What do you think?
Rate this book
Puklina
Hloubavý římský senátor se na sklonku života pouští do posledního impozantního úkolu – převyprávět historii lidstva a odhalit málo známý příběh Puklin, prastarého ženského kmene obývajícího rajskou přímořskou divočinu. Pukliny nepociťují touhu po mužích, ani netuší o jejich existenci. Rození dětí se řídí měsíčním cyklem a Pukliny rodí pouze děvčata. Když se pak nečekaně narodí zvláštní dítě – chlapec –, je ohrožen soulad celého jejich společenství.
Lessingová v tomto fascinujícím a okouzlujícím románu staví proti sobě témata, která dala vzniknout většině jejích předešlých děl – soužití mužů a žen ve světě a způsob, jakým problematické aspekty pohlaví působí na všechny stránky naší existence.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
149 people are currently reading
2298 people want to read
About the author
Doris Lessing
474 books3,179 followersDoris Lessing was born into a colonial family. both of her parents were British: her father, who had been crippled in World War I, was a clerk in the Imperial Bank of Persia; her mother had been a nurse. In 1925, lured by the promise of getting rich through maize farming, the family moved to the British colony in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Like other women writers from southern African who did not graduate from high school (such as Olive Schreiner and Nadine Gordimer), Lessing made herself into a self-educated intellectual.
In 1937 she moved to Salisbury, where she worked as a telephone operator for a year. At nineteen, she married Frank Wisdom, and later had two children. A few years later, feeling trapped in a persona that she feared would destroy her, she left her family, remaining in Salisbury. Soon she was drawn to the like-minded members of the Left Book Club, a group of Communists "who read everything, and who did not think it remarkable to read." Gottfried Lessing was a central member of the group; shortly after she joined, they married and had a son.
During the postwar years, Lessing became increasingly disillusioned with the Communist movement, which she left altogether in 1954. By 1949, Lessing had moved to London with her young son. That year, she also published her first novel, The Grass Is Singing, and began her career as a professional writer.
In June 1995 she received an Honorary Degree from Harvard University. Also in 1995, she visited South Africa to see her daughter and grandchildren, and to promote her autobiography. It was her first visit since being forcibly removed in 1956 for her political views. Ironically, she is welcomed now as a writer acclaimed for the very topics for which she was banished 40 years ago.
In 2001 she was awarded the Prince of Asturias Prize in Literature, one of Spain's most important distinctions, for her brilliant literary works in defense of freedom and Third World causes. She also received the David Cohen British Literature Prize.
She was on the shortlist for the first Man Booker International Prize in 2005. In 2007 she was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
(Extracted from the pamphlet: A Reader's Guide to The Golden Notebook & Under My Skin, HarperPerennial, 1995. Full text available on www.dorislessing.org).
In 1937 she moved to Salisbury, where she worked as a telephone operator for a year. At nineteen, she married Frank Wisdom, and later had two children. A few years later, feeling trapped in a persona that she feared would destroy her, she left her family, remaining in Salisbury. Soon she was drawn to the like-minded members of the Left Book Club, a group of Communists "who read everything, and who did not think it remarkable to read." Gottfried Lessing was a central member of the group; shortly after she joined, they married and had a son.
During the postwar years, Lessing became increasingly disillusioned with the Communist movement, which she left altogether in 1954. By 1949, Lessing had moved to London with her young son. That year, she also published her first novel, The Grass Is Singing, and began her career as a professional writer.
In June 1995 she received an Honorary Degree from Harvard University. Also in 1995, she visited South Africa to see her daughter and grandchildren, and to promote her autobiography. It was her first visit since being forcibly removed in 1956 for her political views. Ironically, she is welcomed now as a writer acclaimed for the very topics for which she was banished 40 years ago.
In 2001 she was awarded the Prince of Asturias Prize in Literature, one of Spain's most important distinctions, for her brilliant literary works in defense of freedom and Third World causes. She also received the David Cohen British Literature Prize.
She was on the shortlist for the first Man Booker International Prize in 2005. In 2007 she was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
(Extracted from the pamphlet: A Reader's Guide to The Golden Notebook & Under My Skin, HarperPerennial, 1995. Full text available on www.dorislessing.org).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 492 reviews
October 2, 2023
I didn’t particularly like the format of this book. The first 30 pages or so were the most interesting and the rest hardly added anything.
May 5, 2014
Now! What is it about all these terrible ratings? Accusations of sexism? Of the text lacking quality/being boring? I can identify so little with previous reviews of this work that I made it a point to write a review for this one.
I had never read Lessing before and when I read the synopsis for this one I knew that it was just meant to be. It is definitely not what I had expected – I had hoped it would be a cleverer version of Herland, maybe. It does share certain similarities with Gilman’s separatist female utopia, such as the usage of type characters instead of actual people, which further identifies both works as fables of humanity. However, The Cleft is very little like Herland as in it does not focus on the ‘before men’ but instead on the ‘after’; and there is close to none utopic elements in this scenario.
The premise is simple: women came first. Then one day, a boy was born. They think the child’s defective, but then ‘monsters’ keep being born, until the baby boys start being rescued by eagles and form a community of their own on the other side of the mountain. The most interesting moment in the text is precisely the beginning, gruesome and intriguing, indicating both genders as criminals against one another. From there, the story assumes the shape of a quasi-parody of traits generally attributed to males and females. Meanwhile, to further complicate matters, the narrative is put together by a Roman senator-wannabe who remarks on the earlier civilization and compares it to his own.
This book is clearly not preaching anything about human evolution; instead, its objective is to give us food for thought in what concerns the often troublesome relations between genders. Read it if you do not want to take for granted the patterns of those relations. ‘Cleft’ or ‘squirt’: the only thing clear is that there can’t be one without the other.
November 30, 2017
Χρόνια τώρα αναρωτιέμαι ποιός ψυχαναγκασμός μου επιβάλλει να τελειώνω οποιοδήποτε βιβλίο ξεκινάω, ΑΚΟΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΑΝ ΑΥΤΟ ΤΟ ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΙΣΤΕΥΤΑ ΒΑΡΕΤΟ, σε κάνει να νιώθεις ότι σπαταλάς τον χρόνο σου ενώ εκεί έξω υπάρχουν τόσα άλλα βιβλία που αξίζουν την προσοχή σου. Να είναι η διαστροφικά ηδονική στιγμή που διαγράφεις ένα ακόμα βιβλία από την αιωνίως επεκτεινόμενη λίστα των waiting patiently to be read;;; Το ότι πατάς το I've finished this book! και σε κατακλύζει ένα αίσθημα υπερηφάνειας;;; Η σχισμή ήταν τόσο κακή που δεν ευχαριστήθηκα τίποτα από τα παραπάνω. Δεν είναι μόνο ότι στο βιβλίο αυτό διαδέχονται η μια την άλλη ιδέες ανερμάτιστες -ακόμα και στα όρια του μισογυνισμού;;- είναι ότι δεν έχει να προσφέρει κυριολεκτικά τίποτα στον αναγνώστη--> δεν είναι ιστορικό βιβλίο, δεν στηρίζεται σε γεγονότα ώστε να μπορείς να στηρίξεις τα όσα αφηγείται, δεν έχει κεντρικούς ήρωες, δεν υπάρχει περιθώριο ταύτισης/αποστροφής...ΔΕΝ ΞΕΡΩ ΤΙ ΝΑ ΠΩ. Υπάρχει κάποιος που το έχει διαβάσει και αποκόμισε κάτι διαφορετικό;
dnf
November 12, 2022[DNF]
"A Fenda é aquele rochedo ali adiante, que não é a entrada para uma gruta, não tem saída, e é a coisa mais importante das nossas vidas. Foi sempre assim. Nós somos A Fenda, A Fenda somos nós."
Não percebo qual a intenção de Lessing com a publicação de A Fenda.
De uma forma geral, trata-se de uma (muito possível) narrativa da criação partindo de um pressuposto de partenogénese (e se, para vários milhões de pessoas a primeira mulher ainda nasceu das costelas de um homem, não há nada que aponte para o facto da partenogénese, verificando-se em vários outros animais, ser impossível nos humanos!) graças à qual a humanidade começou por ser exclusivamente feminina durante um largo período de tempo até ao aparecimento do primeiro ser de sexo masculino (alas!).
E embora esta ideia de base seja interessante, Lessing escolhe como narrador um homem e um romano, o que, desde logo, deitou a perder qualquer sensação de verosimilhança que pudesse nascer da relação narrador/personagens. A sociedade romana, assumidamente patriarcal, seria a última a dar berço a um intelectual feminista que parece encontrar na história das Fendas (as primeiras mulheres) paralelos com a sua vida pessoal!
Além disso, para este tipo de narrativa, a autora subverte algumas práticas ritualísticas e abusivas perpetradas contra as mulheres ao longo dos tempos, fazendo delas o agressor em vez de a vítima e parecendo com isto querer defender que essas mesmas práticas, ocorreram e ocorrem, tendo por base a curiosidade e o medo, e não a barbárie - alguns exemplos que se sucedem no livro: mutilação genital; abuso físico, psicológico e sexual.
Entendo a ideia de converter papéis masculinos em papéis femininos e vice versa, mas para isso seria necessário levar até ao fim as suas consequências - o que não acontece. Os homens continuam a ser retratados como sendo ativos, caçadores, exploradores; as mulheres preguiçosas, coletoras e assustadiças. A própria natureza dá-se a mostrar de duas formas distintas para cada género: para as mulheres é sol, verdura e mar; para os homens é paisagem rochosa e inóspita, e animais selvagens. E então, a dado ponto, e apesar de poderem jogar com a sua primazia, as mulheres baixam os braços e a história repete-se, como se instintivamente fossem aptas a servir e os homens a ser servidos. Ou seja, as Fendas acabam pintadas como agressoras acidentais e mais tarde como escravas inevitáveis. Lessing assume que, uma vez efetuada a troca de papéis e dado às mulheres o protagonismo na narrativa histórica, estas se comportariam exatamente da mesma forma que os homens o fazem e, mais tarde, por uma imposição quase genética, se resignariam a um lugar de submissas de forma voluntária - afirmação altamente misógina que não é fácil de digerir.
Além disso, toda esta ideia de crueldade de antigo testamento sempre me soou pouco credível para o começo dos tempos: se todos empunhássemos mocas e andássemos atrás dos vizinhos com elas, quantos sobreviveriam para perpétuar a espécie? É-nos fácil, a toda esta distância, julgar que somos sumamente civilizados quando antes eram todos bárbaros... Eu tenho sérias dúvidas quanto a isso.
Voltando ao início: a ideia de fundo para este livro é interessante - não inédita, mas interessante - e a simbologia inerente está muito bem pensada. É a sua execução que falha, na minha opinião. Não é um lugar confortável aquele em que a escritora se coloca (independentemente da sua própria opinião!) e com isso deixa os leitores face a uma escolha difícil: aceitar esta ideia ou rebelar-se contra ela.
Fiquei sinceramente triste com esta obra de Lessing pois não só me é absolutamente repulsiva como a não sei qualificar ou às suas motivações. Assim, correndo o risco de ser injusta, afirmo que esta é uma das poucas vezes em que uma grande escritora (e uma mulher que admiro) me deixa francamente decepcionada e sem vontade de mais. Acho que Lessing contava com estas reações mas, como em tudo o mais na sua vida, não estava minimamente preocupada com elas. E essa liberdade de ação é a única parte boa deste livro.
"Sempre achei curioso o facto de as mulheres serem veneradas como deusas, enquanto na vida quotidiana são remetidas para um papel secundário e consideradas inferiores."
"A Fenda é aquele rochedo ali adiante, que não é a entrada para uma gruta, não tem saída, e é a coisa mais importante das nossas vidas. Foi sempre assim. Nós somos A Fenda, A Fenda somos nós."
Não percebo qual a intenção de Lessing com a publicação de A Fenda.
De uma forma geral, trata-se de uma (muito possível) narrativa da criação partindo de um pressuposto de partenogénese (e se, para vários milhões de pessoas a primeira mulher ainda nasceu das costelas de um homem, não há nada que aponte para o facto da partenogénese, verificando-se em vários outros animais, ser impossível nos humanos!) graças à qual a humanidade começou por ser exclusivamente feminina durante um largo período de tempo até ao aparecimento do primeiro ser de sexo masculino (alas!).
E embora esta ideia de base seja interessante, Lessing escolhe como narrador um homem e um romano, o que, desde logo, deitou a perder qualquer sensação de verosimilhança que pudesse nascer da relação narrador/personagens. A sociedade romana, assumidamente patriarcal, seria a última a dar berço a um intelectual feminista que parece encontrar na história das Fendas (as primeiras mulheres) paralelos com a sua vida pessoal!
Além disso, para este tipo de narrativa, a autora subverte algumas práticas ritualísticas e abusivas perpetradas contra as mulheres ao longo dos tempos, fazendo delas o agressor em vez de a vítima e parecendo com isto querer defender que essas mesmas práticas, ocorreram e ocorrem, tendo por base a curiosidade e o medo, e não a barbárie - alguns exemplos que se sucedem no livro: mutilação genital; abuso físico, psicológico e sexual.
Entendo a ideia de converter papéis masculinos em papéis femininos e vice versa, mas para isso seria necessário levar até ao fim as suas consequências - o que não acontece. Os homens continuam a ser retratados como sendo ativos, caçadores, exploradores; as mulheres preguiçosas, coletoras e assustadiças. A própria natureza dá-se a mostrar de duas formas distintas para cada género: para as mulheres é sol, verdura e mar; para os homens é paisagem rochosa e inóspita, e animais selvagens. E então, a dado ponto, e apesar de poderem jogar com a sua primazia, as mulheres baixam os braços e a história repete-se, como se instintivamente fossem aptas a servir e os homens a ser servidos. Ou seja, as Fendas acabam pintadas como agressoras acidentais e mais tarde como escravas inevitáveis. Lessing assume que, uma vez efetuada a troca de papéis e dado às mulheres o protagonismo na narrativa histórica, estas se comportariam exatamente da mesma forma que os homens o fazem e, mais tarde, por uma imposição quase genética, se resignariam a um lugar de submissas de forma voluntária - afirmação altamente misógina que não é fácil de digerir.
Além disso, toda esta ideia de crueldade de antigo testamento sempre me soou pouco credível para o começo dos tempos: se todos empunhássemos mocas e andássemos atrás dos vizinhos com elas, quantos sobreviveriam para perpétuar a espécie? É-nos fácil, a toda esta distância, julgar que somos sumamente civilizados quando antes eram todos bárbaros... Eu tenho sérias dúvidas quanto a isso.
Voltando ao início: a ideia de fundo para este livro é interessante - não inédita, mas interessante - e a simbologia inerente está muito bem pensada. É a sua execução que falha, na minha opinião. Não é um lugar confortável aquele em que a escritora se coloca (independentemente da sua própria opinião!) e com isso deixa os leitores face a uma escolha difícil: aceitar esta ideia ou rebelar-se contra ela.
Fiquei sinceramente triste com esta obra de Lessing pois não só me é absolutamente repulsiva como a não sei qualificar ou às suas motivações. Assim, correndo o risco de ser injusta, afirmo que esta é uma das poucas vezes em que uma grande escritora (e uma mulher que admiro) me deixa francamente decepcionada e sem vontade de mais. Acho que Lessing contava com estas reações mas, como em tudo o mais na sua vida, não estava minimamente preocupada com elas. E essa liberdade de ação é a única parte boa deste livro.
"Sempre achei curioso o facto de as mulheres serem veneradas como deusas, enquanto na vida quotidiana são remetidas para um papel secundário e consideradas inferiores."
August 17, 2021
Lessing is a class-A writer which is the only reason this isn't an even lower score. The main issue is simply that this is a history not a story and historie real or feigned are just never that exciting.
This one is told from the point of view of an ancient roman scholar putting together a forbidden history from various fragments. The main conceit being that this version of mythology/history claims that women where the first sex and males where some later after thought.
This conceit doesn't really mean much once you get past the 50% mark. Also now that i think about it the roman frame story also doesn't go anywhere.
So all you have is a fairly dull faux history of civilization only alleviated by the strenght of the writing and some interesting questions raised about the battle of the sexes. But not enough.
Interestingly it felt a bit misogynistic to me. Because of the way the tale unfolds the females just never do anything before the males came along leaving a weird implication that female life is nothing without men. Not the intent i would assume.
There's also things like the fact the men are bad at keeping their huts clean, which is supposed to be an insult to the male i assume but accidently ends up implying that females are genetically engineered to be cleaners, which strikes the ear as bit 50's :lol .
Anyway, even though this one is short it certainly runs out of steam by halfway.
Edit: I should mention there's some really dark stuff near the start of the novel this isn't repeated at all later though. Also there's a Giant Eagle obscession which sort of makes sense since hte hstorian is roman but its still gets really stupid. Especially at some point when a bit is called The Coming of the Eagles... :lol way too close to The Eagles are Coming from Lord of the Rings :D .
This one is told from the point of view of an ancient roman scholar putting together a forbidden history from various fragments. The main conceit being that this version of mythology/history claims that women where the first sex and males where some later after thought.
This conceit doesn't really mean much once you get past the 50% mark. Also now that i think about it the roman frame story also doesn't go anywhere.
So all you have is a fairly dull faux history of civilization only alleviated by the strenght of the writing and some interesting questions raised about the battle of the sexes. But not enough.
Interestingly it felt a bit misogynistic to me. Because of the way the tale unfolds the females just never do anything before the males came along leaving a weird implication that female life is nothing without men. Not the intent i would assume.
There's also things like the fact the men are bad at keeping their huts clean, which is supposed to be an insult to the male i assume but accidently ends up implying that females are genetically engineered to be cleaners, which strikes the ear as bit 50's :lol .
Anyway, even though this one is short it certainly runs out of steam by halfway.
Edit: I should mention there's some really dark stuff near the start of the novel this isn't repeated at all later though. Also there's a Giant Eagle obscession which sort of makes sense since hte hstorian is roman but its still gets really stupid. Especially at some point when a bit is called The Coming of the Eagles... :lol way too close to The Eagles are Coming from Lord of the Rings :D .
April 21, 2013
To the Nobel Prize for Literature committee of 2007: what were you smoking?
I read “The Cleft” on a flight from Sydney to San Francisco. One hour into the flight, we encountered turbulence and it didn’t abate for the next couple of hours. The movie (singular, because this was a United-breaks-guitars flight) was crap. I was trapped in my seat by the fasten seatbelts sign, and in any case even the flight crew had hit the deck in crouched position. I was 70 pages into “The Cleft” when the turbulence started, long enough to know I wasn’t really enjoying it, but by then I was confined with nothing else to read as my other books were in the overhead locker. That is the ONLY reason I finished it. The only remotely positive thing was that there had been two drinks services before turbulence grounded the flight crew.
What did I hate about this? It’s tempting to say “everything” and move on to something more interesting, but in no particular order, I loathed:
- The repetition. Yeah, Doris, we get it. If you said once, you said a gazillion times that when the clefts and the squirts started copulating the babies were different. How many times do we have to read about the clefts going over the mountain to the squirts? It was slow and dull.
- The story (or lack thereof). Slow? It was glacial. See point 1 – repetition.
- I was very discomforted by the gender stereotyping. Clefts are fat and lazy and unadventurous (they don’t even climb the nearest hill to see what’s on the other side) and lie around on the rocks sunning themselves. Clefts look after babies. Clefts instinctively know how to make a broom and clean up after the squirts. Clefts have language skills but are useless in other ways. Clefts are there to be raped. Squirts are brave and daring and utter slobs. Lucky the clefts came along and invented the broom, eh, or else they’d be buried in the litter of half chewed animal bones. Squirts rape clefts. Squirts can’t control their sexual urges. Squirts communicate in grunts.
- Did I mention that squirts rape clefts?
- And then once the clefts are pregnant the squirts kick them out. Oh yeah, there’s a lot to love about this portrayal of gender.
- Come to that, if we have a society of men and a society of women, where’s the gay and lesbian love? Huh? Huh?
I hated this book. And I hate United-breaks-guitars and the weather over the Pacific for making me read it.
I read “The Cleft” on a flight from Sydney to San Francisco. One hour into the flight, we encountered turbulence and it didn’t abate for the next couple of hours. The movie (singular, because this was a United-breaks-guitars flight) was crap. I was trapped in my seat by the fasten seatbelts sign, and in any case even the flight crew had hit the deck in crouched position. I was 70 pages into “The Cleft” when the turbulence started, long enough to know I wasn’t really enjoying it, but by then I was confined with nothing else to read as my other books were in the overhead locker. That is the ONLY reason I finished it. The only remotely positive thing was that there had been two drinks services before turbulence grounded the flight crew.
What did I hate about this? It’s tempting to say “everything” and move on to something more interesting, but in no particular order, I loathed:
- The repetition. Yeah, Doris, we get it. If you said once, you said a gazillion times that when the clefts and the squirts started copulating the babies were different. How many times do we have to read about the clefts going over the mountain to the squirts? It was slow and dull.
- The story (or lack thereof). Slow? It was glacial. See point 1 – repetition.
- I was very discomforted by the gender stereotyping. Clefts are fat and lazy and unadventurous (they don’t even climb the nearest hill to see what’s on the other side) and lie around on the rocks sunning themselves. Clefts look after babies. Clefts instinctively know how to make a broom and clean up after the squirts. Clefts have language skills but are useless in other ways. Clefts are there to be raped. Squirts are brave and daring and utter slobs. Lucky the clefts came along and invented the broom, eh, or else they’d be buried in the litter of half chewed animal bones. Squirts rape clefts. Squirts can’t control their sexual urges. Squirts communicate in grunts.
- Did I mention that squirts rape clefts?
- And then once the clefts are pregnant the squirts kick them out. Oh yeah, there’s a lot to love about this portrayal of gender.
- Come to that, if we have a society of men and a society of women, where’s the gay and lesbian love? Huh? Huh?
I hated this book. And I hate United-breaks-guitars and the weather over the Pacific for making me read it.
August 20, 2010
I did not finish this book. In fact I could not. It was my taste as a consumer of books that prohibited me.
Oh sure, I've set aside books before. I've even set aside books with no intention of continuing them in the future. But never with as adamant a certainty that I would never again pick up the book in order to give it a second chance.
Some may question my ability to judge a book based only on a partial reading, which is fair, but trust me: this book is Bad.
Doris Lessing's The Cleft may actually be the worst book I'd ever read. It's not so much that the ideas expressed were repugnant or in any way offensive, but more that in the place of what we commonly refer to as writing there was instead a collection of hieroglyphic fecal matter.
I had never read any of Lessing's impressive oeuvre and so to encounter this as my first taste of what by at least some accounts is a smorgasbord of delicacies was, in layman's terms, a disappointment. Pacing: scattered by what looks to be the onset of senility. Style: fourth-grade chic. Historical sense: senseless and ahistorical. Characters: there were none and those impressions that threatened to become characters were never better than those cardboard standees you used to find in display windows at Suncoast Video, a Leia or Chewbacca or Boba Fett (of course, none of those impressions ever really approached that sense of solidity that those corrugated paper mementos had).
This book was chosen for our bookclub on the basis that mere months prior its publication, Lessing won the Nobel for literature and the synopsis made it sound like an adventurous read into gender studies. It was not anything of the sort.
Here we see the woman who chose the book express her disappointment in Lessing and in the Nobel committee by means of willful conflagration.
Oh sure, I've set aside books before. I've even set aside books with no intention of continuing them in the future. But never with as adamant a certainty that I would never again pick up the book in order to give it a second chance.
Some may question my ability to judge a book based only on a partial reading, which is fair, but trust me: this book is Bad.
Doris Lessing's The Cleft may actually be the worst book I'd ever read. It's not so much that the ideas expressed were repugnant or in any way offensive, but more that in the place of what we commonly refer to as writing there was instead a collection of hieroglyphic fecal matter.
I had never read any of Lessing's impressive oeuvre and so to encounter this as my first taste of what by at least some accounts is a smorgasbord of delicacies was, in layman's terms, a disappointment. Pacing: scattered by what looks to be the onset of senility. Style: fourth-grade chic. Historical sense: senseless and ahistorical. Characters: there were none and those impressions that threatened to become characters were never better than those cardboard standees you used to find in display windows at Suncoast Video, a Leia or Chewbacca or Boba Fett (of course, none of those impressions ever really approached that sense of solidity that those corrugated paper mementos had).
This book was chosen for our bookclub on the basis that mere months prior its publication, Lessing won the Nobel for literature and the synopsis made it sound like an adventurous read into gender studies. It was not anything of the sort.
Here we see the woman who chose the book express her disappointment in Lessing and in the Nobel committee by means of willful conflagration.
March 6, 2013
I expected to whip through this book but found that I needed to read it a little slower to absorb what the author was trying to convey. I almost didn’t finish it. Around page 160, I was completely frustrated on how the book was written and decided to read some reviews to help clarify what the author was trying to do. Well, I’m glad I did! It changed my whole attitude. After one review, I realized how brilliant the author was by how realistically portraying how a Roman would have told his story. Apparently, histories written in Roman times had “characteristics of abstractness, representative characters, and large amounts of speculation” which were quite typical of the kinds of histories they wrote. Roman histories are also known to have abrupt endings according to one review, although I didn’t really get that feeling of ending abruptly.
The storyline was a unique thought on how humanity began. I really enjoyed the author's concept.
The storyline was a unique thought on how humanity began. I really enjoyed the author's concept.
April 20, 2008
A Review…and a Few Questions
In June, 1992, Doris Lessing wrote an Op-ed for the NY Times entitled, “Questions You Should Never Ask a Writer.” The questions that Lessing especially does not want to hear are, “What is the story really about? What does it mean?” In other words, we must take her stories at face value and see them as just that – works of her imagination, nothing more.
After finishing “The Cleft,” however, it seems impossible not to ask those questions. On the surface, Lessing’s latest thought-provoking novel is a simple tale, told by a Roman historian during the height of the Roman Empire. The historian, a male, recounts the “origin of the species” found in ancient written records. These scrolls are based on an oral tradition handed down through the ages.
In her brief preface, Lessing says that the whole story began with a question, “sparked” by a scientific article, stoked by the imagination. The question: What if the first “human” were a woman, not a man? Suppose our ancestors were females, Clefts, born in the sea, inseminated and nurtured by it. The early Clefts resemble seals, lolling around the shore, on rocks, living in peace until one gives birth to a male, or “monster.”
The fascinating narrative shifts between the myth, or legend, of the Clefts and the Monsters, and the historian’s description of life in ancient Rome. He dwells on gender and family issues in both time frames and invokes more questions. Are females inherently strong, maternal care-givers? Are males basically competitive, irresponsible dreamers?
One of the main themes of The Cleft is that history is by nature subjective. It all depends on who is writing the history books. On page 136, the historian says:
“A community, a people, must decide what sort of a chronicle must be kept. We all know that in the telling and retelling of an event, or series of events, there will be as many accounts as there are tellers.”
Lessing’s historian clings to the “oral tradition,” passed down through memories, as most reliable. Yet, he admits (p. 25), “What I am about to relate may be – must be – speculative.” Much of the “factual” material is “kept locked up.” Our narrator laments, “all this locking up and smoothing over and the suppression of the truth.” Which explains that by the time of ancient Rome, it was already “common knowledge” that the males came first.
So, here is my question, not for Lessing, rather for her readers, for myself. Why Rome? Why is the fable of the Clefts and the Monsters set against the backdrop of the Roman Empire in all its glory? Couldn’t the scrolls have been discovered by a 21st century historian? Why is the story told by a man who despises the coliseum and its gory, violent rites, yet who admits to a voyeuristic, visceral thrill each time he attends? What is the significance of the Eagle, present in the ancient myth of the Clefts as protector of the males, as well as a revered species of Rome?
Perhaps the answer can be found on page 216, in a passage replete with the historian’s own questions regarding the empire’s expansion and his personal loss of two sons to war:
“I…think of how Rome has hurt itself in our need to expand, to have. I think of my two poor sons, lying somewhere in those northern forests. Rome has to outleap itself, has to grow, has to reach out…Why should there ever be an end to us, to Rome, to our boundaries? Subject peoples may fight us, but they never can stop us. I sometimes imagine how all the known world will be Roman, subject to our beneficent rule, to Roman peace, Roman laws and justice, Roman efficiency…Some greater power than human guides us, leads us, points where our legions must go next. And if there are those who criticize us, then I have only one reply. Why, then, if we lack the qualities needed to make the whole earth flourish, why does everyone want to be a Roman citizen?”
Why Rome, indeed? Lessing has said that if she wants to write about a subject or situation, she does just that. Still, there’s a question I’d love to ask her.
In June, 1992, Doris Lessing wrote an Op-ed for the NY Times entitled, “Questions You Should Never Ask a Writer.” The questions that Lessing especially does not want to hear are, “What is the story really about? What does it mean?” In other words, we must take her stories at face value and see them as just that – works of her imagination, nothing more.
After finishing “The Cleft,” however, it seems impossible not to ask those questions. On the surface, Lessing’s latest thought-provoking novel is a simple tale, told by a Roman historian during the height of the Roman Empire. The historian, a male, recounts the “origin of the species” found in ancient written records. These scrolls are based on an oral tradition handed down through the ages.
In her brief preface, Lessing says that the whole story began with a question, “sparked” by a scientific article, stoked by the imagination. The question: What if the first “human” were a woman, not a man? Suppose our ancestors were females, Clefts, born in the sea, inseminated and nurtured by it. The early Clefts resemble seals, lolling around the shore, on rocks, living in peace until one gives birth to a male, or “monster.”
The fascinating narrative shifts between the myth, or legend, of the Clefts and the Monsters, and the historian’s description of life in ancient Rome. He dwells on gender and family issues in both time frames and invokes more questions. Are females inherently strong, maternal care-givers? Are males basically competitive, irresponsible dreamers?
One of the main themes of The Cleft is that history is by nature subjective. It all depends on who is writing the history books. On page 136, the historian says:
“A community, a people, must decide what sort of a chronicle must be kept. We all know that in the telling and retelling of an event, or series of events, there will be as many accounts as there are tellers.”
Lessing’s historian clings to the “oral tradition,” passed down through memories, as most reliable. Yet, he admits (p. 25), “What I am about to relate may be – must be – speculative.” Much of the “factual” material is “kept locked up.” Our narrator laments, “all this locking up and smoothing over and the suppression of the truth.” Which explains that by the time of ancient Rome, it was already “common knowledge” that the males came first.
So, here is my question, not for Lessing, rather for her readers, for myself. Why Rome? Why is the fable of the Clefts and the Monsters set against the backdrop of the Roman Empire in all its glory? Couldn’t the scrolls have been discovered by a 21st century historian? Why is the story told by a man who despises the coliseum and its gory, violent rites, yet who admits to a voyeuristic, visceral thrill each time he attends? What is the significance of the Eagle, present in the ancient myth of the Clefts as protector of the males, as well as a revered species of Rome?
Perhaps the answer can be found on page 216, in a passage replete with the historian’s own questions regarding the empire’s expansion and his personal loss of two sons to war:
“I…think of how Rome has hurt itself in our need to expand, to have. I think of my two poor sons, lying somewhere in those northern forests. Rome has to outleap itself, has to grow, has to reach out…Why should there ever be an end to us, to Rome, to our boundaries? Subject peoples may fight us, but they never can stop us. I sometimes imagine how all the known world will be Roman, subject to our beneficent rule, to Roman peace, Roman laws and justice, Roman efficiency…Some greater power than human guides us, leads us, points where our legions must go next. And if there are those who criticize us, then I have only one reply. Why, then, if we lack the qualities needed to make the whole earth flourish, why does everyone want to be a Roman citizen?”
Why Rome, indeed? Lessing has said that if she wants to write about a subject or situation, she does just that. Still, there’s a question I’d love to ask her.
February 12, 2011
i'm surprised this book has such a low rating on goodreads. maybe i shouldn't be. lessing's idea here, that women came first, and men evolved later, might be shocking or disgusting to some people. this isn't a 'normal' novel in that there aren't characters, per se, that one follows their development (though lessing does give a few names to key players in her narrative). the story is told by a roman historian who is sifting through documents, trying to make a cohesive story of the beginning of humans. women are the first sex, that come out of the water, are impregnated there, and only produce women (clefts). then after time, 'monster' births start appearing with 'tubes' (men). these monsters are killed until their births are so frequent, and they eventually form their own colony. after another time, women lose the ability to self-impregnate, and a use is found for their tubes.
very interesting ideas explored here; i think lessing had fun with this story.
my goodreads bob would like this book, i think. let me know if you want to borrow it.
very interesting ideas explored here; i think lessing had fun with this story.
my goodreads bob would like this book, i think. let me know if you want to borrow it.
February 25, 2008
An interesting alternative view to evolution, but at its heart it was "Men are From Mars Women are from Venus" meets "The Lord of the Flies". A quick read that seems to drive home the differences between the sexes, sometimes annoyingly so. I enjoyed the narrator's viewpoint as a male in the Roman society illustrating, in a much less hit-you-upside-the-head style, that the differences remain. And of course as a modern reader it causes one to consider that if not much changed between Paleolithic and Roman times, has there been much change up to our current state of being? Not one to buy into gender stereotypes easily or willingly, I found it a bit grating at times but still thought is brought up points for consideration and discussion.
March 31, 2015
What some people have found disturbing and difficult to read, I have found interesting and engaging. Lessing's The Cleft offers the reader an almost non-fiction account of an alternative creation story.
Some reviewers on here have argued against lack of characters or direction, but that is precisely the point. It is meant to be read as an historical account. It is the narrator's story (a Roman historian) that becomes the fictionalised character - and whilst I don't find him that interesting, he offers Lessing the means to tell the tale.
The tale itself, therefore, is punctuated by the historians ido- and sociolect and allows the information to be accessed as a potential realistic account.
I found the content really thought provoking and the characters that were present, substantial for the genre that Lessing is trying to achieve.
What is meant to be a 'different' piece of writing truly does achieve that, both through its content and stylistically.
Some reviewers on here have argued against lack of characters or direction, but that is precisely the point. It is meant to be read as an historical account. It is the narrator's story (a Roman historian) that becomes the fictionalised character - and whilst I don't find him that interesting, he offers Lessing the means to tell the tale.
The tale itself, therefore, is punctuated by the historians ido- and sociolect and allows the information to be accessed as a potential realistic account.
I found the content really thought provoking and the characters that were present, substantial for the genre that Lessing is trying to achieve.
What is meant to be a 'different' piece of writing truly does achieve that, both through its content and stylistically.
January 3, 2016
An exercise in unreliable narration that fails to rise above the fundamental flaw of being remarkably dull.
March 17, 2019
Η ευφυής, παραμυθολογική, δοσμένη απλοϊκά ανάλυση της εξαιρετικής Doris Lessing για τον πόλεμο των φύλων.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 12, 2018
I think it was the idea of the book that kept me reading it....I was spurred on by my own curiosity about the premise more than the actual story that was told.
July 31, 2008
Lessing's novel proposes a new creation myth, one of a first race of females, the "Clefts", that give birth to males, "Monsters" (later, "Squirts"). That THE CLEFT is both a clever satire of gender roles as well as a thoroughly entertaining book is because of Lessing's talent for humanizing shards of a fictional myth. She does this vis-a-vis an elderly Roman historian who is writing his account of the history of the Clefts. This makes for an interesting, if at times fractured, framing device for the narrative that makes the social satire more layered.
As with any myth, there is violence and magic. The sea from which the Clefts emerge, gives them strength as well as fertility. Magnificent eagles swoop in to save the baby males from death and later, female deer allow them to suckle them in absence of mothers. The discovery of the males by the females and the subsequent mating and fighting is the best part of the story. As the story shifts to a second myth, the world becomes less magic and the two tribes are forced together over time.
The first part seems more focused on the females' trauma of male discovery while the second, more on the males' yearning to explore new lands. I found them to read exactly as Lessing intends: as an ancient historian's interpretation of authentic ancient texts, which was more humorous and just as insightful as I anticipated.
As with any myth, there is violence and magic. The sea from which the Clefts emerge, gives them strength as well as fertility. Magnificent eagles swoop in to save the baby males from death and later, female deer allow them to suckle them in absence of mothers. The discovery of the males by the females and the subsequent mating and fighting is the best part of the story. As the story shifts to a second myth, the world becomes less magic and the two tribes are forced together over time.
The first part seems more focused on the females' trauma of male discovery while the second, more on the males' yearning to explore new lands. I found them to read exactly as Lessing intends: as an ancient historian's interpretation of authentic ancient texts, which was more humorous and just as insightful as I anticipated.
July 5, 2009
The author takes infanticide, incest, genital mutilation, murder, and rape as a matter-of-fact instinctual course of humanity. I'm sorry, but I just can't continue reading this drivel. Call me a prude if you must. When I saw a picture of a 90-year-old author on the back cover of a nobel-prize-winning novel, I certainly didn't expect such a trashy novel. There is no reason that pre-history novels have to assume that humans started out on this awful course. I like the author's writing style and the premise of her novel is interesting (what if the first humans were asexual females and suddenly started giving birth to male babies). However, her justifications and smoothings over of the gross crimes in this novel aren't enough to make me want to continue to fill my mind with them.
March 14, 2022
nothing in this book is like i expected
it's not connected, not interesting and definitely not convincing enough.
the only thing i liked about this book is that she called boys stupid multiple times.
it's not connected, not interesting and definitely not convincing enough.
the only thing i liked about this book is that she called boys stupid multiple times.
December 23, 2008
I liked the unusual, story-telling, almost biblical style of this story. You have the feeling that you are sitting near the chimney at a time when tv, radio and the internet did not exist and that you are listening to a story told by a wise elder.
I also liked Doris Lessing's observation of the human nature, the description of women that "are" and men that "do", of women that give and care about life and men that are restless and seek to discover and conquer. The description of this fundamental human desire to always want to change the status quo yet the desire to come back to what one knows and comfort us.
I liked, at the end of the book, the main male character's discovery of human compassion: "Tenderness is not a quality we associate easily with young men. Life has to beat it into us, beat us softer and more malleable than our early pride allows."
I really liked the beginning of the book but thought that the middle part when men go to explore their island (their world) was too long. All in all, an interesting book to read for the points mentioned above.
I also liked Doris Lessing's observation of the human nature, the description of women that "are" and men that "do", of women that give and care about life and men that are restless and seek to discover and conquer. The description of this fundamental human desire to always want to change the status quo yet the desire to come back to what one knows and comfort us.
I liked, at the end of the book, the main male character's discovery of human compassion: "Tenderness is not a quality we associate easily with young men. Life has to beat it into us, beat us softer and more malleable than our early pride allows."
I really liked the beginning of the book but thought that the middle part when men go to explore their island (their world) was too long. All in all, an interesting book to read for the points mentioned above.
January 21, 2010
Well that was certainly unique. That's probably about the nicest thing I can say about this book. This was my first foray into the writings of Doris Lessing, who I can see has a brilliant skill worthy of all the recognition she's received, so I don't know if this is a typical Lessing book or something completely different.
For me the book was just too hard to follow. I didn't find any connective thread linking everything together, no story arc, no real central conflict, no climax, no central characters. The idea behind the book had a lot of potential, but the execution fell flat.
Supposedly it's the retelling of an oral history and that's just the way it comes across. Nothing is clear; people, places, actions. Rather than enhancing the idea of this history, it actually takes away its power and confuses the reader.
In the end I don't know really what to say about this book. The book is frustrating in all it's beauty and potential so you feel that you can't fully hate it, but there's so much missing it seems that love and praise are not well-earned. My review is very reflective of the book: confusing, meandering and long-winded. I'm going to stop before I frustrate us all even further.
For me the book was just too hard to follow. I didn't find any connective thread linking everything together, no story arc, no real central conflict, no climax, no central characters. The idea behind the book had a lot of potential, but the execution fell flat.
Supposedly it's the retelling of an oral history and that's just the way it comes across. Nothing is clear; people, places, actions. Rather than enhancing the idea of this history, it actually takes away its power and confuses the reader.
In the end I don't know really what to say about this book. The book is frustrating in all it's beauty and potential so you feel that you can't fully hate it, but there's so much missing it seems that love and praise are not well-earned. My review is very reflective of the book: confusing, meandering and long-winded. I'm going to stop before I frustrate us all even further.
December 3, 2013
I am thoroughly surprised by the other reviews of this book. I thought I had made a bad choice when I read some of them but I loved this book, well, I loved the clever, witty gender politics that ran all the way through it just underneath the story. I couldn't help thinking all the way through that Lessing was poking fun at "the battle of the sexes" while making some very pertinient points about our patriarchal society. I loved the ironic twist that a man was re-writing history but with a kind of self-conscious narrative style, his interruptions were at times annoying but I just found myself compelled to keep reading past him to get back to the "real" story, it was only about half way through I realised what a clever juxtaposition his interruptions were. The only reason I gave it four stars is because the ending was ever so slightly predictable, or perhaps dragged out is the word I need, it was 10 maybe 15 pages too long for my liking. Ignore the other comments and give this book a go I say.
September 5, 2013
-Otra visión más de la famosa autora sobre la guerra de sexos.-
Género. Novela.
Lo que nos cuenta. Un noble romano disfruta contemplando las diferentes formas de relación entre hombres y mujeres de distintas edades y condiciones, incluyo las suyas propias, mientras como historiador valora los contenidos y la interpretación de un antiguo volumen que contiene la transcripción de mitos orales muy viejos que a su vez se remontan a épocas todavía más anteriores, que sin ser los documentos más primitivos que obran en poder de los historiadores romanos sí que son llamativos para ellos por su visión ginocentrista de los orígenes de la humanidad.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Novela.
Lo que nos cuenta. Un noble romano disfruta contemplando las diferentes formas de relación entre hombres y mujeres de distintas edades y condiciones, incluyo las suyas propias, mientras como historiador valora los contenidos y la interpretación de un antiguo volumen que contiene la transcripción de mitos orales muy viejos que a su vez se remontan a épocas todavía más anteriores, que sin ser los documentos más primitivos que obran en poder de los historiadores romanos sí que son llamativos para ellos por su visión ginocentrista de los orígenes de la humanidad.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
March 25, 2019
I suppose this book earns it's one star by being the straw that broke this 'always finish a novel no matter how good it is' camel's back...
About 80 pages from the end and I just cannot. Repetitious, slow (& I have a particularly high tolerance for the meandering novel) and oh my god the painfully binary gender generalisations. Lots to say about them but other reviewers have already been there, one thing to point out - exclusively male and exclusively female civilisations pre any kind of moralising/social judgement and NO gay sex? Not even a little? Really?! As Lessing happily lingers on the rape, genital mutilation etc that arises when these communities meet this can't be put down to prudishness - it's plain weird.
About 80 pages from the end and I just cannot. Repetitious, slow (& I have a particularly high tolerance for the meandering novel) and oh my god the painfully binary gender generalisations. Lots to say about them but other reviewers have already been there, one thing to point out - exclusively male and exclusively female civilisations pre any kind of moralising/social judgement and NO gay sex? Not even a little? Really?! As Lessing happily lingers on the rape, genital mutilation etc that arises when these communities meet this can't be put down to prudishness - it's plain weird.
January 22, 2008
I should caveat this review by saying that I did not finish this book. While it was an interesting premise (a society entirely comprised of women begins bearing males), its message was very obvious and heavy-handed. It was also very repetitious (the narrators continually define and redefine the terms they use for male and female). I would have enjoyed it much more as a short story as it became wearisome to read, but it did have a lot of interesting suggestions about how groups of people react to the unknown, and how men and women view and understand the differences (and stereotypes) between the two sexes.
April 28, 2024
I rarely, if ever, DNF a book (no matter how much I hate reading it!) so imagine my horrified surprise when my only DNF of 2023 was a multiple award-nominated book by the iconic author of “Memoirs of a Survivor”, which I think changed the fabric of my brain forever. After the sheer impact that “Memoirs” had on me I figured Lessing could do no wrong but I regret to inform you all that she did major wrong with “The Cleft.”
I could not make it past page 146. This book is not to my taste *at all* and I really question what your taste would have to be to enjoy it. It’s basically supposed to be a satirical rumination on the nature of heterosexual relationships and the gritty specifics of cisgender identity, so you can probably see why my lesbian self would be bored at the outset. But the thing is that the satire barely registers, let alone comes across as clever or entertaining. It reads like it’s The Heterosexual Manifesto (TERF Edition). It reads like a drunken Reddit post speed-typed by a guy with an untrimmed beard and an arsenal of “misunderstood” hot takes about “females”. HOW can this be a Doris Lessing book? I just don’t understand. I feel deeply betrayed, like how are you gonna be one of the most legendary canonical Western modernists (lauded as an icon of literary feminism!!) and produce this absolute garbage??? HOW??
I just… I wish I had never set eyes on this evil tome and I wish even more that I hadn’t bought it. This could have been a cathartic library return but now I’m gonna have to get on the bus to hand it off to consignment. I suppose that’s what I get for being uncritically starry-eyed about “Memoirs.” Seriously, do not read this book. Life is short and fragile already without having to suffer through a couple hundred pages of penis synonyms and insufferable narration by a fictional woman-hating ancient Roman scholar. Please, please just watch the Barbie movie instead.
I could not make it past page 146. This book is not to my taste *at all* and I really question what your taste would have to be to enjoy it. It’s basically supposed to be a satirical rumination on the nature of heterosexual relationships and the gritty specifics of cisgender identity, so you can probably see why my lesbian self would be bored at the outset. But the thing is that the satire barely registers, let alone comes across as clever or entertaining. It reads like it’s The Heterosexual Manifesto (TERF Edition). It reads like a drunken Reddit post speed-typed by a guy with an untrimmed beard and an arsenal of “misunderstood” hot takes about “females”. HOW can this be a Doris Lessing book? I just don’t understand. I feel deeply betrayed, like how are you gonna be one of the most legendary canonical Western modernists (lauded as an icon of literary feminism!!) and produce this absolute garbage??? HOW??
I just… I wish I had never set eyes on this evil tome and I wish even more that I hadn’t bought it. This could have been a cathartic library return but now I’m gonna have to get on the bus to hand it off to consignment. I suppose that’s what I get for being uncritically starry-eyed about “Memoirs.” Seriously, do not read this book. Life is short and fragile already without having to suffer through a couple hundred pages of penis synonyms and insufferable narration by a fictional woman-hating ancient Roman scholar. Please, please just watch the Barbie movie instead.
April 28, 2019
This book was absolutely not what I thought it was going to be. The premise was so interesting and appealing to me, but it was a huge let down. One positive is that it was incredibly easy to read so I finished it really quickly.
The beginning was alright, but it soon became dull and repetitive. The story just seemed to go around in circles with no direction or point... or maybe I just didn't like the point Lessing was making. She really drives home the idea that men are inherently thoughtless, uncaring, aggressive, and only interested in 'one thing'. While women are nagging, whining, only interested in having babies and playing house and oh so very very passive. It was just a little insulting. There's a lot of women laying around and crying, cleaning up after the men, and just waiting to be impregnated because that's apparently their soul purpose. And the men just run around doing dangerous 'manly' things, making a mess, always demanding sex (with the occasional and very blase reference to gang rape), and just shrugging their shoulders and calling the women hysterical when they complain. Yep, just a little insulting.
From what I thought was to be a book about female strength and bonding actually came a book about passive, complaining women who, when faced with the male species, very easily submits to their will as supposed 'natural leaders'. It really shows a complete lack of understanding of the true history of how gender roles and stereotyping were formed. They are not inherent, but learned traits. But if you're not concerned by that type of thing, well it was just really boring to read as well. 2 stars for a good idea and an easy read. And I think I'm being pretty generous.
The beginning was alright, but it soon became dull and repetitive. The story just seemed to go around in circles with no direction or point... or maybe I just didn't like the point Lessing was making. She really drives home the idea that men are inherently thoughtless, uncaring, aggressive, and only interested in 'one thing'. While women are nagging, whining, only interested in having babies and playing house and oh so very very passive. It was just a little insulting. There's a lot of women laying around and crying, cleaning up after the men, and just waiting to be impregnated because that's apparently their soul purpose. And the men just run around doing dangerous 'manly' things, making a mess, always demanding sex (with the occasional and very blase reference to gang rape), and just shrugging their shoulders and calling the women hysterical when they complain. Yep, just a little insulting.
From what I thought was to be a book about female strength and bonding actually came a book about passive, complaining women who, when faced with the male species, very easily submits to their will as supposed 'natural leaders'. It really shows a complete lack of understanding of the true history of how gender roles and stereotyping were formed. They are not inherent, but learned traits. But if you're not concerned by that type of thing, well it was just really boring to read as well. 2 stars for a good idea and an easy read. And I think I'm being pretty generous.
October 27, 2025
اسم الكتاب: الأنثى – The Cleft
اسم الكاتب: دوريس ليسنج – Doris Lessing
عدد الصفحات: 247 صفحة
~ مختصر القصة،،
ميري إبنه الحارسات فتاة مثلها مثل أي فتاة والنسوة الشابات أو المسنات اللاتي تواجدن في الكهف، تظن ماري إن الولادات تتم بضوء القمر، في عالم النسوة هذا كانت هناك ولادات مشوهة ذات نتوئات (ذكور) فيتم التخلص على الصخرة المائلة (صخرة الموت) خارج الكهف للنسور، فهم لا يحتفظن بالتوائم وبالأطفال المشوهين، في الفترة الأخيرة زادت ولادات المشوهين لذا يبدأ انتشار الخوف بينهن، والأدهى من ذلك أحد المسوخ كبر لذا يتم مناقشة بأن يتم رميهم في البحر هذه المرة. ولكن في كل مرة كانت تأتي النسور وتأخذهم، يقررن المسنات بأن يربين أحد المسوخ ليرين إن كان يفيد في أي عمل، ولكن اثناء تواجهم خارج الكهف كانت النسور تأخذهم بعيدا ويضعه مع الآخرين على التل، أما كيف بقي هؤلاء الأطفال على قيد الحياة فهذا ما لا يعرفنه، ومع مرور الوقت ومع كثرة ولادات المسوخ تفقد النساء القدرة على الإنجاب من دون المسوخ.
بالمقابل في جهة المسوخ الجيل الأول ربى لحتى الخامسة على يد النساء المنبوذات الاتي وجدن فيهم نوع من التسلية، الجيل اللاحق تربى ورضع من غزالة وسمو انفسهم أبناء الغزالة وبعدها بدأو بالصيد في النهر وبناء مساكن من جذوع واتخذو من الأصداف أواني لهم في حين استمرت النسور تأتي بأعداد أخرى من المسوخ، فيضع المسوخ السمك الكبير للنسر ويأخذ الرضيع ليتربى على حليب الغزالة والأسماك، وعندما يكبر الفتيان يبدأون بمهمة استكشاف محيطهم والصيد (بعكس الإناث اللاتي فضلن بالبقاء بالكهوف) ما عدا إقتراب من الصخور التي خلفها المعذبات "الإناث".
يبدأ الذكور بمراقبة الإناث عن بعد فيجدون إنهن لا يفعلن شي سوى التكاسل والسباحة، وبعد عدة أيام من باب الاستكشاف يختطف الفتيان أنثى صغيرة إلى وادي الذكورويغتصبونها حتى ماتت فيقررون عدم التعرض للأناث مره أخرى، بالمقابل أنثى واحدة أيضاً "ميري" من الكهوف أرادت استكشاف ما يحدث في وادي المسوخ فتتجرأ على ابتعاد من الكهف ومراقبتهم وهم مسترخين عند مداخل تلك الملاجئ، فتتجول بينهم وتلاحظ الفروق بينهم وتعود ��لكهف وفي اليوم التالي يفكَر سكان الوادي في زائرتهم ميري.
في الكهوف تبدأ أعداد الإناث بالإنحسار، تنجب أستري طفلا مسخا فتقرر مع ميري بأخذه إلى أعلى الجبل فيتقدم الأولاد محتشدين فيتقدم أحدهم ليأخذ الطفل منها، ولكنهما تحزنان بتركه فتقرران أن تباتان اليلة هناك، لكن في الصباح تبدآن بتعليم الصبية اللغة والمحافظة على نظافة مساكنهم.
تحبل الفتاتين من المسوخ، وعند ولادة طفلين ذكور يتم فرض على ماري واستري من قبل الإناث المُسنات بالتخلص منهما مما يجعلهما ترفضان الأمر مدعيات بأنهم أناس بشر مثلنا لذا تهرب الفتاتان إلى وادي الذكور الذين يستقبلونهما بتر��يب بالغ.
في الوقت ذاته تضائل عدد كبير من النوع القديم من الإناث أما الذكور فتمت العناية بالجدد القادمين بإستمرار مع مخالب النسور بالإضافة إلى الذكور والإناث الجدد من تزاوج ماري وإستري، وهكذا بدأ تكون العائلات والعشائر ثم يكتشفون النيران ويروضونها ثم إن النسور الآن لم تأتي بالأطفال إلا نادراً لذا عليهم مراقبة الأطفال الموجودين ورعايتهم من المخاطر الغابات والجروف والأنهار.
تنزعج النسوة المسنات من كثرة المسوخ ومغادرة أغلب الإناث إلى وادي المسوخ لذا يلجأن إلى حيلة لإستدراج الذكور الصبيان إلى مستودع عظام الموتى لقتلهم.
تتوالى ولادات من ذكور وإناث يبدأون بالإنتشار على الساحل وفي الغابات، وتنقسم الناس إلى مجموعتين تحكم الأولى "مارونا" الساكنة على الشواطئ والثانية "هورسا" الساكن في الغابات، وفي السن السابعة يبدأ الصبيان الإلتهاق بهورسا ورجاله، بعكس البنات الاتي يبقين على الشاطئ لتربية الأطفال والعناية المصابين من الذكور!.
يقرر هورسا يوما ما السفر بعيدا فيتبعه جمع من الشبان وبعض النسوة برغم معارضة مارونا، وبعد 9 اشهر من السفر الطول تصبح لديهم ولادات تزعج هورسا ثم يموت رضيعين بسبب المرض، وهم لا يعرفون أين هم عندما يقررون العودة! فيتمرد نفر قليل من الشبان وينفصل عن هورسا فتتكون بعض القرى في الغابات من بعض الأزواج الشبان.
في المحاولة للعودة للشاطئ النساء يعبر البحر وهكذا يصل إلى أرض جديدة ولكنه يصل منهوكاً وفاقداً للإحترام من أتباعه، اليوم الثاني يتوجه الشباب للصيد وتتوه مجموعة من الأطفال عند البحث عنهم في الجوار يجدون كهفاً به متاهة من الممرات تتخللها الأنهار بل حتى البحيرات، حينها لم تكن هناك ولادات أخرى ومات أغلب الأطفال وضاع بعضهم، يموت طفل آخر فيبدأ الرجال يتفكرون بكلام مارونا بعدم الرحيل توترهم هذا يجعلهم يبدون عناية أكبر واهتمام أشد في السهر على الأولاد ، وفي الوقت ذاته يقومون بحملات استكشافية تصل إلى الصدع بقرب من كهوف النساء سابقاً فيتقدمون جميعهم إلى شاطئ النساء وعندما يلتقي بمارونا يخبرها بأنهم وجدو شاطئاً أكبر وأفضل من هذا فيتوجهون جميعهم إلى هناك حيث الكهوف الواسعة.
~ المراجعة ،،
الخصام الأزلي ومنذ بدأ الخليقة بين الذكر والأنثى، تظن الأنثى إن الرجل لا يهتم بالأطفال، والذكر لا يدري لمَ كل هذه الجعجعة؟ الرجال قصيرو النظر وعديمو الإحساس، بينما النساء يمكنهن توقع وقوع الكوارث والمصائب، لكنهن من جهة أخرى، لا يستطعن فعل أي شي سوى الإستلقاء فوق الصخور الساحلة وصيد الأسماك، لكن هذين الزعيمين، الذكر والأنثى، يتوصلان في نهاية المطاف إلى حقيقة لا غبار عليها وهي "ليس بيننا شيء مشترك، لكن كل واحد منا يحتاج إلى الآخر". ~اقتباس من المقدمة.
قصة غريبة وجميلة في الوقت ذاته و أكثر ما تعرض فيه الكاتبة هي التصرفات الرجال والنساء على اختلافاتهم والجسدية والفكرية ما هي إلا أمور فطرية فيهما بل وهي الذاكرة الأولى للإنسان الأول.
بإختصار: تعالج الرواية مواضيع الاختلاف، السلطة، الهوية الأنثوية، النظام الأحادي والجماعي، الصراع الفلسفي بين الجنسين، والبحث عن الذات في عالم تتغير معاييره عند مواجهة التعدد والاختلاف.
~ اقتباسات،،
1- "إن المرأة هي من يقولب حياة الذكر في السنوات الخمس الأولى من عمره، شئنا أم أبينا"
2- "الحاجة تستدعي الإجابة"
3- "إنه لأمر مزعج أن يكون المرء طفلاًرلكنه يهتم بالأطفال"
4- "لدينا رغبة في وصف غيرنا من المخلوقات بأنها غبية أو لا تفكر على الأقل"
5- "إنني لا أريد أن أكون مثلهن، تلك الفكرة التي أحدثت ثورات و حروباً وفككت أسراً أو جعلت من يحمل تلك الفكرة يصاب بالجنون أو دفعته لحياة جديدة مفعمة بالنشاط"
6- "إن قوة التملّك لا بد أن تأتي من مكان ما، طالما أن وجودها واضح، وأنها موجودة معنا دوماً حسب ما نعلم"
7- "تواريخ الإناث تروي لنا شكوكهن: إنهن لا يدركن بكل بساطة لا مبالاة الصبيان الذين كانوا يرتكبون أعمالاً خطيرة و حمقاء"
8- ثمة ملاحظات في المدزنات الإناث تفيد أن الصبيان يفتقرون إلى الكياسة، يفتقرون إلى الإحساس ببيئتهم، أغبياء لا يفهمون إن فعلوا شيئاً فإن شيئاً آخر سيتبعه."
9- "إن وصول المرأة المسنة إلى الصخرة تعلوها الكدمات وتلطخها الدماء لم يكن ليعني أي شيء للأولاد، الشيء الذي كان يهمهم هو إنجازهم، الإنجاز الذي يكشف عن غباء الإناث – إناث غبيات لم يعرفن كيف يتصرفن لإنقاذ المرأة المسنة – الأولاد أغبياء كانو يفتقرون إلى الكياسة!"
10- "إن ما يستطيع الناس فهمه، وما لا يستطيعون فهمه، أمر مثير للإهتمام"
11- "لم يعامل الرجال الأولاد الصغار معاملة تختلف عن معاملة أنفسهم"
12- "إنها لحقيقة حسنة الطالع، أو سيئئة الطالع، أننا نحن شعوب العالم نمتلك خاصية الإخصاب، والموت، والإنتشار دائماً"
13- "الرجال مستهترون، طائشون، لا يكترثون لحياتنا، ولسلامة الأولاد خاصة"
14- "فالنسا يتكلمن مع الرجال كلاماً متعالياً دائماً، معنّفين، مؤنّبين"
15- "إن قتل إنسان لا يتطلب سوى لحظة، وتلك اللحظة تنهي سنوات من العمل الشاق المتعب والصعب"
16- "لو امتلكتم سُلطة طوال حياتكم، بسبب طبيعتكم أو شيئاً لم تعرفوا أنكم تملكونه، ثم تفقدونه، عندئذ يصعب كثيراً طرح الأسئلة الصحيحة."
17- " يا لغرابة العقول عنا، إذ كانت تعلم أنها ليست بحاجة إلى أن تطرح سؤالاً. ماذا؟ كم؟ كيف؟"
18- "فقد كنَّ يعرفنَ إهمال الرجال، وفكرن لو أن الرجال قُدّر لهم أن يحملوا الأجنّة في أرحامهم ويتعذّبوا عند ولادتهم لما أصبحوا بمثل هذه الدرجة من الإهمال، معرّضين الحياة للخطر"
19- "ليست الرقة من السجايا التي نقرنها بالشبان من الرجال، إذ لا بدّ للحياة من أن تغرسها فينا، وتطرقها في أعماقنا على نحو أسهل و أرق مما يسمح به كبرياؤنا البدائيّ"
اسم الكاتب: دوريس ليسنج – Doris Lessing
عدد الصفحات: 247 صفحة
~ مختصر القصة،،
ميري إبنه الحارسات فتاة مثلها مثل أي فتاة والنسوة الشابات أو المسنات اللاتي تواجدن في الكهف، تظن ماري إن الولادات تتم بضوء القمر، في عالم النسوة هذا كانت هناك ولادات مشوهة ذات نتوئات (ذكور) فيتم التخلص على الصخرة المائلة (صخرة الموت) خارج الكهف للنسور، فهم لا يحتفظن بالتوائم وبالأطفال المشوهين، في الفترة الأخيرة زادت ولادات المشوهين لذا يبدأ انتشار الخوف بينهن، والأدهى من ذلك أحد المسوخ كبر لذا يتم مناقشة بأن يتم رميهم في البحر هذه المرة. ولكن في كل مرة كانت تأتي النسور وتأخذهم، يقررن المسنات بأن يربين أحد المسوخ ليرين إن كان يفيد في أي عمل، ولكن اثناء تواجهم خارج الكهف كانت النسور تأخذهم بعيدا ويضعه مع الآخرين على التل، أما كيف بقي هؤلاء الأطفال على قيد الحياة فهذا ما لا يعرفنه، ومع مرور الوقت ومع كثرة ولادات المسوخ تفقد النساء القدرة على الإنجاب من دون المسوخ.
بالمقابل في جهة المسوخ الجيل الأول ربى لحتى الخامسة على يد النساء المنبوذات الاتي وجدن فيهم نوع من التسلية، الجيل اللاحق تربى ورضع من غزالة وسمو انفسهم أبناء الغزالة وبعدها بدأو بالصيد في النهر وبناء مساكن من جذوع واتخذو من الأصداف أواني لهم في حين استمرت النسور تأتي بأعداد أخرى من المسوخ، فيضع المسوخ السمك الكبير للنسر ويأخذ الرضيع ليتربى على حليب الغزالة والأسماك، وعندما يكبر الفتيان يبدأون بمهمة استكشاف محيطهم والصيد (بعكس الإناث اللاتي فضلن بالبقاء بالكهوف) ما عدا إقتراب من الصخور التي خلفها المعذبات "الإناث".
يبدأ الذكور بمراقبة الإناث عن بعد فيجدون إنهن لا يفعلن شي سوى التكاسل والسباحة، وبعد عدة أيام من باب الاستكشاف يختطف الفتيان أنثى صغيرة إلى وادي الذكورويغتصبونها حتى ماتت فيقررون عدم التعرض للأناث مره أخرى، بالمقابل أنثى واحدة أيضاً "ميري" من الكهوف أرادت استكشاف ما يحدث في وادي المسوخ فتتجرأ على ابتعاد من الكهف ومراقبتهم وهم مسترخين عند مداخل تلك الملاجئ، فتتجول بينهم وتلاحظ الفروق بينهم وتعود ��لكهف وفي اليوم التالي يفكَر سكان الوادي في زائرتهم ميري.
في الكهوف تبدأ أعداد الإناث بالإنحسار، تنجب أستري طفلا مسخا فتقرر مع ميري بأخذه إلى أعلى الجبل فيتقدم الأولاد محتشدين فيتقدم أحدهم ليأخذ الطفل منها، ولكنهما تحزنان بتركه فتقرران أن تباتان اليلة هناك، لكن في الصباح تبدآن بتعليم الصبية اللغة والمحافظة على نظافة مساكنهم.
تحبل الفتاتين من المسوخ، وعند ولادة طفلين ذكور يتم فرض على ماري واستري من قبل الإناث المُسنات بالتخلص منهما مما يجعلهما ترفضان الأمر مدعيات بأنهم أناس بشر مثلنا لذا تهرب الفتاتان إلى وادي الذكور الذين يستقبلونهما بتر��يب بالغ.
في الوقت ذاته تضائل عدد كبير من النوع القديم من الإناث أما الذكور فتمت العناية بالجدد القادمين بإستمرار مع مخالب النسور بالإضافة إلى الذكور والإناث الجدد من تزاوج ماري وإستري، وهكذا بدأ تكون العائلات والعشائر ثم يكتشفون النيران ويروضونها ثم إن النسور الآن لم تأتي بالأطفال إلا نادراً لذا عليهم مراقبة الأطفال الموجودين ورعايتهم من المخاطر الغابات والجروف والأنهار.
تنزعج النسوة المسنات من كثرة المسوخ ومغادرة أغلب الإناث إلى وادي المسوخ لذا يلجأن إلى حيلة لإستدراج الذكور الصبيان إلى مستودع عظام الموتى لقتلهم.
تتوالى ولادات من ذكور وإناث يبدأون بالإنتشار على الساحل وفي الغابات، وتنقسم الناس إلى مجموعتين تحكم الأولى "مارونا" الساكنة على الشواطئ والثانية "هورسا" الساكن في الغابات، وفي السن السابعة يبدأ الصبيان الإلتهاق بهورسا ورجاله، بعكس البنات الاتي يبقين على الشاطئ لتربية الأطفال والعناية المصابين من الذكور!.
يقرر هورسا يوما ما السفر بعيدا فيتبعه جمع من الشبان وبعض النسوة برغم معارضة مارونا، وبعد 9 اشهر من السفر الطول تصبح لديهم ولادات تزعج هورسا ثم يموت رضيعين بسبب المرض، وهم لا يعرفون أين هم عندما يقررون العودة! فيتمرد نفر قليل من الشبان وينفصل عن هورسا فتتكون بعض القرى في الغابات من بعض الأزواج الشبان.
في المحاولة للعودة للشاطئ النساء يعبر البحر وهكذا يصل إلى أرض جديدة ولكنه يصل منهوكاً وفاقداً للإحترام من أتباعه، اليوم الثاني يتوجه الشباب للصيد وتتوه مجموعة من الأطفال عند البحث عنهم في الجوار يجدون كهفاً به متاهة من الممرات تتخللها الأنهار بل حتى البحيرات، حينها لم تكن هناك ولادات أخرى ومات أغلب الأطفال وضاع بعضهم، يموت طفل آخر فيبدأ الرجال يتفكرون بكلام مارونا بعدم الرحيل توترهم هذا يجعلهم يبدون عناية أكبر واهتمام أشد في السهر على الأولاد ، وفي الوقت ذاته يقومون بحملات استكشافية تصل إلى الصدع بقرب من كهوف النساء سابقاً فيتقدمون جميعهم إلى شاطئ النساء وعندما يلتقي بمارونا يخبرها بأنهم وجدو شاطئاً أكبر وأفضل من هذا فيتوجهون جميعهم إلى هناك حيث الكهوف الواسعة.
~ المراجعة ،،
الخصام الأزلي ومنذ بدأ الخليقة بين الذكر والأنثى، تظن الأنثى إن الرجل لا يهتم بالأطفال، والذكر لا يدري لمَ كل هذه الجعجعة؟ الرجال قصيرو النظر وعديمو الإحساس، بينما النساء يمكنهن توقع وقوع الكوارث والمصائب، لكنهن من جهة أخرى، لا يستطعن فعل أي شي سوى الإستلقاء فوق الصخور الساحلة وصيد الأسماك، لكن هذين الزعيمين، الذكر والأنثى، يتوصلان في نهاية المطاف إلى حقيقة لا غبار عليها وهي "ليس بيننا شيء مشترك، لكن كل واحد منا يحتاج إلى الآخر". ~اقتباس من المقدمة.
قصة غريبة وجميلة في الوقت ذاته و أكثر ما تعرض فيه الكاتبة هي التصرفات الرجال والنساء على اختلافاتهم والجسدية والفكرية ما هي إلا أمور فطرية فيهما بل وهي الذاكرة الأولى للإنسان الأول.
بإختصار: تعالج الرواية مواضيع الاختلاف، السلطة، الهوية الأنثوية، النظام الأحادي والجماعي، الصراع الفلسفي بين الجنسين، والبحث عن الذات في عالم تتغير معاييره عند مواجهة التعدد والاختلاف.
~ اقتباسات،،
1- "إن المرأة هي من يقولب حياة الذكر في السنوات الخمس الأولى من عمره، شئنا أم أبينا"
2- "الحاجة تستدعي الإجابة"
3- "إنه لأمر مزعج أن يكون المرء طفلاًرلكنه يهتم بالأطفال"
4- "لدينا رغبة في وصف غيرنا من المخلوقات بأنها غبية أو لا تفكر على الأقل"
5- "إنني لا أريد أن أكون مثلهن، تلك الفكرة التي أحدثت ثورات و حروباً وفككت أسراً أو جعلت من يحمل تلك الفكرة يصاب بالجنون أو دفعته لحياة جديدة مفعمة بالنشاط"
6- "إن قوة التملّك لا بد أن تأتي من مكان ما، طالما أن وجودها واضح، وأنها موجودة معنا دوماً حسب ما نعلم"
7- "تواريخ الإناث تروي لنا شكوكهن: إنهن لا يدركن بكل بساطة لا مبالاة الصبيان الذين كانوا يرتكبون أعمالاً خطيرة و حمقاء"
8- ثمة ملاحظات في المدزنات الإناث تفيد أن الصبيان يفتقرون إلى الكياسة، يفتقرون إلى الإحساس ببيئتهم، أغبياء لا يفهمون إن فعلوا شيئاً فإن شيئاً آخر سيتبعه."
9- "إن وصول المرأة المسنة إلى الصخرة تعلوها الكدمات وتلطخها الدماء لم يكن ليعني أي شيء للأولاد، الشيء الذي كان يهمهم هو إنجازهم، الإنجاز الذي يكشف عن غباء الإناث – إناث غبيات لم يعرفن كيف يتصرفن لإنقاذ المرأة المسنة – الأولاد أغبياء كانو يفتقرون إلى الكياسة!"
10- "إن ما يستطيع الناس فهمه، وما لا يستطيعون فهمه، أمر مثير للإهتمام"
11- "لم يعامل الرجال الأولاد الصغار معاملة تختلف عن معاملة أنفسهم"
12- "إنها لحقيقة حسنة الطالع، أو سيئئة الطالع، أننا نحن شعوب العالم نمتلك خاصية الإخصاب، والموت، والإنتشار دائماً"
13- "الرجال مستهترون، طائشون، لا يكترثون لحياتنا، ولسلامة الأولاد خاصة"
14- "فالنسا يتكلمن مع الرجال كلاماً متعالياً دائماً، معنّفين، مؤنّبين"
15- "إن قتل إنسان لا يتطلب سوى لحظة، وتلك اللحظة تنهي سنوات من العمل الشاق المتعب والصعب"
16- "لو امتلكتم سُلطة طوال حياتكم، بسبب طبيعتكم أو شيئاً لم تعرفوا أنكم تملكونه، ثم تفقدونه، عندئذ يصعب كثيراً طرح الأسئلة الصحيحة."
17- " يا لغرابة العقول عنا، إذ كانت تعلم أنها ليست بحاجة إلى أن تطرح سؤالاً. ماذا؟ كم؟ كيف؟"
18- "فقد كنَّ يعرفنَ إهمال الرجال، وفكرن لو أن الرجال قُدّر لهم أن يحملوا الأجنّة في أرحامهم ويتعذّبوا عند ولادتهم لما أصبحوا بمثل هذه الدرجة من الإهمال، معرّضين الحياة للخطر"
19- "ليست الرقة من السجايا التي نقرنها بالشبان من الرجال، إذ لا بدّ للحياة من أن تغرسها فينا، وتطرقها في أعماقنا على نحو أسهل و أرق مما يسمح به كبرياؤنا البدائيّ"
August 10, 2020
For such a revered writer as Lessing, it feels almost sacrilegious for me to say, but say it I must- meh. This book is devoid of character, soul, and- one could argue, in good faith- plot. The premise is an interesting one, if not rather gynocentric and derivative of works that came before it. The ideas propounded have roots in reality regarding societal structure, but this book feels so criminally arbitrary that I simply lost the meaning.
There’s no nuance left in this story, and when we were reduced to discussions of the mechanics of peeing for about two pages, and the superiority of who has a better peeing system, I about lost it. There are plenty of books that do this and do it better, and plenty of books far more inclusive and less centered on genitalia determining life choices. Not worth the space it was taking up on the bookshelf, to be quite honest.
There’s no nuance left in this story, and when we were reduced to discussions of the mechanics of peeing for about two pages, and the superiority of who has a better peeing system, I about lost it. There are plenty of books that do this and do it better, and plenty of books far more inclusive and less centered on genitalia determining life choices. Not worth the space it was taking up on the bookshelf, to be quite honest.
April 30, 2020
It‘s hard to review this book. It has a low score on GR. I understand that. This is an alternative history of Romans. It‘s about an ancient female cult, The Cleft. A society without men. Then the first son is born... Quick read. I am certain there are many people out there enjoying this book. 3- stars
August 30, 2008
I'm within 80 pages of being done with this book and I just can't bring myself to finish it. The premise sounded so interesting. But the author's generalizations about men and women were almost comical...and I don't think that was her intent. Anyway, I give up!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 492 reviews