"Unless is the worry word of the English language. It flies like a moth around the ear, you hardly hear it, and yet everything depends on its breathy presence. (...) Unless provides you with a trapdoor, a tunnel into light, the reverse side of not enough. Unless keeps you from drowning in the presiding arrangements."
Reta (not Rita - Shields obviously read Derrida) Winters is 44, works as a translator and writer, is married to a doctor, has three daughters and a golden retriever named Pet, and lives in a beautiful house in Orangetown, Ontario. When her eldest daughter, 19-year-old Norah, drops out of college and starts to beg on a Toronto street corner, sitting behind a cardboard sign reading "goodness", Reta starts questioning her life: Is it really as idyllic as she thought, or did she simply not confront some lesser aspects of it? "I am supposed to be Reta Winters, that sunny woman, but something happened when her back was turned." In Reta's opinion, Norah consciously chose her new life of passivity because she realized that as a woman, she will not be granted the same opportunities as men, and she will not be able to fully experience the world.
It is remarkable how this set-up objectifies Norah: Her intentions are ascribed to her by her mother, she herself does not explain them (the truth only becomes clear at the end of the book, which to me was rather surprising, but well thought out). To some degree, Norah becomes a projection surface for her mother's feelings about gender inequlity, and, by that, also a victim of it. The sign saying "goodness" leads Reta to the interpretation that her daughter has committed herself to seeking goodness - which seemed odd to me, because a) as a beggar, she is asking for other people's goodness, and b) no one will increase the level of goodness in the world by sitting on a street corner.
Don't get me wrong: Misogyny exists, the glass ceiling exists, the standards for men and women are still different, and we have to fight it, "we" being women AND men, because the consequences would be good for everybody - it's not as if men weren't also trapped in toxic behavioral patterns. I am just not sure whether Carol Shields does a good job capturing the problem.
I have to admit that it certainly played a role that I simply did not like Reta, her passivity made me angry - and she was not in a position in which taking action would have been connected to possible negative consequences. Why does she treat her mentor Danielle Westermann like a mother-figure and belittles herself by never contradicting or challenging her? Why doesn't she simply ask her mother-in-law what it is that makes her so sad? Why doesn't she confront her almost grown-up daughters with the fact that they sometimes make her feel invisible and taken for granted?
Why does she write letters and does not send them? In case she just writes them to order her thoughts, why does she indulge in blaming those she adresses of not acknowledging the contribution of women to literature? I do agree with Reta that being a WASP is still very beneficial when you're a writer, but writing down this unoriginal observation in letters you do not even intend to send will most certainly not help the situation. It will and does put her down further, as it is nothing but a kind of rumination, re-assuring her of her own passivity. I am not a psychologist, but it seems to me that Reta is generally very busy demonstrating to what degree she internalized her learnt helplessness, a path that takes people straight to a final destination called depression - and instead of facing her own depression, Reta projects it onto her daughter Norah, because she is hardly able to feel herself.
Another aspect of the book that bothered me were the crude, in-your-face metaphors: Reta Summers becomes Reta Winters by quasi-marrying Tom (they are not really married so they can fool themselves that they are super-sixties-alternative - *yawn*), a friend gets her navel surgically removed because a man wants her to (you got to be kidding me), Reta's editor keeps interrupting her when she wants to explain her ideas for her novel, Reta tries to re-establish order in her life by cleaning her house, her quasi-husband Tom - who is a nice guy, but as a man seems also to represent the ancient male-dominated order - is a specialist for trilobites, oh yeah, and of course there's shopping for colorful accessories. Wait - are these still metaphors or is this just proof that Shields thinks her readers are not particularly smart, so she spares them the subtlety that, by the way, is unfortunately a typical power tool of misogyny?
In other parts, the levels of language are so twisted that it becomes impossible to deconstruct any meaning (for me at least): "The sentiment (of inequality) is excessive, blowsy, loose, womanish. But I am willing to blurt it all out, if only to myself." The language is as wrapped up in itself as Reta is, which is incredibly frustrating. What is Reta saying here? I am angry about inequality, so I am not going to do anything about it except letting my inner voice bitterly mimick the derogative perspective of misogynysts by calling my feelings "womanish". You do you, Reta, but this is nonsense. Why am I reading this?
This strange loop is also mirrored in the book Reta writes, a sequel to some light romance where a woman loves cats and makes rice casseroles because she is a woman or something along those lines (yes, I am losing patience with our good Reta, and I am not only verbalizing it to myself, folks).
And one last point: A writer does a major disservice to feminism when she writes sentences like "I've had about two. Two conversations with men who weren't dying to 'win' the conversation." This is simply absurd. Absurd!
At least this book offers a lot of material for discussion, so check out the Mookse & the Gripes Booker 2002 discussion thread!