Sunday! “The Book of X” by Sarah Rose
Has a dream ever struck you as funny?
I’m someone who has lucid dreams about half the time, and still I never recall laughing at the bizarre things happening in my dreams. And, let me note, I once had a dream in which my punk band had added Lionel Ritchie as a member because he could provide us with a van, and it really wasn’t working out, which still did not strike me as amusing. My point is that dream logic must be played straight-faced. If someone were to find it absurd, the dream would fall apart.
Surrealism is the art form of our age because nothing else quite captures the waking dream strangeness of the world in which we live. But, while surrealist films are still made, the surrealist novel is hard to come by; perhaps the two best practitioners in recent memory were J.G. Ballard and his epigone Will Self. A bit different from magical realism, its close cousin, surrealism seems particularly well suited to England, where the social reality is already a little bit stilted. It’s hard to imagine a Midwestern United States version of Lewis Carroll or Monty Python. Nor would they have worked as well if they hadn’t played it straight. Silly, but straight.
All of which is to say that Sarah Rose Etter’s “The Book of X” is my favorite book in almost a year of Sundays, which is fitting because the last book that bowled me over, Hanif Abdurraqib’s They Can’t Kill Us Until They Kill Us, was also published by the scrappy Two Dollar Radio, out of Columbus, Ohio. Okay, maybe surrealism can work in middle America.
This is the story of Cassie, who was “born a knot,” like her mother before her. There are, the book informs us, 45,000 types of knots, but hers is a basic overhand knot, with a hitch in the center of her torso, “creating dark caverns, coiled as snakes.” She’s only the third woman ever born with this particular deformity, which she will spend most of her life struggling to overcome, deal with, unknot.
During the week, Cassie and her knotted mother clean their house with lemons, while her father and brother work in the Meat Quarry on their land, pulling hunks of meat from its cavernous walls to sell in town. As the story begins, Cassie has never been to the quarry because she’s a girl. Eventually, she will see the caverns, work there, take a boy there, and possibly be unknotted.
All of this is rendered in spare straightforward writing that ties together poetry and prose, each coiling over the other. Cassie eventually moves to the city and gets a job as a typist and sinks into something like basic, quotidian loneliness. Maybe every human story, no matter how strange, is about loneliness at heart.
Does this mean her knot is a symbol of depression? Something we carry around, often handed down from our parents, that we hide from others, which honestly feels like a knot in the middle of us? It’s hard to say. As enigmatic as a dream really. The image of the dark red walls of meat in the cavernous quarry is pretty vaginal. And, in general, the book feels like a nightmare of the female body, a wrestling with the fleshy ugliness of our common human machinery. It is good to be reminded, from time to time, that there is no disembodied thought. The disgust we feel at our shocking, frightening, grotesque human bodies is a leveling emotion that places us within the world.
Or, removes us from the world. The Book of X is a sad coming of age story about a girl with a monstrous body who tries to connect with “normal” others and fails, although not through any fault of her own. It feels like a parable or a fairy tale, and so we keep expecting a happy ending. But this is “real life” and life doesn’t usually go that way. It’s surrealism, but Sarah Rose Etter tells all the truth, even if she tells it slant.
So, what did YOU read, ponder, play, create, watch, or unknot this weekend?
So does this book let us see how we are?Report
I think so, yes. She lays out the conceit early and you adjust to it as a story about the strangeness of having a body. At least, that’s how I took it. There are other ways to read it.Report
Okay. Saw Passengers.
A cute AAA movie with cute AAA stars and really good special effects and an interesting philosophical question: Are Extroverts Allowed To Do Whatever They Want?
You know the basic plot: Chris Platt is on a colony ship in hypersleep when they encounter an asteroid field that messes with the foolproof engineering devices on the ship. He wakes up, falls in love with the face of one of the other passengers in the sleeping pods, wakes her up, and then they fall in love, she finds out that he woke her up, and then they argue about it for a while.
What I did NOT know was that there were additional actors in the flick (not just the dancers in the video game, the voice actors for the robots, and the absolutely magnificent bartender): But, like, someone who could push the plot along.
Anyway, the main philosophical question is whether Chris Platt murdered Jennifer Lawrence by waking her up. Well… yeah. Kinda. I guess. He took away the life she thought she was going to have and, instead, forced her to have a different one.
So a very slow-motion murder is marked on Chris Platt’s soul.
But the movie has a bunch of things happen and, wouldn’t you know it, the thing that woke Chris Platt up in the first place has a bunch of cascading failures that threaten the entirety of the ship. So Chris Platt and Jennifer Lawrence fix the problem and they make the ship foolproof again.
They establish that Chris Platt was likely to kill himself from loneliness without another person there… either fast through the airlock or slow through the bottle. By waking Jennifer Lawrence up, he saved his own life. By saving his own life, he made it possible to save the rest of the ship.
So if you want to wander into Utilitarianism, the movie was a trolley problem. Do nothing and kill everybody or pull the lever and just kill Jennifer Lawrence.
He pulled the lever.
But, and the movie was explicit about this, they found that the autodoc could be set to put Jennifer Lawrence back in hypersleep. He could have put her back in there and been alone for the rest of his life. Hey, he had a good year with her.
There are a lot of people who never have a good year with anybody. He had a good year. That would have been enough.
Anyway, he then gave her a choice about whether to go back into stasis. So… finally, at the end, a choice was offered.
As such, she got offered the type of death she wanted. And then she picked it.
Friggin’ Extroverts.Report
It is interesting that the big message of the movie is “if you give men gfs they’ll be happy”. A surprisingly conservative take for a big-budget Hollywood production.Report
Genesis 2:18 ain’t no joke.
Um. No religion.Report