As I became more and more listless
reading The Edible Woman I realized
that it was a real testament to Margaret Atwood’s skill. The foggy overtone to
the whole book reminded me a lot of The
Bell Jar. It took me a while to realize how similar the books are. Both are
about women sinking deeper into depression as they struggle in a male dominated
world. But, more importantly, the women’s decline is subtle and slow. By the
time you realize what is happening you’ve already been sucked down with them.
I have since learned to treat both
Plath and Atwood with a wary caution. It’s strange that I, a willful, happy,
and often liberated young woman could so easily adopt the hazy and muted
reality of The Edible Woman and The Bell Jar. It could be because every
woman at some point will feel consumed by society. It could also be because
Atwood is such a talented writer. There is no escaping the mood she sets. It’s
probably a bit of both. Regardless, I have decided to give myself some time to
recover before attempting another statement on women’s liberation.
I think the most intriguing part of
The Edible Woman was the switch from
first person in part one, to third person in part two, and then back to first
person in part three. Once Marian got engaged, Atwood started narrating in third
person. We come to understand that Marian herself is no longer thinking of
herself as an “I” but a “she.” You see this in the way that she no longer gets
offended when people say something rude or dissmissive. She stops taking an interest in
her own life and becomes a passive observer. Once Marian takes control and
breaks off the engagement, she starts thinking of herself as an "I".
The
food issue is something I had to give a lot of thought to before I could come
to any kind of decision. I’ve heard a lot different interpretations of Marian’s
inability to eat, and mine is slightly different. I interpreted it as Marian’s
switch from a consumer to a consumable. After her engagement she saw herself as
an object, she became something for everyone else to consume. Only when she
symbolically consumed herself at the end, was she able to make the switch back
to first person and become a consumer herself.
I
also found Ainsley’s dynamic interesting. She was essentially the exact
opposite of Marian, and yet somehow was remarkably similar. Ainsley would say that
she was striving to fulfill her femininity while Marian was denying it. Marian
got into trouble by being a passive observer in her own life. Ainsley, on the
other hand, calculated and planned until it blew up in her face. I think both
women were frustrated by their gender's place in society, and both longed for
fulfillment. Their desires and struggles were the same; they just went about it
in very different ways. You could go so far as to say that all women are faced
with the same battles, and need to learn to juggle their views of themselves
with the social pressures they are presented with.
The Edible Woman is still a bit of a
mystery to me. I have this strange feeling that I understand it perfectly, but
that it can’t be that simple and I must be missing something. Maybe if I was
getting an MA in Literature instead of an MPH in Public Health I would
understand it better, somehow I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment