A very short novel, it concerns a female
protagonist, Yeong-hye, who one day, seemingly out of the blue, defies social
convention and her own previous conforming nature by stopping eating meat,
disconcerting her conventional and disapproving husband and family. Her father
tries to force meat into her mouth, her instant response to which is to make a
suicide attempt, and in reaction her husband leaves her. Eventually she stops
eating altogether.
The first somewhat puzzled comments came from
Ann, who, unable to attend, sent us her thoughts beforehand. She said she was
glad to have read it, and thought it an interesting insight into a culture very different from our own, but found it a discomforting read, and not simply, it
seemed, for its events. The book is divided into three sections. The first is
narrated by the husband and takes us to the point of Yeong-hye's suicide attempt.
The second moves on to a time after Yeong-hye's husband has left, and the
narrative voice switches to third person and adopts the viewpoint of
Yeong-hye's brother-in-law, a video artist who becomes obsessed with using
Yeong-hye in an erotic artwork, her naked body painted with flowers. The third
section leaps on again further in time, and is the third-person viewpoint of
Inge-hye, Yeong-hye's sister, now living alone with her child after having
discovered her husband's erotic exploitation of Yeong-hye, and visiting
Yeong-hye in the hospital to which she has had her admitted for her
self-starvation. Why, Ann wondered, should only one character be awarded the
first person - the character indeed who is least actively involved in the
story, and who after the first section drops out of it altogether - and not the
Vegetarian herself?
Others of us had had the same puzzled reaction
to this structure, and some, in particular John, wondered, as last time, if, in
view of the book's phenomenal success, we were perhaps judging by inappropriate
Western literary standards, and seeing structural uneasiness where others saw
brilliant innovation. I said however that in reading about the book and its
author I had discovered that the three sections had originally been published
separately as short stories, which, rather than novelistic inventiveness, could
explain what we had experienced as an unevenness of narrative voice and focus.
As it was, we had been led to think at the start that the book would be a
psychological study of an unreliable narrator, a cold, convention-bound
husband, only to find it was nothing of the sort, all interest in him dropped.
The only insights we have into Yeong-hye's
viewpoint and psyche, however, are via the very minimal dialogue reported by the others, and the dreams featuring blood and murder that prompt her meat
aversion, which are indeed presented as she related them, in the first
person, but couched, in the uncomprehending husband's section, in distancing
italics (and indeed lack specificity and are melodramatically cliched):
Dreams overlaid with dreams, a palimpsest of horror. Violent acts perpetrated by night. A hazy feeling I can't pin down...but remembered as blood-chillingly definite.
For the whole novel her psychic reality is thus
distanced from the reader, and while it is clear that she is reacting to the
oppressions of her society - the strict rules regarding diet and women's role
- for much of the novel the precise trigger for her specific reaction is kept a mystery: all Yeong-hye will say is that she 'had a dream'. In fact, she is in danger of being as much a
mysterious object of curiosity to us as she is an object of eroticism to the
brother-in-law.
The precise cause of her self-starvation is indeed
revealed near the end in her sister's musing, but Doug said that he found this
structure unsatisfying and even clumsy, a point with which I and others agreed.
When we finally understand the underlying cause there is no sense of 'Oh of
course!' prompting one to recognise in retrospect clues that had been there all
along. Jenny said, But there were the dreams! I objected that the dreams were
too vaguely symbolic to be related to the particularity of the cause. Jenny argued that that was what dreams are like - they are symbolic,
and it is often not clear what the symbols refer to. This of course is true,
but my point was that in a novel there would need to be some element - perhaps
some more specific language in the depiction of the dreams, or a different
structural presentation of the dreams - that would (in retrospect) create a
more organic connection for the reader. Clare now came in and said that
actually, she didn't agree that one needed to have that sense of 'Oh, of
course!' at a novel's revelation. Doug and I felt strongly that it was
essential, but since we were judging from the Western novel tradition, we
agreed to differ.
It is interesting, and perhaps ironic, that we
didn't feel that the structure of the novel was organic, since the supreme
motif of the book is vegetation: Yeong-hye begins by deciding to eat only vegetables, but eventually wishes to become vegetable herself, submitting first
to her brother-in-law's erotic flowery transformation of her body, and finally
believing that she has actually turned into a tree, at one point standing on
her head with her legs in the air as branches. This symbolism is one of the
striking aspects of the book, and which no doubt, along with the eroticism of
the central section, has brought the book so much attention. However, because
we don't share Yeong-hye's interiorityy, we just have to take for granted
Yeong-hye's wish to be a tree, and its precise connection to the cause of her
anorexia is unexplored on the deep, emotive and psychological level. What
exactly is it about whatever has happened to her that links (thematically) to this
specific wish? This question remains unexplored (for an answer in a similar
scenario one can go to Ali Smith's novel Autumn, which we'll discuss next
time). For me that was a real disappointment, and perhaps relates to a kind of
cognitive dissonance that vaguely disturbed me when I first saw the book's
Portobello paperback cover. Why would the cover of a book called The Vegetarian
(and featuring a woman who wants to become vegetable) feature so prominently,
as it does, a bird's wing? (It is only on closer inspection that you notice
that the dark background consists of the veins of a leaf in extreme closeup.)
In fact the image of a bird flying does occur at least twice in the book (once
in the middle of the book, I think, and then again at the end), and on
reflection it's a symbol of the escape Yoeng-hye is seeking through her
self-starvation. In a way, it's the real (and more apposite) thematic
symbol but, appearing only briefly and belatedly, it is heavily overpowered by the vegetation symbol, and the issues attached to it - the fact
that Yeong-hye needs to escape, and the issue of the precise experience she
needs to escape from, are thus subordinated.
We commented on the language, which Clare and
Jenny had found stilted, presuming that this was a matter of culture. Others of
us noted that it was uneven, generally formal but sometimes dropping, even
mid-sentence, into the vernacular. This is especially so in the section
narrated by the stiff, conventional and unfeeling husband: Before my wife turned vegetarian, he begins in
his pompous way, I'd always thought of her as completely unremarkable
in every way ... However, if there wasn't any special attraction, nor did any
particular drawbacks present themselves. But then he will wonder if
she might genuinely be going soft in the head, and
congratulates himself on not 'kicking up a fuss', before eventually reaching
out and touching her 'philtrum' (the groove between her nose and mouth). In
spite of the fact that the prose has been widely praised as concise, we found
it sometimes imprecise: after leaving the room and pushing the door
to behind her with her foot, Yeong-hye is described as 'swallowed
up through the door [my italics].' We were unable to know
whether these seeming infelicities were created by the translation or were
present in the original.
All in all, we were interested to have read the
book, but once again we were left wondering quite why a book should have
received such massive adulation, and suspecting once again that Western
exoticism may have come into play.
1 comment:
Post a Comment