I'm doing English A Level and reading this and a couple other for the Gothic genre. Throughout I was well aware of the themes and saw where it was going but.... I knew, knew knew KNEW that there was NO WAY the author would get it DAMN RIGHT, because it was published in the fecking eighties.
For those who don't know, it's about Frank, a rather insane 16 year old with OCD leanings. He's pretty sexist, overtly, he believes he was maimed at 3 years old where the family dog bit his penis off, and compensates, as would lend to a dramatic personality. In the end spoiler he finds out that when he was savaged by the dog his father saw it as a scientific opportunity to raise Frank, who it turns out, was FAAB, as a boy and give him T and such. At which point he pretty much abandons ALL character he had built up before, accepts that he is 'a normal female' and bla bla bla - we aren't given much to go on at the end but some pointless preachy bullshet. As far as I see it right now.
I just read it- speed read the last few pages because there was a lot of inane tripe about the fooking landscape in it trying to be all reflective or somesh*t. I'll have to read over the end again but here are my initial RAEGES about this damned book, following reading it and a few reviews on how frucking ground breaking and amazing and sunshine out of an*s rainbows it is:
- Frank had never held issue with being a man, never once in the book hinted that he was unhappy with his gender, merely resentful that he didn't have genitals
- He has reason other than his genitals for his sexism towards women, in the book, society is to blame in the subtext, as well as all instances of mother figures in his life leaving and being general dicks to him / his brothers/ father
- He thinks he can never be a 'full man' because he lacks genitals... Even though, because of T, he is developing as a boy should for all intents and purposes. I felt it criticising my transition, though I know not it's intent.
- He is not a normal female! The book states he is 'capable of giving birth'! That after 13 years on T pre-puberty, no onset of female puberty and instead a male one, the likelihood of that happening seems minute to say the best; I don't have the figures, but I am sure it is leaning towards impossible. Plus, his voice is broken, he has beard growth, just, all the things! All normal boy things! How IS he going to be a female now? 16 years of feeling fine as a male, I'm just boggled, what is the point of this STORY! The author Iain Banks appears to be saying that, gender is irrelevant of biology and is a social construct- this is undeniably a feminist text; yet, with this twist and Franks seeming acceptance that he is female, Iain seems to be saying that gender is ultimately biological! Which handcuffs women AND men, allowing bigots and sexists and such to carry on saying gender traits are undeniably biological therefore inevitable! The message is so confused! I understand that, at the time of the novel, '->-bleeped-<-' was a lot less well known, and informed, than it is now, yes. But still! It feels like, just because it was controversial - the violence, gore, death, and then finally, the gender twist, that critics and readers would pander to it saying it had a glorified message.
Humph. Seems like I was going to abandon it for use in my course because I was so angry with it, but that just fuels my mind for criticism and argument.
Can anyone enlighten me please? I feel like I am clouded by my judgement here, and viewing it too personally because the subject matter is too close to heart. All through, it seemed good enough. I enjoyed reading it up until the end. Can anyone tell me the actual point??
