I love that this is a thread, and not that there needs to be a "flaw" to this book that is wildly ambitious and achieves so so much (I am reminded nearly every day as I read through for the second time), but it is yes more than a little clear that a male perspective dominates here*. Hal/Orin/Mario/Don Gately even M Pemulis seem so alive to me in a way that the women do not. Avril, Madame Psychosis, Kate Gompert don't quite live for me, except through a mostly male vision (all are described repeatedly in sexual/physical terms--which is likely not how they see themselves--and one particular descriptive comparison of Avril as a no longer ripe fruit to Joelle the ripe fruit had me cringing. Which I rarely do, or at least not in that way. But I did. Sorry).
I don't see it as a huge problem, but you know, it is a limit. And I think it's interesting that Brief Interviews With Hideous Men seems to take up this limit and push it to another level entirely. As in, the audience is a woman. Explicitly. The Object/Subject thing is explored in more depth. If you haven't read that, I HIGHLY recommend reading it after you've finished IJ. It was (I think?) his next book, and it seems to me a clear, complicated and sometimes scary progression (in terms of sexual/gender politics) beyond what he's doing here.
*It's funny, I once tried to posit DFW the incarnation of V Woolf's "androgynous writer" which she theorized about in A Room of One's Own. Because I feel like there is an openness there--but when it comes to IJ, it just doesn't work.
|