I'm not sure what to think about I Who Have Never Known Men by Jacqueline Harpman (translated by Ros Schwartz), but it's not entirely what I was expecting (based on the back cover and reviews). It wasn't bad... just, not what I thought. Like when you expect to drink water and then realize you took a sip of Sprite.
I loved the idea of these women being trapped in a cage for some unknown reason, with guards watching them for some unknown reason. And then they escaped, and you're like YES. There's going to be some action! And then there never is... Yes, it's desolate like some reviews say, but other than a very short scene or two, I didn't feel much, and I really wanted this book to make me feel (based on the concept it had). Most of the text was just a lot of wandering. Critically, I can understand the purpose behind this book, and how if maybe I was to discuss this with others (which I will with my book club next month) I might appreciate certain aspects more. It brings up the idea of community, and how we become who we become, and what we are without those things. It makes you consider the point of life, especially if you are simply on your own with no community. It brings to light motives, and others' stories, and who are people if we don't know who they are? There are many thematic elements that this story brings to light that would be fascinating to discuss with people. But reading it as it is and reflecting on it by myself, I was left... meh. Wanting more. As a story, it felt like much didn't happen. It isn't a long book, but I felt like Harpman could have written a short story about this and packed a far more powerful punch on these themes. And, to be fair, maybe that's part of the message - forcing readers to metaphorically wander with nothing to do, like the women in the book had to do, but I don't know. This book started off with so many riveting questions and really led me to believe there were going to be answers. I was excited to see what the reasons for the conflict were, but then we got nothing. I think I expected more transgression. In my blog post "What is Transgressive Fiction?" I summarize other author's definitions of the genre: Palahniuk: Fiction that has characters who misbehave and commit crimes as political acts of civil disobedience. D’Hont: Fiction that evolves and represents the sociopolitical shifts it explores. Morrison: Fiction that analyzes the limits of the world. While all of these definitions involve limits in some way, they still vary from each other. So I’ll look at a few more definitions… I then go on to say, I think that all of those things, combined with writing techniques and contemporary trademarks (like unreliable narrators with conversational/dialectical tones, for example), are what make the stories that are most widely recognized as transgressive fiction earn that label. With women endlessly trapped in a cage, watched over by male guards, I expected misbehaving and crimes. I expected gender norms and social commentary. I expected sociopolitics. I thought this book would be more transgressive, but instead it was a little more of a dystopia with no action. It did explore the limits of the world, and I think that is what reviewers who have given it a high rating are holding onto. Read below if you want my thoughts that includes SPOILERS: We never find out why the women get locked in a cage. Additionally, we find out that there are other camps set up exactly the same with the same number of women locked in them - then we find out there are also the same camps of men. Still, we never find out why any of these people had been locked up - what was the motive? (And honestly, I was disappointed when we found out there were camps of men too. I feel like the book's message would/could have been drastically different if it had just been women, but also men? And yet we never find out why they were there, what set off some alarms, what happened to everyone else in the world, and like... I get the message is kind of laid out to us at the end, but having these cages of men threw it off for me.) With the title being I Who Have Never Known Men, I thought the book was going to have something specific to say about men/gender, but now I wonder if it was referring to humans and not men? Because men had to deal with the same traumas of being in a post-apocalyptic world, and she decided they also didn't know what was going on. So what does it matter that she's a woman who never knew men? I thought there would be a cooler critique on society regarding that and there wasn't. The writing is good, and I like the characters and how they are developed, and I like the ideas the book introduces. I would probably like this better if it was for a college class where we discussed it and built arguments about the piece, but as a book I was reading for fun, I wanted something more, and if not all the answers, at least one or two. Instead MC just lives trapped in a cage, escapes, wanders around never knowing community and then she dies. I guess not having this information is saying something, and I guess not having this information can lead us to come up with our own answers, but... meh. Additionally, I didn't quite understand some details logistically. For example, these wandering women survived by eating food they found at all the other abandoned cage shelters, including meat. For 30+ years? Meat can't last that long, even frozen. So three and a half? four? stars because it wasn't bad, and I liked the idea and all of that, but ... this could have been really cool and it felt like it was trying but didn't hit the mark. Like, Harpman didn't know the answers to this cool plot herself, so she just let the not answering anything at the end be some deeper meaning instead.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
I'm Shannon Waite and I write stories about norms, characters who break norms, and society's wounds. They're always contemporary, often transgressive.
Popular Posts Archives
October 2024
Categories
All
|