Category: 2015 Blog Post

“A pre-war sky. Before the first world war there were days and days like this; long English meadows, insect hum, innocence and blue sky” (161).

This passage occurs when the narrator is on a train to London, daydreaming (or, rather, creating fictions) about an idyllic day with Louise. The repetition of both the words “sky” and “days” creates a sense of infinity and/or endless time, even though our narrator is merely looking back on a moment that is constructed, a utopic fantasy. Meanwhile, the repetition of the word “war” seems to oppose this sense of serenity with its violent associations, but because the focus is on a time before war, the passage maintains its dreamy tone. Read aloud, the constant use of the ‘s’ sound (“insect hum, innocence”) further creates a feeling of warmth, sleepiness, and safety. In contrast with the novel’s opening, here nature connotes a return to happiness and peace.

Furthermore, the idea of “pre-war” suggests that war is inevitable, that this peaceful time has already ended. But the narrator’s ability to take nostalgic comfort in something rooted in the (fictional?) past demonstrates a blurring of the lines between past and present, and reveals that the narrator’s thoughts and memories are often the product of imagination. Despite the fact that this idyllic scene may exist in a realm far away from reality, the passage also implies that hope can be found in memory and in dreams. Whereas the narrator once constantly asked why the measure of love was loss, this idea of returning to the past (or returning to feelings from the past through fictional memory) has the potential to undercut the novel’s association between “love” and “loss,” because our narrator has not completely lost his/her grasp on Louise or those pre-war skies, even if they are both arguably his/her inventions. This passage, much like the end of the novel, leaves us wanting to know what is real and what is not real, but also asks us to see that perhaps that distinction is not so clear-cut, and that maybe “realness” is not even the point. Has our narrator fallen in love with a fiction? Is the past always a fictional place? Maybe love cannot be lost because love is always partly our own creation, never really entirely rooted in reality.

She said, ‘Don’t you know that Renoir claimed he painted with his penis?’ ‘Don’t worry’, I said, ‘He did. When he died they found nothing between his balls but an old brush.’ (p. 22)

‘Yes,’ she said. Do you know why Henry Miller said “I write with my prick”?’ ‘Because he did. When he died they found nothing between his legs but a ballpoint pen.’ (p.60)

When I read these two passages, I doubted whether either Renoir or Miller actually made the above statements, so I did a little research, but was not successful in finding anything. So why did Winterson add these words? What meaning is she trying to convey?

What symbols are the penis and prick intended to represent? Are they more than just a man’s anatomy? When aroused, the organ become engorged with blood, which facilitates penetration and finally results in ejaculation. Semen fertilizes the ovum, thereby creating life. Are these words meant to convey the desire, drive and passion for creative expression? Blood pulses through the organ, giving it a life that is greater than the sum of the mere tissue, cells, and nerve endings it is, in its’ flaccid state.

The tools of the artists, paintbrush and pen, are filled with creative power when manipulated by the creator of that work. The liquids, ink and paint ejaculate, allow the fertile imagination of the artist to be expressed on mediums, canvas and paper, that bring to life the artists’ vision. Their works then become an entity unto themselves, with a life of their own that even outlive the creator. A work of art, of passion, of love and of life, survives to be greater than the sum of the mere pigments and fibers of the mediums used.

This use of phallic symbolism brings me to another question. If the Narrator does not want to be identified by gender, and the author is female, why use the artists Renoir and Miller, to represent creative genius? Why not use Georgia O’Keefe and Elizabeth Bishop instead? Is it because the tools of these artists remain the same, regardless of the gender of the creator? Our language lacks the appropriate symbolism for creative artistry through the reproductive powers of women and women’s anatomy. Are not women often only regarded as receptacles of the seed of creative power, and is that why the phallic symbol has no correlate in our vocabulary? This could also be just one more example of the use of clichés, put into the mouths of Narrator’s lovers, which the narrator claims to hate the use of.

But, alas, sometimes a prick is just a prick.

“Don’t move. We can’t move, caught like lobster in a restaurant aquarium. These are the confines of our life together, this room, this bed. This is the voluptuous exile freely chosen” (72).

This passage occurs just after the narrator has returned to his flat to find it utterly destroyed, courtesy of Jacqueline. It is perhaps the first moment in which the narrator acknowledges the “confines” of his/her relationship with Louise. It is important in that he/she understands that being with Louise publicly under these circumstances will never be accepted within society because of its adulterous and illicit characteristics. Their relationship is no longer amicable or pure. Instead, it has become destructive and invasive, chaotic and uneven. The narrator and Louise are permitted from living a life of spontaneity or freedom. They are in turn, bound to the bedroom – the only safe place where they can express themselves freely.

The reference to lobsters in “a restaurant aquarium” infers that one is at a seafood restaurant, where he/she can view the lobsters from a tank. It is implied, then, that the lobster dishes served on the menu will be fresh and local (from the tank). The narrator compares Louise and him/herself to the lobsters because not only does he/she feel trapped and watched by everybody, but is also expecting to be eaten – for his relationship to be ruined or ended by a greater force. The “confines of our life together” indicates that the narrator acknowledges that there are limitations to his/her relationship with Louise. The only place in society in which the two characters are exempt from judgement or hostility is in their “voluptuous” or sexual bedroom.

This passage seems grim and desperate. In a sense, it feels as if the narrator is hostile that Louise hasn’t yet left Elgin. It  seems that he/she wishes that their relationship could be free and expressive rather than bound to the bedroom.

p34: “Meanwhile, at home in Stanford Hill, Esau and Sarah, locked in prayer through the 24 hours of the Sabbath, wondered what would happen to their boy who had fallen into the clutches of a flame-haired temptress.”

This passage struck me because it is so different than much of the rest of the story, and yet still maintains the running themes, just in a different flavor. The rest of the story focuses on the Narrator (shortened to N) and the people N knows and interacts with. Yet N is almost nothing like Esau and Sarah, and barely interacts with them, only knowing them as the parents of the husband of the woman N falls in love with. Yet here and now they are momentarily the most important people in the story, and I wanted to examine how they related to the running themes.

“Why is the measure of love loss?” This is a running theme throughout the story, and it was only after dissecting the passage that I realized we were seeing another flavor of that theme here. Esau and Sarah feel that they are losing their son and are powerless to stop it, which is reflected by the word choices: locked in prayer holds implications of being frozen and unwillingly immobile; their boy is a diminutive possessive term showing that they still care for him and are not angry at his choices, only afraid; clutches is used in reference to Louise possessing “their boy” and has negative connotations of jealousy or insidious plots; and fallen, especially so in the same sentence as Sabbath, has connotations of falling from grace, fallen angels, and falling for a plot.

In a way Esau and Sarah may be the (morally) best characters shown in the book, as while they are unwilling to compromise their own beliefs, they still unconditionally accept their sons choices and care only that he may be hurt, rather than showing the various levels of selfishness seen in other characters.

Page 56

“THINGS HAD CHANGED. What an areshole comment. I had changed things. Things don’t change. They’re not like the seasons moving on a diurnal round.”

This passage comes from when the author is talking with Jacqueline. Jacqueline is questioning about his relationship with Louise and their relationship as well.

It is interesting to try and conceptualize change and what changes; people or “things.” The author contrasts things changing with the changing of seasons. To me this is interesting because is the main character not doing the same thing as habitually as the seasons changing? It is said that people change and not the things comprised by people. Is the main character not insane by all accounts; doing the same thing repeated times and expecting different results? He claimed that things would be different with Jacqueline to her but when it comes down to it the issue is that he has not changed for her.

This passage could be interpreted in rationalizing and taking the burden off of his back in the sense that he believes Jacqueline should have expected this and that he is justifying his actions. The author writes on page 57 “There are victims of change but not victims of things.” That said he is admitting to being the culprit in the causing of pain. At the beginning of the book the saying “I love you” is talked about as an empty phrase. If the main character is so cynical to believe this, then perhaps the concept of love in itself is not a true feeling; therefor maybe he is not capable of empathy for Jacqueline in this situation and is able to just pass it off as change and much like with seasons, if we don’t adapt accordingly we wont survive. She is just a victim of circumstance.

“In the heat of her hands I thought, This is the campfire that mocks the sun. This place will warm me, feed me and care for me. I will hold on to this pulse against other rhythms. The world will come and go in the tide of a day but here is her hand with my future in its palm” (Winterson 51).

In this passage, the narrator describes her love for Louise. The narrator first describes Louise’s hands as “the campfire that mocks the sun” (Winterson 51). Campfires are scenes of happiness, because they are surrounded by family and friends, a place where people bond. Although you can feel the sun’s warmth from afar, you cannot gather around it like people can a campfire. The narrator goes on to claim that Louise’s hands “will warm me, feed me and care for me” (Winterson 51). This list of words gives a feeling of home, almost in a mothering sense. Most people feel safe in places they are familiar with, home being the most familiar. Here, the narrator is also insinuating that Louise is all they could possibly need, because she provides for them. Next, the narrator states they will “hold on to this pulse against other rhythms” (Winterson 51). The first meaning that comes to mind is Louise’s pulse, which the narrator can most likely feel while holding her hands. A pulse is a sign of life, and because the narrator will hold onto it “against other rhythms” deems Louise’s life as a priority, as something especially important to the narrator. A pulse also makes readers think of the organ that controls it: Louise’s heart. The narrator states they will always hold onto this, and love Louise more than anyone else—-the “other rhythms” (Winterson 51). Finally, the narrator plays with time, stating that the “world will come and go in the tide of a day but here is her hand with my future in its palm” (Winterson 51). Here, the narrator implies that their love for Louise will last forever and that nothing can break it. Anything could happen “in the tide of a day” (Winterson 51) but the narrator will always love Louise, because, so to speak, Louise has the narrator in the palm of her hand.

I think the passage on page 61, “I wasn’t happy, but the power of memory is such that it can lift reality for a time. Or is it memory the more real place?” (Winterson) is very telling about the main character and is key to the character development. I feel like we get to see the inner workings of how the main character organizes and categorizes their thoughts, feelings, and understanding of what is going on around them. For example, looking at the whole passage, the protagonist escapes to the past in order to comfort and shield themself from the present disaster going on around them. They are in the midst of a terrible break-up, with a person they knew they shouldn’t have been with from the beginning, and they escape to the past for comfort. They seem to do this a lot whenever they are in a situation which is not favorable to them or when they get upset. The memories aren’t always happy, but the protagonist seems to have this inability, in my opinion, to handle these very real and personal situations so they run to memories to escape. This, I believe and this could just be my opinion, the reason why the protagonist keeps getting in  these situations. Unable to confront or deal with the past, they cannot learn from it, and in turn cannot protect themselves from having it happen to them again. Also, and this maybe going on a limb as well, I think the protagonist hasn’t forgiven themself for things that have happened to them in the past as well.You have this constant replay of their life, and is it self-reflective? A little, but for the most part these are memories, in the grand scheme of things, not the highlight of relationships they would have wanted. They are always mentioning the cliches of love and how they long for it and these memories are the exact opposite of that. These memories are with lovers past that for one reason or another never seem to be the cliche she wants.

 

“She doesn’t know this yet. She doesn’t know that here is today a revision of the map. That the territory she thought was hers has been annexed. You never give away your heart; you lend it from time to time. If it were not so how could we take it back without asking?” (Winterson, 38)

This part in the novel comes when the narrator is thinking of possibly breaking up with Jacqueline. The narrator has a new relationship with Louise, a frenzy of a woman, and decides they want to leave the stability Jacquelin provides and into the chaos of Louise. The passage discusses a lot about cognition, “know” and “thought.” I think this is to portray the subjectivity of Jacqueline. The repetition of “she doesn’t know” serves to establish a relationship of miscommunication, of doing something without the other knowing. There is also a lot about borrowing, “lend’ and “take it back,” conveying a sense of transience in the agreement between Jacqueline and the narrator. The aspect of the passage that jumps out to me the most is the conceptualizing of bodies as territory, that can be conquered or liberated. The novel takes place in Britain, a country with a huge legacy of colonialism, that often “[made revisions] of the map” and “annexed” land. Often without the permission of the people there. In literature surrounding colonialism, the colonized country was often seen as female, virginal, fertile, and pure. I think metaphors like this serve to justify colonialism, like the country doesn’t know how to take of itself. I think the reclamation of the narrator’s body is interesting, because colonized countries so often do not succeed in overthrowing oppressive regimes, except for the Haitian Revolution, a really cool point in history that definitely does not get enough attention or love. I also wonder the implications surrounding Jacqueline, is she taking this body without the narrator’s permission? Does she have a white savior complex? Going back to the concept of colonialism, in certain African countries, not to generalize, the land is seen as communal, owned by the tribe. So when European countries came to Africa, they thought the land was theirs because of various treaties and a nice sense of entitlement. When the Africans tried to take the land back, they were overpowered and could not succeed. African people did not stay very long in a certain place, due to nomadic traditions. They viewed the land as temporary rather than fixed. Maybe the narrator views their body in the same way. The narrator has had many lovers throughout their life; they may not be able to stay with one person forever. They may have a polyamorous identity. The narrator is consistently “lend”ing their heart “from time to time.” They may view their body as a constantly changing thing, untethered, and definitely not fixed. I think this also may connect to the narrator’s conception of gender; maybe they identify as genderfluid. The conceptualizing of the body as a land mass also reminded me of Borderlands: La Frontera by Gloria Anzaldúa (the academic text that has most profoundly impacted me). In it, Anzaldúa questions her experience as a queer, Xican@ feminist. Growing up near the Texas-Mexico border, she conceptualizes the borders of her body and relates them to her identity. Where are the borders on the narrator’s body? “Annex” also reminds me of the Mexican Cession, an action which dramatically altered the lives of people like Anzaldúa’s relatives. There, they lived in a sort of middle ground where they had lived in “America” their whole lives but did not speak English (even though we don’t have an official language) and were not recognized as upstanding American citizens. Does Jacqueline exist in the middle ground, left heartbroken after this “annex”?  Anzaldúa also stresses how borders exist socially as well, a separators of the accepted and the deviant. As a serial adulterer, the narrator is the deviant, on the wrong side of the border. This also relates to Michael Warner’s conceptions of sexual shame, “hierarchies of sex sometimes serve no real purpose except to prevent sexual variance” (25). The only reason the narrator experiences shame for being in relationships with married women is because that is not considered the norm. Ergo, their actions must be controlled and regulated, much like Anzaldúa’s queer and Xican@ identities. Various characters in the novel control the narrator’s border and they was to reclaim the land that is rightfully theirs. Relating a body to a land mass definitely has a lot of cultural implications and engages a lot of different texts.

“In the heat of her hands I thought, this is the campfire that mocks the sun. This place will warm me, feed me, and care for me. I will hold on to their pulse against other rhythms. The world will come and go in the tide of a day but here is her hand with my future in its palm.” (Winterson, 51)

This passage occurs when the narrator is standing Louise’s bedroom waiting for her to exit the bathroom. Louise then goes on to hold the narrators hand which causes the narrator to express her feelings. The narrator goes on to explain how much love and passion exists for Louise at that very moment.

The attachment that the narrator has developed for Louise is thoroughly shown throughout this passage. When the narrator lists all the things that Louise will do, a sense of dependency is evident. All of the listed acts are things that one should be able to do independently, but the narrator is looking for Louise to do them. The list that the narrator composed also gives way to the kind of heartache they would experience if Louise ever left.

There are two words show up numerous times in this passage that say a lot about how the narrator feels about the love they have for Louise. One word is “me”, which appears three times in the passage. The word “me” always shows up after an action that the narrator believes Louise will do. This shows that the narrator is mostly concerned about the benefits and outcome of the relationship in regards to their self.

There is also repetition of the word “will” in this passage. The word will implies that the act that is talked about is definitely going to happen. The fact that the narrator says Louise will do all of these things shows that they think Louise is someone who will never leave and always follow through. Louise is married and could easily up and leave at any moment, and that says a lot about the control that Louise has over the narrator.

Some words in this passage have to do with big, bright and untouchable objects. Most importantly, “the sun” and “her future”. The narrator also uses the word campfire to compare her hands to the sun and how they basically allow her to live. There is also use of the word “world” along with “sun”. This shows that the narrator thinks of Louise as this untouchable object that she would not be able to survive without.

The phrases “world will come and go” and “here is her hand” reinforces how important Louise is. Saying these two phrases in the same sentence shows that even when something as crucial as the world is gone, the hands of the woman they love will still be there.