2002 Shortlist: Unless

[Trevor]

tk

[Meike]

I am really looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts on this one, because it left me annoyed and confused. Here's my review:

"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 mimicking 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!

[WndyJW]

Excellent review Mieke. Insightful and very funny!!
I plan on finishing Family Matters and reading Unless after my spooky Oct reads and my Puritan/New England/American Revolution November reads so that I can participate in the Booker 2002 discussion and ranking.
I look forward to rereading your review after I finish Unless. From what you've written I suspect I will feel the same way.

[Meike]

Wendy wrote: "Excellent review Mieke. Insightful and very funny!!..."

Thank you very much, Wendy! ...and I thought my reading list was long! :-) I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on "Unless", as I think that some parts could also be interpreted very differently.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I finished this yesterday, and I enjoyed it much more than Meike did, in fact I was quietly impressed - I liked the metafictional aspect of a writer writing about a writer. I found a lot of gentle humour in it too, and didn't worry too much about analysing the behaviour and motivation of the characters. My copy has a glowing quote from Rachel Cusk on the cover - I did wonder whether Shields inspired her Outline and Transit.

[WndyJW]

There are so many good things about this group, but the diversity of opinions and friendly attitude towards differences is my favorite aspect. Now I really can't wait to read it.
i don't have a long list of books to read these two months on Oct 31, (my bday) I am done with ghost stories until next Oct 1. Ill probably start Unless then.

[jo]

i read this book when it came out and loved it so much i gave away copies to anyone who would take them. i am not strong enough to read it again. it made me cry and cry.

[Neil]

From a book written 15 years ago:

"At the moment I am attempting to be a good citizen who supports her local library, which is dramatically underused by the community and in danger of closing"

Plus ca change.

Although my local library is actually well used for things that libraries didn't do 15 years ago (mainly internet access), just not that well used for borrowing books! It is under constant threat of closure.

[Neil]

Writers who “put a doorway, say, or a chair in every chapter, just to be baffling and obscure”.

Is she having a go at any real books? Or just generically?

[Neil]

Is there a logic to or reason for the chapter names?

[WndyJW]

Neale wrote: "Neil wrote: "Is there a logic to or reason for the chapter names?"

I was wondering that too. I'm sure that there has to be a deep and meaningful reason for their use. Surely they can't just be a r..."

The novel also functions largely as an investigation into the role of writing in general (independent of gender). Reta's grief over her daughter's state makes her very inwardly focussed on the process of writing. A reflection of this is shown in the title of the book and the chapter titles. "Unless" and the chapter titles ("therefore", "else", "instead") are all words that are used to couch the fragmented manner in which life fits together. As Shields writes, "A life is full of isolated events, but these events, if they are to form a coherent narrative, require odd pieces of language to link them together, little chips of grammar (mostly adverbs or prepositions) that are hard to define [...] words like therefore, else, other, also, thereof, therefore, instead, otherwise, despite, already, and not yet."

I found this on Wikipedia by asking, "is there a reason for the chapter titles in Carol Shield's Unless?"

You were right, Neil. It also said Ms Shields died shortly after this book was released.

[Neil]

Thanks, WndyJW - that makes a lot of sense -the book itself is very fragmentary in nature and I have noticed several points where it seems to repeat something which I originally thought was unnecessary or a mistake, but now seems to make more sense if you view the whole things as fragments.

[Neil]

Rather spookily, I just said to my wife “The next chapter is called Notwithstanding” and she said “That’s exactly the word I just read, as you said it, in my book”.

[WndyJW]

Neil wrote: "Rather spookily, I just said to my wife “The next chapter is called Notwithstanding” and she said “That’s exactly the word I just read, as you said it, in my book”."

It is Halloween season....

[Neil]

I have finished this now and sit somewhere between Meike and Hugh. It was OK and some bits of it were very good. I mainly felt let down by the ridiculous editor figure towards the end but also to a degree by some of the points Meike raises far more eloquently than I could. I liked the story about Reta and her daughter but found some of the more “meaningful” stuff a bit clunky.

[WndyJW]

This book has slid down my TBR. I only got it for the reread, the first chapter didn't grab me, and I have some very promising books recently arrive. I would rather try to finish Family Matters. Maybe next year...

[Trudie]

Well, I decided since I was so close to having read the entire 2002 shortlist that I should tackle this, my only outstanding book. So far I quite like it.

[Meike]

Neil, thanks for referring to my review (I'm sorry that I didn't see your comment earlier!). I agree with you that Shields conveys her messages in a rather clunky manner, that bothered me as well.

Trudie, I am really interested in hearing your thoughts!

[Trudie]

Well, that went about as well as I expected from the outset.

I am largely in alignment with Meike on this novel. Although it's possible I was annoyed by slightly different aspects. I was less concerned about Reta's passivity and also less willing to accept the final explanation for Norah's actions. The entire incident seemed a contrivance.
But most perplexing was this odd kind of parody at play both with the novels that Reta writes ( I never want to hear the title a A Thyme in Bloom again ) but also these riffs on housework and shopping. I all feels a little dated and stuffy in its execution to me.

I do feel some kind of glee for having completed a year of Booker history where I have read an entire shortlist ! I thought this 2002 year had a very strong list of contenders.

[Meike]

Trudie, I am also happy you completed the whole shortlist, because now we get to hear your thoughts on all of the books! :-)

You're right, the question arises why Reta writes these novels (I am not going to repeat the title to spare your nerves :-)) - when she wants to be taken seriously as a female writer, she might have to write serious books, not clichéd romantic comedies - and again, there are no circumstances or other forces that pressure her to make this decision. It does not seem enough to me to just pre-emptively declare: "Well, as a woman, I am a victim in that people expect me to write shallow stuff" - that's not only over-simplified, it's just untrue.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

I don't think Shields meant the reader to sympathise or agree too much with Reta's view of the world - for me it is something of an arms length caricature...

[Trudie]

Hugh wrote: "I don't think Shields meant the reader to sympathise or agree too much with Reta's view of the world - for me it is something of an arms length caricature..."

Maybe thats true, but I missed whatever hints were given about caricature at least as Reta was concerned. Was I wrong to view her as a version of Shields herself ?
Perhaps I should have been reading this with an eye more towards farce as has been suggested ....

As regards all the books in this shortlist - I can say I had an almost impossible task to separate Family Matters, Dirt Music, Lucy Gault and Fingersmith but Life of Pi remains cemented at number one and this one firmly at number 6 and probably off the list all together if I considered the long listed options.

[Hugh, Active moderator]

"A version of", yes, but I think she meant it to have an element of self-criticism. For me the book was full of gentle humour, but as I have just said on the Lucy Gault thread, I don't think lack of sympathy for characters should affect our judgment of a work of fiction...

[Ang]

I'm with Meike on this one. I wasn't really interested in any chapter that didn't include one of her children. The other chapters were too self-obsessed. Perhaps that was the point, but I found Reta quite boring, and the book within the book doubly so.

[Dan]

After Meike’s review, and the additional comments by all here, there’s not much to add from my reading of Unless. Unless, of course, I read it somewhat differently.

I’m of mixed feelings about Unless. On the one hand, I found Unless a surprisingly light, quickly compelling, and sometimes humorous novel (I’m with Hugh on this). I rather enjoyed the family dynamics, superficial as the descriptions of the daughters were. Ditto with Danielle Westerman.

On the other hand, the overall tone of Unless felt oddly discordant to me. There’s an emotional flatness to Reta that just didn’t convincingly reflect the horror of a college-age daughter abandoning her family and her studies to beg, sitting a Toronto street corner through a Toronto winter (through a Toronto winter?). Have you read Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Lowland? Subhash and Gauri both seemed emotionally flat throughout most of The Lowland, as many have commented critically, but I always felt that Lahiri portrayed their emotional flatness as an effective means of conveying their depression and disappointment. Have you read Philip Roth’s American Pastoral? Although more extreme than Norah in Unless, Merry in American Pastoral also abandons her family and her studies for an unmoored, dangerous, and marginal life. But Roth portrays the Swede, Merry’s father, as consumed by worry by what’s become of his daughter. The torment felt by the Swede was physically palpable to me.

I felt none of this with Unless.

[Meike]

Dan wrote: "After Meike’s review, and the additional comments by all here, there’s not much to add from my reading of Unless. Unless, of course, I read it somewhat differently.

I’m of mixed feelings about Un..."

Oh, I LOVE American Pastoral - comparing the Swede to Reta is certainly interesting on many levels, because he embodies the successful all-American male holding many privileges and attitudes that Reta criticizes - and then his life falls apart.

[Dan]

Meike wrote: "Oh, I LOVE American Pastoral"

Meike, I've read American Pastoral several times. Each time I read it, it crushed me more than the last time. It was especially crushing for me when my daughters were about the same age as Merry. American Pastoral is one of the few novels that elicited, literally, visceral reactions in me.

And Meike also wrote: "then his life falls apart" Yes, that was an interesting contrast with Reta: the Swede's life seems at least temporary destroyed, while Reta in fact seems concerned but also seems to cope quite well.

[Meike]

Oh great, you're also a fan of Roth! In my opinion, he is a true master when it comes to showing how easily a life can get off the rails, and it's very unsettling. As a PoliSci nerd, I also appreciated the political level of American Pastoral. I would love to write so much more, but I only have my phone here because I am currently travelling for work...

[WndyJW]

I have picked up Unless again. It didnt grab me at first, but I am finding it more interesting now. I will reserve judgement on Reta until the end, but having had a child in crisis years ago I don't know that most mothers would go from their street child to getting their eyebrows done, but we each deal with stress differently so I have to see how it plays out.

[Dan]

Meike wrote: "As a PoliSci nerd, I also appreciated the political level of American Pastoral."

Meike, Roth's The Plot Against American is another masterpiece, and especially relevant to the U.S. right now. His Our Gang seemed like heavy handed satire when it was first published—before Watergate—but it rapidly became clear that Our Gang was remarkably prescient.

If we're going to continue this discussion—which I would be glad to do—let's move it over to the Author chat folder/Philip Roth.

[Meike]

I absolutely agree: The Plot Against America is amazing! Unfortunately, I haven't read Our Gang yet. I'll get to write on my PC again on Wednesday (I'm currently in the grasp of real-life politics), then we can talk on the other thread as you suggested!