NP - Cat Person

[Laura Kelber]

Both the story and the reaction to the story are reminiscent of Mary
McCarthy's The Man in the Brooks Brother Shirt:

Not one to shy away from controversy or from probing the limits of sexual
embarrassment, Mary McCarthy wasn’t a likely writer for Harold Ross’s *New
Yorker*, much less for any “old lady in Dubuque.” “The Man in The Brooks
Brothers Shirt,” published in *Partisan Review* in 1941—which begins with a
young bohemian intellectual setting out to raise the consciousness of a
middle-aged businessman encountered in the club car of the train taking her
West, only to wake up the following morning, naked and hungover, alongside
the man, who looks like “a young pig”—had made her a heroine to a certain
kind of young woman. For Alison Lurie, studying at Radcliffe, the story
made clear “you could have a relationship with a man just for the fun of it
and you didn’t have to feel guilty or upset.” For Pauline Kael, “it was
tonic.” This was partly because it offered a heroine who “could be asinine
but she wasn’t weak.” For a sixteen-year-old George Plimpton, “that
somebody could write a story about things like that” made it remarkable. He
added that, at Exeter, the story “made almost as much an impression as
Pearl Harbor.”

The response of most men was less positive. For the young writer Alfred
Kazin, there was “a contempt for men” in McCarthy’s descriptions of what
took place on that train. For the even younger writer Saul Bellow, that
contempt took a specific and unacceptable form, “I remember coming across
those sentences that say in effect: She lay like a piece of white lamb on a
sacrificial altar. ‘Bullshit,’ I said.”

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/mary-mccarthy-edmund-wilson-and-the-short-story-that-ruined-a-marriage

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah....and I'd like to know the women who read it for consideration
> too.....even the New Yorker has changed THAT (somewhat)
> Deborah Eisenberg has been one, I think....Deborah Triesman,
> too?.....There are, for things like this,  even shadow readers not on any
>  "official" map ) to quote
> a famous writer)....Susan Sontag used to be one when she was alive I'm
> sure........Helen Vendler now?....many contributors-- like Masha Gessen?
> others...
> .....
>
> And ANY now classic story has had divided opinion even inside The New
> Yorker....The solid William Maxwell hated The Lottery for example......
> seems a good case can be made that that perfect story {Nabokov's words] A
> Perfect Day for Bananafish was a lot worse as submitted and was
> "made' with lotsa editorial suggestions---which JD took pretty easily they
> say.
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that the group of men who read the story in the New Yorker,
>> because they're in the habit of reading stories in the New Yorker, may have
>> very different views of the story than the men who read it once it became
>> viral. Obviously some small subset of the first group belongs to the latter
>> group. But once this or any story hits the social media, the "angries" on
>> either side gain prominence and distort the tone of the conversation.
>>
>> 2017-12-12 8:28 GMT-05:00 Drake Smith <drake.smith3 at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Mark, your point about men and women reading differently is something
>>> that is so subtle yet obvious––something I've overlooked. It's a
>>> captivating concept to delve into, how writers need to wield perspectives
>>> (or choose to resonate with one) and how we as readers need to have the
>>> capacity to occupy both. In my opinion, Pynchon is one of the best writers
>>> when it comes to gender and how he can make us identify or empathize (often
>>> satirically) with either gender.
>>>
>>> 2017-12-12 4:42 GMT-08:00 Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I do know.....happens ALL the time....doesn't answer "Should
>>>> they?" question....
>>>> And, lots of perspectives on a great work but surely even more that
>>>> are, simply, wrong.
>>>> Sorting them out  is what we sometimes do on this list re Pynchon.
>>>>
>>>> And what we all do as critical readers. Yes?
>>>>
>>>> 2017-12-12 7:23 GMT-05:00 Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Do men and women read The Scarlet Letter differently? *Moby Dick*?
>>>>> Pynchon? Should they? <
>>>>>
>>>>> Too long to translate but very funny so here's the original (the male
>>>>> protagonist, who loves *Moby-Dick*,  thinks that there are only "good
>>>>> and bad books" and that it shouldn't matter by whom they were written,
>>>>> while his girlfriend emphasizes a gender perspective and absolutely hates
>>>>> the novel which she thinks to contain merely repressed male sexuality and
>>>>> which she associates with porn: Hanna calls it "disgusting", "inane" and -
>>>>> summing things up - "trivial crap"):
>>>>>
>>>>> " ... Ich prahlte damit, dass 'Moby Dick' eines meiner Lieblingsbücher
>>>>> sei. Als sie Moby Dick hörte, ließ sie sich vornüber auf die Tischplatte in
>>>>> den verwischten Zucker falllen, richtete sich wieder auf, Zuckerkristalle
>>>>> auf der Stirn und der eingedrückten Nase, und rief: 'Na bravo, das musste
>>>>> ja früher oder später kommen!' Sie fand das Buch widerlich und nannte es
>>>>> eine präpotente Männerallmachtsphantasie. Das Meer sei das Weibliche, so
>>>>> Hanna, auf dem diese riesige weiße Vagina ihr Unwesen triebe. Eine
>>>>> schwimmende, bewegliche, nicht verfügbare Riesenmuschi sei dieser Wal. 'Und
>>>>> Kapitän Ahab', rief sie zornig und schwenkte ihr Glas, 'fährt über alle
>>>>> sieben Weltmeere, um dieser Sekrete in den Himmel spritzenden Walmöse
>>>>> seinen Harpunenschwanz reinzurammen.' Wir küssten uns. Den Beginn des
>>>>> nächsten Satzes sprach sie noch in meine Mundhöhle hinein. 'Und warum? Um
>>>>> sich zu rächen? Ein Schiff voller verwegener Männer, die monatelang keinen
>>>>> Geschlechtsverkehr hatten und an nichts anderes denken, als ihre Harpunen
>>>>> in etwas Großes, Nasses zu stoßen, das nur selten auftaucht! Dieses Buch
>>>>> ist so verklemmt, so voller verkappter Anspielungen. Zum einen ist da
>>>>> dieses Atemloch des Wales, zum anderen hat Ahab, diese arme Wurst, sich ein
>>>>> Loch ins Oberdeck bohren lassen, damit er bei Sturm sein Holzbein
>>>>> reinstecken kann und nicht umkippt. Um seine offensichtliche Impotenz zu
>>>>> kompensieren, penetriert er sein eigenes Schiff mit diesem für ihn
>>>>> maßgeschneiderten Holzbeindildo. Wie krank ist das denn?'
>>>>>    Als ich lachte, wurde Hanna wütend. Sie beschimpfte mich
>>>>> regelrecht, rief, dass ein Buch, in dem ständig Männer brüllen 'Da bläst
>>>>> er!', der letzte lächerliche Dreck sei. 'Das klingt doch voll nach Porno.
>>>>> Hat jemand vielleicht den Hauptdarsteller gesehen? Wo ist eigentlich
>>>>> Gregory Peck? Na hinten. Was macht er denn schon wieder hinten? Da bläst
>>>>> er! Und allein schon dieser Titel: 'Moby Dick'! Du weißt, was das bedeutet,
>>>>> oder? Richtig übersetzt müsste das Buch 'Moby Schwanz' heißen. Alles in
>>>>> diesem Buch ist sexuell konnotiert. Niemals hätte das eine Frau schreiben
>>>>> können. Das ist Männerliteratur, par excellence! Merde banale!' Ich mocht
>>>>> es, wenn sie in Rage geriet, eloquent, brillant und obszön war.
>>>>>    'Hanna, das ist eines der tollsten Bücher, die je geschrieben
>>>>> wurden. Allein was man da über den Walfang erfährt. Ich finde dieses Gerede
>>>>> über Männer- und Frauenliteratur komplett lächerlich. Es gibt gute und
>>>>> schlechte Bücher, ist doch egal, wer sie geschrieben hat!' 'Lächerlich?
>>>>> Hast du gerade lächerlich gesagt? Tausend Seiten hat dieses Buch! Tausend
>>>>> Seiten über einen weißen Fisch!' Da machte ich einen Fehler und platzierte
>>>>> die gängigste aller Besserwissereien wie aus einem Reflex heraus in ihren
>>>>> Aufruhr hinein. 'Ein Wal ist kein Fisch.' Sie verstummte mit offenem Mund
>>>>> und mir war sofort klar, dass sie an diesem Abend kein einziges Wort mehr
>>>>> mit mir wechseln würde.
>>>>>    Hanna riss ihren Trenchcoat von der Sessellehne  und rief der
>>>>> Kellnerin zu: 'Ich will zahlen!' Die Bedienung kam und fragte: 'Getrennt
>>>>> oder zusammen?' Hanna fuhr sie an: 'Was geht dich denn das an, du blöde
>>>>> Kuh, ob wir getrennt sind oder zusammen. Wir wissen das doch selbst nicht
>>>>> so genau.' Sie warf mit großer Geste einen Geldschein auf den Tisch und
>>>>> schwankte, ohne mir noch einen versöhnlichen Blick zu schenken, aus dem
>>>>> Lokal. Wie immer auf und davon." <
>>>>>
>>>>> Joachim Meyerhoff: Die Zweisamkeit der Einzelgänger (Alle Toten
>>>>> fliegen hoch Teil 4). Köln 2017: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, pp. 99-101.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Meyerhoff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.12.2017 um 11:07 schrieb Mark Kohut:
>>>>>
>>>>> First New Yorker story to go viral since The Lottery? The history of
>>>>> that story is fascinating and the virality of this one shows
>>>>> some of the same "problems".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, one of my first responses is WHY should men react differently than
>>>>> women?...
>>>>> It is about a man and a woman; mostly, since she narrates, about the
>>>>> woman.
>>>>> Isn't that all of us?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fiction, even with rich ambiguity, exists independently of
>>>>> gender-perspective, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do men and women read The Scarlet Letter differently? Moby Dick?
>>>>> Pynchon? Should they?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, differing reactions is a sociological thing, yes, and not any real
>>>>> kind of judgment?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm easy. Just let me know that The New Yorker chose it and it hit
>>>>> home to many and I say it is a first-rate story.
>>>>> Lemme explicate.....
>>>>>
>>>>> (He ducks)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A very astute, well-written, dead-on accurate rendering of thoughts
>>>>>> and feelings that most women who've dated have experienced, more or less.
>>>>>> But that very accuracy renders it less memorable. I gather that men
>>>>>> experience this story in a different way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reminds --in immediate diverse responses, including the
>>>>>>> will-never-die
>>>>>>> confusion of fiction with non-fiction by many readers--of Shirley
>>>>>>> Jackson's
>>>>>>> New Yorker story, The Lottery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John is so right about it being some kind of cultural symbol as well
>>>>>>> as a short story. I love 'is shit...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Dec 11, 2017, at 3:07 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > If you've heard anything about this New Yorker short story (or if
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> > haven't) it's worth reading now before you develop too many
>>>>>>> > preconceptions. I've never seen a piece of fiction trend on
>>>>>>> Twitter,
>>>>>>> > inspire memes, and turn social media into a place for passionate
>>>>>>> > literary debate from both pro- and anti- camps. I certainly
>>>>>>> > flip-flopped many times while reading it myself, but I think it's
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> > helpful to go in without knowing what to expect. You'll hear people
>>>>>>> > talking about it soon.
>>>>>>> > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
>>>>>>> > -
>>>>>>> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20171212/53d0919e/attachment.html>