What do you think?
Rate this book
螚 蠁伪纬蠋蟽喂渭畏 纬蠀谓伪委魏伪
螚 螠维蟻喂伪谓 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 蟽蠀谓畏胃喂蟽渭苇谓畏 魏慰蟺苇位伪, 蟺慰蠀 渭蠈位喂蟼 苇蠂蔚喂 伪蟺慰蠁慰喂蟿萎蟽蔚喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟺伪谓蔚蟺喂蟽蟿萎渭喂慰, 魏伪喂 蟺喂维谓蔚喂 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏 蟿畏蟼 未慰蠀位蔚喂维 -伪位位维 蟿慰 渭蠈谓慰 蟺慰蠀 胃苇位蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蔚委谓伪喂 谓伪 蟺伪谓蟿蟻蔚蠀蟿蔚委. 危蟿畏谓 伪蟻蠂萎, 蠈位伪 蟺畏纬伪委谓慰蠀谓 魏伪位维. 螘委谓伪喂 蔚蠀蠂伪蟻喂蟽蟿畏渭苇谓畏 蟽蟿畏 未慰蠀位蔚喂维 蟿畏蟼, 蟺蔚蟻谓维蔚喂 魏伪位维 渭蔚 蟿畏 蟽蠀纬魏维蟿慰喂魏蠈 蟿畏蟼, 魏伪喂 慰 蠀蟺苇蟻慰蠂慰蟼 蟿蟻蔚位蠈蟼 螡蟿维谓魏伪谓 未蔚谓 魏伪蟿伪蠁苇蟻谓蔚喂 谓伪 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰蟽蟺维蟽蔚喂 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 蟺蟻慰蟽纬蔚喂蠅渭苇谓慰 渭谓畏蟽蟿萎蟻伪 蟿畏蟼.
螌渭蠅蟼 畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓 位慰纬伪蟻喂维味蔚喂 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蟿慰谓 尉蔚谓慰未蠈蠂慰: 魏维蟿喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟿畏蟼 味畏蟿维蔚喂 蟺慰位蠉 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻伪, 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 蠀蟺慰谓慰渭蔚蠉蔚喂 伪胃蠈蟻蠀尾伪 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚蠂蟿喂魏维 蟽蠂苇未喂维 蟿畏蟼, 蠋蟽蟺慰蠀 渭喂伪 渭苇蟻伪 畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓 伪谓伪魏伪位蠉蟺蟿蔚喂 蟺蠅蟼 未蔚谓 伪谓苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 慰蠉蟿蔚 魏伪谓 蟿畏谓 喂未苇伪 蟿慰蠀 纬维渭慰蠀.
螌渭蠅蟼 畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓 位慰纬伪蟻喂维味蔚喂 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蟿慰谓 尉蔚谓慰未蠈蠂慰: 魏维蟿喂 渭苇蟽伪 蟿畏蟼 味畏蟿维蔚喂 蟺慰位蠉 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻伪, 魏伪喂 蟿畏蟼 蠀蟺慰谓慰渭蔚蠉蔚喂 伪胃蠈蟻蠀尾伪 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚蠂蟿喂魏维 蟽蠂苇未喂维 蟿畏蟼, 蠋蟽蟺慰蠀 渭喂伪 渭苇蟻伪 畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓 伪谓伪魏伪位蠉蟺蟿蔚喂 蟺蠅蟼 未蔚谓 伪谓苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 慰蠉蟿蔚 魏伪谓 蟿畏谓 喂未苇伪 蟿慰蠀 纬维渭慰蠀.
318 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1969
1171 people are currently reading
42860 people want to read
About the author
Margaret Atwood
638听books87k听followersMargaret Atwood was born in 1939 in Ottawa and grew up in northern Ontario, Quebec, and Toronto. She received her undergraduate degree from Victoria College at the University of Toronto and her master's degree from Radcliffe College.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children鈥檚 literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth 颅 in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Throughout her writing career, Margaret Atwood has received numerous awards and honourary degrees. She is the author of more than thirty-five volumes of poetry, children鈥檚 literature, fiction, and non-fiction and is perhaps best known for her novels, which include The Edible Woman (1970), The Handmaid's Tale (1983), The Robber Bride (1994), Alias Grace (1996), and The Blind Assassin, which won the prestigious Booker Prize in 2000. Atwood's dystopic novel, Oryx and Crake, was published in 2003. The Tent (mini-fictions) and Moral Disorder (short stories) both appeared in 2006. Her most recent volume of poetry, The Door, was published in 2007. Her non-fiction book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth 颅 in the Massey series, appeared in 2008, and her most recent novel, The Year of the Flood, in the autumn of 2009. Ms. Atwood's work has been published in more than forty languages, including Farsi, Japanese, Turkish, Finnish, Korean, Icelandic and Estonian. In 2004 she co-invented the Long Pen TM.
Margaret Atwood currently lives in Toronto with writer Graeme Gibson.
Associations: Margaret Atwood was President of the Writers' Union of Canada from May 1981 to May 1982, and was President of International P.E.N., Canadian Centre (English Speaking) from 1984-1986. She and Graeme Gibson are the Joint Honourary Presidents of the Rare Bird Society within BirdLife International. Ms. Atwood is also a current Vice-President of PEN International.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,726 reviews
June 28, 2019
Right around the time I turned 20, a boyfriend of mine dragged me to a Yes concert. I say 鈥渄ragged鈥� not because I have anything against the band, but because I knew only two of their songs, and I was the only girl going.
My then-boyfriend and his friends were big Yes fans, and they had rented a limo stocked with booze, and it was a real party scene in that vehicle. Well, it was a real party scene for them, less so for me, the girl who didn't know Yes songs, and the one who was becoming increasingly aware that she'd been brought along as a type of ornament rather than a bona fide member of that party.
Well, little did these guys know that, though I look and act American, I have Anglo-Saxon genes, and I started hitting the booze pretty hard. I was pretty sure that, by the time we arrived at the event, I wouldn't care too much about the lyrics.
My plan backfired. Instead of becoming powerful and vengeful like an Anglo. . . or perhaps a Saxon, I became tearful, and before I knew it, I was sobbing out by the vendors, while my completely peeved date stared on in terror.
There was sobbing, there was screaming, there was the great Universal lament of all women, possessed that moment in me. How was I ever going to balance having children and a career? How could I ever afford to go to graduate school? How would a loser like this guy (him), be able to make enough money so I could raise children without working?
After the screaming and shouting and staring, I broke free (though he wasn't holding me) and I started to run from the stadium. I had no idea where I was going, I had not a dollar bill on my person, but still I ran from him (and I think I recall screaming LOSER all the way).
By the time the concert had ended, I was waiting for the party by the limo, a crumpled Saxon with no ride and nowhere left to run.
Three months later our relationship was officially over, I had my first Margaret Atwood novel in my hands, and I experienced the pleasure of meeting Marian McAlpin. Dear, dear Marian. . . Marian McAlpin, who also runs.
This week, 20+ years later, I decided to reread my Atwood debut, The Edible Woman, and it took me right back. Back to Marian, back to Ainsley, Peter and Duncan, and back to all of the colorful friends from this novel.
It was one big reading love fest, and when I arrived at the part of the story where Marian runs, I remembered the night that I shouted 鈥淣o!鈥� and ran from Yes.
Atwood does a brilliant job here of explaining, through her many delicious metaphors and superior storytelling, how we 鈥渆at or are eaten,鈥� and that who we are as consumers of EVERYTHING, is not necessarily the crux of ANYTHING.
And she reminds us in this novel that sometimes. . . a girl's gotta run.
My then-boyfriend and his friends were big Yes fans, and they had rented a limo stocked with booze, and it was a real party scene in that vehicle. Well, it was a real party scene for them, less so for me, the girl who didn't know Yes songs, and the one who was becoming increasingly aware that she'd been brought along as a type of ornament rather than a bona fide member of that party.
Well, little did these guys know that, though I look and act American, I have Anglo-Saxon genes, and I started hitting the booze pretty hard. I was pretty sure that, by the time we arrived at the event, I wouldn't care too much about the lyrics.
My plan backfired. Instead of becoming powerful and vengeful like an Anglo. . . or perhaps a Saxon, I became tearful, and before I knew it, I was sobbing out by the vendors, while my completely peeved date stared on in terror.
There was sobbing, there was screaming, there was the great Universal lament of all women, possessed that moment in me. How was I ever going to balance having children and a career? How could I ever afford to go to graduate school? How would a loser like this guy (him), be able to make enough money so I could raise children without working?
After the screaming and shouting and staring, I broke free (though he wasn't holding me) and I started to run from the stadium. I had no idea where I was going, I had not a dollar bill on my person, but still I ran from him (and I think I recall screaming LOSER all the way).
By the time the concert had ended, I was waiting for the party by the limo, a crumpled Saxon with no ride and nowhere left to run.
Three months later our relationship was officially over, I had my first Margaret Atwood novel in my hands, and I experienced the pleasure of meeting Marian McAlpin. Dear, dear Marian. . . Marian McAlpin, who also runs.
This week, 20+ years later, I decided to reread my Atwood debut, The Edible Woman, and it took me right back. Back to Marian, back to Ainsley, Peter and Duncan, and back to all of the colorful friends from this novel.
It was one big reading love fest, and when I arrived at the part of the story where Marian runs, I remembered the night that I shouted 鈥淣o!鈥� and ran from Yes.
Atwood does a brilliant job here of explaining, through her many delicious metaphors and superior storytelling, how we 鈥渆at or are eaten,鈥� and that who we are as consumers of EVERYTHING, is not necessarily the crux of ANYTHING.
And she reminds us in this novel that sometimes. . . a girl's gotta run.
May 14, 2025
Have you ever been emotionally cannibalized, like Marian - the antsy but eminently lovable heroine of this, Atwood's first novel - written in the late sixties BEFORE she was famous?
I have, and so I LOVED this one!
I have very vivid memories of reading it soon after it was released - in a Voyageur coach bound for La Belle Province. I often supported our Rough Riders back then by cheering in the stands, and this game being in Montreal means it must have been a semifinal.
I think we musta lost, cause I was glum, but Marian gave me a cheerful attitude on the way back - by way of consolation!
What a lark this book was to me. I remember reading it, too, in the dinky little hens' coop of an office I worked at in '73/74. I had no idea then of the Dark angst that would later descend on Atwood in Surfacing, which I read in another office on my breaks one or two years later.
After Surfacing, with rare exceptions, I avoided her. There was already too much darkness in my domestic life, thank you very much. I could do without. I started to read pop fiction more and more.
It was much later that I felt the emotional cannibalism that Marian so aptly calls those bad moments of being sucked in. Ever felt your heart and innards being GNAWED upon by Dark, Depressive People? That's being EDIBLE too, guys.
Anyway, now - long escaped from those fangs of death through acute awareness - I can happily recommend Edible Woman HIGHLY.
And depending where you're at in your OWN interior struggle -
It'll either CHEER you - or CONSOLE you.
And either way you're ahead!
I have, and so I LOVED this one!
I have very vivid memories of reading it soon after it was released - in a Voyageur coach bound for La Belle Province. I often supported our Rough Riders back then by cheering in the stands, and this game being in Montreal means it must have been a semifinal.
I think we musta lost, cause I was glum, but Marian gave me a cheerful attitude on the way back - by way of consolation!
What a lark this book was to me. I remember reading it, too, in the dinky little hens' coop of an office I worked at in '73/74. I had no idea then of the Dark angst that would later descend on Atwood in Surfacing, which I read in another office on my breaks one or two years later.
After Surfacing, with rare exceptions, I avoided her. There was already too much darkness in my domestic life, thank you very much. I could do without. I started to read pop fiction more and more.
It was much later that I felt the emotional cannibalism that Marian so aptly calls those bad moments of being sucked in. Ever felt your heart and innards being GNAWED upon by Dark, Depressive People? That's being EDIBLE too, guys.
Anyway, now - long escaped from those fangs of death through acute awareness - I can happily recommend Edible Woman HIGHLY.
And depending where you're at in your OWN interior struggle -
It'll either CHEER you - or CONSOLE you.
And either way you're ahead!
December 9, 2021
Margaret Atwood鈥檚 prescient first novel still offers lots to chew on
Marian, a 20-something woman in 1960s Toronto, gets engaged to her dull-but-respectable lawyer boyfriend, Peter, then soon begins losing her appetite for food. This causes problems leading up to the wedding, as Marian suffers a serious identity crisis. Perhaps she doesn鈥檛 want to submit to this marriage, after all.
This was Margaret Atwood鈥檚 first novel, and besides the funny and insightful writing, the book was way ahead of its time.
Atwood wrote it in the early-to-mid-60s, and because of a publishing snafu it wasn鈥檛 published until 1969. Still, this was long before anorexia nervosa was a common disorder. Marian鈥檚 roommate, Ainslie, wants to have a baby out of wedlock, which was far less of an acceptable option then than it became later. And the book鈥檚 implicit critique of Marian鈥檚 expected life 鈥� go to school to find a husband, work until you get married and/or have a child 鈥� was seen as an outgrowth of feminism, even though Atwood, in a later introduction, admits she wrote it before the movement.
I love how Atwood carefully sets up Marian鈥檚 condition. She works at a marketing research firm, so she鈥檚 constantly aware of the rampant consumerism around her. Food metaphors abound in the early chapters. Marian鈥檚 office 鈥渃ompany is layered like an ice-cream sandwich, with the three floors: the upper crust, the lower crust, and our department, the gooey layer in the middle.鈥� Furthermore, the humidity in the office is unbearable: 鈥淭he air-conditioning system, I saw, had failed again, though since it is merely a fan which revolves in the centre of the ceiling, stirring the air around like a spoon in soup, it makes little difference whether it is going or not.鈥�
One of the cleverest moves was switching the POV, once Marian starts becoming unstable, from first-person to third-person. It鈥檚 as if Marian begins viewing what鈥檚 happening to her at a remove. She鈥檚 alienated from herself.
And the secondary characters are all highly amusing, from the forthright Ainslie to Marian鈥檚 co-workers 鈥� dubbed 鈥渢he office virgins,鈥� all sporting dyed blonde hair 鈥� to Duncan, a boyish grad student who鈥檚 everything Peter isn鈥檛. The literary digressions by Duncan and his academic roommates might seem commonplace today 鈥� psychosexual interpretations of Alice In Wonderland, etc. (think of the eating metaphors in it) 鈥� back then they must have been incredibly refreshing.
I also like wondering if Duncan is real or a figment of Marian鈥檚 imagination.
Atwood has some difficulty handling the passage of time, and there鈥檚 not much about Marian鈥檚 family.
But the look at WASPy, straight-laced 1960s-era Toronto is fascinating; one scene in which two unmarried people try to find a hotel to have sex in is hilarious but was likely grounded in truth.
And the book holds up incredibly well. There are still lots of Marians and Peters out there, and society鈥檚 obsession with food, consumption and the glamorization of the ideal life has grown exponentially over nearly 50 years.
A brilliant fictional debut by a writer who would go on to become one of the most influential and prolific voices of her generation.
Marian, a 20-something woman in 1960s Toronto, gets engaged to her dull-but-respectable lawyer boyfriend, Peter, then soon begins losing her appetite for food. This causes problems leading up to the wedding, as Marian suffers a serious identity crisis. Perhaps she doesn鈥檛 want to submit to this marriage, after all.
This was Margaret Atwood鈥檚 first novel, and besides the funny and insightful writing, the book was way ahead of its time.
Atwood wrote it in the early-to-mid-60s, and because of a publishing snafu it wasn鈥檛 published until 1969. Still, this was long before anorexia nervosa was a common disorder. Marian鈥檚 roommate, Ainslie, wants to have a baby out of wedlock, which was far less of an acceptable option then than it became later. And the book鈥檚 implicit critique of Marian鈥檚 expected life 鈥� go to school to find a husband, work until you get married and/or have a child 鈥� was seen as an outgrowth of feminism, even though Atwood, in a later introduction, admits she wrote it before the movement.
I love how Atwood carefully sets up Marian鈥檚 condition. She works at a marketing research firm, so she鈥檚 constantly aware of the rampant consumerism around her. Food metaphors abound in the early chapters. Marian鈥檚 office 鈥渃ompany is layered like an ice-cream sandwich, with the three floors: the upper crust, the lower crust, and our department, the gooey layer in the middle.鈥� Furthermore, the humidity in the office is unbearable: 鈥淭he air-conditioning system, I saw, had failed again, though since it is merely a fan which revolves in the centre of the ceiling, stirring the air around like a spoon in soup, it makes little difference whether it is going or not.鈥�
One of the cleverest moves was switching the POV, once Marian starts becoming unstable, from first-person to third-person. It鈥檚 as if Marian begins viewing what鈥檚 happening to her at a remove. She鈥檚 alienated from herself.
And the secondary characters are all highly amusing, from the forthright Ainslie to Marian鈥檚 co-workers 鈥� dubbed 鈥渢he office virgins,鈥� all sporting dyed blonde hair 鈥� to Duncan, a boyish grad student who鈥檚 everything Peter isn鈥檛. The literary digressions by Duncan and his academic roommates might seem commonplace today 鈥� psychosexual interpretations of Alice In Wonderland, etc. (think of the eating metaphors in it) 鈥� back then they must have been incredibly refreshing.
I also like wondering if Duncan is real or a figment of Marian鈥檚 imagination.
Atwood has some difficulty handling the passage of time, and there鈥檚 not much about Marian鈥檚 family.
But the look at WASPy, straight-laced 1960s-era Toronto is fascinating; one scene in which two unmarried people try to find a hotel to have sex in is hilarious but was likely grounded in truth.
And the book holds up incredibly well. There are still lots of Marians and Peters out there, and society鈥檚 obsession with food, consumption and the glamorization of the ideal life has grown exponentially over nearly 50 years.
A brilliant fictional debut by a writer who would go on to become one of the most influential and prolific voices of her generation.
August 27, 2019
A novel with a major, very creepy power. Very different from her latter books, "The Edible Woman" is about the destructive power of man-woman relationships and it takes place in a world of robotic emotions and mechanical compulsions (not too far off from the Victorian variety!).
The novel, a true avantgarde sociosexual depiction, borrows its demonic tone from Hawthorne, its cinematography from Cronenberg, its absurdism from David Lynch. Also, it contains all the brilliance & pseudo-silliness of Beckett. Gender role reversal is perhaps the outstanding theme here. In "The Edible Woman," bearded men act like giant babies, a woman can be metaphorically & literally eaten, and all the young men and women are desperate and yearning to fill up their counterparts' role according to society and history. Like a J.G. Ballard yarn of quiet hysteria and a deep, scathing discomfort (hard to peg this one down without so many similes!), "Woman" is satire supreme gone awry. As well as top-notch topsy-turvy.
The novel, a true avantgarde sociosexual depiction, borrows its demonic tone from Hawthorne, its cinematography from Cronenberg, its absurdism from David Lynch. Also, it contains all the brilliance & pseudo-silliness of Beckett. Gender role reversal is perhaps the outstanding theme here. In "The Edible Woman," bearded men act like giant babies, a woman can be metaphorically & literally eaten, and all the young men and women are desperate and yearning to fill up their counterparts' role according to society and history. Like a J.G. Ballard yarn of quiet hysteria and a deep, scathing discomfort (hard to peg this one down without so many similes!), "Woman" is satire supreme gone awry. As well as top-notch topsy-turvy.
May 14, 2022
First published in 1969(!), this was Atwood's first published book. Entering the lives of single woman Marian and her 1960's world of work, relationships and friendships. This is a pretty interesting debut for the now world famous writer as it assuredly sets a marker in the sand for what came next over the next 5 decades. A clever, witty, and at times almost angry work centred around Marian her path towards non-partner seeking related self-determination, which is very much against the norm of the time, and quite cleverly directed by her own inner self! Although a very interesting and thought provoking first half, the latter parts of the book looses its way a bit as it attempts to shoe horn Marian's experience towards the intended resolution. A must-read though if you like Atwood, the 60s stirring of feminism and/or just for historical bookish-ness :) 4 out of 12.
2022 read
2022 read
June 28, 2017
I decided to re-read this because its white spine always calls my attention next to the black spines of Austen and Bront毛. My review from two and a half years ago, to paraphrase Talking Heads, seems to talk a lot but not say anything.
The Edible Woman was Atwood's first novel, and thus I must treat it like a first novel. Atwood was twenty-six when she wrote this, and it reads like it. The novel presents itself as a tale of a women who is faced with the awful prospect of marriage. The thought of her imminent nuptials causes Marian, our protagonist, to start viewing foods as living entities. It first starts with meat, Marian can only see the animal it once was on her plate. Then it becomes far worse. She cannot eat carrots because she can only imagine the great pain it must have caused them to be ripped from the ground. She peers into a boiled egg and all she sees is a yellow eye staring back at her (very Bataille!). For Marian, eating any food at all becomes a sort of cannibalism.
However, I wish that this is what the novel actually is. The actual 'edible woman' part of The Edible Woman does not happen until roughly two-thirds into the novel. Instead, most of this novel is just us following Marian as she goes to work, or visits to the launderette, or goes from door to door asking people to fill out surveys. It can get boring and it puts you in the strange position of actually wanting Marian to hurry up and have her mental breakdown already. Thankfully Atwood created the character of Ainsley, Marian's flatmate, who decides that she wants to have a baby but only so she can raise it herself away from the damaging influence of a father figure. Due to these kind of themes throughout the novel, Atwood has referred to the book as a proto-feminist work. I suppose Ainsley could be seen as a precursor to Val from Marilyn French's .
The most disappointing aspect of this novel however is where it ends up going. I cannot discuss this part in detail as it would be a spoiler but, for those who have read it, I detest Duncan.
So, after my re-read I've decided to take a star away from my original review. It is now a two-star novel, meaning it's alright but I don't recommend unless you're an Atwood completest.
Original review from 3/1/15
Well this is a novel that is fecund with originality. I really enjoyed this. Basically imagine if The Bell Jar was actually good and readable, then you'd have this. I really admire Atwood's decision to switch between third- and first-person narration. It's very clever and works marvellously. In fact this whole novel is very clever and marvellous. What a wonderful way to begin my #YearofAtwood.
The Edible Woman was Atwood's first novel, and thus I must treat it like a first novel. Atwood was twenty-six when she wrote this, and it reads like it. The novel presents itself as a tale of a women who is faced with the awful prospect of marriage. The thought of her imminent nuptials causes Marian, our protagonist, to start viewing foods as living entities. It first starts with meat, Marian can only see the animal it once was on her plate. Then it becomes far worse. She cannot eat carrots because she can only imagine the great pain it must have caused them to be ripped from the ground. She peers into a boiled egg and all she sees is a yellow eye staring back at her (very Bataille!). For Marian, eating any food at all becomes a sort of cannibalism.
However, I wish that this is what the novel actually is. The actual 'edible woman' part of The Edible Woman does not happen until roughly two-thirds into the novel. Instead, most of this novel is just us following Marian as she goes to work, or visits to the launderette, or goes from door to door asking people to fill out surveys. It can get boring and it puts you in the strange position of actually wanting Marian to hurry up and have her mental breakdown already. Thankfully Atwood created the character of Ainsley, Marian's flatmate, who decides that she wants to have a baby but only so she can raise it herself away from the damaging influence of a father figure. Due to these kind of themes throughout the novel, Atwood has referred to the book as a proto-feminist work. I suppose Ainsley could be seen as a precursor to Val from Marilyn French's .
The most disappointing aspect of this novel however is where it ends up going. I cannot discuss this part in detail as it would be a spoiler but, for those who have read it, I detest Duncan.
So, after my re-read I've decided to take a star away from my original review. It is now a two-star novel, meaning it's alright but I don't recommend unless you're an Atwood completest.
Original review from 3/1/15
Well this is a novel that is fecund with originality. I really enjoyed this. Basically imagine if The Bell Jar was actually good and readable, then you'd have this. I really admire Atwood's decision to switch between third- and first-person narration. It's very clever and works marvellously. In fact this whole novel is very clever and marvellous. What a wonderful way to begin my #YearofAtwood.
September 20, 2019
This story is perhaps the most pathological, dystopian and absurd I鈥檝e ever read.... I try to leave my profession as a psychiatrist hidden and behind, I know, impossible thing and I would like to evaluate with the eyes of an average, normal person this book, as happened to me, that not wanting to take this particular work in the library, I chose it because it was struck by the cover.
The plot is nothing complicated, rather, complete monotony. We will meet Mariam, a very quiet girl but a little weird..(I swear, from the initial descriptions made, it looked like a high functioning autistic girl!!) She works for a market survey company, shares an apartment with a friend, and "survives" with very few social relationships, mostly fragile, fragmented and somewhat superficial. Marian, even in her typicality, is not at all stupid or superficial, and this is where, as we will see, a real psychotic obsession will be inserted that will push her to aberrant, tragic and distressing situations.
The obsession of not eating because otherwise she will risk "to be eaten by the colleagues and the few friends". Peter, with his request to marry her, opens the Pandora鈥檚 box, unfortunately giving life to a real psychiatric life to Mariam.
Why did I give such a low rating? because the plot, will make your skin crawl, is ambiguous to its maximum power to make you doubt that it is set in a dystopian world, but no, we are in Canada, I assume in the 90s.
The plot is divided into three parts, the first, a cosmic bothering., here I really risked to give up the book, nothing special happens but this total apathy of all the characters..... all but I say all, from the first part of the book up to the third, are painful to life, without effective" brio" desire, to know with more interest and curiosity and friends, colleagues or those who meet in life.
All characters who could be pulled out from a day center for psychiatric rehabilitation, so dear GR readers, it is not that there is to stay relaxed and happy in the face of an expectation of such, men and women totally detached from themselves and hateful! This you will read, perhaps the only one who is saved a little is Duncan( kind of lover/friend to her), but unfortunately unable to have an incisiveness or support on the tragedy of Mariam... paradoxically we will see in the first and second part of the book as a dull woman, manipulated by everyone about everything and everything, devoid of precise desires, but it is precisely during her "obsession" that the real Mariam desperately tries to know herself, asking questions to herself and desperately tries to get out of that sick vortex that prevents her from " living" in all senses., so the plot's clue will arrive at the end only!!, in the third part!
Do you want to hurt yourselves? then read this novel, it is a sick story, totally sick.
I鈥檓 surprised that Atwood wrote this story as a debut novel, you will no longer feel this redundant distorted vision of all reality, almost like a "psychiatric manual", in her other works, for sue the ones that I have read..
Do you know why I do not recommend it? because it is inconclusive, because Mariam......will be able to get out?
Questa storia 猫 forse la piu' patologia, distopica e assurda che abbia mai letto.....cerco di lasciarmi alle spalle la mia professione di medico psichiatra, lo so, cosa impossibile e vorrei valutare con gli occhi di una persona normalissima questo libro, come 猫 successo a me, che non volendo assolutamente prendere in biblioteca questa particolare opera, l'ho comunque scelta perch猫 folgorata dalla copertina.
La trama non 猫 nulla di complicato,anzi, monotonia completa, conosceremo Mariam, una ragazza tranquillissima ma un tantino stramba ( giuro, dalle descrizioni iniziali fatte, sembrava un autismo ad alta funzionalit脿!!) lavora per una societ脿 di indagini di mercato, condivide un appartamento con una amica e "sopravvive" con pochissime relazioni sociali, per lo piu' fragili, frammentate e alquanto superficiali. Marian, pur nella sua tipicit脿, non 猫 assolutamente ne stupida ne scema o superficiale, ed 猫 qui che come poi vedremo, si innester脿 un vera ossessione psicotica che la spinger脿 a situazioni aberranti, tragicomiche e laceranti. L'ossessione di non mangiare perch猫 in caso contrario rischia" di essere mangiata dalle colleghe e dai pochi amici". . Peter, con la sua richiesta di sposarla, apre il vaso di Pandora, dando vita purtroppo ad un vero vivere psichiatrico di Mariam.
Perch猫 ho dato una valutazione cos矛 bassa? perch猫 la storia vi far脿 accapponare la pelle, 猫 ambigua alla sua massima potenza tanto da farvi venire il dubbio che sia ambientata in un mondo distopico, invece no, siamo in Canada, presumo negli anni 90.
La trama 猫 divisa in due parti, la prima, una balla cosmica.... qui ho proprio rischiato di abbandonare il libro, nulla di particolare accade se non questa totale apaticit脿 di tutti i personaggi, tutti ma dico tutti, dalla prima parte del libro sino alla terza, sono dolenti alla vita, senza brio effettivo a conoscere con piu' interesse e curiosit脿 e desiderio amici, colleghi o chi si incontra nella vita.
Tutti personaggi che si potrebbero tirare fuori da centri diurni per la riabilitazione psichiatrica, quindi cari lettori GR, non 猫 che c'猫 da stare rilassati e contenti di fronte ad una aspettativa del genere, uomini e donne totalmente avulse su loro stessi e odiosi! questo leggerete, forse l'unico che si salva un filino 猫 Duncan, ma purtroppo incapace ad avere una incisivit脿 o supporto sulla tragedia di Mariam... paradossalmente la vedremo nella prima e seconda parte del libro come una donna scialba, manipolata da tutti su tutto e per ogni cosa, priva di desideri precisi
E' proprio durante la sua " Ossessione" che la vera Mariam tenta e cerca disperatamente di conoscere se stessa, si pone delle domande e cerca disperatamente di uscire da quel vortice malato che le impedisce di " vivere" in tutti i sensi.
Volete farvi del male? allora leggete questo romanzo, 猫 una storia malata, totalmente malata.
Mi sorprende che la Atwood abbia scritto questa storia come romanzo d'esordio, non si percepir脿 piu' questa ridondante visione distorta di tutta la realt脿, quasi da " manuale psichiatrico", nelle altre sue opere che ho letto....
lo sapete perch猫 ve lo sconsiglio? perch猫 猫 inconcludente, perch猫 Mariam......riuscir脿 ad uscirne?
The plot is nothing complicated, rather, complete monotony. We will meet Mariam, a very quiet girl but a little weird..(I swear, from the initial descriptions made, it looked like a high functioning autistic girl!!) She works for a market survey company, shares an apartment with a friend, and "survives" with very few social relationships, mostly fragile, fragmented and somewhat superficial. Marian, even in her typicality, is not at all stupid or superficial, and this is where, as we will see, a real psychotic obsession will be inserted that will push her to aberrant, tragic and distressing situations.
The obsession of not eating because otherwise she will risk "to be eaten by the colleagues and the few friends". Peter, with his request to marry her, opens the Pandora鈥檚 box, unfortunately giving life to a real psychiatric life to Mariam.
Why did I give such a low rating? because the plot, will make your skin crawl, is ambiguous to its maximum power to make you doubt that it is set in a dystopian world, but no, we are in Canada, I assume in the 90s.
The plot is divided into three parts, the first, a cosmic bothering., here I really risked to give up the book, nothing special happens but this total apathy of all the characters..... all but I say all, from the first part of the book up to the third, are painful to life, without effective" brio" desire, to know with more interest and curiosity and friends, colleagues or those who meet in life.
All characters who could be pulled out from a day center for psychiatric rehabilitation, so dear GR readers, it is not that there is to stay relaxed and happy in the face of an expectation of such, men and women totally detached from themselves and hateful! This you will read, perhaps the only one who is saved a little is Duncan( kind of lover/friend to her), but unfortunately unable to have an incisiveness or support on the tragedy of Mariam... paradoxically we will see in the first and second part of the book as a dull woman, manipulated by everyone about everything and everything, devoid of precise desires, but it is precisely during her "obsession" that the real Mariam desperately tries to know herself, asking questions to herself and desperately tries to get out of that sick vortex that prevents her from " living" in all senses., so the plot's clue will arrive at the end only!!, in the third part!
Do you want to hurt yourselves? then read this novel, it is a sick story, totally sick.
I鈥檓 surprised that Atwood wrote this story as a debut novel, you will no longer feel this redundant distorted vision of all reality, almost like a "psychiatric manual", in her other works, for sue the ones that I have read..
Do you know why I do not recommend it? because it is inconclusive, because Mariam......will be able to get out?
Questa storia 猫 forse la piu' patologia, distopica e assurda che abbia mai letto.....cerco di lasciarmi alle spalle la mia professione di medico psichiatra, lo so, cosa impossibile e vorrei valutare con gli occhi di una persona normalissima questo libro, come 猫 successo a me, che non volendo assolutamente prendere in biblioteca questa particolare opera, l'ho comunque scelta perch猫 folgorata dalla copertina.
La trama non 猫 nulla di complicato,anzi, monotonia completa, conosceremo Mariam, una ragazza tranquillissima ma un tantino stramba ( giuro, dalle descrizioni iniziali fatte, sembrava un autismo ad alta funzionalit脿!!) lavora per una societ脿 di indagini di mercato, condivide un appartamento con una amica e "sopravvive" con pochissime relazioni sociali, per lo piu' fragili, frammentate e alquanto superficiali. Marian, pur nella sua tipicit脿, non 猫 assolutamente ne stupida ne scema o superficiale, ed 猫 qui che come poi vedremo, si innester脿 un vera ossessione psicotica che la spinger脿 a situazioni aberranti, tragicomiche e laceranti. L'ossessione di non mangiare perch猫 in caso contrario rischia" di essere mangiata dalle colleghe e dai pochi amici". . Peter, con la sua richiesta di sposarla, apre il vaso di Pandora, dando vita purtroppo ad un vero vivere psichiatrico di Mariam.
Perch猫 ho dato una valutazione cos矛 bassa? perch猫 la storia vi far脿 accapponare la pelle, 猫 ambigua alla sua massima potenza tanto da farvi venire il dubbio che sia ambientata in un mondo distopico, invece no, siamo in Canada, presumo negli anni 90.
La trama 猫 divisa in due parti, la prima, una balla cosmica.... qui ho proprio rischiato di abbandonare il libro, nulla di particolare accade se non questa totale apaticit脿 di tutti i personaggi, tutti ma dico tutti, dalla prima parte del libro sino alla terza, sono dolenti alla vita, senza brio effettivo a conoscere con piu' interesse e curiosit脿 e desiderio amici, colleghi o chi si incontra nella vita.
Tutti personaggi che si potrebbero tirare fuori da centri diurni per la riabilitazione psichiatrica, quindi cari lettori GR, non 猫 che c'猫 da stare rilassati e contenti di fronte ad una aspettativa del genere, uomini e donne totalmente avulse su loro stessi e odiosi! questo leggerete, forse l'unico che si salva un filino 猫 Duncan, ma purtroppo incapace ad avere una incisivit脿 o supporto sulla tragedia di Mariam... paradossalmente la vedremo nella prima e seconda parte del libro come una donna scialba, manipolata da tutti su tutto e per ogni cosa, priva di desideri precisi
E' proprio durante la sua " Ossessione" che la vera Mariam tenta e cerca disperatamente di conoscere se stessa, si pone delle domande e cerca disperatamente di uscire da quel vortice malato che le impedisce di " vivere" in tutti i sensi.
Volete farvi del male? allora leggete questo romanzo, 猫 una storia malata, totalmente malata.
Mi sorprende che la Atwood abbia scritto questa storia come romanzo d'esordio, non si percepir脿 piu' questa ridondante visione distorta di tutta la realt脿, quasi da " manuale psichiatrico", nelle altre sue opere che ho letto....
lo sapete perch猫 ve lo sconsiglio? perch猫 猫 inconcludente, perch猫 Mariam......riuscir脿 ad uscirne?
January 26, 2019
The first book I read by Margaret Atwood in the mid-eighties and the one that made me a fan. I had never read anything quite like it before and I was hooked.
September 23, 2022
A darkly humorous story of femininity, power dynamics, and consumerism. The characters are both infuriating and likable, and emulate the issues of gender expectations and sense of self very effectively. This was fantastic for a debut.
Bonus points: the bell jar meets the vegetarian, a striking work of feminism.
Bonus points: the bell jar meets the vegetarian, a striking work of feminism.
June 26, 2007
Written just before the founding of NOW, The Edible Woman is as relevant today as it was in 1965. The novel鈥檚 protagonist, Marian, has recently graduated from college and is working for a public opinion company. She is dating a man, Peter, who everyone thinks is perfect. Once engaged Marian begins to have trouble eating. As she is consumed by her relationship, she stops being able to consume food.
In the first sex scene in The Edible Woman, which is rich in messages and metaphors, Peter decides he wants to have sex in the bathtub. Marian agrees, but isn鈥檛 thrilled. She thinks Peter is attempting to act out things he read about. Sex in the bathtub, she decides, is a scene from a murder mystery he read. She notes: 鈥渂ut wouldn鈥檛 that [the scene Peter read about] rather be someone drowned in the bathtub? A woman.鈥�
In the end, Marian breaks her engagement and tries to feed Peter a cake she made to look like herself, claiming that he wants to devour her. There is a clear feminist voice throughout the story and the message is not as simple as marriage consumes women. Marian decides that her independence is more important than a marriage to someone who does not let her be an individual.
The intersection between Marian鈥檚 sexuality and eating habits are salient in today鈥檚 popular culture. While The Edible Woman was written before eating disorders were discussed, they are now a big part of our culture. The relationship between food and sexuality is even fodder for situation comedy鈥擫ast night I watched a rerun of Friends in which Monica and Rachel show Chandler how to deal with being dumped 鈥渢he women way.鈥� They hand him soy-milk ice-cream and tell him that you have to eat healthy ice-cream when heartache happens frequently. When he gets really depressed they break out the full-fat Ben and Jerry鈥檚.
The message is clear鈥攚hen women are upset, it affects the way they eat. Unlike Monica and Rachel, who binge eat when they are upset, Marian responses to problems in her relationship by starving herself. Why did she stop eating? Does she want to starve the dependent person she had become? While in 1965 Atwood used the idea of food and Marian鈥檚 self imposed starvation as a metaphor, today the idea of a women starving herself as a relationship deteriorates is sadly a clich茅.
In the first sex scene in The Edible Woman, which is rich in messages and metaphors, Peter decides he wants to have sex in the bathtub. Marian agrees, but isn鈥檛 thrilled. She thinks Peter is attempting to act out things he read about. Sex in the bathtub, she decides, is a scene from a murder mystery he read. She notes: 鈥渂ut wouldn鈥檛 that [the scene Peter read about] rather be someone drowned in the bathtub? A woman.鈥�
In the end, Marian breaks her engagement and tries to feed Peter a cake she made to look like herself, claiming that he wants to devour her. There is a clear feminist voice throughout the story and the message is not as simple as marriage consumes women. Marian decides that her independence is more important than a marriage to someone who does not let her be an individual.
The intersection between Marian鈥檚 sexuality and eating habits are salient in today鈥檚 popular culture. While The Edible Woman was written before eating disorders were discussed, they are now a big part of our culture. The relationship between food and sexuality is even fodder for situation comedy鈥擫ast night I watched a rerun of Friends in which Monica and Rachel show Chandler how to deal with being dumped 鈥渢he women way.鈥� They hand him soy-milk ice-cream and tell him that you have to eat healthy ice-cream when heartache happens frequently. When he gets really depressed they break out the full-fat Ben and Jerry鈥檚.
The message is clear鈥攚hen women are upset, it affects the way they eat. Unlike Monica and Rachel, who binge eat when they are upset, Marian responses to problems in her relationship by starving herself. Why did she stop eating? Does she want to starve the dependent person she had become? While in 1965 Atwood used the idea of food and Marian鈥檚 self imposed starvation as a metaphor, today the idea of a women starving herself as a relationship deteriorates is sadly a clich茅.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 2, 2019
The Edible Woman
, Margaret Atwood鈥檚 debut novel, is a slightly topsy-turvy inverted fairytale, with shades of Mad Men in its focus on consumer culture and the stifling social conventions of the mid-Sixties. Published in 1969 but written a few years earlier, Atwood鈥檚 sly humour elevates this story of one woman鈥檚 identity crisis amid the restrictive expectations placed on young women of the time (marriage and babies, in that order).
In some ways this novel is like a time capsule from a lost era 鈥� we are no longer scandalised by unwed mothers or expect women to quit their jobs upon marrying 鈥� but there鈥檚 still plenty of relevance in the ways women are 鈥榩ackaged鈥� for consumption, and the pressure to conform. Plus, Atwood鈥檚 writing remains fresh and very readable.
Written 20 years before the dystopian The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale, it鈥檚 interesting to compare the two novels: both show women confined to roles as baby-making machines, Stepford wives or bureaucratic matrons enforcing the status quo鈥� But The Edible Woman is fun, jaunty even, a comedy of manners that relies on wit and charm to get its satirical point across (with some mild surrealism thrown in). Later, The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale would dispense with humour altogether, to present its nightmare scenario as a plausible outgrowth of the faintly absurd social mores displayed here. I鈥檓 looking forward to seeing where Atwood takes the theme next in The Testaments.
Reading The Edible Woman, it鈥檚 clear that Atwood has been from the beginning a keen observer of the societal constraints placed on women. In this debut, her barbs are sort of gently pointed rather than piercing, but it鈥檚 very far from lightweight. Sardonic insights served with a wink and a pink swirl of buttercream icing. 4 stars.
In some ways this novel is like a time capsule from a lost era 鈥� we are no longer scandalised by unwed mothers or expect women to quit their jobs upon marrying 鈥� but there鈥檚 still plenty of relevance in the ways women are 鈥榩ackaged鈥� for consumption, and the pressure to conform. Plus, Atwood鈥檚 writing remains fresh and very readable.
Written 20 years before the dystopian The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale, it鈥檚 interesting to compare the two novels: both show women confined to roles as baby-making machines, Stepford wives or bureaucratic matrons enforcing the status quo鈥� But The Edible Woman is fun, jaunty even, a comedy of manners that relies on wit and charm to get its satirical point across (with some mild surrealism thrown in). Later, The Handmaid鈥檚 Tale would dispense with humour altogether, to present its nightmare scenario as a plausible outgrowth of the faintly absurd social mores displayed here. I鈥檓 looking forward to seeing where Atwood takes the theme next in The Testaments.
Reading The Edible Woman, it鈥檚 clear that Atwood has been from the beginning a keen observer of the societal constraints placed on women. In this debut, her barbs are sort of gently pointed rather than piercing, but it鈥檚 very far from lightweight. Sardonic insights served with a wink and a pink swirl of buttercream icing. 4 stars.
July 6, 2011
before Ohhh this book is like my favorite hoodie鈥攖hreadbare and falling apart but so so soft and comfy, with all those little stains and patches as sweet reminders of long ago. Love love love love this book...
after Well yes, I do love this book as much as ever, but I was actually kind of surprised at how different it was from the last time I read it, oh, five or six years ago. Here are some reflections (in list form, because I'm feeling lazy):
1. I am still terribly and utterly in love with Duncan, who was I believe my very first literary crush, when I was like fifteen. But some of the magic is gone this time. He's gotten a little clich茅d with over-reading, I guess? (I've easily read this ten times.)
2. I was really surprised how steeped in fifties mentality and early feminist theory it was. Marian has to quit her job when they find out she's getting married, for example, and this is accepted placidly as normal. Huh?
3. While the story is totally awesome and the characters are incredibly great, the most important element (for me) of any Margaret Atwood book is always the stunning stunning language, which was not so much on display here. This was (I'm pretty sure) her first published novel, but she was a poet before that, and so it's not like she didn't already know how to turn like the most beautiful phrases ever.
4. The whole "not eating" thing... Gosh, I'd remembered it being like the whole book, this agonizing descent, food item by food item, into essential starvation, but actually she doesn't even stop eating meat until like a third of the way through the book.
5. Also, I remembered being totally on Marian's side when she goes sort of crazy, but this time she really did seem a bit more hysterical, a bit less a victim of oppressive and destabilizing circumstances.
6. Also WTF, I was so bummed that (minor spoiler, I guess, if you care) Ainslie wound up deciding to get married after all鈥攅ven trying to get Len to marry her! Blaugh. (Again, though, this was written in, what, the mid-fifties or early sixties? So what do I know.)
7. It made me really upset to realize, about halfway through, that I am older than these characters. If not all of them, at least most. I don't really feel like going into why this was so disconcerting, but it was, staggeringly.
after Well yes, I do love this book as much as ever, but I was actually kind of surprised at how different it was from the last time I read it, oh, five or six years ago. Here are some reflections (in list form, because I'm feeling lazy):
1. I am still terribly and utterly in love with Duncan, who was I believe my very first literary crush, when I was like fifteen. But some of the magic is gone this time. He's gotten a little clich茅d with over-reading, I guess? (I've easily read this ten times.)
2. I was really surprised how steeped in fifties mentality and early feminist theory it was. Marian has to quit her job when they find out she's getting married, for example, and this is accepted placidly as normal. Huh?
3. While the story is totally awesome and the characters are incredibly great, the most important element (for me) of any Margaret Atwood book is always the stunning stunning language, which was not so much on display here. This was (I'm pretty sure) her first published novel, but she was a poet before that, and so it's not like she didn't already know how to turn like the most beautiful phrases ever.
4. The whole "not eating" thing... Gosh, I'd remembered it being like the whole book, this agonizing descent, food item by food item, into essential starvation, but actually she doesn't even stop eating meat until like a third of the way through the book.
5. Also, I remembered being totally on Marian's side when she goes sort of crazy, but this time she really did seem a bit more hysterical, a bit less a victim of oppressive and destabilizing circumstances.
6. Also WTF, I was so bummed that (minor spoiler, I guess, if you care) Ainslie wound up deciding to get married after all鈥攅ven trying to get Len to marry her! Blaugh. (Again, though, this was written in, what, the mid-fifties or early sixties? So what do I know.)
7. It made me really upset to realize, about halfway through, that I am older than these characters. If not all of them, at least most. I don't really feel like going into why this was so disconcerting, but it was, staggeringly.
April 21, 2024
This is the second book I have DNF'd in as many minutes. Both, are about women living, and putting up with life in the 1960s.
The crappy way women were treated - again (same as Lessons in Chemistry is a big theme with this one.
There's no question the subject matter here is important. However, for me, this was a little predictable. There was also a gaggle of hyper-caricatures hanging around, some I found a incredibly annoying.
(Personal question: At what age does one become a grumpy old man - is 62, too young?).
Big shame, as I usually love Atwood's work, but there you go.
The crappy way women were treated - again (same as Lessons in Chemistry is a big theme with this one.
There's no question the subject matter here is important. However, for me, this was a little predictable. There was also a gaggle of hyper-caricatures hanging around, some I found a incredibly annoying.
(Personal question: At what age does one become a grumpy old man - is 62, too young?).
Big shame, as I usually love Atwood's work, but there you go.
February 23, 2019
Written in 1965, this is a protofeminist work that anticipated second wave feminism in North America - and it is important to keep that in mind when reading it, because fortunately, some aspects seem outdated for today's readers; unfortunately though, other aspects are still upsettingly relevant. Discussing gender stereotypes and consumerism, the story is told from the perspective of Marian, a young woman who works for a market research company and slowly loses her sense of self after getting engaged. Marian is expected to perform in the roles ascribed to her and to consume in a market economy, until she slowly loses her appetite and feels unable to consume food. The situation of the protagonist is contrasted by that of her roommate who plots to become pregnant without the prospective father's consent and a friend who suffers as a housewife and mother of three.
All of this is of course highly allegorical (but not as abstract and clever as Han Kang's ) and many scenes shine due to Atwood's ability to write psychologically convincing dialogue, but the main problem of the book is its portrayal of male characters: In this novel, all men are idiots. The fiance is imprisoned in his own role, trying to live up to what is expected of him as "the man", the lover is a manipulative drifter, and the others are mere plot devices.
So while Atwood's debut novel certainly isn't a bad book, there's a reason why this is not as widely read today as a lot of her other works.
All of this is of course highly allegorical (but not as abstract and clever as Han Kang's ) and many scenes shine due to Atwood's ability to write psychologically convincing dialogue, but the main problem of the book is its portrayal of male characters: In this novel, all men are idiots. The fiance is imprisoned in his own role, trying to live up to what is expected of him as "the man", the lover is a manipulative drifter, and the others are mere plot devices.
So while Atwood's debut novel certainly isn't a bad book, there's a reason why this is not as widely read today as a lot of her other works.
August 26, 2015
What an unusual story. Marian is newly engaged and then discovers she can't eat certain foods, first meats and then almost everything else. What is her subconscious trying to tell her?
Atwood is a writer who amazes me every time I read her; it really is hard to categorize her writing. Her writing style on the other hand is exquisite, intelligent and witty at times.
The main theme of this book is relationships and how they can transform you. I enjoyed the first half of the book a lot more than I did the second. The second half seemed a bit too rushed to me.
One thing I found interesting was how different things were in the 1960s, when this book was written. There is absolutely no way that a woman conducting door-to-door surveys would even consider going into a male survey participant's home these days. Also, feminism has changed the ways in which women think; for example, after marriage, a woman isn't expected to quit her job and stay home. Also, having a child out of marriage isn't considered terrible anymore either.
Atwood is a writer who amazes me every time I read her; it really is hard to categorize her writing. Her writing style on the other hand is exquisite, intelligent and witty at times.
The main theme of this book is relationships and how they can transform you. I enjoyed the first half of the book a lot more than I did the second. The second half seemed a bit too rushed to me.
One thing I found interesting was how different things were in the 1960s, when this book was written. There is absolutely no way that a woman conducting door-to-door surveys would even consider going into a male survey participant's home these days. Also, feminism has changed the ways in which women think; for example, after marriage, a woman isn't expected to quit her job and stay home. Also, having a child out of marriage isn't considered terrible anymore either.
March 13, 2015
4.5 stars - Spoilers
Loved this, it was weird and wonderful. I thought I was going to hate it after reading the first few chapters, it was so slow moving and boring. It was only until the main character (Marian) started to think strange thoughts and act totally nutty that I started to get really engrossed in the story and characters.
-I didn't like Marian whatsoever, she was passive, irritating and all round doormat. But despite being a largely pathetic and frustrating character, she was utterly engaging. Well, she was once she got engaged to her boyfriend and went a little bonkers.
Marian had so many negative thoughts about everyone around her, especially when it came to the women she worked and lived with. The way she described them genuinely made me think that the female population consisted solely of vile-disgusting creatures - Marian's view of others was that bleak and depressing, there wasn't one person she thought of in a positive light. I would usually get bored with characters that were constantly bitchy and mean, but for some reason I didn't mind it in Marian, I think the writing was just that good.
-I couldn't sympathise or relate to Marian at all when it came to her home, work, and love life. She let herself be treated like crap and never stood up to anyone, it was impossible to feel for her when she had the power to refuse to be oppressed or changed. She could have told everyone to fuck off but she chose not to.
Marian felt she was being consumed/destroyed/moulded by her fianc茅 (Peter) and was losing her sense of self.. And I guess that was true, but what she was feeling wasn't Peter's fault or anyone else's. No-one forced her to be engaged and to act a certain way, but she went along with it because she was weak. She played the good wifey role when she could have walked away or demanded to be treated differently. I know in those times it was difficult but that didn't change the fact that she did have choices.. But she caved into societal expectations, she could have held onto herself but she took the easy route out (well, up until the very end of the book).
I was glad Marian finally grew a backbone stopped being so wishy-washy, silent, and melodramatic about everything.
The cake scene with Peter was epic, I think he had a lucky escape, if he got stuck with Marian she would have ended up going completely bonkers. And even though Peter was a douche, he wouldn't have deserved that when he was more than upfront about who he was and what he wanted, whilst Marian was the one who was hiding her true self, lying and suppressing herself. Yea, she was all sorts of twisted and fucked up, I loved it.
-Ainsley was a cow, but a thoroughly entertaining one. She was a slimy, manipulative, hypocrite, opportunistic twit. She started off acting like she was oh so progressive and independent but slowly showed her true backwards-sexist-homophobic-traditional-woman colours. It was interesting to read her character unfolding in that way.
The way she walked all over Marian, bossed her around and took advantage of her was initially irritating but after a while I was applauding her. If Marian let herself be walked all over then that was Marian's problem. If Marian was so willing to be used then why shouldn't Ainsley use her? I much prefer characters who do whatever it takes to get what they want no matter who they hurt or take advantage of over simpering martyrs any day.
-Ainsley playing Len was hilarious. I loved that she was the one doing all the using and game playing so she could get what she wanted, it was even funnier because Len thought that he was the one who was in control. It was great how he totally lost the plot and became terrified of women and being trapped, it was so deliciously fucked up and the perfect karma for all the girls in the past he no doubt used and threw away.
-I loathed both Peter and Duncan. They treated Marian like crap, but I suppose I couldn't blame them for that since Marian was all too accommodating in her doormat ways.
Duncan was a pretentious wanker, but his ironing issues and manipulative attitude made him an intriguing if detestable character.
Peter was a sexist pig, and that was about it, his character didn't offer anything else, I didn't find him nearly as engrossing as Duncan.
-I was surprised that Marian's aversion to food started well over half way in the book, the way the blurb was written I was expecting it to start pretty much straight away.
-I don't know why but the job Marian had at the survey place and the job Ainsley had at the toothbrush place didn't seem like plausible jobs for the time/setting it was set in. They probably were but for some reason they didn't ring true to me.
-Liked Marian's brief reflections on her university days, they were really well done.
-I didn't get the Fish/Trevor/Duncan unit, it was rather odd. I thought Fish/Trevor were gay at first the way they acted, but then Fish was into Ainsley and happily married her (the sucker). The relationship and dynamics between them wasn't very clear, especially in how they treated Duncan. I didn't get why they were so careful and protective of him, I'm guessing Duncan manipulated them like he did Marian. He was a crafty bastard that one.
-The various themes running throughout the book were really interesting. Gender roles, femininity, marriage, consumerism, and female dynamics were all touched upon (and probably loads of others I missed). Yea, I was really impressed with all the layers and complexity in The Edible Woman - it made a welcome change from my usual shallow reads.
All in all, I loved it. I'll definitely be checking out more Margaret Atwood books.
Loved this, it was weird and wonderful. I thought I was going to hate it after reading the first few chapters, it was so slow moving and boring. It was only until the main character (Marian) started to think strange thoughts and act totally nutty that I started to get really engrossed in the story and characters.
-I didn't like Marian whatsoever, she was passive, irritating and all round doormat. But despite being a largely pathetic and frustrating character, she was utterly engaging. Well, she was once she got engaged to her boyfriend and went a little bonkers.
Marian had so many negative thoughts about everyone around her, especially when it came to the women she worked and lived with. The way she described them genuinely made me think that the female population consisted solely of vile-disgusting creatures - Marian's view of others was that bleak and depressing, there wasn't one person she thought of in a positive light. I would usually get bored with characters that were constantly bitchy and mean, but for some reason I didn't mind it in Marian, I think the writing was just that good.
-I couldn't sympathise or relate to Marian at all when it came to her home, work, and love life. She let herself be treated like crap and never stood up to anyone, it was impossible to feel for her when she had the power to refuse to be oppressed or changed. She could have told everyone to fuck off but she chose not to.
Marian felt she was being consumed/destroyed/moulded by her fianc茅 (Peter) and was losing her sense of self.. And I guess that was true, but what she was feeling wasn't Peter's fault or anyone else's. No-one forced her to be engaged and to act a certain way, but she went along with it because she was weak. She played the good wifey role when she could have walked away or demanded to be treated differently. I know in those times it was difficult but that didn't change the fact that she did have choices.. But she caved into societal expectations, she could have held onto herself but she took the easy route out (well, up until the very end of the book).
I was glad Marian finally grew a backbone stopped being so wishy-washy, silent, and melodramatic about everything.
The cake scene with Peter was epic, I think he had a lucky escape, if he got stuck with Marian she would have ended up going completely bonkers. And even though Peter was a douche, he wouldn't have deserved that when he was more than upfront about who he was and what he wanted, whilst Marian was the one who was hiding her true self, lying and suppressing herself. Yea, she was all sorts of twisted and fucked up, I loved it.
-Ainsley was a cow, but a thoroughly entertaining one. She was a slimy, manipulative, hypocrite, opportunistic twit. She started off acting like she was oh so progressive and independent but slowly showed her true backwards-sexist-homophobic-traditional-woman colours. It was interesting to read her character unfolding in that way.
The way she walked all over Marian, bossed her around and took advantage of her was initially irritating but after a while I was applauding her. If Marian let herself be walked all over then that was Marian's problem. If Marian was so willing to be used then why shouldn't Ainsley use her? I much prefer characters who do whatever it takes to get what they want no matter who they hurt or take advantage of over simpering martyrs any day.
-Ainsley playing Len was hilarious. I loved that she was the one doing all the using and game playing so she could get what she wanted, it was even funnier because Len thought that he was the one who was in control. It was great how he totally lost the plot and became terrified of women and being trapped, it was so deliciously fucked up and the perfect karma for all the girls in the past he no doubt used and threw away.
-I loathed both Peter and Duncan. They treated Marian like crap, but I suppose I couldn't blame them for that since Marian was all too accommodating in her doormat ways.
Duncan was a pretentious wanker, but his ironing issues and manipulative attitude made him an intriguing if detestable character.
Peter was a sexist pig, and that was about it, his character didn't offer anything else, I didn't find him nearly as engrossing as Duncan.
-I was surprised that Marian's aversion to food started well over half way in the book, the way the blurb was written I was expecting it to start pretty much straight away.
-I don't know why but the job Marian had at the survey place and the job Ainsley had at the toothbrush place didn't seem like plausible jobs for the time/setting it was set in. They probably were but for some reason they didn't ring true to me.
-Liked Marian's brief reflections on her university days, they were really well done.
-I didn't get the Fish/Trevor/Duncan unit, it was rather odd. I thought Fish/Trevor were gay at first the way they acted, but then Fish was into Ainsley and happily married her (the sucker). The relationship and dynamics between them wasn't very clear, especially in how they treated Duncan. I didn't get why they were so careful and protective of him, I'm guessing Duncan manipulated them like he did Marian. He was a crafty bastard that one.
-The various themes running throughout the book were really interesting. Gender roles, femininity, marriage, consumerism, and female dynamics were all touched upon (and probably loads of others I missed). Yea, I was really impressed with all the layers and complexity in The Edible Woman - it made a welcome change from my usual shallow reads.
All in all, I loved it. I'll definitely be checking out more Margaret Atwood books.
August 22, 2022
Tulajdonk茅ppen egyetlen d枚nt茅shelyzetre fel茅p铆tett reg茅ny: mit kezd Marian azzal, hogy bar谩tja, Peter megkezdi az 艖 fogyaszthat贸v谩 t茅tel茅t. Bep谩colja, el艖f艖zi, a jegyess茅g gesztus谩val neki谩ll bemeleg铆teni a s眉t艖t, hogy azt谩n a h谩zass谩g aktus谩val l茅trehozza minden f茅rfi 谩lm谩t, a frissre, ropog贸sra s眉lt asszonyt, amit azt谩n j贸 茅tv谩ggyal bekebelezhet*. No most felmer眉lhet a k茅rd茅s, miszerint hogy lehet egyetlen d枚nt茅shelyzetre 460 oldalas reg茅nyt alapozni? Mert ugye a 460 oldal m谩r t煤l van azon a l茅lektani hat谩ron, ahol a reg茅nyeket hajlamos vagyok "hossz煤nak" nevezni.
Atwood m贸dszer茅nek kulcsa a kontrapontoz谩s. Telehinti a sz枚veget olyan figur谩kkal, akik megvillantj谩k a Marian el艖tt 谩ll贸 egy茅b lehet艖s茅geket. Ott vannak az irodai v茅nkisasszonyok, a n艖tudatos lak贸t谩rs, Clara ipari l茅pt茅k疟 gyereksz眉l茅sre alapozott h谩zass谩ga, no 茅s persze Duncan, aki egyfajta alternat铆v kapcsolati form谩t k铆n谩l a Peterrel kialak铆that贸 konformista viszony helyett**. Ezek a szerepl艖k (enyhe karikat煤raszer疟s茅g眉kkel egy眉tt) mind elevenek, megvan a maguk kis vil谩ga, amit a sz枚vegbe install谩lva emelik annak becs茅t. Mert becses k枚nyv ez: plasztikus, fullaszt贸, er艖s. Az ember nem azt gondolja, hogy "hm, kellemes bemutatkoz谩s ez, egy leend艖 nagy 铆r贸 sz谩rnypr贸b谩lgat谩sa", hanem hogy "huh, h谩t hogy lehet m谩r p谩lyakezd茅skor ilyen izmos sz枚veggel el艖j枚nni? 铆gy kibontani a k茅rd茅seket, 铆gy r茅tegezni a mondanival贸t, avagy, 枚sszegezve: 铆gy meg铆rni egy nagyreg茅nyt?"
H谩t, 铆gy lehet.
* K眉l枚nben Peter elj谩r谩s谩t illet艖en nekem nem is annyira a gasztron贸mia jutott eszembe mint anal贸gia, hanem a lakberendez茅s. Hogy a f茅rfi 煤gy kezeli Mariant, mint egy dr谩ga b煤tort vagy d铆szt谩rgyat, ami t煤l sokba ker眉l 茅s t煤l sok helyet foglal ahhoz, hogy felel艖tlen眉l megv谩s谩roljuk, de ha m谩r letett眉k voksunkat a tranzakci贸 mellett, elv谩rjuk, hogy az marad茅ktalanul bet枚ltse funkci贸j谩t. Ha p茅ld谩ul egy kanap茅r贸l besz茅l眉nk, ne akarja 谩ll贸l谩mp谩v谩 k茅pezni mag谩t, ha pedig falik谩rpitot v谩lasztunk, az ne jelentse be az ig茅ny茅t, hogy 艖 m茅gis fut贸sz艖nyegk茅nt k茅pzeli el a j枚v艖j茅t. Ak谩rhogy is, Atwood gasztron贸miai metafor谩ja alkalmas arra, hogy ezt a k茅rd茅st ki茅lezze, 茅s adjon neki egy provokat铆v fel眉t茅st.
** Hajlamos vagyok t茅nyk茅nt kezelni, hogy Marian viszonya Duncannal 茅pp annyira 茅letk茅ptelen, mint Peter kapcsolati kannibalizmusa. Vagy t谩n m茅g 茅letk茅ptelenebb. 艕 ugyanis m茅g id艖legesen sem hajland贸 sz铆nlelni, hogy Marian b谩rmilyen szinten v谩ltoz谩st id茅zhetne el艖 benne, ny铆ltan m谩sik bolyg贸nak tartja, ami soha nem fog egy p谩ly谩n mozogni vele. Val贸 igaz, ez legal谩bb 艖szinte hozz谩谩ll谩s, 茅s az is biztos, hogy egy Duncannal lefolytatott viszony legal谩bb nem lenne konform. De ezzel egy眉tt ugyan煤gy beteg viszony lenne. Ilyen 茅rtelemben nem is tekinthet艖 alternat铆v谩nak, sokkal ink谩bb az eg茅sz 眉gy 谩ltal谩nos neh茅zs茅g茅re utal.
Atwood m贸dszer茅nek kulcsa a kontrapontoz谩s. Telehinti a sz枚veget olyan figur谩kkal, akik megvillantj谩k a Marian el艖tt 谩ll贸 egy茅b lehet艖s茅geket. Ott vannak az irodai v茅nkisasszonyok, a n艖tudatos lak贸t谩rs, Clara ipari l茅pt茅k疟 gyereksz眉l茅sre alapozott h谩zass谩ga, no 茅s persze Duncan, aki egyfajta alternat铆v kapcsolati form谩t k铆n谩l a Peterrel kialak铆that贸 konformista viszony helyett**. Ezek a szerepl艖k (enyhe karikat煤raszer疟s茅g眉kkel egy眉tt) mind elevenek, megvan a maguk kis vil谩ga, amit a sz枚vegbe install谩lva emelik annak becs茅t. Mert becses k枚nyv ez: plasztikus, fullaszt贸, er艖s. Az ember nem azt gondolja, hogy "hm, kellemes bemutatkoz谩s ez, egy leend艖 nagy 铆r贸 sz谩rnypr贸b谩lgat谩sa", hanem hogy "huh, h谩t hogy lehet m谩r p谩lyakezd茅skor ilyen izmos sz枚veggel el艖j枚nni? 铆gy kibontani a k茅rd茅seket, 铆gy r茅tegezni a mondanival贸t, avagy, 枚sszegezve: 铆gy meg铆rni egy nagyreg茅nyt?"
H谩t, 铆gy lehet.
* K眉l枚nben Peter elj谩r谩s谩t illet艖en nekem nem is annyira a gasztron贸mia jutott eszembe mint anal贸gia, hanem a lakberendez茅s. Hogy a f茅rfi 煤gy kezeli Mariant, mint egy dr谩ga b煤tort vagy d铆szt谩rgyat, ami t煤l sokba ker眉l 茅s t煤l sok helyet foglal ahhoz, hogy felel艖tlen眉l megv谩s谩roljuk, de ha m谩r letett眉k voksunkat a tranzakci贸 mellett, elv谩rjuk, hogy az marad茅ktalanul bet枚ltse funkci贸j谩t. Ha p茅ld谩ul egy kanap茅r贸l besz茅l眉nk, ne akarja 谩ll贸l谩mp谩v谩 k茅pezni mag谩t, ha pedig falik谩rpitot v谩lasztunk, az ne jelentse be az ig茅ny茅t, hogy 艖 m茅gis fut贸sz艖nyegk茅nt k茅pzeli el a j枚v艖j茅t. Ak谩rhogy is, Atwood gasztron贸miai metafor谩ja alkalmas arra, hogy ezt a k茅rd茅st ki茅lezze, 茅s adjon neki egy provokat铆v fel眉t茅st.
** Hajlamos vagyok t茅nyk茅nt kezelni, hogy Marian viszonya Duncannal 茅pp annyira 茅letk茅ptelen, mint Peter kapcsolati kannibalizmusa. Vagy t谩n m茅g 茅letk茅ptelenebb. 艕 ugyanis m茅g id艖legesen sem hajland贸 sz铆nlelni, hogy Marian b谩rmilyen szinten v谩ltoz谩st id茅zhetne el艖 benne, ny铆ltan m谩sik bolyg贸nak tartja, ami soha nem fog egy p谩ly谩n mozogni vele. Val贸 igaz, ez legal谩bb 艖szinte hozz谩谩ll谩s, 茅s az is biztos, hogy egy Duncannal lefolytatott viszony legal谩bb nem lenne konform. De ezzel egy眉tt ugyan煤gy beteg viszony lenne. Ilyen 茅rtelemben nem is tekinthet艖 alternat铆v谩nak, sokkal ink谩bb az eg茅sz 眉gy 谩ltal谩nos neh茅zs茅g茅re utal.
January 26, 2013
Oh dear, I couldn't decide whether I liked this book from one page to the next. I expected to like it but kept deciding I didn't and a page or two later decided that maybe it was ok after all. Several things put me off it but mainly the characters. Ugh!, the characters were dull grey people with nothing likable about them. They seemed to be superficial, one dimensional people, who's only concern was how they looked to others. Even with those who were meant to be their best friends they weren't real or honest, even with themselves!. Of course, the characters were different from each other but to me, all of them came across as grey and boring and totally unable to have fun of any kind. Even Duncan who was I think meant to be a little more real and honest than the others,[he always told you after he lied] wasn't really a character I liked in any way.
From a social history aspect it was interesting, particularly the attitude to women which is one of the themes of the book. I was born in 1963 and yes, my Mother gave up work simply because she was getting married.She had no children til 3 years later. I never understood that and she could never adequately explain it to me. I had a slight admiration for the Joe, husband of Clara, Marian's friend from university. Here was one relationship were they could be real with each other, and totally against the traditions of his time he took the lions share of the house work while Clara was pregnant. Then he had to go and spoil it all by commenting on the problem of women going to uni:it makes them believe they are intelligent people and maybe they shouldn't be allowed to go!! I'm sure this is a true representation of 50's attitudes.
I gave it two stars as the writing was good,clever and witty. I never felt I wanted to give up and it kept me sort of interested till the end. I can see why people like it and there are many themes would be interesting to discuss. However I couldn't like it. Its a grey book, portraying the grey and boring life of grey and boring people.
From a social history aspect it was interesting, particularly the attitude to women which is one of the themes of the book. I was born in 1963 and yes, my Mother gave up work simply because she was getting married.She had no children til 3 years later. I never understood that and she could never adequately explain it to me. I had a slight admiration for the Joe, husband of Clara, Marian's friend from university. Here was one relationship were they could be real with each other, and totally against the traditions of his time he took the lions share of the house work while Clara was pregnant. Then he had to go and spoil it all by commenting on the problem of women going to uni:it makes them believe they are intelligent people and maybe they shouldn't be allowed to go!! I'm sure this is a true representation of 50's attitudes.
I gave it two stars as the writing was good,clever and witty. I never felt I wanted to give up and it kept me sort of interested till the end. I can see why people like it and there are many themes would be interesting to discuss. However I couldn't like it. Its a grey book, portraying the grey and boring life of grey and boring people.
November 4, 2015
鈥淟as metas del movimiento feminista no se han alcanzado, y quienes aseguran que vivimos en una era post-feminista se equivocan, lamentablemente, o se han cansado ya de pensar en estos temas鈥�. Declaraciones de Margaret Atwood, 1979.
Da terror y pena constatar que las palabras de Margaret Atwood siguen vigentes en la actualidad. Da terror y pena ver literalmente transcritas en la novela situaciones que te han pasado en la vida real. El contexto es Canad谩 a finales de los 60, yo hablo de Espa帽a en el a帽o 2015. Estoy hablando de ejemplos propios del heteropatriarcado imperante que se lleva a las mujeres por delante sin que se den cuenta o se conformen o incluso lleguen a justificarlo. La clave para la falta de rebeli贸n y cuestionamiento est谩 en saberlo vender con colores alegres, confeti y serpentinas.
Tomando como punto de partida los temas que se tratan en la novela e intercalando ejemplos reales intentar茅 poner de manifiesto que no solo no estamos en el Canad谩 descrito por Atwood en esta novela, en t茅rminos de igualdad de g茅nero, sino que incluso hemos retrocedido.
1.- La mujer como objeto sexual y la violencia que se ejerce sobre ella.
Aparece esta idea cuando Marian debe huir despavorida de un viejo baboso a quien est谩 haciendo una encuesta en su domicilio cuando casi se le tira encima. Tambi茅n cuando relata el caso de un acosador telef贸nico que se hace pasar por un encuestador sobre el consumo de lencer铆a femenina haciendo cada vez preguntas m谩s 铆ntimas a las interesadas hasta que se dan cuenta del enga帽o.
Personalmente he tenido que soportar piropos callejeros, tuve que ver cuando ten铆a 14 a帽os a un exhibicionista mene谩rsela para luego echarme a correr con la amiga con la que iba y que el trauma me durara una semana, tuve que rechazar una invitaci贸n para subirme en el coche de un viejo a los 15 cuando iba caminado sola tranquilamente por la calle a pleno d铆a, y en dos ocasiones recib铆 hacia los 20 a帽os llamadas de an贸nimos monstruosos, similares a la que describe Margaret Atwood en la novela, que se la deb铆an estar cascando mientras hablaban conmigo. Y eso es lo m谩s suave que te puede pasar por el solo hecho de ser mujer. No hace mucho apareci贸 muerta una chica en Tarragona, , pero ella seguramente se lo busc贸, como insin煤a la noticia al decir que 鈥渇recuentaba ambientes bohemios.鈥� No es un caso aislado. Este verano una mujer americana que recorr铆a el Camino de Santiago sola fue encontrada muerta, . En la noticia se hace hincapi茅 en el hecho que el presunto asesino ya hab铆a molestado a mujeres en otras ocasiones. Por no hablar de las muertes de mujeres como consecuencia de la violencia de g茅nero que podemos ver habitualmente en los peri贸dicos. Si comentas estas situaciones con colegas hombres te dir谩n que son casos aislados, propios de psic贸patas o enfermos mentales. Yo les preguntar铆a, 驴cu谩ntos hombres en circunstancias similares han fallecido por muerte violenta en los 煤ltimos dos a帽os en este pa铆s?
2.- El rol de la mujer en la pareja en el contexto del sistema capitalista.
En la novela, Marian tiene dos relaciones sentimentales. Una con Peter y otra con Duncan. En ambas es tratada como un objeto. Peter es el novio formal. El arquetipo de novio que toda mujer en su 鈥渟ano juicio鈥� querr铆a tener. Abogado de ideas conservadoras al que se le intuyen multitud de 茅xitos profesionales que finalmente ha sentado la cabeza y ha decidido comprometerse con Marian. En la relaci贸n con Peter, Marian ha de cumplir el papel de mujer florero: le acompa帽a a las reuniones con amigos o renuncia a pasar tiempo con 茅l en aras de su important铆sima carrera profesional, de la que van a vivir los dos, puesto que decide que dejar谩 de trabajar y se dedicar谩 a las labores del hogar y a los hijos. Todo de cara a dar una imagen de matrimonio feliz 鈥渃omo debe ser鈥�. Cuando atisba lo que le espera Marian decide inconscientemente huir porque no se ve en ese papel. Entonces aparece Duncan. Duncan es el polo opuesto a Peter. Seduce a Marian con un halo de misterio y con digresiones intelectualoides que llaman su atenci贸n pero al final resulta ser igual o peor que Peter. Duncan utiliza a Marian para alimentar su masculinidad. Se trata de un cobarde eg贸latra que no piensa en nada m谩s que en s铆 mismo. Para 茅l Marian carece de sentimientos. En ambos casos la mujer sirve al hombre: en el primer caso como esposa perfecta, en el segundo, como distracci贸n puntual, como si de una prostituta se tratara, hamburguesa que se traga casi sin masticar y se olvida r谩pidamente para devorar a otra. Se trata de consumir personas como se consume cualquier otra cosa. En ninguno de los dos casos se ve a la mujer como una igual, como una compa帽era.
Ante esta situaci贸n, Marian se siente totalmente perdida y fuera de lugar. No encaja como esposa sumisa, tampoco como amante de usar y tirar. Y le pasa factura. Empieza a sufrir trastornos alimenticios. Podr铆amos decir que psicomatiza su sufrimiento.
En la vida real ocurre algo parecido. Conozco algunas parejas con hijos peque帽os en las que ellas han dejado de trabajar para poderse ocupar de los ni帽os. Viven todos del sueldo del marido. Personalmente creo que la independencia econ贸mica de la mujer es esencial para poder garantizar la independencia personal. Cre铆a que eso ya estaba m谩s que superado. Pero no es as铆. Me pregunto qu茅 pasar铆a en el supuesto de que el marido se fuera con otra. Si tienes un sueldo es f谩cil, lo dejas y punto. Si vives del sueldo de 茅l te toca aguantar. Personalmente creo que es un retroceso para que se d茅 una relaci贸n sana de igualdad en una pareja.
Y despu茅s est谩 la crisis de los 30 largos, casi 40. Querer volver a la juventud o 鈥渋r en busca de Duncan鈥�.
3.- La maternidad como proyecto esencial en la vida de una mujer.
En la novela vemos reflejada esta idea en el personaje de Ainsley, que decide ser madre soltera, y en el de Clara, de la que se muestra su 鈥渋d铆lica vida familiar鈥�. El hecho de tener un hijo se sigue asociando a la mujer, no al hombre. Pero no son solo ellos los culpables, ellas aceptan el rol que la sociedad les impone sin rechistar y se acaban creyendo que es su naturaleza, hablo en serio. El otro d铆a estaba con unas compa帽eras de trabajo en un descanso y hablaban de sus hijos peque帽os. Vamos por la tarde a reuniones de un grupo de mam谩s a compartir experiencias. Te sientes sola. Se me ocurri贸 preguntar, 驴hay padres? No, es solo de madres, es que Cris, no se puede explicar, el v铆nculo que tiene una madre con su hijo no lo tendr谩 nunca un padre. No, yo seguro que no lo entiendo, no tengo hijos. Me call茅. Pero estuve a punto de decir 驴y si la pareja es de dos hombres? Entonces qu茅.
La mujer pasa por el embarazo (una experiencia presentada como id铆lica en la publicidad que nos bombardea, cuando en realidad, una mujer embarazada tiene mucho sue帽o, est谩 cansada, puede sufrir v贸mitos, n谩useas, le duele la espalda si debe estar mucho tiempo sentada en el trabajo鈥�), el parto (no comment), la recuperaci贸n posterior y un beb茅 a la vez que depende de ella si opta por la lactancia materna que es lo mejor en t茅rminos saludables. El padre tiene 15 d铆as de permiso y despu茅s, venga nena, tira t煤 sola con el ni帽o que yo me vuelvo a mis cosas. Es como est谩 montado. Es lo normal. Ellas se piden la jornada reducida, ellas pasan la mayor parte de su tiempo con los beb茅s. 驴Por qu茅 si los ni帽os son de los dos? Ellas pueden llegar a sentirse malas madres si no se ocupan de sus hijos pero y 驴ellos?, 驴Se sienten malos padres por llegar a partir de las 8 de la noche a casa? No, ni se plantea, es LO NORMAL. El proyecto de la maternidad como algo individual de la mujer y como 鈥渃ulminaci贸n de su feminidad鈥� tambi茅n lo conozco de cerca. Inconscientemente s茅 de mujeres que tienen metido en la cabeza 鈥渁 los 30 ser茅 madre鈥�, importa menos con quien pero YO quiero ser madre. En esos casos pueden darse diversos supuestos: me quedo embarazada, tengo al hijo y 茅l y yo formamos un pack indisoluble y bueno, el padre por ah铆 est谩; o bien tambi茅n se da el caso de lo que he bautizado como 鈥渕asculinizaci贸n鈥� de la mujer, las que quieren una carrera profesional exitosa sin renunciar a la maternidad. En este 煤ltimo caso se pagar谩 el servicio de cuidar al beb茅 porque ni 茅l ni ella tendr谩n tiempo de estar con el ni帽o. Entonces, 驴para qu茅 tienes hijos? En serio, 驴alguien piensa en lo mejor para los hijos en cualquiera de los casos? 驴O se piensa en satisfacer una necesidad personal de querer tener un hijo porque lo dicta la sociedad, como si de un mueble o de un juguete se tratara? Supongo que sea como fuere en algo tenemos que estar ocupados.
Sobre la cuesti贸n de la maternidad le铆 el otro d铆a un art铆culo de Rosa Montero interesant铆simo:
Despu茅s de todas estas reflexiones a las que me ha llevado la lectura del libro, solo queda por decir que Margaret Atwood pasa a ser una de mis escritoras favoritas, de la que pienso leer muchos m谩s de sus libros. Destaco su frescura, su ingenio, su iron铆a y su valent铆a. Me encanta.
Una entrevista para conocerla mejor:
Da terror y pena constatar que las palabras de Margaret Atwood siguen vigentes en la actualidad. Da terror y pena ver literalmente transcritas en la novela situaciones que te han pasado en la vida real. El contexto es Canad谩 a finales de los 60, yo hablo de Espa帽a en el a帽o 2015. Estoy hablando de ejemplos propios del heteropatriarcado imperante que se lleva a las mujeres por delante sin que se den cuenta o se conformen o incluso lleguen a justificarlo. La clave para la falta de rebeli贸n y cuestionamiento est谩 en saberlo vender con colores alegres, confeti y serpentinas.
Tomando como punto de partida los temas que se tratan en la novela e intercalando ejemplos reales intentar茅 poner de manifiesto que no solo no estamos en el Canad谩 descrito por Atwood en esta novela, en t茅rminos de igualdad de g茅nero, sino que incluso hemos retrocedido.
1.- La mujer como objeto sexual y la violencia que se ejerce sobre ella.
Aparece esta idea cuando Marian debe huir despavorida de un viejo baboso a quien est谩 haciendo una encuesta en su domicilio cuando casi se le tira encima. Tambi茅n cuando relata el caso de un acosador telef贸nico que se hace pasar por un encuestador sobre el consumo de lencer铆a femenina haciendo cada vez preguntas m谩s 铆ntimas a las interesadas hasta que se dan cuenta del enga帽o.
Personalmente he tenido que soportar piropos callejeros, tuve que ver cuando ten铆a 14 a帽os a un exhibicionista mene谩rsela para luego echarme a correr con la amiga con la que iba y que el trauma me durara una semana, tuve que rechazar una invitaci贸n para subirme en el coche de un viejo a los 15 cuando iba caminado sola tranquilamente por la calle a pleno d铆a, y en dos ocasiones recib铆 hacia los 20 a帽os llamadas de an贸nimos monstruosos, similares a la que describe Margaret Atwood en la novela, que se la deb铆an estar cascando mientras hablaban conmigo. Y eso es lo m谩s suave que te puede pasar por el solo hecho de ser mujer. No hace mucho apareci贸 muerta una chica en Tarragona, , pero ella seguramente se lo busc贸, como insin煤a la noticia al decir que 鈥渇recuentaba ambientes bohemios.鈥� No es un caso aislado. Este verano una mujer americana que recorr铆a el Camino de Santiago sola fue encontrada muerta, . En la noticia se hace hincapi茅 en el hecho que el presunto asesino ya hab铆a molestado a mujeres en otras ocasiones. Por no hablar de las muertes de mujeres como consecuencia de la violencia de g茅nero que podemos ver habitualmente en los peri贸dicos. Si comentas estas situaciones con colegas hombres te dir谩n que son casos aislados, propios de psic贸patas o enfermos mentales. Yo les preguntar铆a, 驴cu谩ntos hombres en circunstancias similares han fallecido por muerte violenta en los 煤ltimos dos a帽os en este pa铆s?
2.- El rol de la mujer en la pareja en el contexto del sistema capitalista.
En la novela, Marian tiene dos relaciones sentimentales. Una con Peter y otra con Duncan. En ambas es tratada como un objeto. Peter es el novio formal. El arquetipo de novio que toda mujer en su 鈥渟ano juicio鈥� querr铆a tener. Abogado de ideas conservadoras al que se le intuyen multitud de 茅xitos profesionales que finalmente ha sentado la cabeza y ha decidido comprometerse con Marian. En la relaci贸n con Peter, Marian ha de cumplir el papel de mujer florero: le acompa帽a a las reuniones con amigos o renuncia a pasar tiempo con 茅l en aras de su important铆sima carrera profesional, de la que van a vivir los dos, puesto que decide que dejar谩 de trabajar y se dedicar谩 a las labores del hogar y a los hijos. Todo de cara a dar una imagen de matrimonio feliz 鈥渃omo debe ser鈥�. Cuando atisba lo que le espera Marian decide inconscientemente huir porque no se ve en ese papel. Entonces aparece Duncan. Duncan es el polo opuesto a Peter. Seduce a Marian con un halo de misterio y con digresiones intelectualoides que llaman su atenci贸n pero al final resulta ser igual o peor que Peter. Duncan utiliza a Marian para alimentar su masculinidad. Se trata de un cobarde eg贸latra que no piensa en nada m谩s que en s铆 mismo. Para 茅l Marian carece de sentimientos. En ambos casos la mujer sirve al hombre: en el primer caso como esposa perfecta, en el segundo, como distracci贸n puntual, como si de una prostituta se tratara, hamburguesa que se traga casi sin masticar y se olvida r谩pidamente para devorar a otra. Se trata de consumir personas como se consume cualquier otra cosa. En ninguno de los dos casos se ve a la mujer como una igual, como una compa帽era.
Ante esta situaci贸n, Marian se siente totalmente perdida y fuera de lugar. No encaja como esposa sumisa, tampoco como amante de usar y tirar. Y le pasa factura. Empieza a sufrir trastornos alimenticios. Podr铆amos decir que psicomatiza su sufrimiento.
En la vida real ocurre algo parecido. Conozco algunas parejas con hijos peque帽os en las que ellas han dejado de trabajar para poderse ocupar de los ni帽os. Viven todos del sueldo del marido. Personalmente creo que la independencia econ贸mica de la mujer es esencial para poder garantizar la independencia personal. Cre铆a que eso ya estaba m谩s que superado. Pero no es as铆. Me pregunto qu茅 pasar铆a en el supuesto de que el marido se fuera con otra. Si tienes un sueldo es f谩cil, lo dejas y punto. Si vives del sueldo de 茅l te toca aguantar. Personalmente creo que es un retroceso para que se d茅 una relaci贸n sana de igualdad en una pareja.
Y despu茅s est谩 la crisis de los 30 largos, casi 40. Querer volver a la juventud o 鈥渋r en busca de Duncan鈥�.
3.- La maternidad como proyecto esencial en la vida de una mujer.
En la novela vemos reflejada esta idea en el personaje de Ainsley, que decide ser madre soltera, y en el de Clara, de la que se muestra su 鈥渋d铆lica vida familiar鈥�. El hecho de tener un hijo se sigue asociando a la mujer, no al hombre. Pero no son solo ellos los culpables, ellas aceptan el rol que la sociedad les impone sin rechistar y se acaban creyendo que es su naturaleza, hablo en serio. El otro d铆a estaba con unas compa帽eras de trabajo en un descanso y hablaban de sus hijos peque帽os. Vamos por la tarde a reuniones de un grupo de mam谩s a compartir experiencias. Te sientes sola. Se me ocurri贸 preguntar, 驴hay padres? No, es solo de madres, es que Cris, no se puede explicar, el v铆nculo que tiene una madre con su hijo no lo tendr谩 nunca un padre. No, yo seguro que no lo entiendo, no tengo hijos. Me call茅. Pero estuve a punto de decir 驴y si la pareja es de dos hombres? Entonces qu茅.
La mujer pasa por el embarazo (una experiencia presentada como id铆lica en la publicidad que nos bombardea, cuando en realidad, una mujer embarazada tiene mucho sue帽o, est谩 cansada, puede sufrir v贸mitos, n谩useas, le duele la espalda si debe estar mucho tiempo sentada en el trabajo鈥�), el parto (no comment), la recuperaci贸n posterior y un beb茅 a la vez que depende de ella si opta por la lactancia materna que es lo mejor en t茅rminos saludables. El padre tiene 15 d铆as de permiso y despu茅s, venga nena, tira t煤 sola con el ni帽o que yo me vuelvo a mis cosas. Es como est谩 montado. Es lo normal. Ellas se piden la jornada reducida, ellas pasan la mayor parte de su tiempo con los beb茅s. 驴Por qu茅 si los ni帽os son de los dos? Ellas pueden llegar a sentirse malas madres si no se ocupan de sus hijos pero y 驴ellos?, 驴Se sienten malos padres por llegar a partir de las 8 de la noche a casa? No, ni se plantea, es LO NORMAL. El proyecto de la maternidad como algo individual de la mujer y como 鈥渃ulminaci贸n de su feminidad鈥� tambi茅n lo conozco de cerca. Inconscientemente s茅 de mujeres que tienen metido en la cabeza 鈥渁 los 30 ser茅 madre鈥�, importa menos con quien pero YO quiero ser madre. En esos casos pueden darse diversos supuestos: me quedo embarazada, tengo al hijo y 茅l y yo formamos un pack indisoluble y bueno, el padre por ah铆 est谩; o bien tambi茅n se da el caso de lo que he bautizado como 鈥渕asculinizaci贸n鈥� de la mujer, las que quieren una carrera profesional exitosa sin renunciar a la maternidad. En este 煤ltimo caso se pagar谩 el servicio de cuidar al beb茅 porque ni 茅l ni ella tendr谩n tiempo de estar con el ni帽o. Entonces, 驴para qu茅 tienes hijos? En serio, 驴alguien piensa en lo mejor para los hijos en cualquiera de los casos? 驴O se piensa en satisfacer una necesidad personal de querer tener un hijo porque lo dicta la sociedad, como si de un mueble o de un juguete se tratara? Supongo que sea como fuere en algo tenemos que estar ocupados.
Sobre la cuesti贸n de la maternidad le铆 el otro d铆a un art铆culo de Rosa Montero interesant铆simo:
Despu茅s de todas estas reflexiones a las que me ha llevado la lectura del libro, solo queda por decir que Margaret Atwood pasa a ser una de mis escritoras favoritas, de la que pienso leer muchos m谩s de sus libros. Destaco su frescura, su ingenio, su iron铆a y su valent铆a. Me encanta.
Una entrevista para conocerla mejor:
January 9, 2024
Well, I liked this novella more than The Handmaid Tale, and that was quite a book!
The story is about Marian, an ordinary young woman who works for the advertising section of an enterprise, and leads an equally ordinary life, until two things, apparently disconnected, happen: her boyfriend, Peter, asks her to marry him and she discovers she is no longer able to eat - first meat, than even vegetables.
The book was interpreted as a metaphor of consumerism which governs our society, but it's more than that: it's an ironic view of woman's role in perpetuating the conventions of the society (especially that very traditionalist Canadian society in the seventies) and the equally conventional family values. No wonder that Marian thinks she is in danger of being consumed by Peter, and consequently prepares a cake in form of a woman for him to eat (but ironically it's herself and Duncan who'll be eating it).
The story is also a parody of the "happily ever after", since it begins with an engagement not leading to a marriage, an upside-down romantic-comedy as someone said; it's an ironic interpretation of "conosce te ipsum", as Duncan is forced by Marian to become her mirror conscience; finally, it is a satire of the marriage hopes and dreams, from the failure resented by the main character, to the hypocrisy of Ainsley, a feminist who criticizes Marian's engagement but will marry nonetheless for the sake of her unborn child, and to the resignation of Clare, a dried-up mother of three.
In the end, Marian, free to mess up again, looks for a new job and cleans her apartment, starting, of course, with the fridge, where all the food is spoiled.
Overall, the book suggests, with amused resignation, that there is no such thing as unconditional love, emotional romance, meaningful relationships. At least, not anymore.
The story is about Marian, an ordinary young woman who works for the advertising section of an enterprise, and leads an equally ordinary life, until two things, apparently disconnected, happen: her boyfriend, Peter, asks her to marry him and she discovers she is no longer able to eat - first meat, than even vegetables.
The book was interpreted as a metaphor of consumerism which governs our society, but it's more than that: it's an ironic view of woman's role in perpetuating the conventions of the society (especially that very traditionalist Canadian society in the seventies) and the equally conventional family values. No wonder that Marian thinks she is in danger of being consumed by Peter, and consequently prepares a cake in form of a woman for him to eat (but ironically it's herself and Duncan who'll be eating it).
The story is also a parody of the "happily ever after", since it begins with an engagement not leading to a marriage, an upside-down romantic-comedy as someone said; it's an ironic interpretation of "conosce te ipsum", as Duncan is forced by Marian to become her mirror conscience; finally, it is a satire of the marriage hopes and dreams, from the failure resented by the main character, to the hypocrisy of Ainsley, a feminist who criticizes Marian's engagement but will marry nonetheless for the sake of her unborn child, and to the resignation of Clare, a dried-up mother of three.
In the end, Marian, free to mess up again, looks for a new job and cleans her apartment, starting, of course, with the fridge, where all the food is spoiled.
Overall, the book suggests, with amused resignation, that there is no such thing as unconditional love, emotional romance, meaningful relationships. At least, not anymore.
August 8, 2021
4.5 Stars
This is such a smart novel. Even though this novel was written in the 1960s, it reads as incredibly contemporary with social commentary on women's roles in society from marriage to motherhood. While not technically a story of anorexia, this story offers an impressingly accurate representation of the disease. (Content warnings for disordered eating behaviours and thoughts). While this novel is traditionally classified as a literary satire, I would argue that it could almost be marketed as literary horror if it was published today. I highly recommend this masterpiece of feminist Canadian literature.听
This is such a smart novel. Even though this novel was written in the 1960s, it reads as incredibly contemporary with social commentary on women's roles in society from marriage to motherhood. While not technically a story of anorexia, this story offers an impressingly accurate representation of the disease. (Content warnings for disordered eating behaviours and thoughts). While this novel is traditionally classified as a literary satire, I would argue that it could almost be marketed as literary horror if it was published today. I highly recommend this masterpiece of feminist Canadian literature.听
did-not-finish
January 31, 2024DNF'ing, at least temporarily. I love Margaret Atwood but I just can't get into this one at the moment.
June 28, 2016
3.5/5 stars.
This is an interesting book that deals with the theme of femininity. I liked the foreword a lot in which Margaret Atwood explains that she actually wrote this book before femininity became a subject for discussion in society. It's striking how Atwood hits spot on on some things that nowadays seem evident or at least understandable.
Marian is a funny, and at times frustrating, character who doesn't really know what she wants. Does she want to go with the flow and get married? Meanwhile, her body starts reacting strangely to her worries, and she meets some puzzling characters that only increase her confusions.
I quite liked this book because it was funny, relevant and very interesting. I do think that the book tended to get slightly boring at times, mostly because Marian's life and thoughts weren't hugely interesting at all times. But I do think that this is a great as well as important piece of work which I would recommend that you read, especially if you're interested in reading about early-days femininity.
This is an interesting book that deals with the theme of femininity. I liked the foreword a lot in which Margaret Atwood explains that she actually wrote this book before femininity became a subject for discussion in society. It's striking how Atwood hits spot on on some things that nowadays seem evident or at least understandable.
Marian is a funny, and at times frustrating, character who doesn't really know what she wants. Does she want to go with the flow and get married? Meanwhile, her body starts reacting strangely to her worries, and she meets some puzzling characters that only increase her confusions.
I quite liked this book because it was funny, relevant and very interesting. I do think that the book tended to get slightly boring at times, mostly because Marian's life and thoughts weren't hugely interesting at all times. But I do think that this is a great as well as important piece of work which I would recommend that you read, especially if you're interested in reading about early-days femininity.
September 6, 2016
4 and a half star, rounded to 4.
Marriage, consumerism, misogyny, dark humour, clever (albeit not super subtle) symbolism. This was Margaret Atwood鈥檚 first published novel and if you have read any of her other work, you can immediately see how she sharpened her claws with 鈥淭he Edible Woman鈥�. The same motifs appear in her other books I have read (namely 鈥淭he Handmaid鈥檚 Tale鈥�, 鈥淭he Blind Assassin鈥�, 鈥淐at鈥檚 Eye鈥� and 鈥淭he Robber Bride鈥�), and I can now see where she planted the seeds that would grow into some of the most amazing books I鈥檝e had the pleasure to read.
When Marian gets engaged to her boyfriend Peter, a funny thing happens: she begins to lose her appetite. For meat, at first, but eventually, for almost everything鈥� A simple enough set up, at a crucial point in history: just before the Women鈥檚 Liberation movement really took off and started shaking up the established roles women had in society. This story takes place at a time where women had two options: dead-ends jobs, or getting married. But what if you don鈥檛 like either options? How do you subvert the norm to live the life you really want to lead? How do you get a sense of self when you are being defined by your marital status?
I have to say, I would never have thought that this was a first novel, but by the time she wrote this, Margaret Atwood had already won prizes for her poetry. This is written with a great deal of confidence and includes some very avant-guard elements that not every novice writer would have had the guts to put on paper (the visit to Clara and Joe鈥檚 house, for instance, had me in horrified stitches: I could not believe this was written in the 60鈥檚!). I was also surprised with the lucidity with which Atwood described the excessively processed food items that were so popular in the 60鈥檚: everything is canned and synthetic tasting. There are, of course, many food metaphors peppered throughout the book, illustrating the gluttony inherent to the characters鈥� lifestyle: they are all being consumed and consuming others in one way or another.
As usual, the beauty and strength of Atwood鈥檚 prose is enough to grab me, regardless of how annoying or unlikable her characters are. How does she do this thing, where she makes even the most despicable characters fascinating? Marian is a complete push-over: her roommate, her colleagues, her boyfriend, everyone tells her what to do and she never stands up for herself. She is lucid enough to know that this is going on but is completely clueless as to how she should go about breaking the cycle. This sudden issue with food quickly becomes a burden, but she doesn鈥檛 share her concerns about it with anyone, preferring to conceal her abnormal behaviour to her friends and fianc茅.
The character of Ainsley, who manages to be progressive and yet oh-so-backwards simultaneously is a stroke of absolute genius on Atwood鈥檚 part; she made me laugh and roll my eyes through the whole book. And while Duncan is not necessarily a more promising match than Peter (both of them are manipulative jerks, but at least Duncan is very honest about that from the get-go, as where Peter assumes that the world needs to conform to his expectations), the fact that he doesn鈥檛 want Marian to change on his account is enough to understand how a relationship with him might feel liberating to someone who always did what everyone expected of her. I also loved his rant about getting caught up in the trap of academia: my husband recently put an end to a long academic career, and he had very similar thoughts about it. It鈥檚 funny to think nothing in that world seems to have changed in the past fifty years.
Some reviewers find this book dated: I simply don鈥檛 understand that given the setting of early 1960鈥檚 Toronto. Do these people also find 鈥淢ad Men鈥� dated? Of course there are typewriters and gender relationships are a mess! I understand being angry with the way male characters treat the female characters: the constant implication that college education ruins them, the obvious expectation that they remain silent and demure and quit their jobs once they get married鈥� It makes me want to puke too, trust me, but it鈥檚 also the way things were back then. If anything, Marian鈥檚 identity crisis is actually ahead of the curve, because, like her friend Clara, most women simply played the game and tried to make the best of it. Eating disorders were nowhere near as common then as they are now, and using one to illustrate the feeling of being consumed by a loveless marriage and unfulfilling life is both clever and thought-provoking.
This is a very funny and extremely readable little book, and I was pleasantly surprised with how relevant it鈥檚 social commentary still is. I will be looking at products on the grocery store鈥檚 shelves very differently for a while. Highly recommended, both to seasoned Atwood fans and curious newbies.
Marriage, consumerism, misogyny, dark humour, clever (albeit not super subtle) symbolism. This was Margaret Atwood鈥檚 first published novel and if you have read any of her other work, you can immediately see how she sharpened her claws with 鈥淭he Edible Woman鈥�. The same motifs appear in her other books I have read (namely 鈥淭he Handmaid鈥檚 Tale鈥�, 鈥淭he Blind Assassin鈥�, 鈥淐at鈥檚 Eye鈥� and 鈥淭he Robber Bride鈥�), and I can now see where she planted the seeds that would grow into some of the most amazing books I鈥檝e had the pleasure to read.
When Marian gets engaged to her boyfriend Peter, a funny thing happens: she begins to lose her appetite. For meat, at first, but eventually, for almost everything鈥� A simple enough set up, at a crucial point in history: just before the Women鈥檚 Liberation movement really took off and started shaking up the established roles women had in society. This story takes place at a time where women had two options: dead-ends jobs, or getting married. But what if you don鈥檛 like either options? How do you subvert the norm to live the life you really want to lead? How do you get a sense of self when you are being defined by your marital status?
I have to say, I would never have thought that this was a first novel, but by the time she wrote this, Margaret Atwood had already won prizes for her poetry. This is written with a great deal of confidence and includes some very avant-guard elements that not every novice writer would have had the guts to put on paper (the visit to Clara and Joe鈥檚 house, for instance, had me in horrified stitches: I could not believe this was written in the 60鈥檚!). I was also surprised with the lucidity with which Atwood described the excessively processed food items that were so popular in the 60鈥檚: everything is canned and synthetic tasting. There are, of course, many food metaphors peppered throughout the book, illustrating the gluttony inherent to the characters鈥� lifestyle: they are all being consumed and consuming others in one way or another.
As usual, the beauty and strength of Atwood鈥檚 prose is enough to grab me, regardless of how annoying or unlikable her characters are. How does she do this thing, where she makes even the most despicable characters fascinating? Marian is a complete push-over: her roommate, her colleagues, her boyfriend, everyone tells her what to do and she never stands up for herself. She is lucid enough to know that this is going on but is completely clueless as to how she should go about breaking the cycle. This sudden issue with food quickly becomes a burden, but she doesn鈥檛 share her concerns about it with anyone, preferring to conceal her abnormal behaviour to her friends and fianc茅.
The character of Ainsley, who manages to be progressive and yet oh-so-backwards simultaneously is a stroke of absolute genius on Atwood鈥檚 part; she made me laugh and roll my eyes through the whole book. And while Duncan is not necessarily a more promising match than Peter (both of them are manipulative jerks, but at least Duncan is very honest about that from the get-go, as where Peter assumes that the world needs to conform to his expectations), the fact that he doesn鈥檛 want Marian to change on his account is enough to understand how a relationship with him might feel liberating to someone who always did what everyone expected of her. I also loved his rant about getting caught up in the trap of academia: my husband recently put an end to a long academic career, and he had very similar thoughts about it. It鈥檚 funny to think nothing in that world seems to have changed in the past fifty years.
Some reviewers find this book dated: I simply don鈥檛 understand that given the setting of early 1960鈥檚 Toronto. Do these people also find 鈥淢ad Men鈥� dated? Of course there are typewriters and gender relationships are a mess! I understand being angry with the way male characters treat the female characters: the constant implication that college education ruins them, the obvious expectation that they remain silent and demure and quit their jobs once they get married鈥� It makes me want to puke too, trust me, but it鈥檚 also the way things were back then. If anything, Marian鈥檚 identity crisis is actually ahead of the curve, because, like her friend Clara, most women simply played the game and tried to make the best of it. Eating disorders were nowhere near as common then as they are now, and using one to illustrate the feeling of being consumed by a loveless marriage and unfulfilling life is both clever and thought-provoking.
This is a very funny and extremely readable little book, and I was pleasantly surprised with how relevant it鈥檚 social commentary still is. I will be looking at products on the grocery store鈥檚 shelves very differently for a while. Highly recommended, both to seasoned Atwood fans and curious newbies.
March 31, 2016
违蟺蠈胃蔚蟽畏: 螚 螠维蟻喂伪谓 魏维谓蔚喂 渭喂伪 未慰蠀位蔚喂维 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蟿畏谓 蔚谓胃慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 (伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 慰蟺慰委伪 蠈渭蠅蟼 未蔚谓 尾位苇蟺蔚喂 苇尉慰未慰 未喂伪蠁蠀纬萎蟼),苇蠂蔚喂 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭蔚 苇谓伪谓 维谓未蟻伪 魏伪蟿维 蟿慰蠀 纬维渭慰蠀 魏伪喂 蟿蠅谓 未蔚蟽渭蔚蠉蟽蔚蠅谓,蔚谓蠋 畏 委未喂伪 伪蟺慰味畏蟿维 魏维蟿喂 蟺伪蟻伪蟺维谓蠅, 魏伪喂 渭苇谓蔚喂 渭蔚 渭喂伪 魏慰蟺苇位伪 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 慰蟺慰委伪 未蔚谓 苇蠂慰蠀谓 魏伪谓蔚谓伪 魏慰喂谓蠈,蟺苇蟻伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蠈蟿喂 蟽蠀纬魏伪蟿慰喂魏慰蠉谓.螢伪蠁谓喂魏维 伪蟻蟻伪尾蠅谓喂维味蔚蟿伪喂,蟺伪胃伪委谓蔚喂 魏蟻委蟽畏 蟿伪蠀蟿蠈蟿畏蟿伪蟼 魏伪喂 纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚蟿伪喂 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 螡蟿维谓魏伪谓.
螒蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 纬蟻维蠁蟿畏魏蔚 蟿畏 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 '60 魏喂 蠈渭蠅蟼 伪纬纬委味蔚喂 蔚蠀伪委蟽胃畏蟿蔚蟼 蠂慰蟻未苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓慰蠀谓 未喂伪蠂蟻慰谓喂魏苇蟼.螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 蟺蠋蟼 伪魏蟻喂尾蠋蟼 谓伪 蟿慰 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠄蠅,蔚委谓伪喂 蟺慰位蠉 喂未喂伪委蟿蔚蟻慰,畏 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 胃伪 尾纬蔚喂 位委纬慰 渭蟺蔚蟻未蔚渭苇谓畏 蠁慰尾维渭伪喂!螣喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺慰位蠉 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓慰喂 魏伪喂 未蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 蟺慰喂慰谓 胃伪 渭蟺慰蟻慰蠉蟽伪谓 谓伪 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委蟽蠅 蟽蠀渭蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 蟺慰喂慰谓 伪谓蟿喂蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏蠈-慰 魏伪胃苇谓伪蟼 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 蟽蟿喂纬渭苇蟼 蟿慰蠀.韦伪蠀蟿委蟽蟿畏魏伪 蟺慰位蠉 蟽蔚 慰蟻喂蟽渭苇谓伪 蟽畏渭蔚委伪 渭蔚 蟿畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓,魏喂 苇蟿蟽喂 蟿畏谓 苇尾位蔚蟺伪 渭蔚 蟽蠀渭蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟽蔚 蠈位畏 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏蟼,伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 魏喂 伪蠀蟿萎 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿伪 胃苇渭伪蟿维 蟿畏蟼.螒蠁萎谓蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 蟿畏 蠂蔚喂蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓 慰喂 维位位慰喂,慰 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰蟼 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 慰蟺慰委慰 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠁蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿畏蟼 未蔚委蠂谓蔚喂 蠈蟿喂 渭蔚 蟿慰 味蠈蟻喂 蟽蠀渭蟺伪胃蔚委 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰,魏伪喂 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蔚纬维位慰 渭蟺伪渭 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃萎蟽蔚喂 谓伪 伪位位维尉蔚喂 蟿畏谓 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽萎 蟿畏蟼 慰蠉蟿蔚 蟽蟿慰 蔚位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰 蔚谓未喂维渭蔚蟽伪.螣喂 蟽魏畏谓苇蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰尾位畏渭伪蟿委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰喂维 蔚委谓伪喂 魏伪喂 蟿委 魏维谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿畏蟼,蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蔚 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿畏蟼,萎蟿伪谓 渭伪蠂伪委蟻喂 蟽蟿畏谓 魏伪蟻未喂维.
螣 螡蟿维谓魏伪谓 渭蟺萎魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 蠈蠂喂-魏伪喂-蟿蠈蟽慰-渭喂魏蟻萎 位委蟽蟿伪 渭慰蠀 渭蔚 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 蔚蟻蠅蟿蔚蠉蟿畏魏伪.韦委 魏喂 伪谓 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿萎蟼 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蟿慰蠀 魏伪委纬蔚蟿伪喂 魏伪蟻蠁维魏喂 纬喂伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿慰蠀;韦慰蠀位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰谓 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪未苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 蔚蠀胃蠉蟼 蔚尉伪蟻蠂萎蟼.螚 蟽魏畏谓萎 蟽蟿慰 蟺位蠀谓蟿萎蟻喂慰,伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 伪蟻蠂萎 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蟼,蔚委谓伪喂 畏 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓畏 渭慰蠀 蟽蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰.螤伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 渭蔚 渭蔚纬维位畏 伪魏蟻委尾蔚喂伪 蟿慰 蟽蠀谓维喂蟽胃畏渭伪 蟿慰蠀 谓伪 纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚喂蟼 魏维蟺慰喂慰谓 魏伪喂 谓伪 伪喂蟽胃维谓蔚蟽伪喂 蟽喂纬维-蟽喂纬维 蟿畏 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬委伪 蟿畏蟼 苇位尉畏蟼 蟽慰蠀 蟺蟻慰蟼 蔚魏蔚委谓慰谓.
螣喂 蠀蟺蠈位慰喂蟺慰喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓蟿蔚蟼,蔚喂未喂魏维 畏 蟽蠀纬魏维蟿慰喂魏慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 螠维蟻喂伪谓,畏 慰蟺慰委伪 伪蟺慰蠁伪蟽委味蔚喂 谓伪 渭蔚委谓蔚喂 苇纬魏蠀慰蟼 魏伪喂 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿伪 蟺维谓蟿伪 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟿慰 魏伪蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂.螚 未喂伪未喂魏伪蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼 伪谓蟿委蟽蟿蟻慰蠁伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟽蠀谓畏胃喂蟽渭苇谓慰 伪蟺慰蟺位维谓畏蟽畏蟼 萎蟿伪谓 伪蟺慰位伪蠀蟽蟿喂魏萎-萎胃蔚位伪 谓伪 蟿畏蟼 蠁蠅谓维尉蠅 "韦委 蟽蟿慰 魏伪位蠈 魏维谓蔚喂蟼;" 伪位位维 蟺伪蟻维位位畏位伪 蟿慰 未喂伪蟽魏苇未伪蟽伪 蟺慰位蠉.
螚 伪位位伪纬萎 伪蟺蠈 伪' 蟽蔚 纬' 蟺蟻蠈蟽蠅蟺慰 伪蠁萎纬畏蟽畏蟼 萎蟿伪谓 蟺慰位蠉 苇尉蠀蟺谓畏 魏伪喂 伪谓蟿喂蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺蔚蠀蟿喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼 蟿畏蟼 螠维蟻喂伪谓.螚 纬蟻伪蠁萎 喂未喂伪委蟿蔚蟻畏,渭蔚 渭蔚蟿伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 蟺慰位蠉 蟺蔚蟿蠀蠂畏渭苇谓蔚蟼,魏蠀位维蔚喂 尉蔚魏慰蠉蟻伪蟽蟿伪 蟿慰 魏蔚委渭蔚谓慰 魏伪喂 未喂伪尾维味蔚蟿伪喂 纬蟻萎纬慰蟻伪 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰.
韦慰 蟺蟻慰蟿蔚委谓蠅 伪谓蔚蟺喂蠁蠉位伪魏蟿伪 蟽蔚 蠈位慰蠀蟼,谓慰渭委味蠅 蠈蟿喂 ,蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 蠈位慰喂 渭伪蟼 蠄伪蠂谓蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰喂慰喂 蔚委渭伪蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟿委 胃苇位慰蠀渭蔚, 蟺慰位位慰委 胃伪 蟿伪蠀蟿喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓.螖蔚谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 位蠉蟽蔚喂蟼,蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪魏慰蠉蠁喂蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 "蠀蟺萎蟻尉蔚 魏伪喂 魏维蟺慰喂慰蟼 维位位慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽魏苇蠁蟿畏魏蔚 谓伪 伪谓蟿喂未蟻维蟽蔚喂 苇蟿蟽喂/蔚委蠂蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂蔚蟼 蟽魏苇蠄蔚喂蟼/魏慰蠀尾伪位慰蠉蟽蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 位蠈尉伪".
螆谓伪 位伪蟿蟻蔚渭苇谓慰 伪蟺蠈蟽蟺伪蟽渭伪:
"..蟽蟿畏谓 维位位畏 蟺位蔚蠀蟻维 萎蟿伪谓 蟿伪 魏蟿委蟻喂伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪谓蔚蟺喂蟽蟿畏渭委慰蠀,蟿伪 渭苇蟻畏 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 蟺慰蠀 谓蠈渭喂味蔚 蠈蟿喂 纬谓蠋蟻喂味蔚 蟿蠈蟽慰 魏伪位维 蟺蟻喂谓 伪蟺蠈 苇尉喂 渭萎谓蔚蟼,伪位位维 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠋蟻伪 苇蟽蟿蔚位谓伪谓 渭喂伪 伪渭蠀未蟻萎 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蟿慰 渭苇蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 蠄蠀蠂蟻蠈 伪苇蟻伪, 渭喂伪 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟻喂蟽蔚 蠈蟿喂 蔚蟻蠂蠈蟿伪谓 伪蟺'蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿畏蟼: 魏伪蟿维 魏维蟺慰喂慰 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓蠈 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰,蟿伪 味萎位蔚蠀蔚.螛伪 萎胃蔚位蔚 谓伪 蔚委蠂伪谓 蔚尉伪蠁伪谓喂蟽蟿蔚委 蠈蟿伪谓 苇蠁蠀纬蔚,伪位位维 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 蔚委蠂伪谓 渭蔚委谓蔚喂 蠈蟻胃喂伪,蔚尉伪魏慰位慰蠀胃慰蠉蟽伪谓 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味慰蠀谓 蟿蠈蟽慰 伪未喂维蠁慰蟻伪 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼,蠈蟽慰,蠀蟺苇胃蔚蟿蔚 魏伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼."
螒蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 纬蟻维蠁蟿畏魏蔚 蟿畏 未蔚魏伪蔚蟿委伪 蟿慰蠀 '60 魏喂 蠈渭蠅蟼 伪纬纬委味蔚喂 蔚蠀伪委蟽胃畏蟿蔚蟼 蠂慰蟻未苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓慰蠀谓 未喂伪蠂蟻慰谓喂魏苇蟼.螖蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 蟺蠋蟼 伪魏蟻喂尾蠋蟼 谓伪 蟿慰 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠄蠅,蔚委谓伪喂 蟺慰位蠉 喂未喂伪委蟿蔚蟻慰,畏 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎 胃伪 尾纬蔚喂 位委纬慰 渭蟺蔚蟻未蔚渭苇谓畏 蠁慰尾维渭伪喂!螣喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟺慰位蠉 伪谓胃蟻蠋蟺喂谓慰喂 魏伪喂 未蔚谓 尉苇蟻蠅 蟺慰喂慰谓 胃伪 渭蟺慰蟻慰蠉蟽伪谓 谓伪 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委蟽蠅 蟽蠀渭蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏蠈 魏伪喂 蟺慰喂慰谓 伪谓蟿喂蟺伪胃畏蟿喂魏蠈-慰 魏伪胃苇谓伪蟼 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 蟽蟿喂纬渭苇蟼 蟿慰蠀.韦伪蠀蟿委蟽蟿畏魏伪 蟺慰位蠉 蟽蔚 慰蟻喂蟽渭苇谓伪 蟽畏渭蔚委伪 渭蔚 蟿畏 螠维蟻喂伪谓,魏喂 苇蟿蟽喂 蟿畏谓 苇尾位蔚蟺伪 渭蔚 蟽蠀渭蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟽蔚 蠈位畏 蟿畏 未喂维蟻魏蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏蟼,伪位位维 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蟻伪纬渭伪蟿喂魏蠈蟿畏蟿伪 魏喂 伪蠀蟿萎 苇蠂蔚喂 蟿伪 胃苇渭伪蟿维 蟿畏蟼.螒蠁萎谓蔚蟿伪喂 谓伪 蟿畏 蠂蔚喂蟻喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓 慰喂 维位位慰喂,慰 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰蟼 渭蔚 蟿慰谓 慰蟺慰委慰 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠁蔚喂 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿畏蟼 未蔚委蠂谓蔚喂 蠈蟿喂 渭蔚 蟿慰 味蠈蟻喂 蟽蠀渭蟺伪胃蔚委 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰,魏伪喂 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿慰 渭蔚纬维位慰 渭蟺伪渭 蠂蠅蟻委蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 谓伪 苇蠂蔚喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺伪胃萎蟽蔚喂 谓伪 伪位位维尉蔚喂 蟿畏谓 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽萎 蟿畏蟼 慰蠉蟿蔚 蟽蟿慰 蔚位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰 蔚谓未喂维渭蔚蟽伪.螣喂 蟽魏畏谓苇蟼 蠈渭蠅蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟺蟻慰尾位畏渭伪蟿委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰喂维 蔚委谓伪喂 魏伪喂 蟿委 魏维谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿畏蟼,蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蔚 蟽蠂苇蟽畏 渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿畏蟼,萎蟿伪谓 渭伪蠂伪委蟻喂 蟽蟿畏谓 魏伪蟻未喂维.
螣 螡蟿维谓魏伪谓 渭蟺萎魏蔚 蟽蟿畏谓 蠈蠂喂-魏伪喂-蟿蠈蟽慰-渭喂魏蟻萎 位委蟽蟿伪 渭慰蠀 渭蔚 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 位慰纬慰蟿蔚蠂谓委伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 蔚蟻蠅蟿蔚蠉蟿畏魏伪.韦委 魏喂 伪谓 蔚委谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蔚纬蠅喂蟽蟿萎蟼 蟺慰蠀 未蔚谓 蟿慰蠀 魏伪委纬蔚蟿伪喂 魏伪蟻蠁维魏喂 纬喂伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 蟿慰蠀;韦慰蠀位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰谓 蟿慰 蟺伪蟻伪未苇蠂蔚蟿伪喂 蔚蠀胃蠉蟼 蔚尉伪蟻蠂萎蟼.螚 蟽魏畏谓萎 蟽蟿慰 蟺位蠀谓蟿萎蟻喂慰,伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 伪蟻蠂萎 渭苇蠂蟻喂 蟿慰 蟿苇位慰蟼,蔚委谓伪喂 畏 伪纬伪蟺畏渭苇谓畏 渭慰蠀 蟽蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰.螤伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚喂 渭蔚 渭蔚纬维位畏 伪魏蟻委尾蔚喂伪 蟿慰 蟽蠀谓维喂蟽胃畏渭伪 蟿慰蠀 谓伪 纬谓蠅蟻委味蔚喂蟼 魏维蟺慰喂慰谓 魏伪喂 谓伪 伪喂蟽胃维谓蔚蟽伪喂 蟽喂纬维-蟽喂纬维 蟿畏 未畏渭喂慰蠀蟻纬委伪 蟿畏蟼 苇位尉畏蟼 蟽慰蠀 蟺蟻慰蟼 蔚魏蔚委谓慰谓.
螣喂 蠀蟺蠈位慰喂蟺慰喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿萎蟻蔚蟼 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓蟿蔚蟼,蔚喂未喂魏维 畏 蟽蠀纬魏维蟿慰喂魏慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 螠维蟻喂伪谓,畏 慰蟺慰委伪 伪蟺慰蠁伪蟽委味蔚喂 谓伪 渭蔚委谓蔚喂 苇纬魏蠀慰蟼 魏伪喂 魏维谓蔚喂 蟿伪 蟺维谓蟿伪 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟿慰 魏伪蟿伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂.螚 未喂伪未喂魏伪蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼 伪谓蟿委蟽蟿蟻慰蠁伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟽蠀谓畏胃喂蟽渭苇谓慰 伪蟺慰蟺位维谓畏蟽畏蟼 萎蟿伪谓 伪蟺慰位伪蠀蟽蟿喂魏萎-萎胃蔚位伪 谓伪 蟿畏蟼 蠁蠅谓维尉蠅 "韦委 蟽蟿慰 魏伪位蠈 魏维谓蔚喂蟼;" 伪位位维 蟺伪蟻维位位畏位伪 蟿慰 未喂伪蟽魏苇未伪蟽伪 蟺慰位蠉.
螚 伪位位伪纬萎 伪蟺蠈 伪' 蟽蔚 纬' 蟺蟻蠈蟽蠅蟺慰 伪蠁萎纬畏蟽畏蟼 萎蟿伪谓 蟺慰位蠉 苇尉蠀蟺谓畏 魏伪喂 伪谓蟿喂蟺蟻慰蟽蠅蟺蔚蠀蟿喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 魏伪蟿维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼 蟿畏蟼 螠维蟻喂伪谓.螚 纬蟻伪蠁萎 喂未喂伪委蟿蔚蟻畏,渭蔚 渭蔚蟿伪蠁慰蟻苇蟼 蟺慰位蠉 蟺蔚蟿蠀蠂畏渭苇谓蔚蟼,魏蠀位维蔚喂 尉蔚魏慰蠉蟻伪蟽蟿伪 蟿慰 魏蔚委渭蔚谓慰 魏伪喂 未喂伪尾维味蔚蟿伪喂 纬蟻萎纬慰蟻伪 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰.
韦慰 蟺蟻慰蟿蔚委谓蠅 伪谓蔚蟺喂蠁蠉位伪魏蟿伪 蟽蔚 蠈位慰蠀蟼,谓慰渭委味蠅 蠈蟿喂 ,蔚喂未喂魏维 蟽蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼 蟺慰蠀 蠈位慰喂 渭伪蟼 蠄伪蠂谓蠈渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蟽蠂蔚蟿喂魏维 渭蔚 蟿慰 蟺慰喂慰喂 蔚委渭伪蟽蟿蔚 魏伪喂 蟿委 胃苇位慰蠀渭蔚, 蟺慰位位慰委 胃伪 蟿伪蠀蟿喂蟽蟿慰蠉谓.螖蔚谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 位蠉蟽蔚喂蟼,蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪谓伪魏慰蠉蠁喂蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 "蠀蟺萎蟻尉蔚 魏伪喂 魏维蟺慰喂慰蟼 维位位慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽魏苇蠁蟿畏魏蔚 谓伪 伪谓蟿喂未蟻维蟽蔚喂 苇蟿蟽喂/蔚委蠂蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂蔚蟼 蟽魏苇蠄蔚喂蟼/魏慰蠀尾伪位慰蠉蟽蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂伪 位蠈尉伪".
螆谓伪 位伪蟿蟻蔚渭苇谓慰 伪蟺蠈蟽蟺伪蟽渭伪:
"..蟽蟿畏谓 维位位畏 蟺位蔚蠀蟻维 萎蟿伪谓 蟿伪 魏蟿委蟻喂伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺伪谓蔚蟺喂蟽蟿畏渭委慰蠀,蟿伪 渭苇蟻畏 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 蟺慰蠀 谓蠈渭喂味蔚 蠈蟿喂 纬谓蠋蟻喂味蔚 蟿蠈蟽慰 魏伪位维 蟺蟻喂谓 伪蟺蠈 苇尉喂 渭萎谓蔚蟼,伪位位维 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠋蟻伪 苇蟽蟿蔚位谓伪谓 渭喂伪 伪渭蠀未蟻萎 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺蟻慰蟼 蟿慰 渭苇蟻慰蟼 蟿畏蟼 渭苇蟽伪 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰谓 蠄蠀蠂蟻蠈 伪苇蟻伪, 渭喂伪 蔚蠂胃蟻蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟻喂蟽蔚 蠈蟿喂 蔚蟻蠂蠈蟿伪谓 伪蟺'蟿慰谓 蔚伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿畏蟼: 魏伪蟿维 魏维蟺慰喂慰 蟽魏慰蟿蔚喂谓蠈 蟿蟻蠈蟺慰,蟿伪 味萎位蔚蠀蔚.螛伪 萎胃蔚位蔚 谓伪 蔚委蠂伪谓 蔚尉伪蠁伪谓喂蟽蟿蔚委 蠈蟿伪谓 苇蠁蠀纬蔚,伪位位维 蔚魏蔚委谓伪 蔚委蠂伪谓 渭蔚委谓蔚喂 蠈蟻胃喂伪,蔚尉伪魏慰位慰蠀胃慰蠉蟽伪谓 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味慰蠀谓 蟿蠈蟽慰 伪未喂维蠁慰蟻伪 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 伪蟺慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼,蠈蟽慰,蠀蟺苇胃蔚蟿蔚 魏伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿畏谓 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽委伪 蟿畏蟼."
May 6, 2019
Well, Margaret Atwood definitely knows how to write. I almost cannot believe that this was her first novel. It's as if she was born a fully formed writer who knows what she is doing and how she wants to do it. Every word has a meaning. You need to pay attention, otherwise you will miss an important, interesting or simply smart observation or aside. Moreover, it is very funny.
Despite having been published in 1969 (and written even earlier) this feels very fresh, although surely things that were subversive and novel back then now seem much more transparent, especially to those of us familiar with the fight for women's rights. I wish issues tackled in this book were a thing of the past but they are not, even in the West. I keep picturing very real people I know behaving just like Peter and Marian, without the slightest idea that there is something wrong with this. I can't quite make up my mind about Duncan, he certainly is an intriguing character, but whether Marian's relationship with him is healthier than her relationship with Peter is open for interpretation.
I think I will keep thinking about this novel for a while. It is not straightforward and, while it is making certain points quite clearly, there is enough room for interpretation.
Despite having been published in 1969 (and written even earlier) this feels very fresh, although surely things that were subversive and novel back then now seem much more transparent, especially to those of us familiar with the fight for women's rights. I wish issues tackled in this book were a thing of the past but they are not, even in the West. I keep picturing very real people I know behaving just like Peter and Marian, without the slightest idea that there is something wrong with this. I can't quite make up my mind about Duncan, he certainly is an intriguing character, but whether Marian's relationship with him is healthier than her relationship with Peter is open for interpretation.
I think I will keep thinking about this novel for a while. It is not straightforward and, while it is making certain points quite clearly, there is enough room for interpretation.
June 4, 2019
trailing herself, like a many-plumed fish-lure with glass beads and three spinners and seventeen hooks, through the likely looking places, good restaurants and cocktail bars with their lush weed-beds of philodendrons, where the right kind of men might be expected to be lurking, ravenous as pike, though more maritally inclined. But those men, the right kind, weren't biting, or had left for other depths, or were snapping at a different sort of bait - some inconspicuous brown minnow or tarnished simple brass spoon, or something with even more hooks than Lucy could manage
Ah, Atwoodian perfection.
I don't have much more to say upon my second reading of this debut novel. It is not the best of hers but it is still an absolute delight to read.
Ah, Atwoodian perfection.
I don't have much more to say upon my second reading of this debut novel. It is not the best of hers but it is still an absolute delight to read.
November 14, 2021
欧宝娱乐 2019 Summer Reading Challenge
10. New voices: Read a debut novel
---------------------------
THE GREAT COMPLETIST CHALLENGE: In which I revisit older authors and attempt to read every book they ever wrote
Currently鈥� 鈥宨n鈥� 鈥宼he鈥� 鈥宑hallenge:鈥� 鈥孖saac鈥� 鈥孉simov's鈥� 鈥孯obot/Empire/Foundation鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孧argaret鈥� Atwood鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞G鈥� 鈥孊allard鈥� 触鈥� Clive鈥� 鈥孊arker鈥� 触鈥� Christopher鈥� Buckley鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞im Butcher's Dresden Files | 鈥孡ee Child's Jack Reacher | 鈥孭hilip鈥� 鈥孠鈥� 鈥孌ick鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孖an Fleming | William鈥� 鈥孏ibson鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孧ichel鈥� Houellebecq鈥� 触鈥� John鈥� 鈥孖rving鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孠azuo鈥� 鈥孖shiguro鈥� 触鈥� Shirley鈥� Jackson鈥� | 鈥孞ohn鈥� 鈥孡e鈥� 鈥孋arre鈥� 触鈥� Bernard鈥� 鈥孧alamud鈥� 触鈥� Cormac McCarthy | China鈥� 鈥孧ieville鈥� 触鈥� Toni Morrison | 鈥孷S鈥� Naipaul鈥� 触鈥� Chuck鈥� 鈥孭alahniuk鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孴im鈥� 鈥孭owers鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孴erry鈥� 鈥孭ratchett's鈥� 鈥孌iscworld鈥� 触鈥� Philip鈥� 鈥孯oth鈥� 触鈥� Neal鈥� Stephenson鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞im鈥� 鈥孴hompson鈥� 触鈥� John鈥� 鈥孶pdike鈥� 触鈥� Kurt鈥� 鈥孷onnegut鈥� 触鈥� Jeanette Winterson | PG鈥� 鈥學odehouse鈥�
Easily the most interesting thing about the Great Completist Challenge I'm currently making my way through is when I get to read the debut novels of the people in my list, and to see whether they emerged fully formed right in their first book, turned in debuts that don't give even a clue of the mature and well-loved writers they would eventually become, or gave us a book that shows glimpses of the things they would eventually become famous for, with Margaret Atwood's The Edible Woman being a perfect example. Her first full-length fiction book after publishing several volumes of academic poetry (written in 1965 but not published until '69), it is strongly reminiscent in style and tone to Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar which at the time was at the height of its first wave of popularity, a fairly straightforward character-heavy dramedy about a young woman coming of age in the transitional cusp between the Mid-Century Modernist period and the Postmodernist one, and a look at the various cultural tides that pushed such women this way and that in those years, which at first sounds incongruous with the woman who would eventually become famous for her deliciously dark and subversive looks at the frayed edges of feminism, often through the filter of dystopian science-fiction and other fantastical genres.
A closer look, though, shows even here all the telltale signs of the mature Atwood the rest of the world would start getting to know a lot better in the '80s. For although this is a lightly plotted "literary" novel in which not much of note actually happens to our mousy hero Marian, Atwood conveys this not-much-happening in an unpretentious and assured voice, wittily throwing us into scenes of absurdist humor without any warning (such as when Marian gets drunk while out with her new fiance and their friends one night, and unobtrusively squeezes herself under their Murphy bed just to see whether she can go the rest of the evening without anyone noticing that she's missing), and taking the story in unexpected and slightly edgy directions that you wouldn't expect from an MFA poet in the 1960s (such as the ongoing, weirdly indefinable relationship Marian develops with a bizarre autistic graduate student who lives in her Toronto neighborhood, in which they meet up regularly at the local laundromat just to watch people's clothing spin, and who she treasures precisely because he's so utterly incapable of being empathetic towards her or giving the slightest care about her wants and needs). And of course there are the multiple symbolic references Atwood drops in throughout the manuscript to the book's title, from Marian's job at a marketing agency that conducts opinion polls about upcoming food ad campaigns, to the phobia about eating she slowly develops over the course of the plot, the voodoo-doll cake she feverishly makes of herself to serve as the book's climax, and the various ways the people around her try to "devour her soul" in order to support their own beliefs (from her cluelessly middle-class fiance to her radicalized women's-lib roommate, her exhausted housewife/mother friend, her fellow mousy single female acquaintances at work, her casually sexist womanizing old school friend who ends up getting her roommate pregnant, and more).
While reading this book, I loved looking at pictures of when writing this novel, because it really drives home who exactly she was writing this book for, and what kind of position these people found themselves in during this time; a whole generation of young woman caught between the girdle-wearing Doris Day submission of Mid-Century Modernism, and the bra-burning Gloria Steinem empowerment of Postmodernism, a bit tired of the former but a bit scared of the latter, wrestling with these issues while also dealing with the universal youth questions of who they are, what they want, and where they're going. (For those who don't know, this book intersects with Atwood's real life from those years in telling ways -- much like Marian's ill-fated fiance, Atwood's fiance was a dashing amateur photographer who she would divorce a mere five years after marrying; Atwood worked at the time at a survey questionnaire agency very similar to Marian's; and Marian's radicalized roommate Ainsley was named after the all-female Annesley Hall dorm where Atwood lived as an undergraduate during the slowly Woke-ing early '60s.) Ultimately I found myself incredibly charmed by our put-upon hero and rooting strongly for her to finally find some happiness and self-assuredness in her life; and I suspect this is why a certain type of reader started so intensely reacting to Atwood's prose projects even here at the very beginning, because the world was filled with Marians in the late 1960s, and hardly anyone was writing stories directed expressly to them.
It's in this spirit that I recommend the book to others -- maybe not for casual fans who just want to read the best books of Atwood's career (for that you should skip straight to 1985's The Handmaid's Tale, then work your way forward from there), but rather for hardcore fans who want to see where it all started, when Atwood was just another anonymous and largely unknown young woman like all the others, crying out into the wilderness about the trials and tribulations of the burgeoning countercultural age. It's books like these where she started gathering her tribe of like-minded young modern women for the first time, who loved her so much that they would end up sticking by her for another entire half a century.
P.S. After reading other people's reviews, it's worth taking the time to jump back on here for two additional observations: first, that much like The Handmaid's Tale (written exactly 20 years after this manuscript), one of Atwood's main points here is that society tends to see young women as incapable of contributing anything else worthwhile to the world other than their ability to be baby-making factories, a direct thematic line you can draw between this book and that one, only expressed in very different ways; and second, yes, certainly you can categorize Marian's grad-school friend-lover-thingie Duncan as the literary world's first and still so far one of its only "manic pixie dream boys."
Margaret Atwood books being reviewed for this series: The Edible Woman (1969) | Surfacing (1972) | Lady Oracle (1976) | Life Before Man (1979) | Bodily Harm (1981) | The Handmaid's Tale (1985) | Cat's Eye (1988) | The Robber Bride (1993) | Alias Grace (1996) | The Blind Assassin (2000) | Oryx and Cake (2003) | The Penelopiad (2005) | The Year of the Flood (2009) | MaddAddam (2013) | The Heart Goes Last (2015) | Hag-Seed (2016) | The Testaments (2019)
10. New voices: Read a debut novel
---------------------------
THE GREAT COMPLETIST CHALLENGE: In which I revisit older authors and attempt to read every book they ever wrote
Currently鈥� 鈥宨n鈥� 鈥宼he鈥� 鈥宑hallenge:鈥� 鈥孖saac鈥� 鈥孉simov's鈥� 鈥孯obot/Empire/Foundation鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孧argaret鈥� Atwood鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞G鈥� 鈥孊allard鈥� 触鈥� Clive鈥� 鈥孊arker鈥� 触鈥� Christopher鈥� Buckley鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞im Butcher's Dresden Files | 鈥孡ee Child's Jack Reacher | 鈥孭hilip鈥� 鈥孠鈥� 鈥孌ick鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孖an Fleming | William鈥� 鈥孏ibson鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孧ichel鈥� Houellebecq鈥� 触鈥� John鈥� 鈥孖rving鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孠azuo鈥� 鈥孖shiguro鈥� 触鈥� Shirley鈥� Jackson鈥� | 鈥孞ohn鈥� 鈥孡e鈥� 鈥孋arre鈥� 触鈥� Bernard鈥� 鈥孧alamud鈥� 触鈥� Cormac McCarthy | China鈥� 鈥孧ieville鈥� 触鈥� Toni Morrison | 鈥孷S鈥� Naipaul鈥� 触鈥� Chuck鈥� 鈥孭alahniuk鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孴im鈥� 鈥孭owers鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孴erry鈥� 鈥孭ratchett's鈥� 鈥孌iscworld鈥� 触鈥� Philip鈥� 鈥孯oth鈥� 触鈥� Neal鈥� Stephenson鈥� 触鈥� 鈥孞im鈥� 鈥孴hompson鈥� 触鈥� John鈥� 鈥孶pdike鈥� 触鈥� Kurt鈥� 鈥孷onnegut鈥� 触鈥� Jeanette Winterson | PG鈥� 鈥學odehouse鈥�
Easily the most interesting thing about the Great Completist Challenge I'm currently making my way through is when I get to read the debut novels of the people in my list, and to see whether they emerged fully formed right in their first book, turned in debuts that don't give even a clue of the mature and well-loved writers they would eventually become, or gave us a book that shows glimpses of the things they would eventually become famous for, with Margaret Atwood's The Edible Woman being a perfect example. Her first full-length fiction book after publishing several volumes of academic poetry (written in 1965 but not published until '69), it is strongly reminiscent in style and tone to Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar which at the time was at the height of its first wave of popularity, a fairly straightforward character-heavy dramedy about a young woman coming of age in the transitional cusp between the Mid-Century Modernist period and the Postmodernist one, and a look at the various cultural tides that pushed such women this way and that in those years, which at first sounds incongruous with the woman who would eventually become famous for her deliciously dark and subversive looks at the frayed edges of feminism, often through the filter of dystopian science-fiction and other fantastical genres.
A closer look, though, shows even here all the telltale signs of the mature Atwood the rest of the world would start getting to know a lot better in the '80s. For although this is a lightly plotted "literary" novel in which not much of note actually happens to our mousy hero Marian, Atwood conveys this not-much-happening in an unpretentious and assured voice, wittily throwing us into scenes of absurdist humor without any warning (such as when Marian gets drunk while out with her new fiance and their friends one night, and unobtrusively squeezes herself under their Murphy bed just to see whether she can go the rest of the evening without anyone noticing that she's missing), and taking the story in unexpected and slightly edgy directions that you wouldn't expect from an MFA poet in the 1960s (such as the ongoing, weirdly indefinable relationship Marian develops with a bizarre autistic graduate student who lives in her Toronto neighborhood, in which they meet up regularly at the local laundromat just to watch people's clothing spin, and who she treasures precisely because he's so utterly incapable of being empathetic towards her or giving the slightest care about her wants and needs). And of course there are the multiple symbolic references Atwood drops in throughout the manuscript to the book's title, from Marian's job at a marketing agency that conducts opinion polls about upcoming food ad campaigns, to the phobia about eating she slowly develops over the course of the plot, the voodoo-doll cake she feverishly makes of herself to serve as the book's climax, and the various ways the people around her try to "devour her soul" in order to support their own beliefs (from her cluelessly middle-class fiance to her radicalized women's-lib roommate, her exhausted housewife/mother friend, her fellow mousy single female acquaintances at work, her casually sexist womanizing old school friend who ends up getting her roommate pregnant, and more).
While reading this book, I loved looking at pictures of when writing this novel, because it really drives home who exactly she was writing this book for, and what kind of position these people found themselves in during this time; a whole generation of young woman caught between the girdle-wearing Doris Day submission of Mid-Century Modernism, and the bra-burning Gloria Steinem empowerment of Postmodernism, a bit tired of the former but a bit scared of the latter, wrestling with these issues while also dealing with the universal youth questions of who they are, what they want, and where they're going. (For those who don't know, this book intersects with Atwood's real life from those years in telling ways -- much like Marian's ill-fated fiance, Atwood's fiance was a dashing amateur photographer who she would divorce a mere five years after marrying; Atwood worked at the time at a survey questionnaire agency very similar to Marian's; and Marian's radicalized roommate Ainsley was named after the all-female Annesley Hall dorm where Atwood lived as an undergraduate during the slowly Woke-ing early '60s.) Ultimately I found myself incredibly charmed by our put-upon hero and rooting strongly for her to finally find some happiness and self-assuredness in her life; and I suspect this is why a certain type of reader started so intensely reacting to Atwood's prose projects even here at the very beginning, because the world was filled with Marians in the late 1960s, and hardly anyone was writing stories directed expressly to them.
It's in this spirit that I recommend the book to others -- maybe not for casual fans who just want to read the best books of Atwood's career (for that you should skip straight to 1985's The Handmaid's Tale, then work your way forward from there), but rather for hardcore fans who want to see where it all started, when Atwood was just another anonymous and largely unknown young woman like all the others, crying out into the wilderness about the trials and tribulations of the burgeoning countercultural age. It's books like these where she started gathering her tribe of like-minded young modern women for the first time, who loved her so much that they would end up sticking by her for another entire half a century.
P.S. After reading other people's reviews, it's worth taking the time to jump back on here for two additional observations: first, that much like The Handmaid's Tale (written exactly 20 years after this manuscript), one of Atwood's main points here is that society tends to see young women as incapable of contributing anything else worthwhile to the world other than their ability to be baby-making factories, a direct thematic line you can draw between this book and that one, only expressed in very different ways; and second, yes, certainly you can categorize Marian's grad-school friend-lover-thingie Duncan as the literary world's first and still so far one of its only "manic pixie dream boys."
Margaret Atwood books being reviewed for this series: The Edible Woman (1969) | Surfacing (1972) | Lady Oracle (1976) | Life Before Man (1979) | Bodily Harm (1981) | The Handmaid's Tale (1985) | Cat's Eye (1988) | The Robber Bride (1993) | Alias Grace (1996) | The Blind Assassin (2000) | Oryx and Cake (2003) | The Penelopiad (2005) | The Year of the Flood (2009) | MaddAddam (2013) | The Heart Goes Last (2015) | Hag-Seed (2016) | The Testaments (2019)
April 22, 2018
El porqu茅 del t铆tulo cuando lo ves reflejado en el libro es genial. Es un t铆tulo magistral.
Retrata perfectamente el papel de la mujer en una generaci贸n que solo se esperaba de ellas que se casasen, tuviesen hijos y cuidasen de la casa quedando anuladas intelectualmente. La inutilidad de estudiar una carrera, de progresar en el trabajo 驴todo para qu茅? si al final no te va a servir de nada.
Contra todo esto empieza a rebelarse la protagonista y lo hace de una manera muy peculiar.
La parte final me ha gustado mucho y tiene mucha miga y mucho simbolismo.
El personaje de Duncan es el que menos he entendido de todos, me ha dejado muy descolocada, porque tiene momentos bastante odiosos. Peter es horrible, es todo lo que no desear铆as en un hombre.
Es uno de esos libros que te dejan pensando y pensando d铆as despues de acabarlos y que a medida que pasan los d铆as te va gustando m谩s. Es una novela para leer con m谩s gente y comentarla, por que se le puede sacar mucha sustancia.
Retrata perfectamente el papel de la mujer en una generaci贸n que solo se esperaba de ellas que se casasen, tuviesen hijos y cuidasen de la casa quedando anuladas intelectualmente. La inutilidad de estudiar una carrera, de progresar en el trabajo 驴todo para qu茅? si al final no te va a servir de nada.
Contra todo esto empieza a rebelarse la protagonista y lo hace de una manera muy peculiar.
La parte final me ha gustado mucho y tiene mucha miga y mucho simbolismo.
El personaje de Duncan es el que menos he entendido de todos, me ha dejado muy descolocada, porque tiene momentos bastante odiosos. Peter es horrible, es todo lo que no desear铆as en un hombre.
Es uno de esos libros que te dejan pensando y pensando d铆as despues de acabarlos y que a medida que pasan los d铆as te va gustando m谩s. Es una novela para leer con m谩s gente y comentarla, por que se le puede sacar mucha sustancia.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,726 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.