Jeanne’s answer to “Would Korean people really react to someone becoming a vegetarian as if it were unhealthy and incre…” > Likes and Comments
16 likes · Like
You would think the men in her life would realize this, but no, they treat her with the same abuse that caused her problems in the very first place. It's ironic and could very well be based on truth. Men in Korea don't like being challenged by women, especially if they are younger because it isn't culturally acceptable.
That part was weird. It was pretty clear what was going on but they just kept harassing her.
NAH....look it up...the author herself was "an ardent Buddhist in her twenties"...the vegetarianism isn't a symptom of "psychosis." But thanks for your bias!
Well of course I disagree with you. In the end she stops eating plants too because they have feelings. And there are numerous references to the violence she has suffered and how meat reminds her of blood and how she feels dominated and oppressed by her family and her husband. She literally starves herself to death. So I guess maybe you could remove your blinders and reread. Or not. I'm not making these references up. they are all there.
From the New York Times review: An ascetic tome this is not: The novel is full of sex of dubious consent, all sorts of force-feeding and purging — essentially sexual assault and eating disorders, but never by name in Han’s universe. A family gathering where Yeong-hye is attacked by her own father over meat-eating spirals several layers darker into self-harm, though it won’t be the last time a man (or she herself, for that matter) violates her body. Violation of the mind, however, is a different issue. “The Vegetarian” needs all this bloodletting because in its universe, violence is connected with physical sustenance — in meat-eating, sex-having, even care-taking. Outside intervention, from family and friends and doctors, works to moderate the reality of this story, but their efforts are in the end as anemic as Anne Rice’s rescue of “the despised.” After all, who is the victim here? You can’t save a soul if it becomes something beyond salvation.
This book is not about simple vegetarianism. And the fact that the author is a vegetarian has very little to do with the book's true themes.
It is not the vegetarianism the father and her husband are reacting to. It is the very notion she is going against the norm and expectation which is a big deal in Korean society.
This is the first good analysis of the book I've read. Thanks for that.
I agree with you on everything except for the vegetarianism starting as 'a symptom of the psychosis...'
It started as a response to her dreams. She made an attempt to purge that violence from her by removing violence from her diet, but I don't think she was 'psychotic' at that point.
I'm not sure she was psychotic at all, even towards the end. I think her refusal to eat was the only means left to her to take control of her body and her life.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Amanda
(new)
Aug 01, 2018 10:36PM
You would think the men in her life would realize this, but no, they treat her with the same abuse that caused her problems in the very first place. It's ironic and could very well be based on truth. Men in Korea don't like being challenged by women, especially if they are younger because it isn't culturally acceptable.
reply
|
flag
That part was weird. It was pretty clear what was going on but they just kept harassing her.
NAH....look it up...the author herself was "an ardent Buddhist in her twenties"...the vegetarianism isn't a symptom of "psychosis." But thanks for your bias!
Well of course I disagree with you. In the end she stops eating plants too because they have feelings. And there are numerous references to the violence she has suffered and how meat reminds her of blood and how she feels dominated and oppressed by her family and her husband. She literally starves herself to death. So I guess maybe you could remove your blinders and reread. Or not. I'm not making these references up. they are all there.
From the New York Times review: An ascetic tome this is not: The novel is full of sex of dubious consent, all sorts of force-feeding and purging — essentially sexual assault and eating disorders, but never by name in Han’s universe. A family gathering where Yeong-hye is attacked by her own father over meat-eating spirals several layers darker into self-harm, though it won’t be the last time a man (or she herself, for that matter) violates her body. Violation of the mind, however, is a different issue. “The Vegetarian” needs all this bloodletting because in its universe, violence is connected with physical sustenance — in meat-eating, sex-having, even care-taking. Outside intervention, from family and friends and doctors, works to moderate the reality of this story, but their efforts are in the end as anemic as Anne Rice’s rescue of “the despised.” After all, who is the victim here? You can’t save a soul if it becomes something beyond salvation.This book is not about simple vegetarianism. And the fact that the author is a vegetarian has very little to do with the book's true themes.
It is not the vegetarianism the father and her husband are reacting to. It is the very notion she is going against the norm and expectation which is a big deal in Korean society.
This is the first good analysis of the book I've read. Thanks for that.
I agree with you on everything except for the vegetarianism starting as 'a symptom of the psychosis...'It started as a response to her dreams. She made an attempt to purge that violence from her by removing violence from her diet, but I don't think she was 'psychotic' at that point.
I'm not sure she was psychotic at all, even towards the end. I think her refusal to eat was the only means left to her to take control of her body and her life.
