Category: 2016 Blog Post

The final paragraph of Written on the Body begins with the line, “This is where the story starts, in this threadbare room” and ends with the line “I don’t know if this is a happy ending but here we are let loose in open fields.” I believe these lines are much more clear than they are ambiguous. The reason this story is appealing is due to the fact that it can appeal to a wide variety of people, for many people can take the place of the narrator.

 

What struck me about this book is that I believe it can be read forward, or backward. Due to the complexity and breakdown of the standard use of time, this book is able to be read in any order, and still arrive at the same affect. The lines in the final paragraph highlight this. For example, this is where the story starts, and I don’t know if this is a happy ending. The juxtaposition sets of a complex that allows the reader to once again interpret the novel how they want to. Is this where the story starts? Or is it where it begins?

 

The use of time in the story is minimal, for the order of events seems irrelevant and at times out of place. Therefore, the standard understanding of time is undermined, just as the typical understanding of a narrator is altered. If time in the book is atypical, as is the use of narration and story telling, then why not allow for varying interpretations? Written on the Body is important due to that exact reason.

“The body that has lain beside you in sickness and in health. The body your arms still long for dead or not. You were intimate with every muscle, privy to the eyelids moving in sleep. This is the body where you name is written, passing in to the hands of strangers” (178).

As of right now the narrator has found themself in a cemetery. This is apt for such a depressing time in the narrator’s journey as they grieve their relationship with Louise. This passage I found extremely interesting because it highlights on the idea of defining love by loss, and can almost directly be tied to common cliché of you don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone. This passage also addresses the one we close read in class on Wednesday, although now the meaning has somewhat shifted now that Louise is no longer with the narrator.

This passages addresses what happens to a beloved’s body once they have deceased, and in a way Louise is dead to the narrator not only because she’s absent, but because she’s terminally ill. The words you/your repeat a lot in this passage, but instead the you/your doesn’t reference Louise, the narrator is speaking directly to us. We are the you. Now the narrator is spelling out your loss, your grief, your depression. The direction has shifted from Louise to the actual audience, highlighting on the fact that we are all capable of love and almost indefinitely loss, more specifically the loss of the physical body. The arms, muscle, eyelids, and hands of your lover’s body, that really are your heart’s property. For once the body is gone, what is left to love?

Winterson, I believe, wary of clichés and the language of love, chooses to share the message that love cannot be expressed through language, but through bodily actions and marking each other’s bodies as our own. The language of love has been around forever, but maybe instead we should look at the ways we imprint on, write on, and seize other bodies rather than reading about the hopeless romantics in novels. Winterson is highlighting on the inexpressible, bodily idea of love. That by focusing on the connection between your body and your lovers body (“eyelids moving in sleep”, “intimate with every muscle”, “body that has lain beside you”) you can find love. The narrator, and Winterson has decided that true nature of love cannot be written down, for only our bodies can carry the weight of our words.

 

 

The language the narrator uses in this book, Written on the Body, shapes my perspective of identifying the reader. The narrator uses multiple different physical labels such as “branding irons” and “scored” as well as body parts such as “hands” and “shoulders” in the quote, “Who taught you to use your hands as branding irons? You have scored your name into my shoulders, referenced me with your mark” (89).

By having these descripting words shapes a very detail image in my mind of having a violent interaction between the narrator and Louise. For example, when the narrator said, “…use your hands as branding irons” or “You have scored you name into my shoulders.” I feel a sense of dominance and dominance I normally associate is with a male. However, that is just a norm. A very untrue norm nonetheless. But by not knowing the gender of the narrator affects my ability to see the narrators existence. That is why these descriptive words are so helpful to me because they give clues into knowing the gender throughout the book.

From the above quote I think the narrator is a male since the words the narrator uses are very dominant. However, when the narrator said “I don’t lack self-confidence but I’m not beautiful…”(85) I think the narrator is a women by using the descriptive term beautiful instead of handsome. These words make me go back and forth between guessing the gender of the narrator. It might be far off but I believe that the author wants the reader to juggle between gender identities. It is the perspective from both genders that allows the reader to understand the novel from a male or female point of view about love, loss, desire, and pleasure.

On the other hand, by not revealing the identity of the narrator makes me wonder if throughout the novel the narrator changes. I also wonder about the existence of the narrator. Since the narrator is not a male or female then what is there? Air? The novel does not say what is black and white but allows me to interpret and insert where I believe the boundaries and norms are. The narrator goes against all norms but if I read the book with no norms in my perspective to begin with then is the context of what the narrator does abnormal or ordinary?

“This is the moment when I’m supposed to be self-righteous and angry.” (18)

The narrator is resistant to being cast into the role of the tragic hero. They are as tangled in, and conflicted with, this script as they are in their affairs. The use of “supposed” suggest that the narrator is expected to act in a specific way. The self-righteous response that is suggested can be good and virtuous. However self-righteous could also hint at arrogance. This may be the reason that the narrator sounds resistant to this action. We also have to consider that this happens in a moment. That is, the narrator claims to be acting instinctively. In this context, the narrator’s lack of action suggests an indifference or even hostility to the force that expects them to react further hinting at an act of resistance.
The narrator does not follow the script. The narrator does not let another affair end. This could be them trying to reach an idealized love that they claim to have forgotten. But this search for an ideal is itself rather tragic. As they attempt to make their relationships work out the narrator also draws closer to the realization that, perhaps, the ideal really doesn’t exist. That realization, that the narrator could be driving themselves to ruin in an attempt to avoid imperfection, is the sort of ironic fate that only the most tragic of characters deserves. And even more tragic is the narrator’s own suggestion, in the following paragraph; that they might be aware of the ironic end they are rushing towards.

“You were driving but I was lost in my own navigation”(17).

Driving. Typically thought of as the verb of operating a motor vehicle. The physical act requires getting into the car, taking safety precautions if you choose to do so, putting the key in ignition, turning the key as the car purrs to life, and finally in that moment of switching gears is it time to “drive”.

Add another life into the passenger seat and the navigator is now responsible for not one, but two lives in this man made box that operates so well on wheels. Although the habitual routine becomes something like a second nature, the consideration of the possible risks may lose some of their significance. Whether it be wearing a seatbelt, speeding, or simply the conditions in which you are driving can become increasing more difficult without much precaution. Metaphorically, a passenger that is stepping into the car is somewhat like stepping into a new relationship, letting someone else take the wheel. While you and the driver might not think of the dangers, the destination is the next step to consider while finding a newfound love.

While I am someone who is one terrified of dying in a car accident and two, had a very hard time expanding my emotional capacity beyond a four year old when it comes to relationships, I can see how the narrator becomes “lost in their navigation”. Not knowing the place you’ll find yourself with someone by your side. The one who holds your life in motored vehicle is also the one who can lead its emotional course as well. Sitting there in a passenger seat it’s easy to find yourself half in reality and between the worlds of your own fantasies. Stepping into a relationship is like handing over the keys and the destination as well to your partner. While your partner will not intentionally crash the car to make sure you burn into a thousand pieces (and if they are then it’s too late I guess) accidents are bound to happen sometimes and neither party can do much about it. The unknown is the scariest part and I think the emotional leap the narrator takes is what I find as scary as the car accident.

 

The sentence I choose to analyze was, “ Odd that marriage, a public display and free to all gives way to the most secret of liaisons, an adulterous affair (16) ”. I think this sentence is talking about the evil side to marriage that no one wants to talk about or experience but is something that does happens. Starting the sentence off with, “odd that marriage (16)” , shows the irony in this sentence because as great as marriage is there is underlying secrets. The first few words to describe marriage were public display and free to all, both of these representing a sort of freedom that brings us happiness because everyone can enjoy the freedom. Then the evil side is mentioned, which is the most secret of liaisons. I believe secret is an important word because in the paragraph above this sentence it asks the question of why an affair can be a secret, but someone saying their vows is said for everyone to hear. I think this line is related to the whole novel so far because the narrator commits affairs with married women and the women tries to explain why she did it, but she cant even explain it to her self. The narrator then tries to explain it for her by using the metaphor with the door and how the butler put on white gloves so no finger prints were left. I believe that this relates to where they use the words most secret to explain adulterous affair. I also believe that the word liaison is important vocabulary in this sentence and it represents this book because it means a relationship between two people. Marriage, love, which they started out the novel talking about, and an affair all require two people. I think this illustrates one of the mysteries the book is trying to show us. There is a relationship between two people; we know the gender of one but the other you have to shape for yourself. If you think it is a woman and man verse a woman and a woman does it make marriage, love, affairs, and other situations brought up in the book different?

“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.

 

“Is it odd to say that your lover reminds you of a tree?” (p. 29)

This question of the narrator is found in a passage where he/she introduces Louise as his/her new lover. The space, followed by “And then I met Louise” suggests that she is going to play an important role in the narrator’s life. To me, the beginning of the paragraph is Romantic in the sense that the narrator seems to have fallen deeply in love and is naively comparing her to butterflies (“a swarm of butterflies” (28); “a million Red Admirals” (29)) and to a tree (29). This association of feelings and nature reminds me of romanticism, an artistic movement from the 18^th century, known for the confrontation of characters’ feelings and emotions to the beauties of nature. Here, however, I think the narrator mocks traditional writings about love. After the beautiful – and symbolic – comparison of a woman with a tree, the narrator wonders about his/her own writing, which makes this moment almost funny. He/she seems to be addressing the reader, as though saying “Hey, I am writing this book about someone who falls in love with a woman, do you think it’s cool to compare her to a tree?” Up until this passage, the novel has been about breaking up all the stereotypes about love and the disappointments it generates. The narrator has held one relationship after the other and he/she is quite critical about how love is said/supposed to be and how it actually is.

“I took them [letters] into the garden and burned them one by one and I thought how easy it is to destroy the past and how difficult to forget it” (17)

The paradoxical language in this text brings to light an important dichotomy between love and loss. Describing one action as both easy and difficult gives a great deal of insight into the narrator’s battling conscious. They want to lighten the burden of an emotional load by employing a physical technique. In a literal way, this passage simply expresses that the narrator took their letters back from an ex-lover and burned them to forget about lost love. After looking at how the contrasting diction seamlessly slides into a symmetrically structured phrase, it becomes clear that there is a much deeper meaning. This passage’s play on words suggests that no matter how simple a solution may seem there is always more depth. After destroying the past, the narrator needs to reach the cynical truth that material objects do not embody the worth of what they carry. Letters cannot own love, so the process of destroying love’s messenger becomes fruitless. The narrator knows this truth, but burns the objects anyway as a moment of cathartic hope that is soon to be realized as inadequate.

This passage tells us that the narrator is cynical and slightly pessimistic but greatly intuitive. It tells us that he or she is realist who is humanized by the mistakes that a great deal of people make after losing love. Burning letters of lost passion is not a foreign concept to many who have experienced heartbreak, if anything the destruction of once prized goods is expected. For the rest of the novel, this behavior implies that the narrator may continue to make relatable mistakes throughout her journey. It sometimes seems to be the most introspective, analytical people in life that get hurt the most. I wonder if the narrator will continue on her trajectory of analytical heartbreak.

 

“There’s nothing so sweet as wallowing in it is there?” (Winterson, 26)

This quote highlights the narrator’s desire for dramatic and emotionally charged relationships making it seem as if they enjoy the inevitable demise of romance. Their frequent attraction to married women illuminates their conscious effort to engage in relationships that are set up for failure. At this point in the novel, the reader becomes accustomed to the narrator’s cyclical short-lived affairs. Despite recognizing the narrator’s toxic behaviors, the seductive and honest language complicates the reader’s preconceived notions of morality. It is clear that the narrator understands the ways in which they are complicit in the end results of their relationships but they also recognize the addictive qualities of ill-fated affairs.

Following this question, the narrator states “wallowing is sex for depressives” (26) showing the ways in which certain situations warrant unhealthy behaviors as a way of coping. They romanticize their damaging decision making skills and through this, the reader is allured by the narrator’s acute self-awareness. By posing this question, the readers ask themselves the same thing, further entangling himself or herself in the narrator’s [ir]rationality. This passage precedes the narrator’s newest relationship with a woman who is not characteristic of the narrator’s past romances and has no markers of unpredictability. After the narrator’s various passionate affairs, they choose to attempt to place themselves in a type of “normal” relationship. Soon after, the narrator craves intensity of their past relationships and the anticipated disintegration following after.