This is a very troubling read in a really, really good way. While staying well within the POV of our now older, but generally once needy and naive young undergraduate narrator through her titillating and abusive relationship with a poetry teacher and his French artist sculptor wife, we get a panorama of beastly--non human, non rational, sensual (although perhaps that's too positive a word, but there's really less morality and more actual character study here so...)--behavior, attitudes, and acts. Nicely, artistically, in the great modernist tradition, there's not so much editorial here as raw imagined human experience and we as an audience are invited to sit back and moralize, or not, and in that I feel like Beasts is a very personal read and that each reader will take something wholly different from it--because there's nothing more interior, avoided, and therefore personal than each of our relationships to erotica and the power structures that complicate our every move in that taboo arena.
I guess there's the double taboo effect. Many are uncomfortable with erotica (not the literary genre but rather the topic of sexuality, one's relationship with all things sexy) in general because of moral/societal strictures, prudery (me--guilty), or religious doctrine. And those few who remain relatively pure in their relationship to the erotic--that is void of religious or community standards or gross trauma--will probably have pause based on the power structures that cloud sexuality when partners of different ages, experience, genders, marital relationships etc. etc. begin to couple.
Sexuality is perhaps the cloudiest of all human enterprises--despite it being, along with food and shelter one of our three natural primary concern in life--because of the societal religious discourses, the taboo on speaking of it among ourselves, and then the inevitability of how social status and power structures are implicit and create another, second level of taboo around the whole thing.
Messy, very messy. Beasts is about just how messy. The novel uses fire, a standard metaphor for passion, and art--both poetry and sculpture--as foils for our protagonist's first major experience with pure eroticism. As always, I think, those experiences, coming as they do in adolescences and young adulthood are creepily intertwined with the love that, as human beings, we've only experienced up to that time with and for our parents. This creates that most twisted of situations, the very young person becoming infatuated with the parent stand-in and the power structure so taboo it's become a cultural obsession, a kind of literary displacement of incest that's haunted Gothic as much as ghosts since Walpole's Castle of Otranto.
Oates handles all of this really well. it's a swift, engrossing read. My take on messiness? Although it's outside of what the narrator could have known--and perhaps this is the reading in, the personal reaction I warned you about earlier and mine is bound to be very different than yours--speaking as one of those semi-charismatic (at least enthusiastic) literature and creative writing teachers--their reasons for being such beasts (tee-hee, I made a pun!) are exactly the same as the narrator's reasons for becoming infatuated with one of them: we never felt loved by our mothers so we seek the limelight, attention, through writing, performing, teaching, because we too are vulnerable and needy. Is not Andre seeking some kind of mothering from Dorcas? So, it's there, perhaps, in the novel, but subtly portrayed. The final battle here seems to be fought between the two women and one could say that the focal point--poor Prof. Andre--is a pawn in these female weaknesses and strengths.
Poor humankind. We are broken, mostly, and may never be healed. it makes for good books. Who here, in the end, is the protagonist and who the antagonist, who the Svengali and who the victim? The question, as usual, is much more important than the answer.