Shirley MacLaine gave a notable interview in which she said that during the Hays code era – when sex couldn’t be shown onscreen – women were allowed to play all sorts of roles. Then the Hays code was rescinded, women were shown in the bedroom, and ‘we’ve been in the bedroom ever since’.
When I think of the current crop of female writers, both in the literary fiction genre and the memoir genre (which seem to be, snh, bleeding into one another these days), I think of MacLaine’s hot take. At one point Nolan describes the fact that rape is not considered to be ‘sex’ in the usual sense of the world as ‘fashionable’. What is fashionable is to talk about women’s bodies and how they are abused. Some of the most intentionally disquieting description in this book comes from the scenes where Nolan describes having coercive sex with a string of interchangeable male characters. However, such is the moral vacuum in which this type of book is written, I have no idea how Nolan wants me to feel about this. Obviously it’s terrible that she, and I, and every woman we know, has had this happen to them. But … what now?
I asked my friend who enjoyed this book (and who enjoys these types of books). She said it was comforting to see herself reflected in the pages, to feel herself not alone in these feelings. I just don’t think that’s enough. I’m on the side of Oscar Wilde and Louisa May Alcott; I think books should have morals in them. I don’t think, in fact, that it’s a choice – if you don’t put a moral in, one will be imposed. I want to hear about the world Nolan et al envision to replace this one. I want a blueprint for how to get there. When I read books like this, I just feel mired in the mud.
“He seemed somehow pre-historic, still-becoming, an animal not yet ready to exist, with whom there is no point in being disappointed.”
Or, you know, you could treat men as people, and expect them to do better.
That is certainly a my trash/not my trash issue – my friend had exactly the opposite feeling, and contended that books with my favourite things (morals, redemption, hope punk) could make her feel mired in the mud. What’s not a ‘my trash’ issue is the writing quality, which is middling at best. This is very clearly Nolan’s own diaries, tossed into book form with the lightest of edits. At times Nolan veers into a personal essay cul-de-sac. What differentiates a novel from an essay is that it’s specific, not general. You can make some general claims, but it has to be through the lens of a specific character’s opinions or experiences. Otherwise it just reads like frantic space-filling, for example with not terribly original analyses of topics like every-day sexism.
The pet cat anecdote was good, but the ‘stiff as new cardboard’ line, while a good metaphor, detracts from the overall scene. I also liked her ‘platonic ideal’ of Nolan's parents getting back together, revived when they meet annually on the narrator’s birthday. That’s the sum total of what I liked.
Ciaran himself is clearly an amalgam of one of the many not-very-nice men she’s encountered, plus a few weirdly- and overly-unique traits (like being Danish* and having no sense of smell). There’s absolutely nothing that differentiates him qualitatively from Rueben, Noel, or Mark. Much has been made in the reviews of his anger and control issues**, but to be quite honest, I feel these were equalled, if not exacerbated, by the narrator’s alcoholism, self-pity, and narcissicism. If I had to live with this awful person, I too would be inclined to extend her the silent treatment now and again.
*I also deeply resent her assertion that ‘no one that beautiful’ can possibly be Irish, hence Ciaran’s mixed ancestry. Like … Cillian Murphy? Jonathan Rhys Meyers? Michael Fassbender? Colin Farrell? Colin Morgan? ANDREW SCOTT? No? Okay.
**Nolan also frames Ciaran’s stinginess as a fatal flaw, when in fact it’s just him being Northern European. Hello? They’re all like that? Parsimonious Presbyterians holding the monetary union together with their inborn austerity, etc.
People yelp on a lot these days about ‘unlikeable’ characters, especially unlikeable female characters. What they really mean is they like reading about hot people being intermittently sarcastic and a little callous when the plot calls for it. This narrator is truly unlikeable. Hot people being sarcastic is a good time, this … is not.
“His body would become a site of prayer for me, a place where I could forget about my own living flesh and be only with his. It was a thing of total pleasure, total beauty.”
Total lacking? Go to therapy, woman.
“ ‘Ciaran,’ he said, and then, as though having read my mind, ‘though it’s only my father who’s Irish – I’m Danish.’”
This is a deeply weird thing to say to a stranger.
“ ‘It’s just that with art I never feel on a sure footing. With other things, I have some knowledge I can discuss them in terms of*. With this sort of thing, I could say anything at all about it. I have no frame of reference.”
This is so incredibly dumb. It’s called art history. Read a book. Frame of reference: done. Would you say the same thing about a history museum or a military installation? ‘I have no frame of reference’ WELL GET ONE.
*Good GOD this is awful phraseology.
“I was always calculating with scientific precision the relative beauty of the people I wanted to be with, and would steer clear of the ones who exceeded me too greatly.”
Big mood, but on the other hand, the entire premise of this book is that Ciaran is the most beautiful man in the entire country…? Unfortunately, sticking with a premise would require this book to have an actual, y'know, story.