We’ll jump-start the book club in a bit and it’ll be bigger and better than ever! Well, maybe not bigger, but certainly better. Okay, maybe just so-so. Whatever, point is, we’ll be back.

In the meantime, feel free to carry on discussions about feminist reads!

Here is the magical legend of King Arthur, vividly retold through the eyes and lives of the women who wielded power from behind the throne. A spellbinding novel, an extraordinary literary achievement, THE MISTS OF AVALON will stay with you for a long time to come… (from Goodreads)

Discussion will start in June and continue through August. Pick up those books and stay tuned for the discussion.

I loved The Blind Assassin.  I saw that Radical Readers and Feminisms For Dummies was reading it this month, and I thought to myself: That title sounds really familiar… I went to look at the bookshelves in my closet and, lo and behold, there it was among my mom’s books!  Just waiting to be read!  So I grabbed it and started immediately, and I couldn’t put it down.  This book is truly epic, and the way Margaret Atwood weaves multiple stories together, revealing just enough information at a time to keep the pages turning, is absolutely masterful.

I could gush about the book for hours, and probably not even make a dent in the brilliance of this novel, but instead, I’ve decided to add to the discussion of the book by doing a Pentadic analysis of the marriage and subsequent love and sexual violence which ensued between the main characters.

(WARNING! There are spoilers in this post, so don’t read it if you haven’t finished!  I’ve put the rest of this post after the jump to avoid angry readers!)

A Pentadic analysis is actually a form of rhetorical analysis with its roots in the theory of Kenneth Burke.  As such, it is usually reserved for a rhetorical situation, not a fictional one, but I want to try it out here to hopefully reveal the importance some of the major elements in this book.  Basically, in a Pentadic analysis, one looks at an act (what is done), agent (who is doing it), agency (what means the agent used), scene (the background or situation in which the act occurred), and the purpose (the reason why this happened).  Once these terms are defined, one puts the terms into ratios and decides which term is more important in that ratio.  These ratios are then used to define the motivation behind the act.  So, let’s give it a try, shall we?

Definition of Terms: (For the purposes of this analysis, I’m going to define these terms very broadly, as this is meant to be an analysis of the entire book.  However, this could just as easily have been done with one very specific situation in the novel, or a specific relationship¹ in the novel.)

Act: Relationships in every sense of the word – Richard and Iris’s marriage, Richard and Winifred’s sibling relationship, Iris and Laura’s sisterhood, Richard’s violence towards Laura, Laura’s love for Alex, Iris’s affair with Alex

Agent: Iris, Laura, Richard, Alex, Winifred

Agency: Laura’s silence toward Richard, Iris’s writing of The Blind Assassin, Richard’s manipulation of Iris and Laura, Winifred’s manipulation of Iris and Richard, Alex’s stories

Scene: Canada, 1930′s-present (However, I’d argue that, in the sense of these relationships, the time period between 1930-1940 was probably the most important.)

Purpose: Iris married Richard to please her father; Richard abused Iris and Laura as a power play, or maybe just because he could; Winifred manipulated Richard and Iris to maintain her wealth and power; Iris fell in love with Alex that day in the attic and later had an affair with him because of that love, and because Richard treated her so poorly; Laura fell in love (or did she?) with Alex well before that, seemingly because she was so young and naive and he was so infatuating.

That was a super cursory analysis, but I’m trying to define terms in 600 pages of novel!  Ah!

OK, so next comes the ratios of the terms.  They’re set up like this: “Scene:Act” and the question being asked here is “Is the term on the left more important than the term on the right?”  Then, a “Yes” or “No” will follow each ration, answering that question.  Here we go!

Scene:Act Yes
Scene:Agent Yes – I’m arguing here that no matter who these people were, in this time and situation, this could have happened (You could argue differently; that’s where this type of analysis becomes incredibly subjective.)
Scene: Agency No
Scene: Purpose No

Act:Agent Yes
Act:Scene No
Act:Purpose No
Act:Agency No

Agent:Act No
Agent:Scene No
Agent:Purpose No
Agent:Agency No

Agency:Act Yes
Agency:Agent Yes
Agency:Scene Yes
Agency:Purpose No

Purpose:Act Yes
Purpose:Agent Yes
Purpose:Agency Yes
Purpose:Scene Yes

From this ratio analysis, you can see that I thought the purpose behind the actions was the most important part of this novel (it had the highest number of “Yes” answers), followed by the agency, and then the scene.

Based on this analysis, then, I argue that the scene, specifically the time period, coupled with the purposes and means behind the characters’ actions show that no matter who these characters were and what their personalities were like, in this time period and the culture created by a severe class divide in the middle of a severe economic depression, tensions run high, especially when the rich are trying to stay rich.  This extreme class divide seems to breed a culture of hatred between the upper class and the lower class, and opens up possibilities for violence and manipulation of all kinds.  I think that says a lot about world history and the treatment of women, doesn’t it?

Of course, as I said before, this is totally subjective, so feel free to argue with me!  I’d love to hear your thoughts on this book, and this analysis!

Posted by Ashley.  This post is cross-posted at Small Strokes.

¹I define the word “relationship” in this novel simply as how one person relates to another.  You absolutely could not define, for example, Richard’s violence towards Laura as a relationship in the sense that it involved anything mutual.  However, I term it as a relationship here because the way they relate to each other is important.

How is education (in both the most literal and broadest senses) passed on between characters? Who is teaching, and what is being learned?

What is the relationship between violence and silence? How do each manifest throughout the novel?

Posted by: Amanda of The Undomestic Goddess

Yes Means Yes will bring to the table a dazzling variety of perspectives and experiences focused on the theory that educating all people to value female sexuality and pleasure leads to viewing women differently, and ending rape. Yes Means Yes aims to have radical and far-reaching effects: from teaching men to treat women as collaborators and not conquests, encouraging men and women that women can enjoy sex instead of being shamed for it, and ultimately, that our children can inherit a world where rape is rare and swiftly punished. With commentary on public sex education, pornography, mass media, Yes Means Yes is a powerful and revolutionary anthology. (from Goodreads)

Discussion will start in February and continue through March.

Now, on to a question that I’d like folks to ponder. Because the vote was so close between Yes Means Yes and the runner-up, The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood, would you all like to skip the voting for April & May and read this book then? Discuss in the comments so we can figure out what to do.

1) Do you think this book explains consent in a way that is useful, or does it take for granted an understanding of the term? In first reading, I couldn’t help but make comparisons to an essay found in Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape. I almost would recommend reading Yes Means Yes as a pre-req in order to fully understand sexuality and its power and influence in our culture before exploring more nontraditional relationships where consent and consideration of others’ feelings is not only important but necessary. After this is understood, the book serves as a very practical 101 for those considering polyamorous/nonmonogamous relationships.

2) Did reading this book make you consider trying nonmonogamous relationships yourself? Or if you’re already in one, did you learn anything new or look at your relationship in a different way? Shortly after reading the book, I was speaking to a friend about a relationship I had in college that fit this mold. “Oh, everyone is polyamorous in college,” she mused. And yet, the relationship in question followed closely to the model of this more responsible, adult relationship. We had our main relationship, and we cared about each other very much, but allowed ourselves to see other people, whether we took advantage of this or not. If one of us did hook up with someone else, we told the other person, and we were able to function without any jealousy. In fact, in some instances we encouraged the other relationships and hoped the best for each other. This was a safe way for us to explore different relationships with different types of people with different levels of sexuality while maintaining the caring bond we had for each other. It certainly helped that we were at an age where this type of behavior is encouraged, and where we didn’t have any shared life responsibilities, such as a marriage, kids, mortgage, etc.

3) Okay, I have to add…Did anyone think of this?

Posted by Amanda of The Undomestic Goddess.

Please note: If you need to comment under a pseudonym, I completely understand, but please do not use that as an invitation to shame or disrespect anyone.

For those of you who are currently in or interested in trying nonmonogamous relationships, please feel free to share your experience. What led you to that path, what are the advantages and disadvantages you see in your style, what are the common reactions you receive, and so forth?

For those of you who aren’t in an open relationship, please share what you hope to get out of this book. What are the preconceptions you have, what images have you seen (in the media, amongst your peers, etc.), and so forth?

Can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

The first part of the book delves into how the second wave of feminism in the 1960s excluded important groups of women, focusing solely on white, upper-class heterosexual cis women. Today too, feminists are infighting to make sure disabled women, lesbian women, and trans women, among others, are included in the national discourse. Just as bell hooks stated to her readers that society has to unlearn racism and classism (as it is still very much doing) so too will they have to unlearn the stereotypes that befall these other groups. And while some of us may become frustrated by the infighting (how can we ever move forward as a movement if we’re bickering with each other?), bell hooks has this to offer: “If women always seek to avoid confrontation…we may never experience any revolutionary change” (66-7). So these discrepancies are actually healthy in order for us to grow internally as a movement and proceed with a unified voice.

The second issue that remains pertinent to today (in fact, more pertinent to Wednesday – the National Lobby Day and Rally Against Stupak) is about revolutionizing parenting. Though much of bell hooks’ argument has to do with transforming fatherhood to be just as important and revered in our culture as motherhood, she does say that we need “to make motherhood neither a compulsory experience for women nor an exploitative or oppressive one” (137). This of course upholds the thinking behind Roe v Wade, but also lends to the idea of shaming single mothers, or simply hating on the mommy culture in today’s mostly white, urban upper-class circles.

I belong to a feminist book club and we’re reading Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks. This was written in 1984 and is considered a classic feminist text. Last night I read the final chapter on Feminist Revolution.

Although I think I read this book 20 years ago as part of my curriculum in feminist psychotherapy, this books feels fresh and relevant to me. I jumped into her last chapter on Feminist Revolution because I’ve felt very frustrated by where women’s movement is these days. I’ve been saying that we have developed into fiefdoms of feminisms, where women are now busy running their own non-profits, holding conferences, writing books, appearing on TV, etc. This is all good, but it ain’t revolution and it isn’t going to change the power structure. OK, this is what I’ve been saying before jumping into bell hooks’ chapter on Feminist Revolution. These are the conclusions I’ve come to as a result of living online and spending every day roaming the femisphere to find out what people are doing, who they are, what their thoughts are about women’s movement now.

Then I land in language that so speaks to me it is like water to my thirsty throat. Here is the paragraph that sums up, for me, what is missing in feminist/womanist movement:

“Feminist consciousness-raising has not significantly pushed women in the direction of revolutionary politics. For the most part, it has not helped women understand capitalism–how it works as a system that exploits female labor and its interconnections with sexist oppression. It has not urged women to learn about different political systems like socialism or encouraged women to invent and envision new political systems. It has not attacked materialism and our society’s addiction to overconsumption. It has not shown women how we benefit from the exploitation and oppression of women and men globally or shown us ways to oppose imperialism. Most importantly, it has not continually confronted women with the understanding that feminist movement to end sexist oppression can be successful only if we are committed to revolution, to the establishment of a new social order.”

That’s what I’m working on! It sounds daunting, almost grandiose, to say that feminists/womanists should take this on, and yet that’s where my evolving analysis has led me.

And here’s another idea from bell hooks that I had to highlight in yellow:

“Women must begin the work of feminist reorganization with the understanding that we have all (irrespective of our race, sex, or class) acted in complicity with the existing oppressive system. We all need to make a conscious break with the system.”

Pretty mindblowing statements…and I think I know what she’s talking about…in fact, I think I’m starting to organize around these ideas.