Let's Just Chill Out For a Second

For my A3 I'd like to focus on Shostak's "'A Story We Could Live With': Narrative Voice, the Reader, and Jeffrey Eugenides's The Virgin Suicides." While I'm not a avid proponent of the idea of the "male gaze" or really any of the gender/sexuality theory we've discussed so far in class, I found this article fascinating in its implications of the significance of Eugenides's choice of narrative style.

I must admit, while I found the point of view slightly jarring and unconsciously unsettling, I hadn't really thought much about why Eugenides chose to write in this way. But as I read the article I found that the idea not only excited my curiosity, but spoke to several of the frustrations I had felt when writing my last blog post.

I have always felt that the act of narration is oversimplified by many people. It is the reason that many incredible works of literature are banned throughout the United States. It is the reason that moral street sweepers condemn To Kill a Mockingbird for being racist. There is a fallacy that is used by an upsettingly significant number of people in our country that suggests that just because something is featured in a work of fiction means the author is supporting it. In the case of To Kill A Mockingbird, the mistake is obvious; by including racism in the novel, Harper Lee does not support racism but condemns it. In order to have an open discussion about racism, racism must be addressed. It is inherent to the process of argumentation that an issue be brought up in order to be argued.

There are less mind-numbingly obvious examples of this fallacy, one being the way one could look at The Virgin Suicides. The following passage from page two of Shostak's article brought this possible mistake to my immediate attention:

An  

offhand  

comment  

a  

colleague  

 made  

to  

me,  

to  

the  

effect  

that  

The Virgin Suicides  

is  

a  

misogynistic  

 work,  

makes  

the  

novel's  

challenge  

plain:  

to  

explore  

one's  

relation  

as  

 a  

reader  

to  

the  

narrators'  

control  

of  

perspective—to  

the  

vision  

these  

 men  

possess  

and  

the  

story  

they  

choose  

to  

live  

with.  

In  

doing  

so,  

I  

 would  

argue,  

one  

may  

conclude  

that  

The Virgin Suicides  

is  

anything  

 but  

 misogynistic;    

 that  

 conclusion  

 hinges,  

 however,  

 on  

 Eugenides's  

 complicated  

use  

of  

the  

"we."  

 

I would argue that just because Eugenides tells a story from a certain perspective doesn't mean he supports that perspective. I think that if people find themselves disgusted with the way in which the girls are described, they should resist contempt for the author and instead divulge in an academic investigation of the voice Eugenides has chosen to use, and what it is about this voice that inspires a moral qualm.

I also enjoyed Shostak's discussion of the indeterminacy of the text, and how rather than the use of "we" suggesting an authoritative certainty on the matters at hand, "the authority conferred by numbers is undermined by the narrators' confession of their own common puzzlement" (2). I feel as if this novel, like much of the fiction I enjoy, is an exploration rather than a pedantic "this is how to feel about [insert issue here]" statement. I think we should enjoy it as such. Rather than inciting us to fury, let the text serve as a space in which we can bring up our own personal views on the subject at hand and engage in a friendly, intelligent academic discourse from which all can benefit.