BlackOxford's Reviews > Matrix
Matrix
by
by
Sisterhood
I may not understand Groff’s intention with this book. Or perhaps I do, in which case I don’t like it. It is historical fiction only in the broadest sense that a woman called Marie Abbess of Shaftesbury did exist. Anything else is mostly legend. And Groff’s casual conflation of two historical characters on the basis of a shared given first name (Marie of France, a contemporary but very different woman than Marie d'Anjou) seems a bit out of line even in fiction. It seems to me the book is much more a feminist polemic. It is obviously a vision of a feminine utopia, a Shakerism without the men anywhere in sight, and contentedly gay.
The problem is that Marie uses increasingly ‘male’ tactics to get and keep control over her visionary paradise. She begins with fraud, moves on to manipulation and intimidation, and ultimately resorts to violence in order to get her way. It seems to me that her female-only hideaway is just another form of domination in a world ruled by domination.
Anyway, here are my notes to justify my conclusion. Beware: spoilers ahead if you care about reading the book without prejudice:
—————————————————————
Marie wants it all, or at least everything that the 12th century has to offer - ridin’, huntin’, and shootin’, with a well-prepared feast of roast swan afterwards, which she can enjoy wearing the latest fashions from France. As the illegitimate child of Geoffrey of Anjou, she reckons she has the right to such things. But the Empress Matilda thinks otherwise, so off she’s packed to Angleterre.
Marie is a woman’s woman (nudge, wink) who became imprinted (enamoured, obsessed) with the good Lady Eleanor of Aquitaine (her half-sister) while on a purported Women’s Crusade to Jerusalem (a sort of medieval Hadassah cruise one supposes, which it was not historically - wives did accompany husbands; Eleanor was along for the ride, armor and all). Marie is hopeful that her devotion to Eleanor, now Queen of the English as well as the French will earn her the points necessary to fulfil her dream. What she gets instead is a forlorn nunnery in wet and dreary Wiltshire…
… And no word from the beloved Eleanor who is off flooding the Plantagenet gene pool (and then regretting much of the outflow from the overcrowded space). Marie’s admiration for Eleanor is mysterious (it is more likely, historically, that she was focused on her half-brother Henry II). Eleanor has slept her way to the top of the social ladder, something Marie wouldn’t even consider given her preferences. Eleanor is apparently a looker; Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers with a face like… well, a horse. Eleanor has learned how to take and maintain power in a world of men; men don’t exist in Marie’s world except as faceless, nameless ghosts who are best avoided. Eleanor is ‘establishment’ through and through; Marie gives up on that world entirely in order to create her own anti-establishment.
Nevertheless Marie uses what she has, her growing band of nuns, to make a name and a position of respect. And she thinks she has found what makes Eleanor so successful: “Women in this world are vulnerable; only reputation can keep them from being crushed.” So she develops an image of ruthless competence and dedicated persistence. And she is not above using the church itself to further her ambitions. As she has learned from her blind, dotty abbess, “Mystical acts create mystical beliefs.”
Marie creates a set of phoney accounts to mislead the local bishop about the convent’s growing wealth. And flirtatiously flatters her own female superiors into submission. Corruption is necessary after all to fight corruption, she muses. And for a woman of definite sexual tastes, the abbey provides the casual but close companionship she desires. And why not, since men aren’t involved, there’s no biblical prohibition against womanly mutual comfort. She is getting accustomed to this business of faith as well: “How strange, she thinks. Belief has grown upon her. Perhaps, she thinks, it is something like a mold.” And her principle belief is that men are the carriers if not the source of evil and will be banned entirely from the abbey’s estates.
Marie’s post-menopausal visions are the driving force of her middle age (Groff spends several pages on Marie’s hot flushes, suggesting she likes the image of women of a certain age as witches). They tell her to make the abbey an “island of women” entirely enclosed and fortified against the vagaries of the (male-inhabited) world. Over the objections of her senior nuns she builds a enormous labyrinthine maze around the abbey. All hands contribute, neglecting their religious rituals but designing and building new machines, roads, dams, and fortifications with military precision.
Marie’s project is noticed by both the nobility and the church authorities. And not favourably. But Marie has already started a massive international PR programme to quell criticism.:
Eleanor, freed finally from family and regnal strife, seems to approve Marie’s efforts. So Marie receives a new vision and a new project. Hoping to entice Eleanor to retire in the abbey, Marie starts the building of an enormous abbess house. For this skilled men are needed. Appropriate precautions are taken. Blindfolds are necessary for any member of the community who bring the men food, drink, and pay. The maze provides security. But there is a gap in defences, enough for some sperm to sneak over the wall, as it were, and one of the naughty novices gets pregnant, miscarries and dies. Marie works jointly with the Queen “against the old carrionbirds Gossip and Rumor.” to bury the scandal.
Marie has made her dream a reality through cunning and wit. She has power, power to maintain a “second Eden.” She is the new Eve. And as Eve was a precursor of the Virgin Mary so the Virgin is a precursor of Mother Abbess Marie. She is turning into an apocalyptic fanatic: “Marie sees evil settling on the world, an evil overcoming the goodness in the hearts of even the holy.” She essentially forms her own church, installing herself as high priestess: “I will take upon my own shoulders the abbey’s sacerdotal duties.” She says Mass, takes confessions, changes the Latin ritual to feminine endings, and performs the other roles canonically reserved for males.
It is in the confessional that Marie gets to understand the depth of suffering her flock has undergone at the hands of men: “she sorrows for her daughters in their lives before, the secret invisible weights they have dragged behind them into the abbey.” Rape, abuse, the guilt of fighting and not fighting off these men. Out of fear, love or loyalty no one snitches to the authorities. Marie, of course, knows everyone’s secrets at this point. Prudence prevails.
Cults produce other cults, Marie finds, as competition emerges in the abbey’s ranks. The first rule of power is to protect power. If two mystical prophets share the same time and space, one of them is false. Marie manoeuvres her potential rivals out. She expands her physical empire, even as Eleanor is dying and loosing hers. Marie feels elation rather than sorrow. “She feels royal. She feels papal.” She even encroaches on Crown land. Unfortunately protection of this dramatic enlargement of her ambition will require murder, and the death of her friend. With this last comes regret and a personal revelation:
Yet she still refuses to recognise the papal interdict of England forbidding all religious rights - the ultimate arrogance. In Marie’s quiet island of women and work, ritual and observance go on as usual for years. Even in old age she can successfully resist men wielding power through deceit and misinformation more than equivalent to their own. She is unrepentant, missed by her sisters in death, and portrayed by Groff as a sort of light that failed.
Seriously?
I get it, I do. Tricking Da Massa is rewarding revenge and one has to admire Marie’s ingenuity (or rather Groff’s). Men are mostly shits; history demonstrates their danger to women. And Marie’s ability to still raise an orgasm or two well into her seventies is admirable indeed. But if that’s the sum of Marie’s life, it might have been wasted in better ways. The image of Eve (the first Matrix) and the Virgin Mary (the greatest Matrix) engaged in an eternal sensual kiss, both embraced by Abbess Marie (the last Matrix) isn’t really sufficient to maintain either a mystical cult or visionary momentum. Ultimately Marie couldn’t institutionalise herself and her vision. Both passed apparently into obscurity. Groff’s resurrection doesn’t add much of value to the legends.
I await the avalanche of Mariolatrus abuse.
I may not understand Groff’s intention with this book. Or perhaps I do, in which case I don’t like it. It is historical fiction only in the broadest sense that a woman called Marie Abbess of Shaftesbury did exist. Anything else is mostly legend. And Groff’s casual conflation of two historical characters on the basis of a shared given first name (Marie of France, a contemporary but very different woman than Marie d'Anjou) seems a bit out of line even in fiction. It seems to me the book is much more a feminist polemic. It is obviously a vision of a feminine utopia, a Shakerism without the men anywhere in sight, and contentedly gay.
The problem is that Marie uses increasingly ‘male’ tactics to get and keep control over her visionary paradise. She begins with fraud, moves on to manipulation and intimidation, and ultimately resorts to violence in order to get her way. It seems to me that her female-only hideaway is just another form of domination in a world ruled by domination.
Anyway, here are my notes to justify my conclusion. Beware: spoilers ahead if you care about reading the book without prejudice:
—————————————————————
Marie wants it all, or at least everything that the 12th century has to offer - ridin’, huntin’, and shootin’, with a well-prepared feast of roast swan afterwards, which she can enjoy wearing the latest fashions from France. As the illegitimate child of Geoffrey of Anjou, she reckons she has the right to such things. But the Empress Matilda thinks otherwise, so off she’s packed to Angleterre.
Marie is a woman’s woman (nudge, wink) who became imprinted (enamoured, obsessed) with the good Lady Eleanor of Aquitaine (her half-sister) while on a purported Women’s Crusade to Jerusalem (a sort of medieval Hadassah cruise one supposes, which it was not historically - wives did accompany husbands; Eleanor was along for the ride, armor and all). Marie is hopeful that her devotion to Eleanor, now Queen of the English as well as the French will earn her the points necessary to fulfil her dream. What she gets instead is a forlorn nunnery in wet and dreary Wiltshire…
… And no word from the beloved Eleanor who is off flooding the Plantagenet gene pool (and then regretting much of the outflow from the overcrowded space). Marie’s admiration for Eleanor is mysterious (it is more likely, historically, that she was focused on her half-brother Henry II). Eleanor has slept her way to the top of the social ladder, something Marie wouldn’t even consider given her preferences. Eleanor is apparently a looker; Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers with a face like… well, a horse. Eleanor has learned how to take and maintain power in a world of men; men don’t exist in Marie’s world except as faceless, nameless ghosts who are best avoided. Eleanor is ‘establishment’ through and through; Marie gives up on that world entirely in order to create her own anti-establishment.
Nevertheless Marie uses what she has, her growing band of nuns, to make a name and a position of respect. And she thinks she has found what makes Eleanor so successful: “Women in this world are vulnerable; only reputation can keep them from being crushed.” So she develops an image of ruthless competence and dedicated persistence. And she is not above using the church itself to further her ambitions. As she has learned from her blind, dotty abbess, “Mystical acts create mystical beliefs.”
Marie creates a set of phoney accounts to mislead the local bishop about the convent’s growing wealth. And flirtatiously flatters her own female superiors into submission. Corruption is necessary after all to fight corruption, she muses. And for a woman of definite sexual tastes, the abbey provides the casual but close companionship she desires. And why not, since men aren’t involved, there’s no biblical prohibition against womanly mutual comfort. She is getting accustomed to this business of faith as well: “How strange, she thinks. Belief has grown upon her. Perhaps, she thinks, it is something like a mold.” And her principle belief is that men are the carriers if not the source of evil and will be banned entirely from the abbey’s estates.
Marie’s post-menopausal visions are the driving force of her middle age (Groff spends several pages on Marie’s hot flushes, suggesting she likes the image of women of a certain age as witches). They tell her to make the abbey an “island of women” entirely enclosed and fortified against the vagaries of the (male-inhabited) world. Over the objections of her senior nuns she builds a enormous labyrinthine maze around the abbey. All hands contribute, neglecting their religious rituals but designing and building new machines, roads, dams, and fortifications with military precision.
Marie’s project is noticed by both the nobility and the church authorities. And not favourably. But Marie has already started a massive international PR programme to quell criticism.:
“through the countryside, the women will tell stories, woman to woman, servant to servant and lady to lady, and the stories will spread north and south upon this island, and the stories will alchemize into legends, and the legends will serve as cautionary tales, and her nuns will be made doubly safe through story most powerful.”
Eleanor, freed finally from family and regnal strife, seems to approve Marie’s efforts. So Marie receives a new vision and a new project. Hoping to entice Eleanor to retire in the abbey, Marie starts the building of an enormous abbess house. For this skilled men are needed. Appropriate precautions are taken. Blindfolds are necessary for any member of the community who bring the men food, drink, and pay. The maze provides security. But there is a gap in defences, enough for some sperm to sneak over the wall, as it were, and one of the naughty novices gets pregnant, miscarries and dies. Marie works jointly with the Queen “against the old carrionbirds Gossip and Rumor.” to bury the scandal.
Marie has made her dream a reality through cunning and wit. She has power, power to maintain a “second Eden.” She is the new Eve. And as Eve was a precursor of the Virgin Mary so the Virgin is a precursor of Mother Abbess Marie. She is turning into an apocalyptic fanatic: “Marie sees evil settling on the world, an evil overcoming the goodness in the hearts of even the holy.” She essentially forms her own church, installing herself as high priestess: “I will take upon my own shoulders the abbey’s sacerdotal duties.” She says Mass, takes confessions, changes the Latin ritual to feminine endings, and performs the other roles canonically reserved for males.
It is in the confessional that Marie gets to understand the depth of suffering her flock has undergone at the hands of men: “she sorrows for her daughters in their lives before, the secret invisible weights they have dragged behind them into the abbey.” Rape, abuse, the guilt of fighting and not fighting off these men. Out of fear, love or loyalty no one snitches to the authorities. Marie, of course, knows everyone’s secrets at this point. Prudence prevails.
Cults produce other cults, Marie finds, as competition emerges in the abbey’s ranks. The first rule of power is to protect power. If two mystical prophets share the same time and space, one of them is false. Marie manoeuvres her potential rivals out. She expands her physical empire, even as Eleanor is dying and loosing hers. Marie feels elation rather than sorrow. “She feels royal. She feels papal.” She even encroaches on Crown land. Unfortunately protection of this dramatic enlargement of her ambition will require murder, and the death of her friend. With this last comes regret and a personal revelation:
“Marie’s arrogance brought this final illness upon Wulfhild. Her endless hunger ate up the daughter of her spirit. The need to enlarge this abbey she has thought of as an extension of her own body. Her actions always in reaction to the question of what she could have done in the world, if she had only been given her freedom.”
Yet she still refuses to recognise the papal interdict of England forbidding all religious rights - the ultimate arrogance. In Marie’s quiet island of women and work, ritual and observance go on as usual for years. Even in old age she can successfully resist men wielding power through deceit and misinformation more than equivalent to their own. She is unrepentant, missed by her sisters in death, and portrayed by Groff as a sort of light that failed.
Seriously?
I get it, I do. Tricking Da Massa is rewarding revenge and one has to admire Marie’s ingenuity (or rather Groff’s). Men are mostly shits; history demonstrates their danger to women. And Marie’s ability to still raise an orgasm or two well into her seventies is admirable indeed. But if that’s the sum of Marie’s life, it might have been wasted in better ways. The image of Eve (the first Matrix) and the Virgin Mary (the greatest Matrix) engaged in an eternal sensual kiss, both embraced by Abbess Marie (the last Matrix) isn’t really sufficient to maintain either a mystical cult or visionary momentum. Ultimately Marie couldn’t institutionalise herself and her vision. Both passed apparently into obscurity. Groff’s resurrection doesn’t add much of value to the legends.
I await the avalanche of Mariolatrus abuse.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Matrix.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 7, 2021
– Shelved
September 7, 2021
– Shelved as:
to-read
September 7, 2021
– Shelved as:
american
September 7, 2021
– Shelved as:
biography-biographical
September 7, 2021
– Shelved as:
historical-fiction
September 9, 2021
–
Started Reading
September 11, 2021
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
Diane
(new)
Sep 11, 2021 12:16PM
Fair review, BO
reply
|
flag
Diane wrote: "Fair review, BO"
The overwhelmingly positive reviews on this show how deficient in critical ability most folk are.
The overwhelmingly positive reviews on this show how deficient in critical ability most folk are.
I'm one of those with deficient critical abilities. I really enjoyed this book, but I also really appreciate your criticism. I think I experienced this book differently because a) I was pretty much expecting a polemic going in and b) know the author would be playing fast and loose with the history, given the absence of documentation. Thanks for helping me see this book through two sets of eyes.
Adding a P.S. While I liked this book, I wound up not liking the main character for precisely the reason you state: her strategies become more and more heavy-handed and "male" as the book moves along. I felt genuinely angry with her by the end.
Sarah-Hope wrote: "Adding a P.S. While I liked this book, I wound up not liking the main character for precisely the reason you state: her strategies become more and more heavy-handed and "male" as the book moves alo..."
Thanks Sarah-Hope. I think Groff is playing her audience. I was intrigued by the book because until half way through I thought it might be a send-up that would reveal itself by the end. As far as I can see, the book is about the main character who is pretty loathsome from the start and gets worse. I think we agree on that. Groff plays on the nuances of modern sensitivities that are entirely irrelevant in her historical context, apparently trying to raise the reader’s sympathy for an extreme case of misandry. If the gender roles were reversed, there would be protests in front of the publisher’s office.
Thanks Sarah-Hope. I think Groff is playing her audience. I was intrigued by the book because until half way through I thought it might be a send-up that would reveal itself by the end. As far as I can see, the book is about the main character who is pretty loathsome from the start and gets worse. I think we agree on that. Groff plays on the nuances of modern sensitivities that are entirely irrelevant in her historical context, apparently trying to raise the reader’s sympathy for an extreme case of misandry. If the gender roles were reversed, there would be protests in front of the publisher’s office.
Perhaps you were not intending to be offensive when you used the term "butch" in your review ["Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers..."]. I found it offensive, and many women see it as a derogatory term, especially when used by men to describe women (think N-word used by whites).
Looking beyond that, I am surprised that you want to interpret Groff's novel, which is fiction, so close to the historical figures and events that inspired it. She has license, as an author of fiction, to imaginatively borrow and reconstruct the kernels that she extracts from history for this novel. And in a author talk that she gave last night, she talked about some of the characters that inspired her, but cautioned that this is not a book of history.
I am also struck by your characterization of Marie's actions as "male tactics." While I would agree that violence is most often associated with male tactics, I would not necessarily put fraud, manipulation, or even intimidation squarely in the male domain. She seems very good at reading people and using her intuition of them to gain advantage. What do they fear? What do they need? Is there a way to satisfy both their needs and Marie's? Sometimes she uses flattery, and sometimes just plays to her fellow nuns' strengths. And anyway, regardless of gender, why not use the prevailing tactics of power to gain power and protection for her abbey and its nuns? Seems like good leadership.
Your astonishment at Marie's still enjoying sexual pleasure in her senior years is also puzzling ("Marie’s ability to still raise an orgasm or two well into her seventies is admirable indeed.")
Finally, in your comment to Sarah (above), you characterize Marie as having "an extreme case of misandry." I would not equate protecting a community of religious women who have chosen to live separate from men as misandry.
Looking beyond that, I am surprised that you want to interpret Groff's novel, which is fiction, so close to the historical figures and events that inspired it. She has license, as an author of fiction, to imaginatively borrow and reconstruct the kernels that she extracts from history for this novel. And in a author talk that she gave last night, she talked about some of the characters that inspired her, but cautioned that this is not a book of history.
I am also struck by your characterization of Marie's actions as "male tactics." While I would agree that violence is most often associated with male tactics, I would not necessarily put fraud, manipulation, or even intimidation squarely in the male domain. She seems very good at reading people and using her intuition of them to gain advantage. What do they fear? What do they need? Is there a way to satisfy both their needs and Marie's? Sometimes she uses flattery, and sometimes just plays to her fellow nuns' strengths. And anyway, regardless of gender, why not use the prevailing tactics of power to gain power and protection for her abbey and its nuns? Seems like good leadership.
Your astonishment at Marie's still enjoying sexual pleasure in her senior years is also puzzling ("Marie’s ability to still raise an orgasm or two well into her seventies is admirable indeed.")
Finally, in your comment to Sarah (above), you characterize Marie as having "an extreme case of misandry." I would not equate protecting a community of religious women who have chosen to live separate from men as misandry.
Agreed, Marlene! Historical fiction is often “loosely based” on real people. I know that going in. It’s probably better not knowing too much about the real people as it blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction. I absolutely loved the medieval life research and writing of this book. Every sentence thrums with rhythm and every descriptive word sings. To me, this author makes unlikeable people not seem as bad as they could be. If only more authors could write like her.
Marlene wrote: "Perhaps you were not intending to be offensive when you used the term "butch" in your review ["Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers..."]. I found it offensive, and many women see it as a..."
Sure thing, Marlene. I notice that you don’t read much. Perhaps if you did you’d have a little more taste as well as the ability to read more closely what I have written. Then again perhaps not.
Sure thing, Marlene. I notice that you don’t read much. Perhaps if you did you’d have a little more taste as well as the ability to read more closely what I have written. Then again perhaps not.
Anita wrote: "Agreed, Marlene! Historical fiction is often “loosely based” on real people. I know that going in. It’s probably better not knowing too much about the real people as it blurs the line between ficti..."
Thrumming and singing? But can you dance to it? Really, Anita? Great praise for a writer. I’m sure she could make Stalin and Papa Doc into authentic menschen with just the right tune. Anita, at your age I think it’s about time you got beyond Mills and Boone or numbered crime novels (the shame!) into something resembling literature. I take it you’re not a very fast reader, but I’m sure you’ll find making the effort with a better sort of reading improves not just your vocabulary but also your criteria for quality. Meanwhile it’s probably best to stick with faith, family, and friends rather than venture into literary criticism.
Thrumming and singing? But can you dance to it? Really, Anita? Great praise for a writer. I’m sure she could make Stalin and Papa Doc into authentic menschen with just the right tune. Anita, at your age I think it’s about time you got beyond Mills and Boone or numbered crime novels (the shame!) into something resembling literature. I take it you’re not a very fast reader, but I’m sure you’ll find making the effort with a better sort of reading improves not just your vocabulary but also your criteria for quality. Meanwhile it’s probably best to stick with faith, family, and friends rather than venture into literary criticism.
BlackOxford wrote: "Marlene wrote: "Perhaps you were not intending to be offensive when you used the term "butch" in your review ["Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers..."]. I found it offensive, and many w..."
Your ad hominem attack plainly shows your character.
Your ad hominem attack plainly shows your character.
Marlene wrote: "BlackOxford wrote: "Marlene wrote: "Perhaps you were not intending to be offensive when you used the term "butch" in your review ["Marie is a butch two feet taller than her peers..."]. I found it o..."
You see, Marlene, we agree after all. It does indeed. A real literary snob. But, hey, I didn’t contact you did I? The words heat, kitchen, stay out, come to mind. So try zipping it until you get a bit more facility with the language, or at least something interesting to say.
You see, Marlene, we agree after all. It does indeed. A real literary snob. But, hey, I didn’t contact you did I? The words heat, kitchen, stay out, come to mind. So try zipping it until you get a bit more facility with the language, or at least something interesting to say.
It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn this thread back to something less acidic. I really enjoyed the novel. I listened to the audiobook and I think missed some of the details of Groff's lovely writing. Because I knew nothing of Marie of France before listening to the book, I had no expectations and simply enjoyed it as somewhat fantastical fiction set in a period I enjoy. Afterwards, I read about Marie of France, so now I know I've also learned something. Great! And the book also got me thinking ... about some of the very points BO has raised. I noted recently that the Medieval (and other historical) women who are notable for what they achieved apparently used the same tactics of violence and oppression of those weaker than themselves that women themselves generally suffered under. And I wonder, are there any examples of women who took control of their lives, became leaders, without taking on the same destructive behaviours under which they'd been oppressed. Was it even possible? As far as Matrix goes, Marie does question whether her ambition is for herself, or for the good of others. She's an imperfect person who achieved much, protected many, but destroyed some people in the process. She was also environmentally destructive. She was very human (unlike the saints as they're usually portrayed in hagiographies). Oh yeah - someone above doubted that she could question the Christian faith (and in particular, the Trinity) in the time in which she lived. I think she could have, but would have had to keep her thoughts to herself. (I did enjoy the image of God as a dove laying eggs.) The nature of the Trinity has always be a problem that has remained unsatifactorily explained.
Eve wrote: "It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn this thread back to something less acidic. I really enjoyed the no..."
Mo’ better. I agree. My central disagreement though is this matter of “Marie is just a flawed individual doing good.” I don’t buy this rationalisation at all.
Marie’s community of women was in bad economic shape but perfectly safe without her somewhat insane actions. The thought that she is not an arch misandrite is too tendentious to even respond to. That she is a criminal is a self-confessed certainty. And that her latter building of the Abbess house has nothing at all to do with her community, her friends, or her religion but only with her obsession to get the Queen into bed (literally and metaphorically).
So aside from giving clerical blokes one in the eye for their general unlikeability (note that no harm or threats are ever implied from these weak-minded simpletons) she accomplishes really nothing except a needless murder. Her brief moments of conscience are just that - brief and inconsequential. What matters to her is getting her way, no matter what it takes. And her machismo is obvious (there, I’ve avoided the offensive ‘butch’).
And by the way, it is reasonably clear that she had no interest in theology - Trinity, divine presence, the meaning of salvation, etc, none of that interested Marie at all. As I pointed out, she entirely ignores church doctrine as well as ritual observances at will.
It seems to me that Marie is the perfect fit for what we call today a narcissist. Please give me one textual reason why this is not so.
Mo’ better. I agree. My central disagreement though is this matter of “Marie is just a flawed individual doing good.” I don’t buy this rationalisation at all.
Marie’s community of women was in bad economic shape but perfectly safe without her somewhat insane actions. The thought that she is not an arch misandrite is too tendentious to even respond to. That she is a criminal is a self-confessed certainty. And that her latter building of the Abbess house has nothing at all to do with her community, her friends, or her religion but only with her obsession to get the Queen into bed (literally and metaphorically).
So aside from giving clerical blokes one in the eye for their general unlikeability (note that no harm or threats are ever implied from these weak-minded simpletons) she accomplishes really nothing except a needless murder. Her brief moments of conscience are just that - brief and inconsequential. What matters to her is getting her way, no matter what it takes. And her machismo is obvious (there, I’ve avoided the offensive ‘butch’).
And by the way, it is reasonably clear that she had no interest in theology - Trinity, divine presence, the meaning of salvation, etc, none of that interested Marie at all. As I pointed out, she entirely ignores church doctrine as well as ritual observances at will.
It seems to me that Marie is the perfect fit for what we call today a narcissist. Please give me one textual reason why this is not so.
BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn this thread back to something less acidic. I really en..."
I agree with some of what you say, but not entirely. I think there's a flip side to your interpretation, but, unfortunately, as I listened to the audio version I can't go back and find passages to quote. I'm sure I do remember reference at least a couple of times to Marie's thoughts about the Trinity.
Marie did pull the convent out of poverty into a self-sustaining community. She disliked the punitive anger of (I can't remember which nun(s) ) and tried to counter it. She stopped the practice of humbling nuns by putting them to work at the jobs at which they were least able and gave them tasks they were good at. This was a more productive use of womanpower and also far more humane.
The building of the maze to keep men out is a bit fantastical, but then, I think this responds to what many women at certain times wish they could do, at least metaphorically. Your perspective is that of a male; this book is about women. Even if none of the nuns tell us of abuses by men (physical or otherwise) when Marie arrives, the fact is they were at the very least constrained and controlled by men, and given what Marie says later of their confessions, it's evident that they had also suffered abuses. Given MeToo in the 21st century, it's hard to imagine that abuses weren't rampant in the 12th.
We know also that Marie couldn't have performed Mass or listened to confessions if the community weren't closed off. The rights and wrongs of her doing so is complicated, in part by theological beliefs and Catholic practice that are rightfully raised.
Given the interdict, it's hard to say that Marie was entirely wrong.
As for breaking the law, I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Certainly, her encroachment on crown land to build the pond comes to mind. I wish that Gaff had gone into more of Marie's thinking about this if Gaff thought of this as something other than an unjustified land grab. (Is it justifiable to ensure survival in times of drought?)
I agree that Marie greatly dislikes (hates?) men. Her sexuality, by the way, however you choose to define it, is irrelevant here. And the terms you use are not applicable to the Medieval period - we don't know how she would have/have been identified. It's more important to think of her size and build as a metaphor for her powerful personality. Her lack of beauty is relevant only in that she wasn't marketable in courtly marriage market. The two together make her an outsider free to act out a different way of living.
As a man, you may well dislike Marie's attitude to males. However, she's reacting to systemic misogyny, something (as I hope you realize) that women have had to live with for thousands of years and trying to make an island of safety free from it.
Does she do this in a positive way? Often no. Is her goal strictly selfless? Absolutely not. Does she question her own motives? Yes, she does. I don't think she came to a clear conclusion (I can't quote passages), but I don't think we can either. And that raises interesting questions about how we all behave - are we able to get power and use it for positive change purely selflessly, or do we have to have personal ambition as well?
I agree with some of what you say, but not entirely. I think there's a flip side to your interpretation, but, unfortunately, as I listened to the audio version I can't go back and find passages to quote. I'm sure I do remember reference at least a couple of times to Marie's thoughts about the Trinity.
Marie did pull the convent out of poverty into a self-sustaining community. She disliked the punitive anger of (I can't remember which nun(s) ) and tried to counter it. She stopped the practice of humbling nuns by putting them to work at the jobs at which they were least able and gave them tasks they were good at. This was a more productive use of womanpower and also far more humane.
The building of the maze to keep men out is a bit fantastical, but then, I think this responds to what many women at certain times wish they could do, at least metaphorically. Your perspective is that of a male; this book is about women. Even if none of the nuns tell us of abuses by men (physical or otherwise) when Marie arrives, the fact is they were at the very least constrained and controlled by men, and given what Marie says later of their confessions, it's evident that they had also suffered abuses. Given MeToo in the 21st century, it's hard to imagine that abuses weren't rampant in the 12th.
We know also that Marie couldn't have performed Mass or listened to confessions if the community weren't closed off. The rights and wrongs of her doing so is complicated, in part by theological beliefs and Catholic practice that are rightfully raised.
Given the interdict, it's hard to say that Marie was entirely wrong.
As for breaking the law, I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Certainly, her encroachment on crown land to build the pond comes to mind. I wish that Gaff had gone into more of Marie's thinking about this if Gaff thought of this as something other than an unjustified land grab. (Is it justifiable to ensure survival in times of drought?)
I agree that Marie greatly dislikes (hates?) men. Her sexuality, by the way, however you choose to define it, is irrelevant here. And the terms you use are not applicable to the Medieval period - we don't know how she would have/have been identified. It's more important to think of her size and build as a metaphor for her powerful personality. Her lack of beauty is relevant only in that she wasn't marketable in courtly marriage market. The two together make her an outsider free to act out a different way of living.
As a man, you may well dislike Marie's attitude to males. However, she's reacting to systemic misogyny, something (as I hope you realize) that women have had to live with for thousands of years and trying to make an island of safety free from it.
Does she do this in a positive way? Often no. Is her goal strictly selfless? Absolutely not. Does she question her own motives? Yes, she does. I don't think she came to a clear conclusion (I can't quote passages), but I don't think we can either. And that raises interesting questions about how we all behave - are we able to get power and use it for positive change purely selflessly, or do we have to have personal ambition as well?
Eve wrote: "BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn this thread back to something less..."
Unbelievable. People can rationalise anything. At every point in your argument you go beyond the text into a never-never land of your own fantasy. You project yourself into Marie in order to ‘understand’ her. You project onto me your presumptions of male sensitivities. And when you cannot project, you just dismiss as inconsequential. What crime?, you ask. I already mentioned them in my remarks but you seem to have ignored them. Forgery, misappropriation, criminal trespass for a start. But how could you miss her direction of the murder of the royal bailiff? Talk about selective attention!
There is an enormous difference between critical analysis and arbitrary interpretation. I asked you to be textual. You ignored my request and claim unavailability of the text. So please stop this ‘She’s just a flawed individual nonesense.’ She did manage to get the convent back ‘in profit.’ At what moral cost? She did ease the lives of the nuns by altering disciplinary procedures. But she also regularly overrode community desires and forced her companions into manual labour, completely neglecting why they were there in the first place.
If the head of a modern corporation had committed the acts Marie had, squandered company resources, fiddled his/her way out of trouble, and acted so blatantly in furtherance of her/his personal agenda, he/she/it would be in the pokey.
So please let you remarks lie fallow as they are for the sake of minimally good scholarship, even if it’s only on GR.
Unbelievable. People can rationalise anything. At every point in your argument you go beyond the text into a never-never land of your own fantasy. You project yourself into Marie in order to ‘understand’ her. You project onto me your presumptions of male sensitivities. And when you cannot project, you just dismiss as inconsequential. What crime?, you ask. I already mentioned them in my remarks but you seem to have ignored them. Forgery, misappropriation, criminal trespass for a start. But how could you miss her direction of the murder of the royal bailiff? Talk about selective attention!
There is an enormous difference between critical analysis and arbitrary interpretation. I asked you to be textual. You ignored my request and claim unavailability of the text. So please stop this ‘She’s just a flawed individual nonesense.’ She did manage to get the convent back ‘in profit.’ At what moral cost? She did ease the lives of the nuns by altering disciplinary procedures. But she also regularly overrode community desires and forced her companions into manual labour, completely neglecting why they were there in the first place.
If the head of a modern corporation had committed the acts Marie had, squandered company resources, fiddled his/her way out of trouble, and acted so blatantly in furtherance of her/his personal agenda, he/she/it would be in the pokey.
So please let you remarks lie fallow as they are for the sake of minimally good scholarship, even if it’s only on GR.
Mimi wrote: "Curious how even a fictional character can fool people into confusing means and ends. I haven’t read it but I really don’t want to after your review."
Actually it’s never clear what her ends are, except to seduce the Queen, for which she’ll do anything she can. I cannot fathom how readers can be so side-tracked by their own fixations that they can’t even understand a simple, uncomplicated, un-layered, sixth grade level story. There’s a great flaw in education somewhere.
Actually it’s never clear what her ends are, except to seduce the Queen, for which she’ll do anything she can. I cannot fathom how readers can be so side-tracked by their own fixations that they can’t even understand a simple, uncomplicated, un-layered, sixth grade level story. There’s a great flaw in education somewhere.
BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn this thread back to so..."
Okay, BO, you're turning nasty again. I'm not going to engage further because, apart from anything else, you disregard what I've written to the same degree you accuse me of and accuse me of ignoring things you say you've stated before, but which, on re-reading your posts, I can't find.
I'll stick to my view that I enjoyed the book, think it's worth reading, and that it raises interesting questions for discussion, both literary (ie fantasy vs. reality) and historical. Sadly, it doesn't appear to be possible for we two to engage in such discussions meaningfully.
Okay, BO, you're turning nasty again. I'm not going to engage further because, apart from anything else, you disregard what I've written to the same degree you accuse me of and accuse me of ignoring things you say you've stated before, but which, on re-reading your posts, I can't find.
I'll stick to my view that I enjoyed the book, think it's worth reading, and that it raises interesting questions for discussion, both literary (ie fantasy vs. reality) and historical. Sadly, it doesn't appear to be possible for we two to engage in such discussions meaningfully.
Eve wrote: "BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "BlackOxford wrote: "Eve wrote: "It's a pity the 'discussion' here has turned so nasty - it rather puts me off commenting on BO's review. However, I'll try to turn th..."
Quite right too. When you’re out-gunned, leave the field. Put another way - it’s really not wise to be a child in an adult game.
“Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And universal darkness buries all.”
— Alexander Pope, The Dunciad
Quite right too. When you’re out-gunned, leave the field. Put another way - it’s really not wise to be a child in an adult game.
“Nor public flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And universal darkness buries all.”
— Alexander Pope, The Dunciad
I may not get as far as you did. I'm on page 32 and this book is killing me... I'm very likely to DNF it.
Beth wrote: "I may not get as far as you did. I'm on page 32 and this book is killing me... I'm very likely to DNF it."
There are many people out there, aside from Trump, with no taste whatsoever.
There are many people out there, aside from Trump, with no taste whatsoever.
Amaka wrote: "I learned more about this book from your review than I did slogging through it."
I know. Isn’t it just ghastly. I see no point to at all.
I know. Isn’t it just ghastly. I see no point to at all.
Thank you for writing this review. This book infuriated me for all of the above reasons. This book was peak white feminism.
This was a weird thread to read - first of all, if you're starving to death, you're not safe. But, anyway, focusing on the concept of misandry is a weirdly superficial place to stop thinking about this character's motivations. Of course she is a misandrist - she is born of a rape and exists in the middle of non-stop misogynist violence, and the book is about everything that is understandable, laudable AND troubling about this attitude in her. The way she anoints herself as savior, there is a constant tension between her greatness and her hubris. The fact that you, BlackOxford, have taken an extremely combative and uncharitable attitude toward this book and the women commenting thoughtfully on your harsh take is really suspicious. Books by and about non cis men are still the minority, and it's just a disservice to the complexity of this book to harp on the fact that you, personally, didn't vibe with the main character's relationship to gender.
Marcella wrote: "This was a weird thread to read - first of all, if you're starving to death, you're not safe. But, anyway, focusing on the concept of misandry is a weirdly superficial place to stop thinking about ..."
Read my introductory paragraphs again. Then try not to presume so much about either the book or my comments. I was neither combative nor uncharitable about this literary character (is such a thing possible?). I see no greatness only venality, and narcissistic rage. You might point to contrary evidence but you’ll not find any. I did not stop my critique at misandry. The abbess is also a liar, an exploiter of women and a murderer. Because you identify with the character does not make it some sort of model.
Read my introductory paragraphs again. Then try not to presume so much about either the book or my comments. I was neither combative nor uncharitable about this literary character (is such a thing possible?). I see no greatness only venality, and narcissistic rage. You might point to contrary evidence but you’ll not find any. I did not stop my critique at misandry. The abbess is also a liar, an exploiter of women and a murderer. Because you identify with the character does not make it some sort of model.
Thank you for putting your review out there and helping me to gain more from reading. I admired the book for its lovely prose but had similar frustrations and tensions.
Beata wrote: "No one cares. It's a book by a woman, for women. No one expects a man to understand and like it."
Angry women perhaps, but not thoughtful ones.
Angry women perhaps, but not thoughtful ones.
Yeah, well. I usually expect more from your reviews. I, too, was less than impressed with the book and thought Groff almost offensive in her shallow depiction of the uses and abuses of faith, indeed, of mysticism. Yet, I find your focus on 'sisterhood' to be equally as shallow. There are a lot of problems with the book and I found Groff's exploration of 'sisterhood' to be too close to pandering, but your critique of Groff's book as a polemic misses the mark and comes off as polemical as not.