tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21736689.post7804798742457653176..comments2023-08-22T11:00:08.809-04:00Comments on Loose Ends: Favorite Books: The Charioteer by Mary RenaultPatrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10556860299477514075noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21736689.post-66349938580775366162016-02-10T13:43:15.476-05:002016-02-10T13:43:15.476-05:00Karolinka, yes, I now see the book as being more ...Karolinka, yes, I now see the book as being more nuanced on this topic than I did when I first read it at age 12. Freudian explanations for homosexuality were still largely unquestioned at the time (late seventies, early eighties), I knew that in my case it was complete nonsense, and I was probably a little touchy on the issue. Ralph does say that after he gave up his two year experiment with women he thought "thank the Lord, back to normal at last." Actually it is Alec who speculates that "probably we're all part of nature's remedy for gross over-population..." but your point still stands. In that same speech he states "in the first place, I didn't choose to be what I am, it was determined when I wasn't in a position to exercise any choice and without my knowing what was happening." Seems like a pretty clear statement that he is benign, even if it still implies something happened to make him gay, though one might argue he's saying it happened en utero. <br /><br />On the flip side, he later says he's never 'involved a normal person or a minor' and earlier that same evening Laurie says Shakespeare (as presumably bisexual) is 'normal plus, not minus' so there is still an ambivalent use of the word normal by the men...but that is probably just an accurate representation of how the men would have discussed the topic at the time. The book has many more layers and colors than I could appreciate at the time. I think it's a similar evolution with how I felt about the party-goers in my first reading. <br /><br />That said, I would still argue that Renault clearly paints Laurie having a textbook case of Oedipus complex. I think the first chapter of the book is there for no other reason, for example. Laurie refuses to do officer training in school because his mother was dating an officer at the time, he fantasizes that while she might not want to hear he was gay, she would say 'it's enough to know there will be no other woman,'etc. (As I mention above, I'd say a similar story is given to Andrew, though not to Ralph.) The Oedipus complex wasn't considered solely the province of gay men, of course, but an unresolved one was. If Renault does lean on Freud more than I might like, it's only fair to admit that doing so would have put her firmly in the camp of leading scientific thought at the time, and as such, was innovative. Freud was accepted as fact by most of the medical community when this novel was written, especially in England. But seeking a psychological explanation for homosexuality was a big improvement over simply identifying it as a sin or a perversion, even if it still left the door open to the thought of a 'cure'. Perhaps it can be argued that with this novel she was making a case for tolerance to a wider audience. And whether that's true or not, I think you're right, she offers many ideas for how and why a person might be gay, and ultimately her book is life-affirming and humanizing. (I still think the first chapter could go, though. :) ) Thanks for writing. Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10556860299477514075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21736689.post-81220333302633670372016-02-09T13:40:23.825-05:002016-02-09T13:40:23.825-05:00I don't take it that Renault is saying so much...I don't take it that Renault is saying so much that something CAUSED Laurie's and Ralph's homosexuality, in a Freudian way. Laurie himself says "he didn't choose this music to move to, it chose him." And Ralph says that perhaps it's nature's answer to a state of "gross over-population." I took it that Renault was saying Laurie's parents' influences SUPPORTED his homosexuality, but didn't CAUSE it. I guess I inferred the same for Ralph.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03061828596572833314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21736689.post-2387142954950053432014-02-07T12:30:30.837-05:002014-02-07T12:30:30.837-05:00Dearest Patrick,
Holy guaca-MOL-y this is good....Dearest Patrick, <br /><br />Holy guaca-MOL-y this is good. I can't pause long just now; gotta finish reading Virginia Woolf on biography for my 1:00 class. But this is spectacular reading, writing, thinking, feeling. Thrilling. Beautiful. Touching. As good a text for reflecting on teaching and learning, as they go together, as I have read in a long time. Thanks for the wonderful lunch hour! Love, MareMarynoreply@blogger.com