Gerald's Reviews > The Marriage Plot
The Marriage Plot
by Jeffrey Eugenides
by Jeffrey Eugenides
Masterful on many levels. At first I wasn't drawn to any of the three characters in the love triangle - Madeleine, Leonard, and Mitchell. Each seemed deeply flawed, and they are. Except you read along and find that Eugenides thinks we all are, just as deeply in our unique ways, and are none the lesser for it. That's the way people are, and the way life goes. We stumble through it, thinking we are somehow in control, and it's what happens nevertheless while we are furiously busy making other plans, or simply fretting about making up our minds.
This is a literary novel, in the best sense, and I was surprised to read some critics cramming it into the diminutive genre "campus novel." That would be like classifying Pride and Prejudice as a rom com, which is not as irrelevant as it sounds. The marriage plot, you see, is the genre form of which that work is representative. Eugenides wants to know whether the marriage plot is dead as a meaningful literary form, now that marriage seems hardly worthy as the ultimate goal of youthful aspirations.
Then there's the theme of semiotics. I studied with Roland Barthes (yes, I'm that old) and back then I don't think the term semiotics even existed. At least, I don't recall his ever having used it. But he talked incessantly about structuralism, that a novel is a long sentence spoken by its author, a literary construct waiting to be parsed. Understand, I didn't get any of this from him back then, just from what others, including Susan Sontag, have written about him since. His lesson plan was built around Balzac's short story "Sarrasine," which is the engrossing tale of a man obsessed by an opera star who turns out to be both a castralto and the "kept woman" of a powerful priest. But why Barthes chose that story for his criticism totally escaped me at the time, and I can only surmise now what his intentions were.
But back to Eugenides. The characters meet in a semiotics class at Brown, and the author gives a lot of detail about the subject and its impact on their personal thoughts. Semiotics claims, for example, that humans would not experience love as we have come to understand it unless we had read about it (or seen movies about it) first. There's a similar concept in Stendhal's The Red and the Black, in which the narrator comments that peasants in the French countryside cope with life less well than the sophisticated citizens of Paris, who have all read novels that give them models for how to act in society.
Ultimately, this is a novel about perception, what we make of reality as it is happening to us, and our inability to make meaning of events in time to control their outcome. Things happen or they don't. Things work out or they don't. They mostly don't, and we move on.
Perhaps significantly, the character in this book who understands himself best is the one whose grasp on reality is most tenuous, because he has to work at staying sane. In his acknowledgements, Eugenides credits several experts and sources for genetic research (another theme), but he thanks no one for his extensive detailing of bipolar disorder and its treatment. So naturally I wonder how he came by this information, and at what personal cost.
Cross-posted on www.boychiklit.com
This is a literary novel, in the best sense, and I was surprised to read some critics cramming it into the diminutive genre "campus novel." That would be like classifying Pride and Prejudice as a rom com, which is not as irrelevant as it sounds. The marriage plot, you see, is the genre form of which that work is representative. Eugenides wants to know whether the marriage plot is dead as a meaningful literary form, now that marriage seems hardly worthy as the ultimate goal of youthful aspirations.
Then there's the theme of semiotics. I studied with Roland Barthes (yes, I'm that old) and back then I don't think the term semiotics even existed. At least, I don't recall his ever having used it. But he talked incessantly about structuralism, that a novel is a long sentence spoken by its author, a literary construct waiting to be parsed. Understand, I didn't get any of this from him back then, just from what others, including Susan Sontag, have written about him since. His lesson plan was built around Balzac's short story "Sarrasine," which is the engrossing tale of a man obsessed by an opera star who turns out to be both a castralto and the "kept woman" of a powerful priest. But why Barthes chose that story for his criticism totally escaped me at the time, and I can only surmise now what his intentions were.
But back to Eugenides. The characters meet in a semiotics class at Brown, and the author gives a lot of detail about the subject and its impact on their personal thoughts. Semiotics claims, for example, that humans would not experience love as we have come to understand it unless we had read about it (or seen movies about it) first. There's a similar concept in Stendhal's The Red and the Black, in which the narrator comments that peasants in the French countryside cope with life less well than the sophisticated citizens of Paris, who have all read novels that give them models for how to act in society.
Ultimately, this is a novel about perception, what we make of reality as it is happening to us, and our inability to make meaning of events in time to control their outcome. Things happen or they don't. Things work out or they don't. They mostly don't, and we move on.
Perhaps significantly, the character in this book who understands himself best is the one whose grasp on reality is most tenuous, because he has to work at staying sane. In his acknowledgements, Eugenides credits several experts and sources for genetic research (another theme), but he thanks no one for his extensive detailing of bipolar disorder and its treatment. So naturally I wonder how he came by this information, and at what personal cost.
Cross-posted on www.boychiklit.com
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Marriage Plot.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-16 of 16) (16 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jim
(new)
Oct 26, 2011 05:58pm
Great review!
reply
|
flag
*
Wow, Judy, that's an insight. I'm embarrassed to say I don't know Wallace's work, but he'll be on my list. I see he had only three novels - The Broom of the System, Infinite Jest, and the unfinished The Pale King.
Well yes, only three novels, but they are doorstops. I have not read him yet myself. He has wildly rabid fans and equally vocal detractors, but I get the idea that he had some important things to say.
Thank you for your background and insight on the topic of semiotics, which I must admit was new to me. And I also admire the observation that Leonard is the one who knows himself. It did seem ironic to me that Madeleine was the only one who knew what she was doing the following year. And yes, Eugenides's knowledge about bipolar disorder fed my worries; it did take him a long time to come out with a new novel, for instance. I've been wondering how he is.I suspect you'd love Infinite Jest. I've read it twice, and expect to read it again. It really is The Entertainment:) (I'm a slow reader, and yet...)
Thanks for this review. I, too, was impressed by the writing, particularly in regards to the description of what it is like to be in the clutches of a manic cycle. I don't suffer from the disease, but have family members who do, and find the passages about Leonard's struggles with that demon truly masterful, as is his grasp of the agony of those who love such people.
Loved your review. I thought Eugenides' description of bi-polar disorder is excellent and accurate. I had a friend who finally committed suicide as she could not bear the thought of her little baby having to be subjected to a mother with this devastating disease. The way he described the effects of Lithium is masterful - I spent many hours listening to my friend describe these.Thanks again for a great review.
One board (I no longer remember which) here on Goodreads suggested A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again (essays) (1997) as a good place to start with Wallace. I did; it was a good recommendation.
Gerald -- I used a quotation from your review in the The Red and the Black discussion on The Readers Review: Literature from 1800 to 1910 board. Thx for your insights.
This is one FANTASTIC review! On the issue of David Foster Wallace: I asked in a Goodreads interview whether the Leonard Banks character might have been inspired by DFW. Eugenides was dismissive, responding, "There's more than one guy who wore a bandana in the 80's." However, methinks he doth protest overly much (in his own dismissive fashion). After all, DFW suffered from crippling depression (and in reading his full-to-bursting prose, one might well imagine mania to have been part of the clinical picture ), he was a seminal bandana wearer, he majored in philosophy at an East coast Ivy, and they were young ubergenius writer friends back in the day. Eugenides would hate me for saying so, but I rest my case. I guess it doesn't really matter, ultimately - a work of art stands on its own. I loved this book, too; I salute its author and the gift of his talent.
According to a recent interview in the NY Times, here's what Eugenides is reading: "Right now I’m shuttling between “The Map and the Territory,” by the French novelist Michel Houellebecq, and the Patrick Melrose novels by Edward St. Aubyn, which everyone I know seems to be reading."New names to me.


