My first real foray into Atwood's non-fiction, and it was enlightening, to say the least. I'll confess that the book loses steam on many occasions, buMy first real foray into Atwood's non-fiction, and it was enlightening, to say the least. I'll confess that the book loses steam on many occasions, but for the chapter on duplicity alone, the whole text is worth it. Besides, it's under 200 pages, and a rather easy read, especially in comparison to much of her fiction. If I had to classify the book, I'd say it's Atwood's "A Room of One's Own"--she deals with the causes and effects of writing, with the monoliths of the canon, with the "woman question" in relation to writing, and basically everything in between.
My main issue with the book was the exhausting borrowing of other author's works--you can't get through a page without a block quote and a grocery list of writers past and present that are applicable to Atwood's own contention. I didn't really understand this tactic, for Atwood certainly has the strength to stand on her own, and in many cases, I'd prefer to hear her witty, biting style over that of the writers she chose to pull from. This aside, however, she makes some quite brilliant connections between modern (well, and past) conceptions of the writer's role in society in relation to historical contexts. She deals a good bit with the transition between the notion of the incorruptible genius of the writer in the Romantic period to more current ideas of the writer today, who is both insignificant and assumed to be an active force of social change. As I said, her chapter on the duplicitous or split position of the writer is worth the cost of the book alone--she makes a good case for the necessarily dual-identity of any writer, and employs a lot of wonderful history and culture in the discussion to boot.
I don't need to outline the entirety of the book, though. The long and short of it is that if you like Atwood's style and you're intrigued either with the art of writing or with your own writerly aspirations, this one's for you. Erudite but accessible, humorous and powerful--it's a page-turner and an inspirational glance into mythologized notions of the writer and what it 'really means' to be one in our day and age....more
**spoiler alert** It seems many of the reviews of this book call it an embarrassment to Atwood's oeuvre--I'm really not sure why, as it's really quite**spoiler alert** It seems many of the reviews of this book call it an embarrassment to Atwood's oeuvre--I'm really not sure why, as it's really quite an enjoyable read, if not the most "important" book Atwood's written. But then, as I continue to move through Atwood's body of work, I see her stuff split into two factions: you have the 'issue' novels, like Handmaid's Tale and Oryx & Crake and, to a lesser extent, Robber Bride and Cat's Eye; then there are the sort of 'throwaway' novels that have Atwood's wit and shrewd eye, but don't necessarily come across as politically motivated books. I would put Lady Oracle in this category, along with Edible Woman and perhaps some of her short stories. I'm looking forward to seeing where the next ones I'm plunging into (Alias Grace, and after, Blind Assassin) will go.
Lady Oracle focuses on Joan Foster, a secret writer of costume gothics and a woman who fakes her own death in order to get away from the tangled web she's woven around her life. There's really not much more to the plot than that, but then, Atwood's work is very rarely plot-centered. The book is definitely a page-turner--I managed to get through it in three days, and that was during exams! Her style by this novel was really gaining force; I saw many echoes from her first novel, Edible Woman, in this one, particularly in terms of her dealings with eating disorders and the psychic-splitting of the self in women under a patriarchal order. In these themes, I certainly think Atwood's motive was political, and she handles them far better in "LO" than in "EW." While a lot of reviewers say Joan Foster is a self-pitying wuss, I actually felt she managed to gain a great deal of agency through the text, though of course her obsession with the gothic romance narrative seems problematic on the surface. But as with most Atwood protagonists, their split selves result from the sort of overarching cultural scripts that are forced upon us--so here, it's the gothic romantic ideals of love; in EW and Robber Bride, it's the fairy tale narrative; so on and so forth. So with Atwood, I typically think if something is coming off as problematic, it's worth a closer look on a large scale level.
Anyhow, I loved Lady Oracle. It's a quick read, Joan's fat childhood is both hilarious and emotionally potent (and the Royal Porcupine--another Duncan figure--is so well-done), and the writing is of course superb. Definitely worth it, especially over the holiday season as a sort of pleasant, relaxed read....more
I'd give it a 4.5 if that were an option. In the end, though, I think I wanted to like this novel more than I actually did. While the characters were I'd give it a 4.5 if that were an option. In the end, though, I think I wanted to like this novel more than I actually did. While the characters were so well fleshed-out, and Zenia is an incredible villain (and incredible because you never say for sure that she's a villain in the 'real' sense of the word), there was just something missing for me. It's still a really great novel, but it's as though it was just 5% away from being as great as my favorite Atwood novels (Handmaid's Tale, Cat's Eye, Oryx and Crake).
Perhaps it was that there were just so many narratives intertwined--maybe the emotional core of the novel lost some of its power in this way? Because the writing is stellar; some of her best, in fact. And I absolutely loved Tony, Roz, and Charis...I felt more connected to them than to most Atwood protagonists, with the exception of Elaine Risley. The use of fairy tale intertexts gave so many moments more cultural resonance, and the struggles against Zenia truly did feel epic. But something got lost in translation, and I can't pinpoint it. Maybe upon re-reading, I'll change my mind--especially seeing as I was in the midst of a really tough semester while I was working through this novel. It's worth it if you like Atwood; maybe I had my hopes just a touch too high....more
**spoiler alert** Certainly not my favorite Atwood, but still an enjoyable read. Besides, I give her a little lee-way with this one, considering it's **spoiler alert** Certainly not my favorite Atwood, but still an enjoyable read. Besides, I give her a little lee-way with this one, considering it's her first published novel. The writing is fairly typical Atwood--often dense, but with much quick humor and stunning imagery on hand. Marian is an interesting character, but my problem with her is that she doesn't really shine up against the collection of eccentric friends/foes/etc. around her--for example, Ainsley's plot of fertility-based domination, Clara's baby-induced paralysis, Duncan's web of lies and insanity, and the (mostly absent) landlady's totalitarian rule over the household are infinitely more interesting than Marian's plight. At least for me. And to some extent, I suppose that's the point. Marian is quite obviously losing her Self through the course of the novel; being both metaphorically consumed and physically unable to commit that same action. It is a really intriguing premise, but I don't think it ever seems a big enough focus in the book, because all the subplots seem to compete with it. Of course, they all tie together--issues with production and consumption, and how those figure into identity politics--but I would have liked perhaps a little more angst/focus placed on Marian's very big problem.
I admit that I've already found more appreciation for the book while glancing over some critical essays on it. Sharon Wilson's chapter on the novel in "Margaret Atwood's Fairy-Tale Sexual Politics" really made me think more critically about the fairy tale intertexts in the novel, as well as the dynamics and sexual politics of all the relationships Marian faces in her narrative. While I had my problems with it--I definitely lost some interest as I passed the 200 page mark--I think it's worth it, if you're an Atwood fan. Like I said, not my favorite work of hers, but still far better than most of the schlock out there....more
