable, but what if Duncan was really following Marian at the beginning of the book?
DeleteOn a serious note, I second Molly's opinion on the matter. Though I believe that she wished to encounter someone during her late-night runs who could whisk her off her feet and deliver her to a better reality than the one she had created for herself, I don't think that she specifically had Duncan in mind. Someone who was similar to him could have most likely filled the role that she wished to occupy.
While I agree with Maria, I also feel that it is very probable that subconsciously Marian may have been thinking of Duncan the whole time. While she doesn't always explicitly express her desires for him, we see her thoughts straying through the novel, as when she travels to the laundromat and wonders if she will see him there. I feel like in her desperate search, while not consciously considering Duncan, she may very well have subconsciously had him in mind, which would have contributed to the places she decides to wander too, increasing the likelihood of their meeting.
DeleteI agree with all of that. I think in the beginning it just happened, then again maybe it was Duncan seeking out Marian? He seems to enjoy her just as much. Duncan may have started it, but then Marian may have continued to seek it out. The randomness of the movie theater, she was even unsure if she really saw him since he disappeared then, which could be her subconcious hoping it was really him and then finding out that it really was. I agree that Duncan is the unshaped piece of society that Marian seems to try to escape to and begins to seek him out more.
DeleteI agree I think Duncan is just as random and spontaneous as Marian. There may be a little part of her that is continuously trying to find him, to satisfy that rebellious behavior she holds. Marian may be a little bit more adventurous ever since she met Duncan, and maybe this is why she is running into him more often. I find it hard to believe that she is actually out on the streets searching for places that Duncan may be, so that is a little preposterous to me. Marian sees Duncan as an outlet and maybe this is why she had become more adventurous and keeps running into him throughout the town.
DeleteI agree with the idea that Marian is trying to find Duncan. But this is another part in the story where Marian's subconscious is brought into question. Going deeper into the idea, you have to wonder whether Marian knows she's trying to find Duncan, or is just doing it without thinking about it. I personally think that Marian's subconscious is telling her to do so out of yearning to find the life she so craves with Duncan as many of her decisions involve doing things she's not completely aware she's doing. Again, this ties in to Marian being separated from her "true self" and trying to find it.
DeleteThroughout this novel is obviously clear that there is major feminism at work in the characters. One of the most interesting aspects of feminism though I think is shown in Clara Bates. Clara is still very young and in the beginning of the novel very pregnant. She dropped out of college to have her first child and has had three children since. She describes her children as "barnacles encrusting a ship and limpets clinging to a rock". I gathered that Clara represents the stereotypical mother role but at the same time represents a woman who sacrificed her life and independence to have children. Clara's husband takes care of everything from the cleaning to the tending to the children. Clara dies tend to fit the typical mother role but at the same time it seems as is something isn't right to her. Marian describes her as, "Clara's life seemed cut off from her, set apart, something she could only gaze at through a window." This statement is true. Clara doesn't seem to be 100% sure of her life and maybe that is due to the fact that she didn't get a college experience. Her husband, Joe, believes that woman shouldn't go to college. I don't think Clara will ever be happy until she gets to fully live her life. What is your opinion on Clara? Do you think she is a good mother or would she be a better mother if she had gotten to experience the world first?
ReplyDeleteI believe that she no longer has the capacity to be a "good mother" as per the definition of a "good mother" that is seemingly dictated by the book. Though she provides the basics for her children (feeds them, clothes them, etc...) and does seem to genuinely love them, it is as if her individuality and sense of self was drained away by what she calls their "leech-like behavior" and so she finds herself unable to care for them in a more personal way. She is what Edna from The Awakening said that she would never let herself become: someone who gave themselves away for their children. Now, this "giving-away" that Clara does is not completely the fault of her children of course. She let herself be overwhelmed and taken over by their presence, and her husband most likely reinforced it with his seemingly anti-feministic views.
DeleteThere is a sharp contrast between Marian's description of Clara before having her children and after having her children.
I do not think Clara was ready to have children when she did. Although it seems as though she and her husband are getting along fairly well as far as physical health goes, I do not think they are mentally well. Both of them have too much stress in their lives. I, for one, was very taken aback by the way Clara treated her children. They may not understand what she is calling them right now, but they will grow up being called "barnacles" by their very own mother and I do not want to know what that will do to their self-esteem later on in life.
DeleteI also can not say I would call Clara a feminist. In her lifetime, she has done nothing to stick up for women as individuals. She has done what every women is supposed to do, have babies and then stay at home to help care for them. What is a bit different about Clara than the a-typical mother has already been described, like how she treats her children and the lack of effort when it comes to cooking and cleaning. However, it's not as though she refuses to do these chores and actions because it is degrading to her gender, she is merely too lazy. I like how Maria said she no longer has the capacity of be a "good mother." I agree that she just gave up trying long ago.
I think getting a collage education would have helped Clara become a more rounded and interesting individual, but I would not necessarily say that an education would make her a better mother. Some women just are not meant to have children.
I agree that Clara does seem to be the stereotypical mother, yet she does seem to look at her children as a burden more than a blessing. It seems as if her children took her independence from her, and made her dependent on Joe to "hold the fort down." This could be foreshadowing to the conversation between Marian and Ainsley when Ainsley states she wants to have a baby. It doesn't quite make sense why after seeing how hectic a baby made Clara's world that Ainsley would want to do it all on her own.
DeleteI also feel that if Clara had gotten more "real world" experience before having children A) she wouldn't be in the economic situation that her and Joe are in due to her more education=better paying job B) I also think that if she got more experience she wouldn't have gotten to be so dependent on Joe, and she would have put up a little bit more of a fight to maintain some independence.
I agree with you 100%, Delaney. Clara was far from being read to have her children. She got so caught up in the boring life that she was living that she just kept having children. Her and her husband are unable to escape to the real world and see what is really out there. Clara is her own person and just isn't cut out to have the "family lifestyle". Given she was a younf mother and doesn't know of any other life, it is very difficult for her to escape what sad excuse for a life that she is living.
DeleteObviously, she gave up on trying to be a good mother and even a good person in general. Her husband is forced to do all of the work while Clara sits around doing nothing. It isnt that Clara is lazy, per say, she is just tired of the same old life that she has been living in for so long. It is a form of a depressive state in which she can't get out of.
The novel states specifically that Clara had her first child unintentionally. So psychologically, she was certainly not prepared for the demands of motherhood. Clara does, however, demonstrate "motherly" qualities, by society's standards. She has sacrificed much of her freedom for her children. She cares and provides for them, yet emotionally, Clara was not ready. The problem With Clara's situation is that she never really had the chance to find herself before she was thrust into a position that demanded a certain personality. Clara, through careless accident, was thrust into the role of a stay-at-home mom before she had the chance to go out and discover who she wished to be.
DeleteHere's my question:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Ainsley or one of Marian's other friends, such as Clara or one of the "office virgins", should have made themselves more present in Marian's life during her struggles, or do you think that she hid her situation too well for them to have supposed that she needed help? If one of your friends suddenly acted in the ways that Marian did in the book (loss of appetite, despondency, neurotic behavior, etc...), would you have referred him/her to help?
I do not necessarily think that Marian was good enough friends with Ainsley or the office virgins for them to read into her abnormal behavior. If they did notice it, they most likely just thought it had to do with the anticipation of the wedding. As for Clara, I do not feel as though Marian spent enough time around her for Clara to pick up on it.
DeleteMarian is also a very closed off person in general. She does not seem to be comfortable talking freely about what she is going through with anyone, not even her fiancé. She believes that everyone would just think she was crazy if she tried to tell them what was going on, which exemplifies the fact that she does not feel comfortable around any of them. Marian seems to lack emotion at times, or just does not know how to interpret how she feels. This, in turn, would make it harder for anyone else to understand what she was dealing with as well.
I agree. Marian wasn't ever the one to tell other what she is feeling and what she thinks about certain things. When she begins to vhange and become seperate from her body, she experiences things that even she can't explain. Her world changed so dramatically that it almost made her shut herself off from the world that she lived in compltely. Of course, if she is unable to explain her emotions or sudden changes, how could she possibly explain them to those around her.
DeleteMarian isn't close with the office virgins or Ainsley for that matter. They were just people that she saw in her every day life; comparable to the people you see in the hallways and greet with a casual nod. The problems she was going through were so bizarre that it would have been crazy to bring it up to those girls whom she didnt often talk to.
Yes, Marian could have talked to her fiance about the problems but that would only interrupt his so-called perfect life. Marian didnt really have anyone to turn to except for Duncan, who had enough of his own problems in his very surreal world.
Agreed, Marian did tend to keep stuff in. She was always very distanced throughout the novel, and maybe it was because every time she did try to open up (her relationship with Peter, the beginning of her relationship with Duncan) something went wrong and through it off course. There is a study in psychology: Classical conditions, in which if a man calls his dog a bunch of times, and a bunch of times the dog refuses to come, and then finally after calling and calling the dog comes, and the man scolds his dog for not listening the other times, the dog will associate the scolding because he came when called, therefore he won't come next time he is called. I feel Marian suffers from this, so she tends to set herself away from people in order to try to sort her own life out, without help from others.
DeleteI agree with all of the above. Marian kept stuff in and never really had a 'bestfriend' to share things with. Ainsley, though a roommate, was never really one that cared to hear about Marian but rather had her own strong opinions. Ainsley didn't support Marian in the marriage for example, and Marian didn't feel the need to ever share her full opinion on Ainsley pregnant idea. As for the office virgins, Marian never seemed to share much of her stories besides the engagement, but rather just listened. Almost like not trying to mix work with personal stuff, and as far as Peter goes, like Kayanna said, the problems wouldn't fit in with his 'perfect' life. I feel Marian tended to listen to Duncan more rather than talk about her own issues because possibly that was a sense of not being alone for her, hearing someone have problems of their own. Truly though, Marian was distant from many, so no one would really be able to notice the lack of eating and unusual behaviors.
DeleteI find Atwood's choice in characters to be very interesting in relation to the overall theme of the novel. I'm sure many people consider this novel to be "feminist" in nature, pushing for the realization of the harmful pressures of society and the need to try to break free of those bonds created through expectation. However, despite this, Atwood chooses imperfect characters that break traditional roles to some extent, but fulfill those stereotypes in other ways. Ainsley, for instance, is against the idea of a father figure. She mocks Clara and Joe, exclaiming Clara is weak to have allowed herself to become so dependent upon a man. Ainsley rejects the traditional father figure, yet still embraces the idea that child-bearing and motherhood is a necessary part of embracing femininity, fulfilling a traditional gender role. As Kirsten pointed out earlier, Clara is also a mix. She proclaims her disgust (for lack of a better word) for her children, yet has also sacrificed everything: her job, her education, and her independence to fulfill the mother role. He husband Joe also both fulfills and dissatisfies gender roles, by being both the providing father figure, but also the stereotypical caregiver (cooking, cleaning, serving, etc). Marian starts out leading a average, stereotypical life: decent job, kind boyfriend. Marian falls prey to the societal pressures (exemplified through Peter) but also breaks stereotypes through her affair with Duncan. It seems to me that Atwood is attempting to create very believable and very human examples (including their failure) of responses to societal pressures. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, I find the book to be very fictional. I do not think someone could realistically develop an eating disorder such as Marian's. I also do not believe the relationship Marian establishes with Duncan is believable either. Everything in the novel is so over the top. I feel as though Atwood tried a little too hard to make her characters believable and by doing so, she made them quite unrealistic. Personally, I do not feel as though I can relate to Marian or any other character in the novel. Each personality is just a little too force.
DeleteHowever, I am not completely disagreeing with you, Luke. I do think that many books have very stereotypical characters who undergo predictable situations. This does not happen in real-life. I think as far as the feminine characters go, Atwood did a solid job of showing that each person has flaws when it comes to his/her morals. I appreciated how each female character was a mix of different feminist ideas, as well as more practical ideas. There comes a time when everyone bends their morals to fit new beliefs, and Atwood recognizes that. Basically, I think by trying so hard to make her characters believable, at times, Atwood achieved the opposite.
Agreed Luke!! This book certainly has flawed characters however I think these flaws make them more relatable to the audience. I guess they might be hard to relate to because of the fictional storyline, but their reactions allow readers to relate to them, instead of trying to relate to a perfect character who completely ignores the pressures of society.
DeleteI agree with Luke to the extent that the flaws do make the characters more relatable in the sense that it is an imperfect world. Many individuals do in fact undergo eating disorders, relationship difficulties, and uncertainty in the career field, yet I also agree with Delaney that Atwood did tend to be a bit dramatic at times. For instance the first fling between Marian and Duncan outside the laundry mat, how is it believable that people that barely know one another, go from small talk, to big move kissing. Key events like that in the novel did make it a little hard to connect with, yet certain details Atwood did include made it more down to our level (in laymen's terms) and easier to relate to.
DeleteSo here is my conversation starter: how much does a polar bear weigh?
ReplyDeleteA: Enough to break the ice! ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo this is my real conversation starter! So this Marian girl, she really seems confused about what she even wants to do with her life. She gets engaged to this Peter guy, who is nice, has a job, and is a gentleman, but really doesn't seem to feel satisfied with the relationship she has with him. Because of what she thinks society is forcing her to do, she continues to stay with him despite her mixed feelings. She then decides to have an affair with this other guy Duncan in order to assert her individuality and pursue what she wishes. Do you guys think that she is consciously aware of the pressures that society puts on her? Or does she just follow her gut and her desire to be with Duncan?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read it, I thought she was just following her gut. I feel like most of the effects in this story seems to happen in Marian's subconscious such as her loss of appetite. I feel like kissing Duncan was the same thing. She's already on the brink of losing touch with herself as a person. I feel like being on this edge drove her to kiss Duncan and want to surpass being with boring, ol' Peter. But her complete loss of appetite comes after this. So aside from her subconscious, Marian's appetite is also a strong representation of her feelings.
DeleteI think Marian is only semi-aware of the pressures society puts on her. When it comes to marriage, Marian is not particularly a fan, and since Peter seems to be happy with their relationship, she has nothing to worry about. It is not until Peter asks her to marry him that she begins to develop her strange eating disorder. I think she develops this problem because she does not acknowledge the fact that she is going against her morals by agreeing to get married. She is not ready to be married, yet she feels society is pressuring her into this type of unescapable bondage.
DeleteI also think that she definitely is just following her gut when it comes to Duncan. Throughout the entire book, most of her actions take place on a hunch or instinct, such as running away during dinner, hiding under Len's bed, and returning to the laundramat any time she wanted or needed to talk to Duncan. Marian believes that in order to be happy, she must have a conventional life with a respectable boyfriend. What she fails to realize, is not everyone needs are the same. Some people are perfectly happy living average, everyday lives, but Marian instinctively seeks out adventure where there is none.
I feel like Marian is staying with Peter because yes, that is what society classifies as "acceptable" and she tends to not want to stray from the pack, yet on the other hand I strongly feel she is yearning for the chance to seek her independence and be with whoever she wants whenever she wants. I believe that Marian is fully aware of the pressures society has over her, yet as much as she wants to satisfy those attributes, she wants to make herself happy as well (with Duncan) so that is where she is at a cross-roads. Make society happy, or make herself truly happy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meghan. Also, I feel as if Duncan is her little break free from the pressure society brings. she never wants to really let others know about Duncan because perhaps she knows she shouldn't. Peter would be the ideal guy that society would recommend, yet with all the pressure society gives, that is something she can sort of control.
DeleteI think both of you have very good points. Marian maybe does deep down love and want to be with Peter because he is a good natured person and will provide a stable life for her. Though in the grand scheme of things her desire to break free from societies "standards" is greater than that. I believe that Marian is very intrigued by Duncan but I do find it interesting that she doesn't find their intimate night in the hotel unsatisfying. She really does want to be with him but I think her desire towards him is more so because hes not what society wants from her, not because he himself actually satisfies her.
DeleteMarian's relationship as a wife with Peter is deemed conventional to society's standards because the fact that he is good looking, has a great job, and a bright future ahead of him. Marian doesn't find complete satisfaction with him even though he seems so perfect in many ways, contrary to Duncan-who is unkempt to say the least. I believe that Marian craves that rebellious independence from conventional norms and therefore finds Duncan so attractive and pursues an affair with him to find her identity.
ReplyDeleteI found Marian was never in a true state of satisfaction. Duncan represents this fight against the "norm" that Marian so yearns to have herself. As much as Peter might provide for her, he's too boring for her, hence the kiss between Marian and Duncan. I also feel as though Peter is a barrier to Marian to help her find her identity more than Duncan is an answer to the question. Breaking vows to Peter made me think she had found herself more than actually kissing Duncan, which proved no satisfaction.
DeleteI agree Duncan is Marian's get away. She stays with Peter because, that's what is expected of her; marriage, a job, be somewhat dependent on the man. Duncan is one of the many characters in Atwood's novel that is indeed very raw, and uncut, where as Peter is prim and proper. Marian's inner self seems to be very rebellious, and insubordinate and she can be herself more with Duncan that she can be with Proper Peter. It almost seems that maybe Marian doesn't actually get satisfaction WITH Duncan, but she is content with the IDEA of Duncan in her life; this wild and almost unobtainable man. The affair may be just so Marian can feel alive, and get away from the pressures of society.
DeleteI agree with both of you. Marian constantly seems to be missing something in her life and when she meets Duncan she seems to have found that. She can't help but be drawn to him but she doesn't know why when she has such a perfect man(Peter) right in front of her. Marian seems to be drawn to Duncan because he isn't what society says she should be with. She secretly has a rebellious desire and Duncan fulfills that. When she decides to leave Peter I believe this is when she truly decided to live life for herself instead of for what society says she should.
DeleteI believe that Marian is dissatisfied with Peter and finds refuge in Duncan because Duncan is more like she is. The two share many characteristics, such as their odd tendencies and lack of overall life direction, and this makes Duncan even more attractive to Marian. Peter, on the other hand, really is the respectable, expected option for Marian to pursue, but this really isn't what she wants. I agree that she does use Duncan to fulfill some of her rebellious desires and find herself. Through her involvement with Duncan Marian finally realizes that Peter is not for her.
DeleteI had to make my own comment sooner or later, so here goes it! What really jumped out at me in the story was the start of Marian's eating disorder. I notices some similarities between the severity of her refusal to eat and what's going on in the story as well. After she kissed Duncan in the laundromat, she can't manage to eat anything with "a bone or tendon." After Len goes about his tirade after finding out about Ainsley's pregnancy, Marian can't seem to eat eggs. See the similarity here? But lastly, when Marian finally decides that everyone, Peter especially, is metaphorically "devouring" her, she bakes the cake with the likeness of herself which Peter doesn't eat due to the fact that he'd rather prefer to eat away at the real Marian. Did anyone else catch these references? If so, did your ideas differ at all?
ReplyDeleteYou make really good points here Jack! I honestly didn't notice those correlations until you pointed them out, but I definitely see the references. I never would've thought about the connection between Ainsley's pregnancy and eggs but that's really insightful! Now that I think about it, I don't think that Peter refuses to eat the cake because he consciously wanted the demise of Marian, but rather, he doesn't realize what he's doing to her. He doesn't understand that their relationship is eating her alive.
DeleteThat's an interesting way to look at it, Jack! This kind of makes me think of Delaney's comment above when she said, "I feel as though Atwood tried a little too hard to make her characters believable and by doing so, she made them quite unrealistic." It's like the metaphors are so fictional... I mean, I see the symbolism. But it seems a little extensive. The symbolism with the eating disorder and it's relations with Marian's life make sense, but I find them unrealistic and kind of over the top.
DeleteWow, I'm impressed Jack, I honestly didn't pick up on these details until I say your comment. I think these references might be some of Atwood's allegories in The Edible Woman. They are hidden messages, that can't be seen if you are just reading it, but only if you are analyzing the story and the plot line in detail. Marian's eating disorders may be the underlying details of the uneasiness of what society is expecting of her, and the people around her. As for the term "devouring," I think Marian does feel she is being pressured into societies narrow way of what is expected of women (in that time era) but I have a hard time believing she is actually feeling devoured by her peers. And I'm still a little unsure of why exactly she has stopped eating, if anyone else can better explain it, that'd be great!
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting, first off, that Marian invites her side fling guy to a party her BOYFRIEND is throwing. Just throwing that one out there, ha. Anyways, it's kind of sad how because Peter wanted Marian to look different, less homely, or mousy, I think was the term, she all of the sudden changes and dresses up and sports the fake lash and red lip look. She seems to stray from her true self to please Peter, yet, behind Peter's back, she's having an affair anyways. It's strange she cares so much about his opinion when she isn't even truly committed to him. Do you think this shows week character? Yeah? No?
ReplyDeleteI mean weak* haha
ReplyDelete