Dish Wanderer ’s Comments (group member since May 28, 2015)

Dish Wanderer ’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Disha wrote: "sometimes a cave is always a cave"

Besides the fact that that's logically impossible, what I said is "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Not always. To say there's a "lot" of homo-e..."
Yes, we can agree to disagree. I didn't realise you were disagreeing about "degree." Yes-- you can see a "little"-- I might see a "lot" -- some might not see any at all-- which is what Traveller was referring to --I think.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, an..."
The novel definitely showcases strong bonds between women. I think it points towards " Women's folklore." Example - all the recipes and food stored in the basement.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "and, fwiw, and looking back over my own comments, I'd have to agree that on Merricat's part all of her relationships are homo-social. She remembers her mother and other "Blackwood women" fondly, an..."
Maybe you should have a word with my Professor. Hahah! She thinks it is not. But yes, I see what you are saying here. For some readers -- relating to the characters and treating them like a " friend" etc. is very important and that adds meaning to their reading of the text.

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "Actually, I do ot think Charles is the " Prince." He is set up as one, sure. But Jackson plays with the whole genre in this novel so I think its Merricat who is actually the "Prince" ..."

Yes, we did discuss Propp and I agree about the Charles being the traditional "Prince" and then it being subverted by Merrricat and yes -- absolutely -- if we are looking at a villain figure ( a la Propp) Charles is definitely "it."

I was not saying that you should or should not read a text in a certain way ( though I would absolutely tell my undergrad students that). There are multiple ways of reading a text -- of course-- but they are not always equal. Not all opinions are equal. And in school ( grad school) we are taught ways of reading a text -- Marxist - Freudian etc. but sometimes we focus on things which perhaps are not important to our understanding of the text and that's also O.K. I think what I am trying to articulate is that diagnosing Merricat is a fruitless exercise -- we can do it -- sure -- but I don't think it's productive. As in this thread -- we are swinging from paranoia and OCD etc. and that's great but we run the danger of being " prescriptive" and treating the characters as real people. We forget they are fiction and they represent reality and are not real. Sorry to bring in another incident from my grad school class. We were reading "Choke" by Chuck Palahunick ( I 'm sure I didn't spell it right) and there is a character of a woman in the novel who is a horrible example of a parent. The students were very upset with her and were asking the Professor " why is she a horrible mother?" And " in one scene -- I was shouting at her for doing that." The Professor pointed out that we were treating the character as a real person which was not productive.
I think what is happening is that since Literature is what I do -- it becomes harder -- a book discussion. I must remember that this is not a seminar in school. Thanks, Traveller , I had to be reminded of that. I shall try and keep my comments to a minimum because if someone says a " cigar is just a cigar"; I die a little.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "The allowed and not allowed is also typical of OCD. So, it was Merricat herself who decided what she was allowed or not allowed to do."

Ah-hah. I didn't know that, but I had esta..."
I don't think in Literature a cigar is always a cigar. I study literature -- that's my life's work so if a cigar is just a cigar -- my life's work is over and I might as well give up on Literature altogether. We had this moment in my seminar class wherein we were ( surprise) having a discussion on the cave in " King Solomon's Mines" and one student said that sometimes a cave is always a cave. The Professor was understandably not happy with the student and there was an awkward silence for a few minutes after which the professor went on to say how the cave is not always just a cave. Art is a craft and the craft means something. However, you are welcome to your opinion. That's also what literature is about -- interpretation and "a lot" of them.

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Trying to diagnose Merricat is indeed a waste of time, because her narrative is all we have to go on. There are signs that what she experiences might indeed be delusions (Is Constance -really- happ..."
Thanks for your input.I do agree with you that we are not supposed to diagnose Merricat. I mean, I don't think that is that important.

Traveller wrote: "Thanks for your commentary, Puddin, it is much appreciated!

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Trying to diagnose Merricat is indeed a waste of time, because her narrative is all we have to go on. There a..."

Thanks Traveller for your insights! Wonderful!
Actually, I do ot think Charles is the " Prince." He is set up as one, sure. But Jackson plays with the whole genre in this novel so I think its Merricat who is actually the "Prince" in that sense.

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "There is a freudian reading to all this-- if you want to know that -- let me know. "

Do give us the Freudian reading, Disha! I feel as if this story h..."
Thanks, Traveller. It is very easy to miss symbols and motifs in this text -- simply because there are SO many!

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "Traveller wrote: "I see the homo-socialism, but only on Merrikat's part, (though she didn't seem to mind uncle Julian), but I must admit that I don't see the homo-eroticism. Is all lo..."

Thanks, Traveller. Benefits of giving a comprehensive exam on Feminist Theory ;) Let me know if you need recommendations for feminist theory books but we have already discussed that when I was preparing for my exam.

Yolande wrote: "Disha wrote: The Freudian reading -- Merricat doesn't want to enter the " gendered space" so she kills her family at ..."

Thanks Disha, that was very insightful!

I will have to reread the Igo an..."
Tank you so much Yolande :) I appreciate it. The Id is the primal, the repressed which comes out in slips of tongue and in our dreams. The ego is our consciousness -- what we know. The super ego is how we act according to societies rules and regulations. So, what I was trying to say is that according to a Freudian reading --Merricat acts out of the id ( that which we do not know ) since she is never socialised and refuses to enter the world of the super ego.

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "There is a freudian reading to all this-- if you want to know that -- let me know. "

Do give us the Freudian reading, Disha! I feel as if this story has the potential to be interpret..."
My Professor thinks that this book is a " crack" in Jackson's Marxist foundations. Merricat and Constance return to " feudalism" and she reads Charles as a" capitalist" character. Your thoughts, Traveller?

The Freudian reading -- Merricat doesn't want to enter the " gendered space" so she kills her family at the age of 12-- just before the onset pf puberty. I think someone here did mention this and the fact that her emotional development is stunted. This would agree with the Freudian reading. She is "childish" and refracted and shifted onto the age just before "womanhood." Is she then operating from the ID? And not from the EGO? As she hasn't entered the law of the father? The patriarchal order? These are all questions to ponder over. Also, if she is operating from the ID ( Refer Freud's theory on the Id, ego and superego)-- then she can poison her family as the rules of the ego and society is something that she doesn't recognise.
I don't want to again spoil anything but when she emerges from the cave with Constance -- it also seems like a post lapsarain space after the Fall. Has she gained carnal knowledge? Read that scene again -- it is extremely homo erotic and well -- she goes into a cave. A CAVE! You see what I am saying?
And post this scene-- her rituals change. Constance puts on Uncle Julian's clothes and Merricat is wearing the tablecloth of the family. A new order -- homo social -- and homo erotic.

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "The appeasement by gifts has been part of myth and ritual for a long time.
This book has a lot of folklore motifs in it. Basically, it is about belief and is structured like a fairy t..."

Thanks, Traveller. :)

Traveller wrote: "I see the homo-socialism, but only on Merrikat's part, (though she didn't seem to mind uncle Julian), but I must admit that I don't see the homo-eroticism. Is all love between family members incest..."
To develop more on the homo erotic relationship -- yes, it is "incestous" in that sense but I think more than homo eroticism it is definitely a new social order which is brought about by the two - a female order ( as opposed to the law of patriarchy which would have taken place if Constance chooses Charles). I think Constance and Merricat walk into a lesbian continuum ( refer to Adrienne Rich ) It is a " lesbian coding" by Jackson. I don't know if she has consciously done that but this kind of coding goes on in most of Jackson's novels ( I have read three thus far and all three have had strong homo erotic and homo social relationships). Jackson does definitely stress on being female identified. I don't want to give away any spoilers here but think does Constance choose the "Prince" ( Charles)? If this is a fairy tale and she is the Princess which Prince does she choose?

Traveller wrote: "Disha wrote: "Also-- the book is an example of legend making. Constance and Merricat become " legends." And thats folklore for you :)
.."

Yes, exactly - that was what I was trying to say by the to..."
You got it right Traveller :) there is legend making in this book for sure :)

Traveller wrote: "Hmm, I'm not too sure if I agree 100% with that. Their actions do tend to follow -some- kind of logic, albeit a twisted one, or one based on a logic that, in the case of schizophrenics, might be ba..."
Also-- the book is an example of legend making. Constance and Merricat become " legends." And thats folklore for you :)

Traveller wrote: "I also love how Merricat's paranoia and OCD symptoms are very poetically and lyrically expressed; for example the "living on the moon" fantasy. All of this conspires to give the novella a very folk..."
You said the word! It is a fairy tale! Hahah!

Traveller wrote: "Hmm, I'm not too sure if I agree 100% with that. Their actions do tend to follow -some- kind of logic, albeit a twisted one, or one based on a logic that, in the case of schizophrenics, might be ba..."
I agree with Traveller -- to try and diagnose Merricat's " condition" is treating her as a real person and besides the point, really. We are not as readers , I think, Supposed to see her as crazy. There is a freudian reading to all this-- if you want to know that -- let me know.

Traveller wrote: "Well, what a delightful turn it takes at the end! The villagers give the 2 survivors mythological significance and feel they should appease them with gifts.

I am sure there must be instances of th..."

The appeasement by gifts has been part of myth and ritual for a long time.
This book has a lot of folklore motifs in it. Basically, it is about belief and is structured like a fairy tale and Jackson is playing with that genre.
Folklore appears in three ways in fiction - structural, mimetic and referential ( Refer : Re situating folklore) . Structurally as I mentioned the the story is a fairy tale. Constance locked away in a castle as a Princess figure and is close to nature ( she likes gardening etc.)
Jackson is also talking about folk groups in this book-- the community is a folk group and their bringing in food etc. is a moment of making them a part of the folk group -- a kind of a re-initiation. There is a lot of homo-eroticism and homo-social(ism) in the text. I know people will have a problem with this reading. Sorry, Traveller -- I rambled.
But yes-- the appeasement of the women is based on the myth and ritual and of course there are three stages in a ritual -- separation , liminality and reintegration. I would see this act as re integration. Hope this helps :)

Traveller wrote: "Well, what a delightful turn it takes at the end! The villagers give the 2 survivors mythological significance and feel they should appease them with gifts.

I am sure there must be instances of th..."

The appeasement by gifts has been part of myth and ritual for a long time.
This book has a lot of folklore motifs in it. Basically, it is about belief and is structured like a fairy tale and Jackson is playing with that genre.
Folklore appears in three ways in fiction - structural, mimetic and referential ( Refer : Re situating folklore) . Structurally as I mentioned the the story is a fairy tale. Constance locked away in a castle as a Princess figure and is close to nature ( she likes gardening etc.)
Jackson is also talking about folk groups in this book-- the community is a folk group and their bringing in food etc. is a moment of making them a part of the folk group -- a kind of a re-initiation. There is a lot of homo-eroticism and homo-social(ism) in the text. I know people will have a problem with this reading. Sorry, Traveller -- I rambled.
But yes-- the appeasement of the women is based on the myth and ritual and of course there are three stages in a ritual -- separation , liminality and reintegration. I would see this act as re integration. Hope this helps :)

When the " ancient rites" are mentioned -- the folklorist in me did a little jig. Not to spoil anything but folklore ( including rites) is a very important part of the novel. Just wanted to put this here -- so that readers can think about that :)