Ch. 20-something

In response to Joe (and sort of Alex): From my "girlhood" experience, yes, girls can be cruel. And there is certainly a brand of manipulating girl who is pretty darn creepy. For instance: I had serious troubles at this age with a friend who claimed to be my "best"--We were raised together as toddlers and played together all the time, but at school she ignored me because I wasn't popular enough, "teacher's pet", whatever. Then, I found a nerdy little friend of my own. My "best" spotted the two of us rollerblading together one day and tracked me down for a serious scolding about my lack of loyalty. It was really pretty sick. I couldn't go anywhere unless she was invited. I also started to have some anxiety issues at this age (9-10) which remind me of Elaine's sicknesses. I had these stomach cramps and a lot of days I refused to go to school. My mom, in turn, started refusing to call me in sick. So it was a traumatic time, relationship-wise.

On the other hand, I have problems with Atwood's portrayal of women/girls, which I find self-defeating. Going "inside" women seems to open doors that haven't been opened much in our literary history but these women are often shallow and caricature-y (with the exception, I think, of the narrator). The women who strike me as most interesting (and have the potential to be more well-rounded) don't get much page time (like Elaine's mother).

But in Atwood's defense, I think women with interests in things like art and the sciences tend to feel as if they identify more with men, because these fields are acceptable places for men. Women artists/writers/scientists are usually mentored by men, while their female friends don't seem to share their interests. So even women see these areas as a "man's world," which makes things really screwy. (Elaine, for example--introduced to science by dad/brother, taught by a male artist, feels no connection with the women who are art enthusiasts in the gallery. Not concerned with "feminist issues.") I think women who reach higher levels in these areas often become sexist about them themselves--and the reason may be as simple as their failure to form relationships with women who didn't have the opportunity to encounter/enjoy these male-dominated fields.

In response to Alex: Your statement about not being moved by women writers strikes me as similar to Crystal's statement this year that she doesn't understand contemporary poetry. It is unfair to compare the best examples of several centuries of literary tradition to a few contemporary poems/poets who have not yet "proven" their long-term influence or staying power. There have been many, many male writers over the centuries, who have gone through the critical wringer and been declared worthy/unworthy. In contrast, the number of women writing seems to be increasing only in the last 100 years or so. (It sort of makes sense to talk about "women writers" but when you say "male writers" don't you just mean "writers"? I mean, the categories just don't seem fair.) I say: There are writers who move you and writers who don't (and many who don't move me are in the "classics" category). If there are fewer women than men in this category for you, it's because you haven't read as many women. And no wonder: fewer women write.*

*the plethora of women writing romance, "historical fiction," and other books of printed toilet paper don't count
  posted by jnuh @ 10:01:00 PM

 
Up to Ch. 28 (no spoilers though)

I'm finally starting to get into this book. The misery of poor, submissive Elaine is so compelling. Judging from the other few posts about this book, I think most every person can identify with the pains Elaine is suffering. Whether we were one of the Cordelias or the Elaines of the schoolyard, we experienced similar friendship traumas growing up.

As I read, however, I wonder if I'm an anomaly. Perhaps it's because I grew up on a farm with little contact with other kids my age or because I wouldn't let myself be subjected to such tortures, but I never suffered so persistently and severely from my interactions with friends.

But then I read Joe's post. He too is amazed at how cruel Cordelia, Grace, and Carol are to the little Elaine. This makes me think that the problem posed by Atwood is not so much a growing up problem as a growing up *as a girl* problem. Of course, I've only grown up as a boy, but if Elaine is a typical case, I can't help but think that girls have to endure more hardships and withstand more ridicule than boys. By the time a female reaches, say, the age of 20, she has experienced more troubling emotions and dealt with more relationship problems than a male of the same age.

Let's back up a moment. When we were picking books for our reading list, we started taking note of female authors. Let's get more female and feminist writers because we haven't read many of them, some people argued.

So here's my question: why aren't we more familiar with the art and works of women? If women do indeed experience a wide array of emotions during the formative years, why do men dominate the arts?

I know you could yell that women have been repressed from the realms of fine arts, film, music, writing, etc. But that's not the kind of discussion I want to instigate. I'm wondering why I prefer a male author to a female author. (Atwood is starting to interest me, but the emotions she's stirring up are no where near as potent as those from male authors.) Why am I not moved with female vocalists? (A generalization, but except for females in musicals and operas, females rarely evoke emotion from me in the way a male does.) Why do male musicians (classical and otherwise) and painters excite me more than females? Why are men more powerful in the arts than women?

Maybe when growing up females were forced to overcome or at least contain their sorrows, conditioning them so that they would not be so colorful in the arts. Men, conversely, might never be told "no" or be asked to hold back; hence there are no inhibitions holding back their art. ...Sure it's a lackluster answer, but I'd like to see you do better! ...Ferreal
  posted by Alex @ 7:56:00 PM

 
Chapter 18
Even though I think Atwood's description of her "play dates" with three childhood friends is, in part, commentary on women's roles and attitudes in the 40s, I've found it really entertaining, because I'm remembering things about playing with girls that I hadn't thought about in a while. Like the one girl's "headaches". Or playing school with a "teacher" who's more demanding than any teachers at school. Actually, I was probably one of those annoying girls. It drove me crazy when my friends wanted to play "bad" kids all day. Maybe because I didn't pretend hyperactivity very well myself ... Anyway, I think a lot of this hasn't changed with the times.
  posted by jnuh @ 9:48:00 AM

 
A point of introduction for Cat's Eye:

Atwood mentions books by Paul Davies, Carl Sagan, John Gribbin, and Stephen Hawking as her points of reference for the physics and cosmology in the book. Anyone read any of these guys ... or have anything to say about physics and time?

Make sure to check in with how far you are in the book. This one's longer than the others, so pace accordingly.
  posted by jnuh @ 11:50:00 AM

 
Now that we've had a nice introduction from Alex, perhaps the rest of you have some final thoughts to share. After all, this is the final day for The Centaur. Big thanks to Alex (and Mike, who seems to have contributed) for facilitating the discussion. Tomorrow, we begin Cat's Eye. Hopefully, Maureen R. can start us off with some thoughts on why she suggested this book. Of course, anyone else can contribute as well. I hope everyone is having a great, relaxing summer and that reading along with us has been fun so far. Happy summer reading, guys.
  posted by jnuh @ 1:47:00 PM