Zestarrest posted a review of this book a few days ago, and it intrigued me. While I was reading the book, I can’t help but notice how it resembled Lolita. That stalker predatory tone recounting past conquests and present lover. The protagonist is of unknown gender and deliberately so. Would it matter less, or more, if the protagonist had been female, or male? In my opinion, the more a book tries to subvert existing gender and sexuality stereotyping, the more it relies on those stereotypes. A prissy Catholic will be attled and challenged reading this book; I have no issues except that it reminds me too much of Lolita - a book I hated.
The book opened with intertexual mentions of Bathsheba from the Bible, Alice in Wonderland and The Tempest. The protagonist then went on to admit s/he wants the brunt of the cliche expressions and storylines. Somehow, the author has questioned our reliance on intertexuality and generally couching our experiences in terms of some existing canonical text. That having a standardized way of talking about our experience can distance ourselves from it, and thereby achieving some aim. Sheer brilliance.
I’m not usually a big fan of rambling novels that go nowhere, or sappy tales of sickness and lost love. I’m still not a fan after reading this book, but I think I can understand a little why people like stuff like this. I can’t articulate exactly whant I understood, but I suppose it’s along the lines of human connection and one of those tedious things.
