Author: EVANGELION

In literature, the notion of “womanhood” can be very dynamic.  Oftentimes, a girl becomes a woman through a series of life-changing events, the common ones being getting her period for the first time and another losing her virginity.  For Mala, this process and notion were thrown out of sorts when her mother left and her father began abusing her and Asha.  Mala and her sister lacked a maternal figure, so Mala was obliged to become that figure, in more ways than one.  Women, by a societal definition, perform certain roles and tasks, such as cleaning the house and pleasing the husband.  Mala becomes a sort of perverted version of this where she is compelled to do household chores and answer her father’s calls.  While Mala’s body is forced to perform the role of a woman, Mala is still a girl in her heart and mind.

“For the first time in her life Mala felt like a woman, a feeling both thrilling and frightening. She lifted her shoulders upright and her small breasts quietly announced themselves” (Mootoo, 196).

Mala feeling like a woman could have several implications; given that she references her breasts, it could mean that she is starting to feel comfortable with sexual attention when it is from someone she likes.  In addition, this could mean that she feels comfortable starting to defy her father, as he does not want Mala to form connections with anyone in town.  In this way, being a woman would also mean being independent, as opposed to being obliged to work around the house and obey her father.  Ambrose’s return symbolizes Mala being able to transition into the role of a woman on her own terms instead of being compelled to perform this role.  Consequentially, Mala’s version of a “woman” is different from the stereotypical notion of a woman, which is essentially a housewife, as Mala seems to equate womanhood with independence and comfort in her sexuality.

“Wearing the dress made Otoh carry himself gracefully” (pg. 121).

This sentence contains many interesting aspects of Cereus Blooms at Night; Otoh is a biological female but has always presented and been regarded as a boy by the community.  Even his parents forget that he is biologically female and consider him as their son.  What then makes this interesting is Otoh’s lack of reservation about changing his appearance to present as female, for the sake of sneaking in and visiting Mala.  This is significant, as it says something about Otoh’s character; it implies that Otoh is comfortable switching back and forth between male and female, though he prefers to present as male, and does not view male/female as a set binary.  Otoh simply grabs the dress off of the clothes line and puts it on without any apparent psychological distress.

Wearing a dress highlights the novel’s emphasis on non-binaries and the power of gendered objects, especially dresses.  Earlier in the novel, Tyler, another character that is implied to be transgender, puts on a dress and shows himself off to Mala.  Wearing the dress allows Tyler to begin to explore the space between the male/female binary, where he considers himself to belong.  While Otoh is comfortable exploring this space, Tyler feels uneasy at some points, like he was wearing the dress as a mere joke.  Tyler and Otoh both experience powerful effects from putting on the dress, however, where Otoh “carries himself gracefully,” which could be taken to mean in a more feminine way, and Tyler feels more in tune with his true identity.  Male/female genders are considered to be on a spectrum in this novel, and objects, like dresses, that are heavily associated with one gender allow non-binary individuals to explore this spectrum.

“’You don’t want to be doing that,’ the men in our families would say. ‘That’s a girl thing.’ Baking scones and cupcakes for the school janitors, watching Guiding Light with our mothers, collecting rose petals for use in a fragrant potpourri: anything worth doing turned out to be a girl thing” (Me Talk Pretty One Day, 10).

I would like to analyze this quote from the perspective of Queer Temporality and Postmodern Geographies, specifically with the idea of “strict bourgeois rules of respectability” (5) that Halberstam alludes to.

David Sedaris, while considered to be a “conservative” queer individual, certainly represents someone who lives an alternative lifestyle.  He complements the traditional bourgeois lifestyle that Halberstam discusses where he is performing many actions traditionally associated with upper-class individuals, but he is a man, and these actions are associated with women.  Scones and cupcakes are reminiscent of the English high tea as well as rose petals, however, these objects are traditionally made and used by women.  Men may only discreetly enjoy these things, if they even notice them, and they are certainly not expected or encouraged to aid with their fabrication.  The fact that David Sedaris not only does these things, but enjoys them and seeks them out, represents a twisting of bourgeois ideals.  This twist also has an interesting effect on queer culture; David Sedaris, an openly gay man, could be considered to be playing into the stereotype that gay men are extremely feminine.

David Sedaris’ “queer” twist on an otherwise respected, if feminine, practice puts an interesting spin on both queer and heteronormative/bourgeois ideals.  In terms of heteronormative/bourgeois ideals, he is fulfilling the aristocratic desire to engage in high tea, watch television with his elders, and create aromatic house pieces.  However, he is engaging in these practices not because he is expected to, which he would be if he were a woman, but because he wants to, as he is a gay man.  This quotation also presents a twist on queer culture; currently, on different forms of social media like Tumblr, many queer individuals use the dialogue of girl vs. boy things to symbolize oppressive gender assignment of children.  Since children are compelled to act in accordance with society’s ideals of gender-appropriate behavior, they are unable to do things they may truly love.  This discourse is then traditionally used to propose or argue that society must be changed to eradicate these oppressive behaviors.  David Sedaris twists this, and instead uses it to make a humorous anecdote that is just that, humorous.  Halberstam provides an interesting lens through which Sedaris’ work may be analyzed, but one could argue that Sedaris’ primary concentration is humor instead of making a political point, which contrasts Halberstam’s rather political piece.

“She was free. Is that you flying over the fields with the wind under your wing? Why didn’t I trust you?  Am I any better than Elgin? Now you’ve made fools of us both and sprung away. The snare didn’t close on you.  It closed on us” (172).

This passage is particularly interesting for several reasons.  Throughout the course of the novel, the narrator has made use of many different pronouns, such as he, she, her, and you.  Beforehand, the “you” was seemingly used to address the reader but, in this passage, the narrator is referring to Louise.  In addition, there are two different metaphors of Louise as a bird and then as a rabbit or other small critter.  A significant aspect of this quote is that the narrator draws a comparison between him/her self and Elgin, who has been presented as a damaging character incompatible with Louise, given her wildness and exotic aura.  Given the comparison between the narrator and Elgin, the narrator hints that he/she and Louise may be incompatible with one another as well.  Another significant aspect is that the narrator implies that Louise is free of him/her and Elgin, so the narrator may admit that his/her relationship with Louise may not have ultimately been healthy.

This passage again hints at how the narrator is envious of Louise’s autonomy.  Louise does not stay with Elgin, who could heal and support her, even after the narrator leaves. Louise also does not seek out the narrator until the very end of the novel, thus leaving the narrator to fret and worry for months.  The narrator also spends a lot of time reflecting on and remembering past lovers and relationships, hinting that he or she feels trapped by these memories, for they can elicit feelings of regret, sadness, and even self-hatred, such as on page eighty-three, where the narrator says “I air my scruples now but it didn’t stop me at the time. I do despise myself for that.”

This book could be broken up into different sections; initially, the narrator talks about his or her past relationship with Bathsheba, which then led to him or her dating Jacqueline, who seemed like a “safe” alternative.  The narrator then meets Louise, but the two are hardly spent time together when the narrator leaves and spends the rest of the novel regretting that decision and missing Louise.  The narrator implies that he or she is a fool, while Louise is “free.” As was mentioned before, Louise could be free from several things: life, an unhappy marriage with Elgin, her disease, society, or the narrator.  The narrator, however, is not really free from anything; he/she spends much of the novel reminiscing about old flames yet does not disclose many personal details.  Thus, the narrator chooses to define him/her self by these past relationships.  In a way, letting go of these relationships implies a loss of self and identity for the narrator.  This explains why the narrator continues to pine over Louise despite the lack of contact and the probability that Louise has passed away.   Because the narrator continues to be attached to Louise and the past lovers, one could say that the narrator is a fool.  Earlier in the novel, the narrator referenced some “friends” who stated that the narrator was foolish for becoming involved with a married woman again.  To conclude, this passage reflects how Louise is a very autonomous character, a quality which the narrator envies as he/she is entrapped in a cycle of love and love lost. 

“It was necessary to engage her whole person. Her mind, her heart, her soul and her body could only be present as two sets of twins. She would not be divided from herself” (68).

This passage refers to Louise’s autonomy and the multiple reasons why she is so attractive to the narrator.  This quotation is preceded by several descriptions of Louise’s physical attractiveness, such as her flowing red hair.  The descriptions demonstrate why the narrator is physically attracted to Louise, but her autonomy is the basis for the narrator’s psychological attraction and explains how Louise presents a sort of challenge.  This passage also represents a paradox; the narrator is attracted to Louise because of her autonomy, yet the narrator is essentially obsessed with Louise, and repeats the word “her” five times in three brief sentences.

The narrator’s desire for autonomy, even in an external sense, is understandable when considering the book so far.  One of the narrator’s former lovers, Bathsheba, essentially broke the narrator’s heart.  This then prompted the narrator’s relationship with Jacqueline, who represents a calm, risk-free person who cannot cause emotional damage to the narrator, as she is not an object of desire.  The narrator has also had several affairs with married women and describes a kind of script that goes along with these encounters, indicating a lack of challenge and boredom due to repetition.  Although the narrator has not yet given a detailed description for each lover, many affairs seem to have ended with the narrator or the lover storming out and both of them being hurt.  This then suggests that the narrator not only desires Louise for her physical attributes, but also to be independent like her.  In addition, this quotation features foreshadowing and subtly implies that the narrator may not be able to meet the standards that Louise has.  Louise’s relationship with Elgin, her husband, also contradicts this description, as Louise no longer makes love to him yet remains married to him.