(I have revised this review to correct errors in selling or expression - March 2024)
Rupert Thomson is an author whose short fiction I have loved and admired but whose novels, despite their literary quality, have failed to engage me yet I will continue to read him. I find it very difficult to rate this novel, if I had read it closer to its date of publication (2000) I might have awarded it four or five stars but reading it now I am giving it my three star rating for books which though I don't care for I cannot condemn.
The novel is a work of two parts - in the first a young man is kidnapped by three women, whose faces he never sees, who, along with occasional invited guests, sexual use and abuse him.
The second part of the novel tells how the young man tries, after being released, tries to find the women who used/abused him which is part of his coming to terms with what happened.
The novel attracted considerable attention when published and was thought 'shocking' and 'challenging', reading a selection of reviews on Goodreads posted in the last three years many reviewers still do so but, maybe I am just so incredibly jaded or simply perverse, nothing in the novel shocked or surprised me.
When this novel was published in 2000 it was at the end of a decade that began with the image of 21 year old Mark Wahlberg in nothing but his Calvin Klein underwear on a giant Billboard in Times Square in New York finally putting the sexualised young male body back into 'cultural' awareness and media discussion (that young male bodies had always been an object of sexual fantasy I have no doubt). Many people found, and maybe still find, this disturbing. There were, and apparently still are, many who have huge problems dealing with men as objects of sexual fantasy in the way women have been, in Western culture, for centuries. Mr. Thomson was the first literary author to tackle the subject of a man being used as a sexual object by women (of course by the 1990's men as sexual objects to other men was, to use a loaded term, 'out'. But that left the male still in the 'driving seat', it was a 'he' who was in charge even if it was a scenario where a man was also the object of lust. To be bluntly vulgar, a man was still the penetrator. So Thomson's book was timely, and challenging, by presenting the male body as the one used and women as the users. But is it now?
The problem I find is that I don't find the premise of the novel shocking or surprising. The internet has transformed our awareness of the myriad niche sexual interests that exist (or are well all going to pretend that 'we' are separate and different from the consumers of porn? Even if you find porn boring, I know I do, are you going to insist it is something you know nothing about?) I can remember back in the early 1990's drifting through the rapidly disappearing detritus of 42nd Street and its environs as the centre of strip shows and pornographic theatres and wandering through emporiums where their were still aisles of video tapes (this was pre DVD - hahaha I wonder how many people have never seen a video or DVD player?!) on more types of sexual activity then I had ever imagined or wanted to imagine. But now-a-days the idea of shopping for porn, never mind for videos, seems so quaint, like a crinoline, as does paying for it - is anyone now unaware at the sheer volume of free images and films on the internet? Now if you feed in the words men, naked, humiliated into your search engine you will be referred to, probably (I haven't bothered to count), hundreds of sites of CFNM films, TV, photographs and a surprisingly large number of sites were you can read stories, many purporting to be true, of men being sexually humiliated and used by women. One of the set pieces of the novel, were the protagonist is forced to lie naked on a table while covered in hors d'oeuvre which his kidnappers and their friends, including men, eat from him as if he is nothing more than a superior chafing dish. In less than twenty years the image of a naked man (or women) as a surface to eat off of has gone from phonographic trope to a reality in high end specialty catering to the commonplace of hen nights and stag nights.
This is not to condone sexualisation or abuse only to acknowledge that our culture has omnivorously adapted itself to the abuse and misuse everyone, despite the prevalence of trigger warnings against any chance of offence or upset. These laundry lists of things potentially shocking or offensive are as much advertisements, as warnings. They sell and are as sought out as the condemnations of Catholic Church were sought as a way to boost sales (many UK publishers, back in the 1950's and 60's loved adding a strap line to their books 'Banned in Ireland' as sure fire way of gaining sales for novels headed for failure).
My real problem with the novel is that as it is told purely via the young man who is kidnapped and used/abused we never really gain any insight into the motivation of the kidnappers, or their circle of acquaintances invited to certain of the more theatrical acts they indulge in. There is no context. Equally the young man's response to what he endures is simplistic and barely examined - it is enough that he is male and perpetrators women - which might have done in 2000 but seems enormously simplistic today. I can't help thinking that Mr. Thompson never got to grip with either his character nor the situation he places him in.
This is even more true after the young man is released and has to return to his life and eventually deal with what has happened. In 2000 the idea of a man being sexually used by women was inconceivable, just like it was inconceivable that a teenage boy could be abused by a teacher, family member, sports coach and not resist. If it happened it meant somehow they wanted it - which was not so far from the cliched thinking about females' who were sexual assaulted or raped. We were all trapped in the delusion that these actions were about sex - thank God we now accept them as about power - and because this novel never manages to place what happens outside of anything but sex, even if tastefully done, it really doesn't have anything to say.
Oddly enough if you were to peruse the various internet porn sites offering the type of fantasy which this novel attempts to deal with in a literary, serious way, you find a great deal more honesty - ugly honesty but it is there - the abuse of power and also a staggering amount of, probably, unacknowledged racism. But it only takes a moment to see that above anything else it involves the use of a beautiful young, poor, foreign and unskilled and maybe not very bright male by others older, richer and probably uglier. It is about power and money not about sex or gender. Getting some young man or woman, because they are desperate and poor without opportunity or alternates, to perform 'willingly' in some sexual tableaux is an obscenity. By removing the motivation the novel never rises above rather tepid titillation.