Wednesday, October 20, 2010
So '70s
What did setting "Beasts" in 1975 do for the story? I think it added a lot of interesting elements about feminism and sexuality. I think about the impact of Gillian's parents' divorce had on her psyche, about continued perceptions of virginity and good/bad girls, of environments where a professor can bed his student while dismissing her "schoolgirl poetry." In short I guess I think of trying to set this story in modern times, and I fail. It had to be this era to work. What did you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good question. It did seem essentially of the '70s — when the sexual freedom provided by women's lib all too often played into the hands of creepy men who weren't interested in mutual sexual exploration as in taking terrible advantage of young women who thought they were being "progressive" and "liberated" by being open to new experiences. Women were much freer to have sex partners, but the likelihood that they'd actually get caring/competent ones was probably just as remote as it was in the 1950s.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the story, but I didn't see what Gillian saw in either the professor or his wife. I found them both repugnant, especially him. What was there to be attracted to? Was it just me, or did all the girls who fell under his spell seem rather masochistic?
It struck me that many of the girls in Andre's class came from dark, broken backgrounds (if their journal entries were true). Maybe that made them more vulnerable to Andre, who seems to me like some horrible bird of prey.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, kc - I loathed both the professor and Dorcas, even more so as the book progressed. But then, I come from a relatively stable family where women were respected and treated as equals. Those girls didn't have that luxury.
This is interesting. I honestly didn't think much about the time period as I was reading it. What you guys are saying makes perfect sense, though, about the newfound sexual freedom of college girls and the notion of being "liberated" rather than taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteAndre and Dorcas were hideous, no doubt. Even before the sexual exploitation was revealed. Were they attractive to the girls just because they were so different from the more "square" professors?
KC, yeah, I think the girls were definitely masochistic, and perhaps living together under one roof their respective feelings for Andre (and probably some plain old academic competition) magnified the attraction or the desire to be desired in return?
ReplyDeleteI had planned to post another discussion thread on what made Dorcas and Andre attractive to begin with. But I think again the era might have given Andre, at least, some liberties he couldn't have taken in a later time. I mean, a combination of both being a macho pig -- which the girls might take in stride at that time -- while at the same time gaining a foothold by seeming sexually progressive amid a bunch of "squares," as Erin put it.
Shanxi, your comment about the girls made me think a bit about that class being invitation-only. That it would make sense that they were in this elite class because they were part of some kind of arts dorm, but in the same way if there were some indicators in the book I've forgotten that maybe Andre picked those students as easier prey, some sense of their vulnerability in the masses of students from an earlier general course. Because it really doesn't hold together that ALL of those girls would be so vulnerable and starstruck and so on.
Nah, let's just discuss them here. You know, I admit I found Dorcas somewhat riveting until Gillian's first night there. She DID sound different and daring, and a woman of the world, and even her art sounded interesting. I mean, I think I could see how a young girl could be seduced by such a strange bird and that she might even give the husband, Andre, a certain cachet he otherwise lacked on his own. But then I find her actions incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteOh, and as for Andre, I did think it was interesting that he was a teacher of poetry but no mention was made of his merits or press (such as Dorcas had). He sounded a bit of a fraud even before Gillian found that book of poetry he had published. And it reminded her of a cross of Allen Ginsberg and e.e. cummings, and she abandoned it rather quickly -- like he probably had no work of value of his own.
ReplyDeleteGreat observations, cl! especially about Dorcas' role and the fact that Andre really had no accomplishments except a moldy, derivative volume of poetry that apparently was too uninteresting for even his lover to read! Maybe his professional failures pushed him over to the dark side where, Faust-like, he could bargain with girls' souls for redemption!
ReplyDeleteIt is easier to imagine certain kinds of girls falling under the spell of an older "distinguished" man who makes them feel valued and interesting, especially if they've never been around the block, so to speak. They get a taste of love and attention, even if it's totally messed up, and cling to it fiercely.
Could a story like this be written where the professor is female and the students all male? Where the professor takes the males home to her equally messed-up husband, whom the boys all find alluring?! I doubt it. The dynamic for the boys, brought up with different, healthier notions about their sexuality and power in relationships, would be totally different, wouldn't it?
Was Dorcas under Andre's spell, too, more or less? Surely she would not be exploiting girls in this way without him? Is she one of those horrible women who do awful things to show their husbands their devotion?
Fascinating discussion!
ReplyDeleteI didn't see Dorcas as under Andre's spell. I almost imagined it the other way around. She seemed to be making the decisions. She was the "artist," a designation that seemed to hold such power in that setting. I assume they considered their pornographic photography an artistic endeavor. In any event, she struck me as a sadist and creepy weirdo in her own right.
Not that I think Andre was an innocent or something. Good point, cl, about how the class was invitation-only. Like he was setting up a little harem for himself. And wasn't it repulsive how he delighted in the girls' confessions of childhood abuse and trauma? I wanted to strangle him.
I agree completely that Dorcas is sick and sadistic in her own right, but it's hard for me to imagine her doing that to the girls on her own. And she didn't really need Andre for bait because apparently the girls were drawn to her independently ... so I'm not sure why she was in cahoots with him unless she just loved the weirdo.
ReplyDeleteThe confessions! I liked how Gillian, a bit of a weirdo herself, would not confess and felt no compulsion to share. That was the age of "confessional" poetry in the actual world, with people like Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton writing dark, haunting poems of their own lives and the terrible stuff they endured. It's like poetry had always been about epic events or celebrating the beauty of a snowflake or romantic love or whatever, and these women came along in the '60s and '70s and started writing about abuse and despair and mental illness. I wondered if Oates was sort of parodying that. And Andre was certainly capitalizing on it, encouraging the girls to confess all (in journals!) without regard to the poetic talent and discipline that distinguished Plath and Sexton.
cl, you also mention e.e. cummings and Ginsberg and how Andre's book harkened to them. They actually did celebrate sexual love and freedom in a very liberating and empowering way, in a kind of Walt Whitman way, not in the oppressive, male-dominated, sex-as-seduction way that D.H. Lawrence did. So maybe his progression from being influenced by cummings and Ginsberg to coming under Lawrence's (and Dorcas') spell was supposed to say something about the icky progression of his soul.