It occurred to me, back in October, that I probably read a lot more male authors than female--not because--at least I hope not because--I'm sexist, but because my culture is and one is nothing if not a product of many crosscurrents of life--culture, family, language, education, etc. etc. So, thanks to Goodreads I was able to chart just exactly how gender-skewed my reading is: 2012: 3/18, 2013: 11/45, 2014: 9/26, 2015: 8/41. Even by consciously choosing those books by females on my to-read shelf over the final months of 2016 I only managed to read 11/50 by female authors. This is not acceptable, I decided, and it must change. So right now 18 of my last 21 books read have been by female authors. Many of them have been terrific--in fact I see no correlation between gender and aesthetic literary quality at all--it's only the bias of the established cannon and my trying to read all of the great books, I suppose, that's unbalanced my reading by gender. But I must say, because I'm so much more aware of an author's gender at this particular moment, that this is the novel that I was looking for, waiting for.
I don't think a man (of any gender, really, what I mean to say is someone with a man's experience of the world) could have written Hangsaman. This is a novel that's genius lies at the heart of female experience. I felt privileged to read it and enter into this mysterious world of female adolescence, alienation, imagination (coping mechanism?) and, ultimately, horror. No, it's not a Gothic like The Haunting of Hill House but its protagonist's alienation, subtle refusal, which grows into a near-abandonment of the world she knows but can only fear for the unknown (even suicide) is much more terrifying than any ghost story will ever be. It really touched a nerve.
Amazing and extra chilling here--and I think part and parcel of female experience--is that Natalie isn't really allowed to have experiences the way men are. Man are encouraged to self-reflect, to criticize the world, to share their opinion, to feel that they're at the center of the world and to do what they please in answer to it. Early on (the novel is in three unnumbered sections, rather like a three-act play) we see Natalie's brother opting out of the patriarchy's cocktail party--even condescendingly offering to help Natalie escape with him. But, no, like most women, I surmise, Natalie's only validation is through the patriarchy itself, therefore abandoning her father's party would be the only thing worse than the awkwardness of attending it. It is awkward. She's raped in the end but appears to take it in stride: she has no language, apparently, to speak of it except once, later, in passing, as "the bad thing." We are, as I mentioned above, the product of our culture--see early 1950s USA suburban Middle Class--rape was not a thing spoken of. Natalie tolerates it. As her culture tolerates it.
"..the gap between the poetry she wrote and the poetry she contained was, for Natalie, something unsolvable."
In part two, Natalie goes to college to learn to write/speak, but only finds a further segment of her father (and lesser than he!) in a prof who admires her father and appears a much less active teacher than rapist himself--well, ok, diddler of students both in the form of having married one and of courting (to put it politely, as the novel itself does) another on the side. At any rate, Natalie's confusion, resentment and interior journey only grow more and more mysterious, awkward and detached. Her grammar is corrected, but she's still not given a language with which to speak her loneliness. And that sad soliloquy of resentment and displacement is the hardest thing to speak too, even for a man--how much worse to be part of a herd of girls being trained by an all-male faculty in a college that resembles a military academy, for all of its radically progressive shenanigans. No one is even there to listen should Natalie even learn to speak her experience.
In this second section mysteries abound: there's a thief, there are voices in and out of Natalie's head, there are secret visitors in the dorms at night, un-serious initiations, threatening caretakers, there's a mysterious fellow loner girl who may be an imaginary friend or something even more perverse--we poor readers will never know the truth of it. I bring up the facts of the novel--which I normally never do in a review--because they're all, to me, replacements for the language Natalie's not learning, at college, to speak. The novel is mysterious because, without a proper language to speak it, Natalie's experience becomes this fragmentary series of disjointed mysteries. She can't really have experiences in any kind of normalizing narrative way--at least not in the male, literary/historical sense--because she hasn't the proper words with which to re-live and recount them.
Where is she then, in the novel's third section? On a dark and seemingly casually chosen road with a mysterious companion. I don't want to spoil the ending--but I can't really because it's as ineffable as the rest. There's no language to speak Natalie's story in 1951, so it remains untold. Hangsaman is the story of its own impossible composition. Its message would appear to be: give me the words to tell the real story for without them I have no meaning. Nathalie's last words in the novel (really a feeling rather than a statement) might mean that, for a Middle-Class woman in the USA in 1951, adulthood meant coming to terms with one's muteness. Not only were people of color and gays invisible (as Ralph Ellison so eloquently put it) but women, too, blended silently into the woodwork all too conveniently.
PS I forgot to mention that Shirley Jackson is the greatest composer of sentences in the English language. I used to think Hemingway, but Jackson's are just as brilliant and a tad less showy--remarkably beautiful, her sentences have the feel of a diamond cutting through glass with a clarity I thought impossible in English. I'm humbled.