“She treated me like a big cat in the Zoo. She was very proud of me.” (p. 28)
The narrator used to be a wild animal, hunting down numerous women and breaking all the sacred oath. Jacqueline knew how to deal with beasts. The wild soul was free to live and love, but also free to die and hurt. That is why Jacqueline offered stability. Under the cage, there is nothing to worry about. The tiger or the narrator is now no longer a beast but a big cat.
Funny thing is that the narrator thought it was Jacqueline who could be easily dealt with just like a pet. However, she is the only person without any constraints of marriage among women whom the narrator fell in love with. She is by no means a pet. She has a complete control over her life. She would not be dragged by her family nor money, because she is single and has own job. She does not even stick with love; ‘she didn’t cry when I shouted at her. In fact she shouted back.’
Then, where does the boredom the narrator feels come from? Jacqueline is definitely not a boring woman who can be easily predicted. The narrator’s life with Jacqueline is defined as boredom by the narrator’s friends. They ask about frequency of sex and expression of affection. These are what people typically expect from true love, in other words, cliches.
As a forced relationship bounded only by just a marriage commitment cannot be a true love, obsession of sex and sweet nothings to prove themselves true love also cannot be a true love. The stable relationship with Jacqueline looks somewhat different from others, but the novel seems to be going to prove how strong old love cliches are.
I never thought or realized the analogy that Jacqueline was. She is a zoo keeper tending to the wild animals and once taming the narrator, a sense of the wild animal is lost in domesticity which is then therefore mistaken as the cliche of boredom. While I think the book challenges cliches, it also proves them to be true in some cases based on the constructed norms that we believe will come true. Or maybe the narrator simply found more within Louise, yet who is to say that their story wouldn’t have been any different based on the narrators’ love history?