I am assuming that everyone has read a work of scholarly criticism. Maybe some of you have even written a work of scholarly criticism <kudos if that’s the case>. But what happens when you take the tropes of that type of writing and apply it to yourself or how you view others? The elevated language, the convoluted symbolism and the ever constant references to different works can leave a feeling of numbness. At least, that’s what I experienced while reading Bechdel’s graphic novel.
When I refer to numbness I am not trying to insult the text by saying I was bored. But how can one truly connect with a text when the author tries its best to create the distance?
It was like she was recreating her father’s fortress of solitude <aka-his library> in pictures and narrative. He tried to make a room solely devoted to art and expression, the higher reaches of culture. But most of the books in there were never experienced, left to collect dust. The appearance without substance.
Why write an extremely personal and graphic <no pun intended> account of your life and devalue the best part? It was like she couldn’t explain herself or the relationship she had with her father without dissembling or making a connection with literature. And I find it slightly ironic that she BSed her way through her oral exam of Ulysses, even stating that she didn’t understand why someone would look for the underlying symbolism and just read the damn thing, and then uses Ulysses as a way to represent herself and her father.
At that point I just wanted to exclaim,” Just let me read the damn thing without adding anymore metaphors or symbolism!” Or at least don’t point it out to me and trust that I can see the parallels myself.
I think for me, at least, the emotion is contained within the metaphors, vocabulary, etc – Bechdel seems to process through thinking, which may seem odd, but makes a lot of sense to me.
But then, I’ve always felt there’s a distance between me and emotions generally…
I would agree that “The elevated language, the convoluted symbolism and the ever constant references to different works can leave a feeling of numbness” was precisely why she BS’d her exam…and instead eventually found actual (non-numbing) meaning in such work later on, when she looked at it from a more personal lens.
In fact, I’d even say that I ultimately found the hyper-literacy ultimately endearing, once we realized the full connection between her, the text, and her father…a connection she certainly seems to want to emphasize by the end of the narrative. I think you’re completely right, she couldn’t explain the relationship “any other way”–I found this no different than the kids who bond with their parents over sports, or nature walks…or maybe even Holocaust stories.
Anyway, I guess I’m completely confused what “the best part” is you think she’s devaluing. If nothing else, the artwork at the end of the book (as others have pointed out) seems pretty clear that she is putting quite a high value on quite a few things.
I found myself reacting similarly, at first at least. I even tweeted something along the lines of “Um, what can I analyze now that she’s spending most of the book analyzing everything herself?” But, I think I’m (sort of) coming to terms with how Bechdel chose to write the book and chose to see things, specifically her father and her understanding of him. She said why use all the symbolism when talking about Ulysses, but her father needs the symbolism in order to be understood by Bechdel because she seemed, for a large portion of the book, to only be able to see him through other things.