Steven: Well Fay, your favourite/the worst book of the tournament is out. HOW DOES IT FEEL? Look, this isn’t a chatz format, let the readership know that I wrote these arguments in advance giving Fay PLENTY OF TIME to rebut. (Fay: while Steven has more time to research, as referenced by his prodigious referencing.) But I hope the truth shines through and that EUGENIDESTRUCTION 2012 is a resounding success. Allow me to begin with the most glaring fault, Madeleine. As one of the three central characters, probably the one with the most pages devoted to her, you’d expect her to be more than just a hollow, agency-less shell right? Noooope. Madeleine is boring. Here is what we know about her: she’s preppy, she likes order and neatness but ALSO she secretly loves the punishment of disorder. Aaaand that’s as far as her depth goes. To quote Hmgillispie in the ToB comments, “Madeleine has no personality except for her views on literature”. Amen brudah, and something a number of people seem to have picked up on. What I’ve seen mentioned a bit in the ToB comments and elsewhere is that the people who like Madeleine either associate her with themselves, or someone they know, thus filling in the gaps in her character. Fay, if I may be so bold to suggest that you may well fit into this category. In addition! Name one thing that Madeleine does in the book that isn’t about either Mitchell or Leonard OH WAIT YOU CAN’T. Oh sorry, she goes to a conference and decides to study post-grad Victorian literature WHOA SLOW DOWN THERE EUGENIDES! Throughout the book, all of her actions are precipitated by one of these two men. She goes to Cape Cod to be with Leonard, and then… actually I’m just going to paste this same argument from a discussion here by Nika Knight at Full Stop: “Even when she scandalizes her mother by moving in with her boyfriend, she’s just following him to a place where she has no job and no goals and no friends. Even when ending her marriage, she does so by acquiescence”.
Fay: Ok let me jump in here for a second. This is a complaint I’ve heard a lot and I think it is by people being thoroughly uncreative and unrealistic. Madeleine is not a Mary Sue! She’s kind of wry, but not particularly funny. She’s pretty enough to make life easier but is not defined by her looks. She’s smart, but not a genius and not confident enough to voice her thoughts in class. [Steven: So far you're only kinda ADDING to the boring thing] Quiet you! She’s glad that someone else says ‘Barthes’ first so she doesn’t embarrass herself. You know what that sounds like to me (ok other than me [except for the pretty part], I’ll give you that [Steven: Ha!])? A REAL PERSON. Real people aren’t all stunningly and interestingly characterised, they’re ok at stuff, and nervous and unsure sometimes. [Steven: Agreed! I'm not asking to read a book about perfect people (if I was I'd just write my autobiography HEYOOO) because that would be boring. My complaint isn't that she's not perfect but that she's boring. So all this would be fine as a basis for the character! But there is no development or journey, no change or transformation. She stays that way through the whole book, and that's not enough to make an interesting character.]
And yes, she doesn’t do a lot by herself. May I remind you the book is called The Marriage Plot? It’s a take on the freaking Victorian marriage plot and if Madeleine was full of agency and practical ideas about where her life was going she wouldn’t be at the centre of this book. [Steven: Well, first things first, it's meant to be a late modern take on the marriage plot which takes feminism into account. It seems that part was forgotten by Eugenides. ADDITIONALLY, if the book didn't remind you every 10 seconds (look here's the name of a book, aren't YOU clever) it would just be taken as a good ol' fashioned love triangle. FURTHERMORE that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying she has to know everything but I am saying that Eugenides short shrifts her. I can't say I've read any marriage plot books but I assume the women at their centre aren't simply the pawns of everyone else for the entire book? EVEN FURTHER she's not really at the centre of the book. It starts as hers but really ends as Mitchell's, which emphasises all the more her lack of agency. The book ends, once again, in her simple aquiescence] She follows Leonard because she doesn’t know what else to do with herself. Again, REAL PEOPLE may totally finish college and be at a loss and grab onto whatever is going rather than go back to live their parents’ house. The uncertainty of the newly graduated is part of the setting of this book and why it works the way it does. Madeleine, Leonard and Mitchell are all on the edge of something, moving from a day-to-day life full of literary debate and beatnik one-upmanship into a world where they are suddenly expected to know what to do and how to do it. Madeleine doesn’t, and that’s precisely the point. And who hasn’t clung onto a love affair hoping to recapture their initial feeling? Why does everyone find Madeleine so hard to deal with? To me she is completely real and perhaps fairly ordinary but that is precisely the point.
Steven: Mitchell and Leonard, on the other hand, have a lot more going on. More depth goes into Mitchell’s idolisation of Madeleine than goes into her character. Mitchell and Leonard both have Stuff Going On, as well as character development. Leonard is the most interesting of the three, suffering from bipolar disorder he is either a manic force of nature, bringing joy and excitement into Madeleine’s (and others’) life (until it inevitably goes too far) or he is helpless and demure, in need of Madeleine’s attention. Both of these states are vividly detailed, and a lot more of Leonard’s personality shines through than Madeleine’s (oh no, she just doesn’t have one). Mitchell too is more interesting. Though I found him a whiny, annoying jerk who needs to shut up always (which further says something about Madeleine). Admittedly THAT last complaint is a personal taste thing. But let me tell you if there is one thing I don’t want to read about it’s people backpacking in Europe/India. Actually, that was another thing. That section was too disjointed from the narrative. I found in the (roughly) last third everything became a bit too loose and messy, in an unsatisfying way.
Fay: Again, DISAGREE. I found the backpacking section another example of a real person being lost that rang true. The romance of the adventure compared to the realities of being lonely and confused and quite literally lost is something that most travellers will be able to identify with. Especially the scene at the start with Mitchell’s friend ditching him for his annoying girlfriend. I also found it particular interesting as a period piece, a time when backpacking meant being constantly disconnected from everything you knew. Mitchell’s isolation is highlighted by all the letters sent and not sent. And I thought the looseness was again indicative of mental state. Mitchell is isolated and confused, stringing his experiences together in the hope of finding some religious or spiritual meaning. I thought the writing conveyed that really well. [Steven: All of that, MAYBE! Not caring about white people backpacking and despairing is clearly a personal thing. But you haven't addressed its disjointed-ness from the rest of the book.] Ok, maybe because I didn’t find it so disjointed really. This is a post-college self definining story and it fits in perfectly, as well as being a common experience, with that theme. Mitchell, who seems to have everything going for him tries to physically distance himself from everything in an attempt to define HIMSELF rather than fall into a path defined for him. Each character spends a lot of the novel feeling profoundly alone, Mitchell just happens to experience this physically as well. It worked for me. Furthermore while I agree with your liking the intensity of the Leonard section, may I controversially say that I found him and not Mitchell to be the annoying one.
Steven: The first third of the book was pretty orright! I like college/university stories, probably because THAT’S WHERE I LIVE! and I particularly like wanky theories and such because THAT’S WHAT I DO! So the bits at Brown were fun, where there was still the potential for Madeleine to become not boring.
Fay: Me too! It inspired me to go out and buy a copy of A Lover’s Discourse by Barthes (which I now know how to pronounce correctly) from the one and only Sunflower Bookshop! Buy books there now! I honestly think that you may have liked it more if you had finished uni and were trying to make your life work in the real world. That’s where I live. It is confusing and scary and you don’t always know where to go or what to do. And you’re not the smartest person or the most beautiful person or the most creative person [Steven: speak for yourself! Fay: I saw that coming the second I wrote that.] so you just see what comes along and go where it will take you. Eugenides captures this perfectly [Steven: I will accept this! But unfortunately that's not all the book's about].
So the verdict? We must agree to disagree!
Agree or disagree with us Agree with Steven in the comments.