‘Breaking the tethers of need’:

Liberation and the Anorexic Aesthetic in Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping

and Alexandra Kleeman’s You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine

MA Thesis in Literary Studies: English Literature & Culture

Graduate School of Humanities

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Rebecca Took

11657790

Supervisor: Kristine Johanson

CONTENTS

Contents Page

Statement of Originality 3

Abstract 3

Introduction 4-10

1. Illness and Otherness: The Weight of the Body Made Metaphor 11-21

2. ‘Darkness is the only solvent’: Domesticity and the Dissolution 22-34

of Boundaries

3. ‘To crave and to have are as like as a thing and its shadow’: 35-44

Anorexic Desire and the Immateriality of Memory

4. ‘Breaking the tethers of need’: The Anorexic Aesthetic as a 45-54

Rejection and Repudiation of Consumerism

Conclusion 55-56

Works Cited 56-63

2 Statement of Originality

This document is written by Rebecca Took who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Humanities is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Abstract

In a lecture on Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping (1980), Amy Hungerford argues that the novel exhibits ‘an anorexic aesthetic’, which she defines as ‘an aesthetic of starving the self into invisibility so that the voice can become present’(00:47:44). By comparing the presentation of the anorexic aesthetic in Robinson’s novel and Alexandra Kleeman’s You Too

Can Have A Body Like Mine (2015), I shall examine how the anorexic aesthetic can be used to interrogate conventional conceptions of subjectivity, and the body.

While I shall contextualise the anorexic aesthetic in relation to the illness of anorexia nervosa, and the medieval phenomenon of anorexia mirabilis, this is not a medical humanities study, nor even an examination of the presentation of anorexia in literature. The anorexic aesthetic is literary mechanism which performs akin to allusion, expanding the boundaries of the material, exposing and interrogating the limits of the body and the imagination. By ‘breaking the tethers of need’, the anorexic aesthetic is an aesthetic of liberation.

3 ‘Breaking the tethers of need’: Liberation and the Anorexic Aesthetic in Marilynne

Robinson’s Housekeeping and Alexandra Kleeman’s You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine

‘I was hungry enough to begin to learn that hunger has its pleasures, and I was happily at ease in the dark, and in general, I could feel that I was breaking the tethers of need, one by one.’ - Marilynne Robinson, Housekeeping (204)

Anorexia Nervosa, or ‘anorexia’, is defined as ‘a condition marked by emaciation, etc., in which loss of appetite results from severe emotional disturbance.’(Oxford English

Dictionary, n.) According to the DSM-III criteria, symptoms of anorexia include: ‘refusal to maintain normal body weight; loss of more than 25 percent of original body weight; disturbance of body image; intense fear of becoming fat; and no known medical illness leading to weight loss.’(Brumberg 14)

An ‘aesthetic’ is a common grouping of icons, signs or motifs, the sum of which has a readable significance beyond its constituent parts. According to Stein Haugom Olsen, a literary aesthetic is identified through the judgement of a ‘constellation of textual features,’(523) which, he reasons, ‘deserve to be referred to as a ‘constellation’ rather than as a mere ‘collection’ because the aesthetic judgement confers on them, taken together, a significance or a purposive coherence.’(524) An aesthetic, therefore, has a purpose: it is not merely decorative or coincidental.

In this thesis, I shall examine the presence, presentation and features of the anorexic aesthetic in Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping (1980) and Alexandra Kleeman’s You Too

Can Have A Body Like Mine (2015), arguing that the recognition of the anorexic aesthetic in both authors’ novels is essential to not only understanding their protagonists, but their philosophical and sociocultural perspectives. The anorexic aesthetic, I shall argue, performs

4 as a vehicle of liberation, emancipating the subjective self from the limits of the material, and the confines of material need.

Though ‘aesthetics’ can refer to ‘a system of principles for the appreciation of the beautiful’(OED n.1.a.), to apply this definition to the anorexic aesthetic would be to perversely interpret anorexia as a stylistic choice. Understood in the terms of a literary aesthetic – the recognisable construction of an idea, concept or image in language – the anorexic aesthetic invokes the symptoms and behaviours of anorexia nervosa in order to articulate an idea or view of the world which goes beyond the associations of anorexia itself.

In a lecture on the theme of loss in Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping (1981), Amy

Hungerford refers to the ‘anorexic aesthetic’ present in the novel. In Hungerford’s opinion, the anorexic aesthetic is ‘an aesthetic of starving the self into invisibility so that the voice can become present.’(00:47:34-00:47:44) Hungerford reasons that ‘the logic of absence starves away the person so that this fullness can appear.’(00:48:24) Though the idea of absence as a means to ‘fullness’ is a paradox, this is a valuable foundation from which to base an examination of the philosophical significance of the aesthetic. Hungerford states that the anorexic aesthetic ‘is the dark side of a novel that so many people initially read as a feminist novel, a novel celebrating the strength and the independence of women. It turns to an aesthetic that has a kind of purchase in our culture; that sense of anorexia blends into the spiritual fullness of imagining memory as this beautiful, lyrical presence.’(00:48:26-

00:49:00)

However, though provocative, Hungerford’s reading lacks clarity: it imagines subjective identity as ‘voice’, yet that which is starved ‘into invisibility’ is referred to as ‘the self’. Hungerford’s unclear differentiation between the physical and non-physical, even to illustrate the elision of this distinction, renders her reading of the anorexic aesthetic somewhat obscure. While her identification of the anorexic aesthetic in Housekeeping is an

5 illuminating reading of the novel, she fails to explain the specific features of the aesthetic, or even clarify how the aesthetics of anorexia are recognised. In this thesis, I aim to not only show how the anorexic aesthetic operates, but by dissecting the different ways it functions according to context, to show that the aesthetic is not only a question of voice. Unlike other critics, who have analysed the aesthetic in relation to a single author, by comparing these two novels, I shall expand the scholarship from a situational understanding of the anorexic aesthetic, to a more comprehensive, theoretical perspective.

Hungerford is not the first or only critic to identify the anorexic aesthetic in literature.

Lisa Sewell refers to the ‘so-called anorexic aesthetic’ in Louise Glück’s poetry, noting that,

‘for [Glück], self-starvation was a means of self-construction,’(54) associating the poet’s

‘unadorned language of abstract statement and absolute declaration’(55) with an anorexic sensibility. Heather Kirk Thomas writes of Emily Dickinson’s metaphorical and biographical association with anorexia, arguing that ‘if Proust’s style can be considered ‘asthmatic,’

Flaubert’s ‘apoplectic,’ and Milton’s ‘blind,’ I believe that Dickinson’s style can be characterised as ‘anorexic.’’(207) However, in my opinion, the anorexic aesthetic differs to an anorexic style: while the latter is understood through a biographical study of the author, a literary aesthetic reflects the culture from which it emerges. The anorexic aesthetic is not a diagnosis of the character to which it applies, but an acknowledgment of the way the body, particularly the way the ill, and/or female body, is metaphorized. The aesthetic is a form of contextualisation, yet one which interrogates convention by holding it up to not only social, but philosophical scrutiny. Leslie Haywood blends sociology with literary criticism in

Dedication to Hunger: The Anorexic Aesthetic in Modern Culture (1996), examining the fictional presentation of anorexia through a biographical and cultural study of the illness.

Literary aesthetics are inherently engaged with sociocultural and philosophical beliefs, meaning that, as Alan Singer and Allen Dunn note, ‘aesthetic value can be

6 understood properly only in the context of a broader enquiry into human values and cultures.’(3) It is notable that all the authors mentioned above, in whose work the anorexic aesthetic has been identified, are female American writers, and my study of Robinson and

Kleeman further perpetuates this trend. Due to this common link, the relationship between the anorexic aesthetic, American society, and femininity seems especially significant, and important to consider. I shall therefore examine how the anorexic aesthetic relates to the experience of female embodiment and subjectivity, and how the refusal of food can be understood as a repudiation of contemporary American consumer capitalism. The anorexic aesthetic yokes these divergent ideas into communion, presenting the starvation of the body as not only a renunciation of consumerism, but a means of female liberation, and spiritual transcendence.

Writing about anorexia is not uncommon: the protagonists of Margaret Atwood’s The

Edible Women and Han Yang’s The Vegetarian both develop a neurotic aversion to food;

Emma Donoghue’s The Wonder fictionalises the phenomenon of 19th century ‘fasting girls’;

Laurie Halse Anderson’s Wintergirls presents a narrative from inside the mind of an anorexic teenage girl; and memoirs like Portia de Rossi’s Unbearable Lightness provide experienced accounts of living with anorexia. However, this thesis is not an examination of anorexic life- writing, medical humanities or lyric poetry, though these genres contextualise the anorexic aesthetic. It is an examination of the function of the anorexic aesthetic as a literary device which utilises the features and associations of anorexia in order to examine the idea of selfhood, and the culture from which that self emerges.

While the study of You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine forms a lesser part of this thesis, the comparison of Kleeman and Robinson’s novels enables a fuller understanding of the functions and complexities of the anorexic aesthetic. While distinct in style and settling, the novels exhibit several fundamental similarities. Both Robinson and Kleeman’s respective

7 protagonists are young women, and are presented as relatively lonely, isolated figures. Both eventually leave their own homes, an action which is related to their mutual incompatibility with the conventional world, and refuse sustenance to the point of physical starvation. Both novels are replete with allusion, which expands the connotations of the text beyond the scope of its language, and opens new channels of understanding. Though Robinson’s novel was written 35 years before Kleeman’s, both stories are set in particularly, albeit differently,

American settings, encouraging the interpretation of each novel as a reflection of that culture.

Housekeeping is set in the fictional town of Fingerbone: an isolated and insular place, dominated by a lake that regularly floods, and over which runs a railway bridge, which is the town’s main form of transportation. The novel is narrated by Ruth, an intensely meditative girl who, as a young child, was left by her mother, Helen, on the porch of her grandmother’s house, along with her younger sister, Lucille. Ruth reports that Helen committed suicide by driving into the same lake where her own father, Edmund, died years before, when the train he was on derailed. The sisters are subsequently brought up by their grandmother, Mrs.

Sylvia Foster, until her death, when their great-aunts Lily and Nona reluctantly arrive to take charge, lured in part by the free rent. When Helen’s younger, itinerant sister, Sylvie, returns to Fingerbone, Lily and Nona quickly depart, leaving Ruth and Lucille in their aunt’s unconventional care. As the house, unkempt and neglected, disintegrates, Lucille increasingly desires conventionality, and eventually leaves to live with Miss Royce, her home economics teacher. After Lucille’s departure, Sylvie’s behaviour becomes increasingly erratic, and the neighbours and local sheriff become concerned for Ruth’s wellbeing, bringing her food and clothing which she only passively accepts. Despite efforts towards conformity, the threat of their separation ultimately pushes Ruth and Sylvie to leave Fingerbone, after attempting to burn their house down. The pair are ‘cast out to wander, and there was an end to housekeeping.’(209) The night before their exodus, Ruth experiences a kind of revelation,

8 discovering that ‘hunger has its pleasures, and I was happily at ease in the dark, and in general, I could feel that I was breaking the tethers of need, one by one.’(204) Ruth’s ascetic embrace of hunger continues into their itinerancy, the pair travelling between towns, working as waitresses or clerks. In the final chapter, which is set years after their departure, Ruth shifts into the present tense, creating a division between her life in Fingerbone and her life as a transient. Ruth imagines seeing Lucille again, now an adult, and reports that the town believed her and Sylvie to have died while crossing the bridge, which shades the novel with a sort of ghostly, existential indeterminacy.

Like Housekeeping, Kleeman’s novel is narrated by its protagonist, known as A: a woman in her early-to-late twenties, who lives in a suburban American town with her roommate, B. Recalling her first meeting with B, A says how ‘she seemed so fragile when I had first opened the door, startlingly small in an overlarge dress and bare face. But she wasn’t really any smaller than me – I just couldn’t see myself from the outside.’(50) Their difference relies on A’s subjective perspective: objectively, they are close to identical. A and B’s similarity becomes increasingly acute, threatening A’s own sense of identity. A works as a proof-reader, a mundane and unrewarding job, and her relationship is presented as similarly lacklustre. Her boyfriend, C, is presented as somewhat emotionally detached and passive,

‘suited to his life and to the historical period within which his life unfolded.’(28) Though she glibly refers to C as ‘a happy camper’, A notes that ‘he always assumed I was happy, too, even when I wasn’t.’(28) A appears removed from the world she lives in, observing but not fully participating. However, she pays obsessive attention to television shows and commercials, and becomes fixated on ‘Kandy Kakes’, an artificial confectionary heavily advertised in commercials featuring ‘Kandy Kat’ in a series of different scenarios. However,

Kandy Kat is never able to grab or consume a Kandy Kake, and grows increasingly emaciated with each new advertisement. After being given a pamphlet in Wally’s (a

9 supermarket satirically inspired by the multi-national corporation, Walmart) A discovers the

‘Church of Conjoined Eaters’, a cult-like organisation which preaches that ‘the quickest route to self-improvement is self-subtraction.’(193) The Church forces its congregants (‘Eaters’) to cover themselves in white sheets, and permits them a rationed diet of only six Kandy Kakes a day. A believes that by following these rules, she will ‘grow clearer, thinner, Brighter, a more perfect vessel for my ghost […] with the help of these Kandy Kakes, I would finally become better in the Bright future ahead.’(203) But after finally breaking away from the Church, A realises that her exclusive dependence on the nutritionally empty Kandy Kakes caused her to starve, and the novel ends with an abstract meditation on the inescapability of consumption.

In the first chapter, I shall explore how the anorexic aesthetic can be understood as emancipation from the allegorization of the female body. In chapter two, I shall consider how, by dissolving the boundaries between the physical and immaterial, self-starvation enables liberation from the repressive materialism of the domestic world. In chapter three, I use Jacques Lacan’s theory of ‘anorexic desire’ in relation to Susan Stewart’s interpretation of ‘nostalgia’, showing how Ruth’s imaginative hypotheses evoke the expansionary function of the anorexic aesthetic. In the final chapter, I relate the anorexic aesthetic to the context of

American capitalism, showing that the anorexic aesthetic represents not only a rejection of, but liberation from, consumerism.

10 Chapter 1

Illness and Otherness: The Weight of the Body Made Metaphor

From the medieval metaphor of the body politic (OED n.1) to the post-industrial concept of the body as a machine, the metaphorization of embodiment realizes political and philosophical ideas in those terms most easily and directly comprehensible to us: our own bodies. Comparatively, as illness operates through the body, the use of illness as metaphor functions in much the same way, albeit through inversion, or negation. Disease is defined as the ‘a condition of the body, or of some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged’(OED n. 2.a.), rendering illness a fundamental deviation from the norm. The illness metaphor therefore operates through the signification of otherness, highlighting that which is divergent from a default of health. The anorexic aesthetic, if considered an expansion of the illness metaphor, complicates this idea, as it invokes the otherness of both the ill, and the female body.

The anorexic aesthetic is intimately associated with the specifically female body, for, as Joan Jacobs Brumberg notes, the vast majority of anorexics ‘are young and female, and they are disproportionately white and from middle-class and upper-class families’(15). This over-representation provokes scrutiny of the link between anorexia and women’s experience, and role in, society. As Caroline Criado Perez observes, ‘seeing men as the human default is fundamental to the structure of human society.’(5) That which diverges from the default, be it through race, gender, disability or size, occupies a liminal position charged with semantic weight which for the default is absent. Perez proposes that like whiteness, maleness is ‘silent’ because it ‘[does] not need to be vocalized. Whiteness and maleness are implicit. They are unquestioned. They are the default.’(33) The implicitness of the default means that that which is other has to fight to claim subjectivity, else be reduced to type. The common othering of

11 the female body and the diseased body renders the anorexic aesthetic an effective channel through which to examine women’s place in society.

Susan Sontag objects to the use of illness as metaphor, largely due its reliance on the negative connotations of certain illnesses, and characterizes metaphors of illness as ‘the punitive or sentimental fantasies concocted about that situation: not real geography, but stereotypes of national character.’(3) For Sontag, the metaphorization of illness shames the patient of that illness, through its correlation with ‘what is felt to be socially or morally wrong.’(61) This is particularly acute in the case of infectious diseases: the threat of contamination invokes moralistic notions of sin and repudiation. For this reason, Sontag argues that ‘the most truthful way of regarding illness – and the healthiest way of being ill – is one most purified of, most resistant to, metaphoric thinking.’(3) However, if metaphoric thinking is an unhelpful way of being ill, this does not mean that the metaphorization of illness is without value.

There is a difference between illness-as-metaphor, and illness-as-aesthetic. To examine the anorexic aesthetic in, for example, a memoir, would unhelpfully metaphorize the experience of illness, as, being a literary feature, it is fundamentally a vehicle for interpretation. The process of aestheticization distances the illness from its signification, meaning that that which is inferred from the aesthetic does not necessarily apply to the disorder itself. However, the French critic Rene Girard directly attributes the increased prevalence of anorexia nervosa to social disorder, arguing that eating disorders ‘are caused by the destruction of the family and other safeguards against the forces of mimetic fragmentation and competition, unleashed by the end of prohibitions.’(19) He argues that anorexia is the pathological pursuit of ‘the one and only ideal still common to our entire society, slenderness,’(9) and refutes any feminist or Marxist explanation of anorexia on the basis that, ‘compulsive dieters really want to be thin and most of us are secretly aware of this

12 because most of us also want to be thin. All our convoluted systems of explanation, based on sexuality, social class, power, the tyranny of male over female, and tutti quanti and floundering on this ridiculous but irrefutable fact. The capitalist system is no more responsible for this situation than fathers are, or the male gender as a whole.’(5) Girard’s argument shames the anorexic, directly correlating anorexia with ‘societal breakdown’(61), and bases his claims on patronising stereotypes of the anorexic.

Girard proposes that ‘the typical victim is well educated, talented, ambitious, eager for perfection. She is the super-achiever type and she knows she is playing by the rules suggested by the most powerful voices in our culture.’(9) This characterisation not only erases the agency of the anorexic, but through the use of the female pronoun, untethered from direct relation to the illness, the agency of women. Girard reductively asserts, ‘the anorexic is too loyal a citizen of our crazy world to suspect that, as she listens to the unanimous spirit of weight reduction, she is being pushed towards self-destruction.’(9) Yet the anorexic is not a citizen of the world, but estranged from it. The consumption of food is considered one of our most basic and universal needs, linking individuals to community and family. Rituals of consumption are common to both cultures and religions: food is imbued with a symbolic meaning that extends far beyond its nutritional value. The anorexic symbolically rejects not simply food, but society. Anorexia is therefore not a reflection of societal disorder, but a reaction against it. The physical manifestation of the eating disorder renders the anorexic’s otherness visible, and the body becoming a metaphor of their renunciation.

Girard’s claims about the anorexic are informed by what he views to be society’s rejection of religion, asserting that ‘the modern world abolishes religion, but it produces new rites that are much more onerous and formidable than those of the past’(61). This argument not only ignores the significant presence of religion in contemporary society – as illustrated in both Robinson’s and Kleeman’s novels – but overlooks the history of medieval ‘holy

13 anorexia’. While fasting is a feature of many religions, considered means to spiritual enlightenment, it held particular relevance for medieval Christian women. Known as anorexia mirabilis, religiously-motivated food refusal was seen as a way to not only nourish the spiritual self, but gain respect and authority in a male-dominated system. The 14th-century mystic, Saint Catherine of Siena, is said to have refused all food except for the Eucharist – which represents not only Christ’s sacrifice, but his unification of the physical and spiritual realms. In Housekeeping, Ruth tells a fairy-tale-like story of a girl, who was ‘transformed by the gross light into a mortal child,’ and so, ‘lost to her kind […] would feed coarse food to her coarse flesh, and be almost satisfied’(204). Similarly, the holy anorexic cannot be satisfied by the ‘coarse food’ of the secular.

In her Revelations of Divine Love, Julian of Norwich describes a revelation experienced while fasting, after which, ‘when the bodily vision stopped, the spiritual vision remained in my understanding’(9). By starving the body, the anorexic approaches the sacred.

‘Only through arriving at an imageless state,’ Nicky Halett argues, ‘can contemplatives reach their desired end: a pure substance-less spiritual sublimation.’(418) Ruth exposes her desire of ‘a pure substance-less spiritual sublimation’ through her fable of the girl in the orchard:

‘before, she had been fleshed in air and clothed in nakedness and mantled in cold, and her bones were only slender things, like shafts of ice. She had haunted the orchard out of preference, but she could walk into the lake without ripple or displacement and sail up the air as invisibly as heat’(203). The austere imagery of ice and bones alludes to anorexic symptoms – cold intolerance, skeletal thinness – yet this invocation of anorexia links the anorexic aesthetic with transcendence. Girard’s argument that ‘the people with eating disorders are not the people with a religious hang-up, the traditionalists and the fundamentalists, but the most ‘liberated’’(15), not only disregards this history, but fails to recognise that food refusal is itself a means of liberation, an attempt to transcend the limits of

14 the physical and arrive at an understanding of the divine. Like a medieval Christian mystic,

Ruth accepts her hunger, which allows her to emancipate herself from the demands of the flesh, and ‘[break] the tethers of need’(204).

If the anorexic aesthetic, by emancipating the self from the flesh, offers a means to transcendent revelation, it also enables a liberation from the allegorization of the female body. Marina Warner proposes that the female body is ‘a recurrent motif in allegory,’(xix) and it precisely because, ‘women continue to occupy the space of the Other that they lend themselves to allegorical use so well.’(292) Allegorization is akin to objectification, limiting the assertion, or development, of female subjectivity by ascribing the female body with meaning which is projected, not chosen. While it operates through destruction, the anorexic aesthetic is a means of emancipating the self from the body, enabling the articulation of a complex, subjective female identity by transgressing the limitations imposed by male metaphorization. Robinson wrote Housekeeping in direct reaction to the prevalence of the male default in literature, claiming that, ‘my one great objection to the American hero was that he was inevitably male – in decayed forms egregiously male. So I created a female hero, of sorts, also an outsider and a stranger.’(When I was a child 92)

By representing the Other, the female protagonist is not only granted the nuanced subjectivity of the default, but poses an existential challenge to the culture in which their identity is othered. However, in Housekeeping, men are largely absent. The body of Ruth’s grandfather is sunk at the bottom of the lake and her own father is described as

‘putative’(142), a man known only from photographs. Sylvie left her own husband, though the only evidence she provides of his existence is ‘a photograph, clipped from a magazine, of a sailor.’(102) These male relatives are all recounted with a sense of unreality, their lives not so known or knowable as those of the women who populate the novel. The only living man

Ruth specifies in Fingerbone is the Sheriff, though he represents an unwelcome, intrusive

15 world of formality. The sheriff disturbs Ruth’s state of revelation: just as she ‘could feel that I was breaking the tethers of need, one by one. But then the sheriff came. I heard him knock’(204). As one of the sole male characters, the sheriff not only represents a repressive conventionality, but the paternalistic world which both Ruth and Robinson are trying to escape. Robinson’s creation of a female hero, who is an outsider despite her gender being the default, allows Ruth to be seen in both subjective and allegorical terms.

In contrast, in You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine, the body cannot escape objectification. The novel’s title mimics advertising newspeak, a promise evocative of the mimetic, objectifying impulse which drives contemporary consumerism. Kleeman alludes to the slogans which populate advertising particularly aimed at women, its comparative discourse presenting a single, elusive figure as the ideal. A describes a cartoon woman, featured in one of the ‘Eater Infotoons’, as ‘a living example of the benefits of Uneating, the highest of Conjoined techniques and one that we are all working toward, though we don’t know what it is exactly.’(266) The advertised ideals of Kleeman’s satire are not only artificial

– this ‘living example’ is a cartoon, but empty. ‘When sanctity is officially valued,’ Girard argues, ‘the desire not to be a saint but to be regarded as one is bound to become a goal of mimetic rivalry.’(16) If anorexia is a question of mimetic desire – which ‘aims at the absolute slenderness of the radiant being some other person is in our eyes but we ourselves never are, at least in our own eyes’(Girard 17) – the object of desire, the mimetic rival, has only a transient, superficial and subjective value.

In Kleeman’s satire of consumer capitalism, beauty is that ‘officially valued’ sanctity.

Brightness, lightness, and thinness are equated with moral purity, while natural processes such as ageing are demonized, figured as threatening. The church-owned cosmetic brand

‘Tru-Beauty’ produces an edible face-cream, which promises to ‘[attack] signs of aging and damage from the inside and out, making sure that threats to your beauty have no place to

16 hide.’(84) Making a cosmetic product consumable erases the distinction between the inner and outer body, metaphorically collapsing the distinction between the material, surface self and the metaphysical, spiritual self. To be able to ‘have’ – thereby purchase and possess – a body ‘like mine’ is to render the body duplicable, objectifying all bodies through the mimetic detachment of advertising jargon. The body loses meaning as a referent of the self; ‘mine’ becomes an untethered, anonymous signifier without subject.

A argues that ‘a woman’s body never really belongs to herself. As an infant, my body was my mother’s, a detachable extension of her own, a digestive passage clamped and unclamped from her body. My parents would watch over it, watch over what went in and out of it, and as I grew up I would be expected to carry on their watching by myself’(71). The oblique neuter pronoun, ‘it’, illustrates A’s estrangement from her physicality, presenting the body as a burden. The infant body is nothing more than a ‘digestive passage,’ the adult body a mere food source. Embodiment is something to be endured. A describes her subsequent adulthood as, ‘a succession of years in which I trawled my body along behind me like a drift net, hoping that I wouldn’t catch in anything in it by accident, like a baby or a disease […] At rare and specific moments when my body was truly my own, I never knew what to do with it’(71). This experience of estranged embodiment evokes Naomi Wolf’s statement that,

‘women’s’ bodies are not our own but society’s,’ for ‘thinness is not a private aesthetic, but hunger a social concession exacted by the community’(187). However, by exceeding the bounds of acceptable thinness, the anorexic aesthetic simultaneously emancipates and reclaims the female body, denying external objectification.

Absorbed in this world of commercials, A’s own sense of subjectivity is tenuous and poorly-defined. She observes how ‘we care most for our surfaces: they alone distinguish us from one another and are so fragile, the thickness of paper.’(2) The collective ‘we’ indicts society, and particularly the suburban America in which she lives. Appearance, physicality,

17 that which can be bought and changed, becomes mere ‘surface’, no more an articulation of selfhood than a cardboard mask. A grows disconcerted by B’s increasing similarity to her:

‘with hair cropped to her shoulders, she reminded me of times when I had seen myself reflected in imperfect surfaces, in the windows of shops or cars’(11). If surfaces alone distinguish us from one another, then B’s evocation of A’s reflection in an ‘imperfect surface’ not only suggests the elision of any distinction between them, but the disintegration of A’s own subjectivity. B’s long hair had prevented their similarity from becoming sameness: after cutting it their ‘surfaces’ become commensurate, and their identities merge.

When B presents A with her cut-off hair, A worries that ‘in accepting this chunk of B’s body,

I would be diluting myself further, when already it was taking me minutes each morning to remember who I was’(13). Similarity is ontologically destructive: the greater the similarities between A and B, the less A not only feels, but is, herself.

Kleeman exploits the homonym of consumption, meaning both to eat and destroy, when A eats a wad of B’s hair. A describes it as ‘rodenty in shape and flavour,’(163) though she imagines it to be a Kandy Kake in a desperate attempt to make it more palatable. Like a rat carrying the plague, the hair seems to be malevolent. She recounts how ‘my feeling of it disappeared completely when it reached my stomach, except for a heaviness, a sort of burden or weight I carried now that may only have been psychological. The fullness felt like it would never leave my body’(163). Unlike a Kandy Kake, the consumption of which causes A to physically starve because of their nutritional deficiency, the heaviness of B’s hair suffuses her body, starving her sense of self-identity. By eating B’s hair, she contains B’s DNA, making A’s body less her own: the significance of that foreign material inside her is irreducible even if impalpable. Despite the ‘burden’ being psychological, the act of eating the hair forces A to consider the interiority of her own body, that ‘massed wetness pressing in on itself’(1). By eating B’s hair, A not only blurs the boundary between the internal and the

18 external, but between A and herself. If B’s body is consumable, then so is hers, and she becomes no more than a replicable mass of organs, held together by mere paper.

In blurring the boundary between her own body and B’s, A undermines the division between her body and all bodies, illustrating the replicability of the self. C deepens A’s fear of replication when he says, ‘in reality people are a lot alike. Any two people, on average, share 99.9 percent of their DNA sequences. The genetic difference between the two of us comes down to something like eye color and whether or not we like the taste of cilantro’(101). The scientific factuality of C’s response collapses the distinctions between people which we rely upon in order to establish identity, rendering subjectivity dependent on minute, and arbitrary genetic differences. C’s response collapses A’s identity into an objective commonality and she becomes replicable, interchangeable body parts. Yet from the very first page of the novel, A highlights the body’s tenuous integrity: ‘the heart from my body could be lifted and placed in yours, and this portion of myself that I had incubated would live on, pushing foreign blood through foreign channels. In the right container, it might never know the difference’(1). The ability for the physical self to be dissected not only undermines the coherency of the body, but of the relationship between embodiment and selfhood.

Unlike Robinson, who deliberately choses meaning-filled names for her characters,

Kleeman foregoes the personification process of naming, giving her main characters the designations of A, B, and C. This is a self-conscious literary act, evocative of Edgar Allen

Poe’s unnamed narrator in ‘The Man of the Crowd.’(1840) Such labelling is not only arbitrary, but is an act of disembodiment. In algebra, letters signify variables, which represents an arbitrary or unknown value. Variables are easily replaced, their worth wholly dependent upon their context. Without a name, the subjectivity of the character is untethered, floating without stable referent. When asked by A if he thinks she and B looked alike, C

19 replies, ‘well, if I had to describe you and her with words […] I guess they might be the same words.’(45) If, as Hungerford proposes, identity is constructed through voice, then C’s choice of ‘the same words’ destroys A’s subjectivity. Although, it should be remembered that the names of A, B and C are reported by A herself, which suggests that it is not C who reduces A and B into analogy, but A herself. When A is paired with her partner in the church, she decides ‘to call her Anna’, noting that it ‘wasn’t so far from my own name.’(201) Proper names are not absent from A’s narration, but by referring to herself and those closest to her by arbitrary signifiers, A’s sense of self is shown to be externally construed. If identity is materially dependent, it is rendered pure object, and subjectivity collapses under its weight.

While for Ruth, the anorexic aesthetic is a means of emancipation from the tethers of corporeality, freeing a subjective, enlightened self, A is unable to transcend the limits of the physical, and the anorexic aesthetic renders her body pure object. When A passes into an acute state of involuntary starvation, she dissociates, unable to recognize her own body. She describes seeing a mass, ‘the colour of natural wax, pale and creamy. It had shadows in places, strewn through its smoothness. Then I saw. Those were ribs. That was the jut of a hip bone. It was a whole human body: female, naked, holding its arms out as though waiting for an embrace. “That’s my body,” I said to myself, and then I realized that I was starving.’(274)

Unlike Ruth, who wills her body into sublimation, A’s association with the anorexic aesthetic lacks agency, and therefore, rather than liberated from the tethers of allegorization, she merely starves. A attempts to escape the fact of her own duplicability by starving her body into immateriality. This is not a positive statement of subjectivity, but a reflection of the society in which A lives.

While some may interpret the anorexic aesthetic as a nihilistic aesthetic, considering its associations with loss, starvation and mortality, I would argue that in Housekeeping, the anorexic aesthetic’s sublimation of the body is presented as an aesthetic of liberation. Though

20 the Transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, might have achieved liberation through the reduction of the material life and the appreciation of nature, the allegorical weight of the female body inhibits such a direct route to transcendence. In literature, as in society, the female body is replete with a semantic significance which the male body is unburdened with. In order to escape from this, the female body must be starved into sublimation.

21 Chapter 2

‘Darkness is the only solvent’: Domesticity and the Dissolution of Boundaries

In an interview with Tace Hedrick, Marilynne Robinson explains how Housekeeping follows ‘that characteristic pattern of so much American literature where people go through a journey that leads to a kind of realization that is just at the limits of their ability to comprehend or articulate, and after that, there’s an openness where earlier experience becomes impossible, and you’re abandoned into a new terrain without being able to use your old assumptions about how to find your way.’(Hedrick/Robinson 6) I would argue that the anorexic aesthetic exists at this limit of comprehension, pushing beyond the boundaries of embodied experience, and into a new, immaterial ‘terrain’ of spiritual insight and revelation.

Knowledge of Robinson’s literary influences means that the ‘American literature’ which she references is understood to be that of the Transcendentalists. Indeed, in his 1836 essay, ‘Nature’ Ralph Waldo Emerson describes a journey into nature which leads to a kind of revelation: ‘standing on the bare ground, – my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite spaces, – all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God.’(38) Robinson’s discourse of ‘openness’ corresponds with Emerson’s image of ‘infinite spaces’: both express an optimistic vision of the capacity of the human mind, despite – or perhaps, because of – the dissolution of the body.

Robinson’s Transcendentalist association is deepened by her proposal that Henry

David Thoreau’s Walden (1854), ‘could have been called Housekeeping,’ arguing that, ‘in

Walden, Thoreau is trying to create, in terms of physical existence, in terms of food and shelter, a life, a physical life in the world that is both minimal and optimum. It’s the reduction of being into essentials with the assumption that this kind of reduction is an

22 enhancement.’(Hedrick/Robinson 4) Like the life of the Transcendentalist, and that of the transient, the anorexic aesthetic challenges the idea of the essential. Ruth’s anorexic rejection of food, shelter and community interrogates the meaning of a material life tethered by need.

Through Housekeeping, Robinson asks, ‘if you carry deprivation beyond the limits that

Thoreau asserted for it, beyond a sort of austere adequacy, then what?’(Hedrick/Robinson 4-

5) If the anorexic aesthetic is the vehicle for Robinson’s enquiry, transcendence is the answer.

In an article on the expressive capacity of literary language, Robinson recognises the

‘reduction of being into essentials’ in the poetry of Emily Dickinson, another literary influence associated with Transcendentalism. Robinson notes that the ‘extreme compression’ of Dickinson’s poems ‘strip away everything inessential, greatly magnifying the potency of each individual word.’(Finding the Right Word para.1) Robinson correlates this quality with

Dickinson’s suspected anorexia, noting how ‘she puts an extraordinary pressure on language by her parsimoniousness. But she restricted not only her language very narrowly – apparently she restricted her life very narrowly, too’(Finding the Right Word para.1). Indeed,

Dickinson’s poem, ‘Renunciation’ – ‘Renunciation – is a piercing Virtue -- | The letting go |

A presence’(782) – certainly exhibits an ascetic, anorexic aesthetic. However, Robinson’s common interest in the idea of the reduction of the inessential demonstrates that, unlike

Emily Dickinson or Louise Glück, Robinson’s invocation of the anorexic aesthetic is not about anorexia itself, but the way in which anorexia challenges our limits of comprehension.

By stripping away the non-essential, by, in the words of Ruth, breaking ‘the tethers of need’,

Robinson argues, ‘you can get real definitions of things and people and experience’(Finding the Right Word para.2). The anorexic aesthetic is therefore understood as means to approach

‘real definitions’, untethered from the limitations of the material.

23 In the same way that the compression of Dickinson’s language is seen to enhance the potency of her meaning, the anorexic aesthetic enables enlargement through reduction, minimising the noise of the material world in order to show the capaciousness of the individual mind. By alluding to Dickinson, Robinson not only invokes the poet’s use of the anorexic aesthetic, but demonstrates the expansive capacities of allusion to open and extend language beyond its own semantic and temporal context. Robinson notes how Ruth ‘deploys every resource she has to try to make the world comprehensible. What she knows, she uses, as she does her eyes and her hands. She appropriates the ruin of Carthage for the purposes of her own speculation’(When I was a child 89). Ruth does not mention reading the Bible, because she is subsumed in it: her allusiveness shows her direct engagement with scripture, rather than blind subscription to ‘Biblical injunction’. Literary allusion is a means for Ruth to expand her perception of the world, and transcend the limits of her own language. The expansive capacity of allusion is illustrated by Housekeeping’s first line: ‘My name is

Ruth’(1), which invokes the opening of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, ‘Call me Ishmael’(1).

The mutual derivation of these characters’ names from the Old Testament draws Robinson into cross-temporal communion with both her literary and Biblical predecessors, creating a subconscious dialogue between her own protagonist, and the journey embarked upon by

Melville’s.

Just as the anorexic aesthetic reaches towards enlightenment by transcending the limits of the body, allusion expands the connotative capacity of language by transcending its semantic limits. According to Nicky Hallet, ‘often in nuns’ writing, immediate sources and personal authorship are obscured; indeed, that is their very purpose, to enact the permeability of bodies and subjectivities, and of texts as a continuum of both’(417). Such writing ‘is more than a meditative mode’, for ‘it allows revelatory knowledge to be shared by textual transmission and enables readers through the very act of interpretation to participate in

24 spiritual epiphany’(Hallet, 417). Hallet actually cites Robinson, arguing that, ‘while writers bear witness and attend to the needs of intensely spiritual experience, they often do so by putting their reader in contact with other pious figures to enable a distinctively contemplative

‘felt experience’(Robinson 2010:13).’(417) Ruth’s proclamation that ‘I simply let the darkness in the sky become co-extensive with the darkness in my skull and bowels and bones’(115) directly alludes to Emily Dickinson’s poem, ‘The brain is wider than the sky’(1862). The invocation of the body – ‘skull and bowels and bones’ – links contemplation to ‘felt experience’. In these examples, both Robinson and Dickinson celebrate the incredible capacity of the human mind to comprehend immensity, and its unknown expansiveness. For

Robinson, ‘each successive work of literature expands the possibilities of our language, deepening our expressive capacity.’(Finding the Right Word para.4) Allusion is not simply a literary device, but dissolves temporal boundaries, showing the permeability and awesome capaciousness of not only language, but the human mind.

In Housekeeping, Sylvie desires, and to an extent represents, the permeability of bodies and the dissolution of boundaries. Ruth tells us that ‘Sylvie believed in stern solvents, and most of all in air’(85). She leaves the doors and windows open, puts living-room furniture in the front yard, and sweeps leaves from room to room. Sylvie allows nature to take possession of the house: she does not fight the flood, nor the leaves which enter from the orchard, and finally encourages the building to burn. Even Sylvie’s name, which means ‘from the forest’, signals her to be extensive with nature, and incompatible with the formal, domestic world. Ruth notes that ‘Sylvie liked to eat supper in the dark’, a preference which foreshadows Ruth sense of being ‘happily at ease in the dark’(204). This inclination not only counters convention, but the embrace of darkness signals an openness to new modes of comprehension. Sylvie’s incompatibility with the material world is highlighted when Lucille

– a name derived from the Latin ‘lux’, meaning ‘light – turns on the kitchen light, causing the

25 window to go ‘black’, and the ‘cluttered kitchen [to leap], so it seemed, into being, as remote from what had gone before as this world from the primal darkness.’(100)

Like Eve and Adam eating from the tree of knowledge, after which ‘the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked’(Genesis 3:7 KJV), when Lucille turns on the light, they ‘saw that we ate from plates that came in detergent glasses, and we drank from jelly glasses’(100). Lucille ‘startled us all’, Ruth says, by ‘flooding the room so suddenly with light, exposing heaps of pots and dishes, the two cupboard doors which had come unhinged and were propped against the boxes of china’(100). The kitchen’s illumination shows Ruth and Sylvie for their disorderliness, their nakedness. Ruth sees that

‘everywhere the paint was chipped and marred’(100). If, as Ruth tells us, ‘darkness is the only solvent’(116), then artificial light condenses, reducing things to their physical limits.

Like the fruit of the tree of knowledge, materiality is presented as destructive.

Artificial light, like the spiritually obliterating reason of scientific ‘fact’, perniciously distinguishes between the physical and the nonphysical. For Robinson, this distinction ‘is an important error, understandable in 1400 but inexcusable now. It has spiritualized the soul out of meaningful existence and de-spiritualized the world into an object of contempt at worst, or, more typically, a thing defined by its difference from anything called spiritual, which includes, as I have said, almost everything that is distinctively human’(Givenness 232). In

Robinson’s view, as ‘we have no way of knowing the true nature of the reality in which we are immersed, of the substance of which we are composed’(When I was a child 192), the only way to approach understanding is through transcendence, dissolving the division between the physical and the non-physical. However, Karen Kaviola criticises Robinson for showing

‘how compelling it can be – especially in the context of significant loss and perhaps especially for women – to try to overrun boundaries between self and other, to merge, to be absorbed. At the same time, she shows how dangerous it is to allow one’s boundaries to be

26 overrun’(688). For Kaviola, who approaches Housekeeping through an examination of its presentation of female subjectivity, the dissolution of boundaries is ‘dangerous’. However, for Ruth, in the context of the anorexic aesthetic, dissolution is emancipatory.

Kaviola cites the scene in which the sisters spend the night in the woods: Ruth recounts how Lucille ‘sat down beside me in our ruined stronghold, never still, never accepting that all our human boundaries were overrun’(115). While Lucille would say that her sister simply fell asleep, Ruth describes an experience of transcendence: ‘I simply let the darkness in the sky become co-extensive with the darkness in my skull and bowels and bones. Everything that falls upon the eye is apparition, a sheet dropped over the world’s true workings’(115). The repetition of ‘darkness’ merges the matter of the sky with skull, the homonym collapsing these discrete entities into mutuality: both are within, and part of, the universe. Ruth’s embrace of the totality of darkness dissolves the material boundaries of the self, blending the physical and non-physical in a form of transcendence. This scene does not suggest the dissolution of boundaries to be dangerous, but rather shows to the incredible capacity of the mind to imagine limitlessness. Later, when Ruth hides in the orchard from

Sylvie, she experiences a kind of revelation:

I learned an important thing in the orchard that night, which was that if you do not

resist the cold, but simply relax and accept it, you no longer feel the cold as

discomfort. I felt giddily free and eager, as you do in dreams, when you suddenly find

that you can fly, very easily, and wonder why you have never tried it before […] I

was hungry enough to begin to learn that hunger has its pleasures, and I was happily

at ease in the dark, and in general, I could feel that I was breaking the tethers of need,

one by one. But then the sheriff came.(204)

Ruth’s emancipation from ‘the tethers of need’ makes her feel ‘giddily free’, liberated from the body through the acceptance of hunger. The derivation of pleasure from hunger appeals to

27 the aesthetics of anorexia, in which starvation is not interpreted as a threat, but embraced, for it promises a transformation into a greater state of being.

This scene evokes Emerson’s metaphor of the ‘transparent eye-ball’, which reduces the physical self to ‘nothing’, yet the self remains, as ‘I see all.’(Nature, 38) The first-person pronoun ‘I’ exists even after the material ‘eye’ becomes transparent, sublimated into the infinitude of space. Robinson finds ‘dignity in the thought that we are of one substance with being itself, and there is drama in the thought that ultimate things are at stake in these moments of perception and decision’(When I was a child 185). The author recounts walking into the woods as a child and ‘feeling the solitude around me build like electricity and pass through my body with a jolt that made my hair prickle […] and thinking, there is only one thing wrong here, which is my own presence, and that is the slightest imaginable intrusion – feeling that my solitude, my loneliness, made me almost acceptable in so sacred a place.’(When I was a child 88) Robinson’s perception that solitude is a means to access the sacred echoes Emerson’s association of solitude and self-insight, however, ‘to go into solitude,’ he argued, ‘a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society.’(37)

The ‘chamber’ is not simply a reference to the material life of the home, but a reference to the body. As in the metaphor ‘the eyes are the windows to the soul’, in Ruth’s figuration, body and house become metonym. Ruth refers to her body as a house, calling for deceased relatives to ‘come unhouse me of this flesh, and pry this house apart. It was no shelter now, it only kept me here alone’(159). As opposed to solitude, loneliness is an embodied state, the painful reminder of Ruth’s separation from her family. To be ‘unhoused’ would sublimate the self into ‘one substance with being itself’, and free Ruth from her loneliness. Paula E. Geyh proposes that ‘unhousing is both the deconstructing of a unitary, grounded subjectivity and the passing or flowing into a different subjectivity – that of the female transient, the wanderer.’(112) Ruth and Sylvie pass into the subjectivity of the

28 transient through a literal unhousing, by burning down their house. Ruth recounts the attempted arson in terms of a cremation, imagining that, ‘every last thing would turn to flame and ascend, so cleanly would the soul of the house escape, and all Fingerbone would come marvelling to see the smoldering place where its foot had last rested.’(212) Evoking Christian funeral liturgy, ‘earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust’(Book of Common Prayer 338), the house shall become commensurate with the surrounding orchard. However, Ruth must be emancipated from both house and body in order to reach this transient subjectivity. The anorexic aesthetic, like arson, enables transcendence by burning down the house.

The desire to escape the house is informed by a desire to escape Fingerbone, and the materiality which Fingerbone represents. Ruth says that her neighbours ‘had no way of knowing that I spoke at all these past few months, since I spoke only to Sylvie. So they had reason to feel that my social graces were eroding away, and that soon I would feel ill at ease in a cleanly house with glass in its windows – I would be lost to ordinary society. I would be a ghost, and their food would not answer to my hunger, and my hands could pass through their down quilts and tattered pillow covers and never feel them or find comfort in them. Like a soul released, I would find here only the images and simulacra of the things needed to sustain me’(183). The townswomen seem to believe that material provisions will prevent

Ruth from becoming a member of the dispossessed, like those transients who ‘walked through Fingerbone like ghosts, terrifying as ghosts are because they were not very different to us. And so it was important to the town to believe that I should be rescued, and that rescue was possible’(178). Ruth correlates ghostliness with transience: both states signal a rejection of materiality. While ghostliness can be related to the physical effects of extreme starvation

(thinness, paleness, lethargy), the understanding of the ‘ghost’ as ‘the spirit, or immaterial part of man’(OED, n. 3.a.), suggests Ruth’s invocation of ‘ghosts’ to be a reference to spirituality.

29 Ruth compares herself to Noah, his decision to build the arc taken as a sign of madness, caustically noting, ‘perhaps, pious as they were, these ladies did not wish to see me pass into that sad and outcast state of revelation where one begins to feel superior to one’s neighbors’(184). The anthropologist Megan Warin notes that unlike sufferers of other medical conditions, those with anorexia often describe it as ‘a productive and empowering state of distinction’(86). The neighbours attempt to absorb Ruth into the domestic fold by bringing her ‘casseroles and coffee cakes […] knitted socks and caps and comforters’(179), but the hunger of the anorexic – anorexic desire – cannot be satisfied through materiality. By refusing the sustenance offered by her neighbours, Ruth isolates, yet also elevates herself above their material concerns. By becoming distinct from these women, Ruth’s existence reflexively casts judgement on their lives. She becomes the darkness outside a lit window, reflecting the reality of those within the house.

Ruth says that the women of Fingerbone ‘had been made to enact the gestures and attitudes of Christian benevolence from young girlhood, until these gestures and attitudes became habit, and the habit became so strongly engrained as to seem to be impulse or instinct’(182). Despite having ‘salved the injured and tended the ill and soothed and grieved with those who mourned’(181), the women’s engagement with religion is described in the passive terms of ‘gestures’ and ‘habits’. They may be ‘obedient to Biblical injunction’(182), but as habit is action without contemplation, this exposes their Christianity to be a hollow religiosity. Ruth does not condemn them for this – saying that, ‘if their good works supplied the lack of other diversions, they were good women all the same’(182) – but in exposing their religious belief as mere impulse, she rejects their interpretation of Christianity.

Good works may make ‘good women’, but they are not evidence of genuine religious belief, and do not ensure a direct relationship with God. For Robinson, ‘to associate religion with unwavering faith in any creed or practice does not justice at all to its complexity as lived

30 experience’(Highest Candle 131). A creed is a statement of religious faith, however, a declaration of faith has little correspondence with religious experience. Without spiritual contemplation and engagement with the words of the creed, they become an empty symbol, a linguistic token of belief akin to the ‘casseroles and coffee cakes’ offered to Ruth by the neighbor women. Without recognizing the complexity of faith as lived experience, religious piety is rendered purely, and emptily, material. In contrast, Ruth describes her grandmother hanging out sheets in the ‘spring sunlight’ as ‘performing the rituals of the ordinary as an act of faith’(15). The association of laundry with domesticity shows that Ruth’s vision of faith does not discriminate on the basis of the action itself, but whether that action is performed through an engagement with the intangible, or spiritual. For Ruth, to participate in a culture in which the gifting of food and the maintenance of a home is confused with faith reduces the complexity and wonder of belief to the limits of the material, erasing the possibility of spiritual revelation. By refusing food, Ruth refuses to participate in the rituals of consumption which she associates with an unexamined existence, which brings her closer to a contemplative, rather than habitual, appreciation of the divine.

Whereas Ruth is associated with transience, Lucille’s decision to live with the home- economics teacher relates her to the ‘good women’ of Fingerbone, figuring the sisters as representations of their opposing worlds. However, Robinson has stated that, ‘when I write in general I try not to create oppositions. What I’ve tried to do whenever there are conflicts is to make both sides as equal as possible’(On Influence 4). Though Lucille follows Miss Royce, the home-economics teacher, into an explicitly domestic, and normative life, both sisters are required to leave the family home, and follow a mother-surrogate into a different way of life.

This differentiation highlights an ontological issue of belief, evoking that faced by Ruth’s

Old Testament namesake. For Robinson, ‘the issue in the Book of Ruth – the question is – who to follow. And the decision that Ruth makes is, “Where thou goest I shall go; thy people

31 shall be my people and thy God, my God.” It seems to me that in a certain way the Ruth in my book makes that kind of radical choice about whose terms of reality she will accept.

When she follows Sylvie, she’s passing from one civilization to another.’(Hedrick/Robinson

2) In Kaviola’s opinion, the ‘acceptance both of Ruth and Sylvie’s radical difference as transients and of Lucille and the town’s conventionality situates readers in unsettling territories where contradictory perspectives meet.’(670) While both Robinson and Kaviola describe Ruth’s decision to follow Sylvie into a life of transience as ‘radical’, for Robinson, this is not merely a rejection of the domestic, but a form of transcendence, challenging a conception of reality based on material ‘need’.

The deprivation associated with transience, associated with the anorexic aesthetic through the reduction of inessentials, unsettles Kaviola, who says, ‘while Ruth does choose to follow Sylvie’s way of life and seems to belong to that transient world, the novel’s ambivalence about Ruth’s choices makes it hard to feel very good about a way of life that provides so little sustenance’(688). Yet just as Sylvie’s home lacks the routine and order

Lucille craves, the terms of Lucille’s reality do not offer Ruth the sustenance she requires.

While still living at home, Lucille tells Ruth that when she’s old enough, ‘I think I’ll go to

Boston’(131). Indeed, years later, when Ruth thinks about her sister, she imagines ‘Lucille in

Boston, at a table in a restaurant, waiting for a friend. She is tastefully dressed – wearing, say, a tweed suit with an amber scarf at the throat’(218). Lucille’s specific association with

Boston is understood as a reference to Emerson’s essay, ‘The Poet’(1844), in which he argues, ‘if thou fill thy brain with Boston and New York, with fashion and covetousness, and wilt stimulate thy jaded sense with wine and French coffee, thou shalt find no radiance of wisdom in the lonely waste of the pinewoods’(276). The sisters illustrate the two sides of

Emerson’s metaphor: Lucille in Boston, dressed fashionably yet with a ‘jaded sense’, Ruth itinerant, ‘in the lonely waste of the pinewoods’, yet granted a ‘radiance of wisdom.’ Like

32 transience, the anorexic aesthetic offers a means to a different kind of wisdom, through the rejection of ‘sustenance’.

I believe that Karen Kaviola’s criticism of the text is due to its misreading, overlooking the significance and signifiers of the anorexic aesthetic, and misinterpreting the novel’s vision of transcendence. Kaviola says, ‘it seems to me inevitable that critics have read Ruth and Sylvie’s transience as a form of female liberation from patriarchal system of containment and control […] but Ruth’s choices do not offer the sustenance she needs.’(689)

Kaviola’s oversight of the anorexic aesthetic means that she fails to recognise that Ruth’s liberation is correlated with, and because of, her lack of ‘sustenance’. In her article, Kaviola makes a literal misreading of the text when she says that, ‘it seems for that for Sylvie “need can blossom into all the compensations it requires”(131). It is, however, less clear that the same is true for Ruth’(672). This is true for Ruth, as this quotation was not said by Sylvie, but thought by the narrator herself. Sylvie speech in the paragraph before is designated with speech marks, but the statement ‘need can blossom into all the compensations it requires’ is an observation made by Ruth, as part of a longer contemplation which begins, ‘Imagine a

Carthage sown with salt’(152). Not only does the invocation ‘Imagine’ signify one of Ruth’s characteristic imaginative hypotheses, but Robinson herself said that Ruth, ‘appropriates the ruin of Carthage for the purposes of her own speculation’(When I was a child 89). a direct reference to this passage. Kaviola’s misreading undermines her judgement of Ruth’s character, throwing doubt on her criticism of the novel as a whole.

The sustenance which satisfies Lucille, offered and represented by the formal, pious women of Fingerbone, cannot satisfy Ruth, because to do so would be to tether her to a reality which denies the potential of the mind. The habitual religiosity of the townswomen fails to offer Ruth a substantive vision of faith. Instead, it is through the very lack of material sustenance offered by the anorexic aesthetic that Ruth approaches revelation.

33 Chapter 3

‘To crave and to have are as like as a thing and its shadow’: Anorexic Desire

and the Immateriality of Memory

Whereas the Latin anorexia translates as ‘lack of appetite’, the symptoms of anorexia suggest a denial of appetite. The Greek ‘ἀνορεξία’, formed from the negatory prefix

‘ἀν + ὀρέγ-ειν,’ meaning ‘to reach after, desire’(OED, n.), is typically translated as ‘lack of desire’, but may also be understood as ‘un-desire’; the elusion or negation of desire. This alternative understanding accords with the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s concept of

‘anorexic desire’ as desire of the Other, of which the Other is nothing, but ‘a symbol of the lack’(103). The anorexic does not eat nothing, he argues, but ‘the nothing’(104): nothingness.

To understand anorexia as ‘desire of nothingness’ suggests that the anorexic does not desire thinness, but disembodiment; self-starvation is not an attempt to control an unruly appetite, but the denial of the existence of a physical appetite at all.

In the context of the anorexic aesthetic, hunger ceases to be mere physical sensation.

In You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine, when A is loaded into a van by some ‘Wally’s’ – employees of Wally’s supermarket, who also operate as agents of the Conjoined Eaters – and taken to the Church for the first time, she considers that ‘beneath their masks and uniforms, they could be people much like me, with anxieties about those closest to them and a weird misplaced hunger for something intangible that could be satisfied only by snack food.’(186)

If artificial food can satisfy a hunger for the intangible, not only does that hunger transgress the physical needs of the body, but its satisfaction comes from what that snack food represents, rather than the food itself. When A escapes from the Church, one of the Wally’s – who A refers to as ‘Chris’ – tells her that in the supermarket, all the food is ‘decoy […] It’s all idea. It’s made to nourish the ghost. Nobody anticipated having a use for real food

34 here’(275). Kandy Kakes are made of ‘just chemicals, flour, aspartame, and some food-grade plastic’(278), and two contain just 65 calories, meaning that their consumption paradoxically causes starvation. The food in Kleeman’s novel does not feed physical hunger, but perpetuates anorexic desire.

A recounts how B would go to the supermarket to take photographs of the food there, finding satisfaction from the food’s non-consumption: ‘afterward she looked rosier, as though she had found something real, something meaty to feed on in the tiny images.’(112) A goes on to speculate, ‘maybe Kandy Kat survived like that, from images of eating and images of food. Light consuming light, the desire for sustenance a type of sustenance in itself. Even if he was always paused on the narrow edge of starvation, what he was doing in pursuit of

Kandy Kakes sustained him. They made his life terrible, but at the same time they made him more himself’(112). In Kleeman’s world, the Kandy Kake functions as the confectionary manifestation of Lacan’s concept of l’objet petite a. ‘A’ signifies ‘le autre’ (‘the other’), the unobtainable object of desire which is pursued but inherently cannot be possessed. Like the desire of the anorexic, Kandy Kat can never be satisfied, as his identity relies on the Kakes: to cease hungering for them is to cease to exist. The Kandy Kake, like le objet petite a, both represents and generates hunger for the intangible; that which cannot be satisfied, but itself threatens to consume.

Whereas ‘hunger’ is a visceral sensation – the physical want of food – its synonym

‘craving’ suggests a desire that is metaphysical, not limited to the body. In Housekeeping,

Ruth meditates on the effect and function of craving:

To crave and to have are as like as a thing and its shadow. For when does a berry

break upon the tongue as sweetly as when one longs to taste it, and when is the taste

refracted into so many hues and savors of ripeness and earth, and when do our senses

know any thing so utterly as when we lack it? And here again is a foreshadowing –

35 the world will be made whole. For to wish for a hand on one’s hair is all but to feel it.

So whatever we may lose, very craving gives it back to us again. Though we dream

and hardly know it, longing, like an angel, fosters us, smooths our hair, and brings us

wild strawberries.(152)

Ruth’s almost proverbial statement – ‘to crave and to have are as like as a thing and its shadow’(152) – corresponds with Lacan’s conception of anorexic desire. Ruth’s statement implies craving, or anorexic desire, to be ontologically dependent on its non-satisfaction.

Unlike need, which can be satiated, the satisfaction of desire destroys it, and in doing so, destroys the desiring subject. Ruth’s longing is for her dead family, which is obliquely referenced through the phrase ‘longing, like an angel, fosters us’, as ‘Foster’ was the family surname. As the satisfaction of this desire is only achievable through death, nostalgia functions akin to anorexic desire, the autre being unobtainable; nothingness.

In the context of nostalgia, memory is nourishment. The psychoanalyst Emmanuelle

Borgnis Desbordes proposes that instead of eating, ‘the anorexic nourishes herself with the very lack she is missing’(582). The ‘lack’ Ruth is missing is her mother, yet as she herself argues, had her mother not died, had she ‘simply brought us home again to the high frame apartment building with the scaffolding of stairs, I would not remember her that way. Her eccentricities might have irked and embarrassed us when we grew older […] We would have left her finally.’(196) By starving herself to the point of sublimation, ‘like a soul released’(183), Ruth enables the possibility of transfiguration, becoming ghost-like, and reducing the symbolic distance between her and her mother.

To satisfy, and therefore eradicate, craving, is to destroy the greater understanding which comes through loss. In The Givenness of Things, Robinson speculates that for Christ’s early followers, ‘a flood of new meaning would have become apparent in the aftermath of his death. They would have other bases for interpreting what he did and said, and what his

36 resurrection meant, which would, very reasonably, shape their telling of it.’(249) Like the authors of the Gospels, Ruth and Lucille each have their own version of Helen’s life and her role as mother, interpreted and transformed through each telling. And like Christ, Helen’s life is only understood in the aftermath of her death, the significance of her existence made profound by her absence. Ruth says that when Helen left her on the porch, before committing suicide, this action ‘established me in the habit of waiting and expectation which makes any present moment most significant for what it does not contain.’(214) The maternal absence may have created a sense of ‘expectation’ – which is itself a form of hunger for future satisfaction – but it also transformed the experience of ‘any present moment’ into one of greater significance.

Before she committed suicide, Helen is said to have been ‘gazing at the lake and eating wild strawberries, which were prodigiously large and abundant that year.’(22) In

Ruth’s fantasy of familial resurrection, Helen gives her daughters ‘strawberries from her purse’, and later, when Ruth meditates on the relationship between craving and satisfaction, she says, ‘longing, like an angel, fosters us, smooths our hair, and brings us wild strawberries.’(152) The symbolic interrelation of the maternal lack with food is most loudly articulated by Helen’s last action as a mother: Ruth recalls how she left ‘Lucille and I on the bench in the screened porch, with a box of graham crackers to prevent conflict and restlessness.’(19) Giving her daughters food was not an undeliberate action, as Ruth later notes that ‘it was in Seattle that she bought the graham crackers that were to help us wait.’(131) This association with the maternal, and the fact of Helen’s death, means that for

Ruth, the symbolism of food cannot be extrapolated from loss.

After becoming transient, Ruth and Sylvie take work as waitresses, but, after a while,

Ruth says, ‘when the customers and the waitresses and the dishwasher and the cook have told me, or said in my hearing, so much about themselves that my own silence seems suddenly

37 remarkable, then they begin to suspect me, and it is as if I put a chill on the coffee by serving it. What have I to do with these ceremonies of sustenance, of nurturing? They begin to ask why I do not eat anything myself. It would put meat on your bones, they say. Once they begin to look at me like that, it is best that I leave.’(213) Memory and identity is intimately tied to food: Ruth’s inability to share in these mutual ‘ceremonies of sustenance’ isolates her from her colleagues and customers. However, for Ruth to eat would tether her to the material, to

‘need’, and dismantle the edifice of imaginative memory Ruth’s subjectivity is constructed upon, and which is dependent on the non-satisfaction of desire. If Helen is symbolically linked to food, the consumption of food cannot satisfy Ruth’s hunger, for the death of the mother is absolute. Only longing, or craving, can satisfy Ruth’s desire, because death has eradicated the materiality of that which she longs for. Anorexic desire for l’objet petite a demands that le autre – which in this case is la mère – remains unobtainable.

The satisfaction derived from the sensation of desire is not dependent on the material possession of the desired object. In fact, Susan Stewart argues that, ‘the possession of the metonymic object is a kind of dispossession in that the presence of the object all the more radically speaks to its status as a mere substitution and to its subsequent distance from the self. This distance is not simply experienced as a loss; it is also experienced by a surplus of signification. It is experienced, as is the loss of the dual relation with the mother, as catastrophe and jouissance simultaneously.’(135) Through Helen’s association with food, its consumption becomes a ‘mere substitution’ of the mother, for, as Ruth observes, a berry does not taste as sweet as ‘when one longs to taste it.’(152) Ruth is unable to extrapolate consumption from her experience of loss: in an aphoristic statement, she says, ‘one cannot cup one’s hand and drink from the rim of any lake without remembering that mothers have drowned in it.’(193) The use of the indefinite third-person pronoun universalises her experience, reconciling her grief with the infinitude of mortality.

38

Karen Kaviola argues that in Housekeeping, ‘there can be no adequate compensation in Ruth’s present for the acute deprivation of her past,’(689) but for Ruth, loss is its own compensation, because only through loss can resurrection occur. Memory is dependent on lack – its transformation of the past is inhibited by the presence of that which is remembered.

Ruth asserts that had Helen lived, ‘she would have remained untransfigured,’ meaning that her daughters, ‘would have known nothing of the nature and reach of her sorrow.’(198) Yet through the maternal absence, Ruth is able to manipulate her memory of her mother, enabling a reconciliation through imagination. In a fabulistic passage replete with Biblical allusion,

Ruth, alone in the woods, fantasises about making a woman out of snow. This fantasy snow figure is imagined as Lot’s wife, the Old Testament figure who became a pillar of salt after looking back at Sodom. It is said that ‘a standing pillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul,’(Wisdom of Solomon 10:7 KJV) but Ruth presents a sympathetic, and emancipatory reimagining of her life: ‘Lot’s wife was salt and barren, because she was full of loss and mourning, and looked back. But here rare flowers would gleam in her hair, and on her breast, and in her hands, and there would be children all around her, to love and marvel at her for her beauty […] and they would forgive her, eagerly and lavishly, for turning away, though she never asked to be forgiven.’(153) Disembodied through both anonymity and transfiguration, Lot’s wife becomes a repository of pure signification, rendering her an allegory of the lost mother. The Biblical allusion is a form of transfigured resurrection, allowing Ruth to forgive, and love, her mother through the transformation of literary memory, which translates her loss and mourning into a state of beauty. The absence of the real mother enables the flourishing of a different, ‘rare’ kind of grace, and lack becomes a kind of fullness.

39 When Lucille and Ruth play truant from school, they sit at the edge of the lake, observing the ‘hoboes’ who occupy the shore. Ruth imagines telling them ‘that our grandfather still lay in a train that had slid to the lake floor long before we were born.’ Then, she conjectures, ‘Perhaps we all waited a resurrection. Perhaps we expected a train to leap out of the water, caboose foremost, as if in a movie run backward, and then to continue across the bridge.’(96) Through the repetition of the speculative adverb ‘perhaps’ (repeated 56 times in the novel), Ruth links the idea of resurrection – the most significant eschatological belief in

Christian theology – with this almost comical vision of a film-scene. Ruth’s repetition of the speculative preposition merges recollection with conjecture, distorting actual memories through linguistic resurrection. Ruth then adopts the speculative, imperative proposition

‘say’, developing upon the idea of resurrection. ‘Say that this resurrection was general enough to include my grandmother and Helen, my mother. Say that Helen lifted our hair from our napes with her cold hands and gave us strawberries from her purse.’(96) Anthony

Domestico defines these conjectures as ‘imperative hypotheses,’(94) which draw the reader into Ruth’s imaginative visions. However, I prefer the term ‘speculative hypotheses’, as

Ruth’s ‘recollections’ are more explorations of what could be. Indeed, the transitive verb

‘say’ is derived from the French ‘essayer’, meaning ‘to try’, which suggests an infinitude of speculative possibility.

Ruth’s speculative style can be read as an authorial trait: in her non-fiction writing,

Robinson mirrors the characteristic syntax of her protagonist: ‘Say the universe has no boundary and the stars are numberless. Still there is an infinite qualitative difference between life and the most opulent and glorious reaches of lifelessness.’(Givenness 84) Both the linguistic feature of the speculative hypotheses and Robinson’s sense of infinitude correspond with John Keats’ concept of negative capability: ‘when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.’(194)

40 Both the anorexic aesthetic and negative capability are predicated on lack, and the rejection of concrete certainty, or materiality. Ruth’s speculative hypotheses can be considered imaginative forms of nostalgia. ‘Nostalgia,’ Susan Stewart argues, ‘like any form of narrative, is always ideological: the past it seeks has never existed except as narrative, and hence, always absent, that past continually threatens to reproduce itself as a felt lack. Hostile to history and its invisible origins, and yet longing for an impossibly pure context of lived experience at a place of origin, nostalgia wears a distinctly utopian face, a face that turns toward a future-past, a past which has only ideological reality.’(23) The anorexic aesthetic is intimately connected with nostalgia, an articulation of ‘felt lack’, which is a reproduction of past loss.

As I have shown, the association of Ruth with the anorexic aesthetic is related to the association of the maternal with food. After the death of the mother, food ceases to nourish, and cannot be extrapolated from the threat of annihilation. Through the context of anorexic desire, nostalgia – the craving for an imagined, ideological past – becomes the only sustenance Ruth can accept, for it is immaterial. For Stewart, ‘the nostalgic’s utopia is prelapsarian, a genesis where lived and mediated experience are one, where authenticity and transcendence are both present and everywhere.’(23) Indeed, Ruth figures memory as utopian, invoking the image of the Garden of Eden in a metaphor which merges memory, utopia, and the maternal. Ruth says, ‘the force behind the movement of time is a mourning that will not be comforted. That is why the first event is known to have been an expulsion, and the last is hoped to be a reconciliation and return. So memory pulls us forward, so prophecy is only brilliant memory – there will be a garden where all of us as one child will sleep in our mother Eve, hooped in her ribs and staved by her spine.’(192) Birth – which separates the body of the child from that of the mother – is figured as the expulsion of Eve from the garden of Eden. The existence of the physical body is a reminder of the separation

41 from the maternal, and hence the lack of the mother. By rendering herself immaterial, through memory and starvation, Ruth approaches reunion not only with Helen, but the maternal body of the universe.

In an extended meditation on conception, Ruth articulates her belief in the pre- eminence of the non-physical being, lamenting, ‘by some bleak alchemy what had been mere unbeing becomes death when life is mingled with it. So they seal the doors against our returning.’(214) As the physical body tethers the non-corporeal being to mortality, there can be no return to a pre-birth, pre-lapsarian state. The nostalgia of the anorexic aesthetic is a craving for a pre-existent, immaterial self. By erasing the physical body, the anorexic attempts to return to a pre-lapsarian state, before death had been mingled with life. However, only the dissolution of the corporeal body will allow her to approach the state of ‘mere unbeing.’ Yet in order for this transcendence to occur, the body must still exist, in some form.

Death is an absolute state, and elides the possibility of transfiguration.

Towards the end of the novel, Ruth remembers her last memories of her mother, reflecting, ‘it seemed to me that in all this there was the hush and solemnity of incipient transfiguration. Perhaps memory is the seat not only of prophecy but of miracle as well.’(196) While prophecy is the revelation of divinity through language, miracle is the manifestation of the divine, through a supernatural event. By comparing it to miracle, Ruth gives memory agentive power, realizing not only the past through the present, but the immaterial through the tangible. The anorexic aesthetic therefore enables revelation by figuring transcendence through the terms of the tangible: the body.

Like Eve’s expulsion from the garden of Eden, which was ‘a fortunate fall, and providential because it prepared the way for the world’s ultimate reconciliation to God’(Book of Books para.3), Ruth’s anorexic transience should be conceived a felix culpa. Ruth’s renunciation of food and the confines of the material world cause her to be expelled from

42 Fingerbone, but this departure into the land of imagined memory enables reconciliation with the Mother. By understanding the nostalgic in the terms of anorexic desire, the anorexic existence as a shadow-self, full of craving which cannot be satisfied, is refigured as a state of emancipation. Ruth’s preference for the sustenance of her own mind, on her speculative hypotheses, is shown as a means to enlightenment.

43 Chapter 4

‘Breaking the tethers of need’: The Anorexic Aesthetic as a Rejection and

Repudiation of Consumerism

‘The starvation amidst plenty, the denial set against desire, the striving for invisibility versus the wish to be seen – these key features of anorexia – are a metaphor for our age.’ – Susie Orbach, Hunger Strike (4)

If anorexia nervosa is a metaphor for our age, the anorexic aesthetic is the translation of that metaphor into a kind of manifesto. If self-starvation is a key feature of anorexia, the anorexic aesthetic expands the refusal to consume beyond the symptomatic, and towards the semantic.

Through the mutual etymological derivation of ‘consumerism’ and ‘consumption’ from the common Latin root ‘consumere’, the economic doctrine of consumerism is semantically related to both the act of eating, and the act of destruction. (‘consume’, OED, v.1 2.a.) If an aesthetic has a purposeful significance beyond its constituent features, the anorexic aesthetic can be considered not only a rejection of consumption, but a repudiation of consumerism.

In order to understand a literary aesthetic, it is important to understand the context and culture from which it emerges. Both Kleeman and Robinson are American – a shared identity which has informed their work, in both style and setting. Two of the biggest shared features of their novels, and arguably, of America itself, are Christianity and consumerism.

Consumerism – the continual acquisition of consumer goods – is closely related with

Capitalism, ‘the possession of capital or wealth’(OED, n.2). Although, as Robinson repeatedly evidences in her non-fiction work, capitalism is not an American invention, nor is the modern articulation of advanced capitalism true to the original American ideals, capitalism is closely associated with both American culture and society. Capitalism has come to be seen, Robinson argues ‘as grasping materialism that has somehow or other yielded the comforts and liberties of modern life. Capitalism thus understood is seen on one side as

44 providential, so good in its effects that it reduces Scripture with its do-unto-others to shibboleth. The other side sees it as more or less corrupting and contemptible but beyond human powers to resist’(When I was a child xiv). Kleeman’s novel is not only preoccupied with both consumerism and consumption, but articulates both sides of the ‘grasping materialism’ of Capitalism.

In an interview with Alexandra Serio, Kleeman says that in You Too Can Have A

Body Like Mine, she aimed to ‘depict or amp up the absurdity of American consumer culture’(para. 5). However, she adds, ‘I also wanted to retain the part of it that is alluring, that

I feel myself drawn to as an American and as a consumer myself. There’s something crass about the sheer amount of goods that are available for purchase at a Walmart, something so unnecessary about it – wasteful, bloated, but also sublime.’(Kleeman/Serio para. 5)

Kleeman’s ‘Wally’s’ is a satirical distortion of the multinational retail corporation Walmart, which is the world’s largest company by revenue and the largest private employer in the world. The Marxist theorist and literary critic Frederic Jameson proposes the ‘phenomenon’ of Walmart to be ‘a new institutional candidate for the function of Utopian allegory’(para 1).

Indeed, in the same interview, Kleeman notes how, ‘Walmart has ceilings as high as a cathedral and a kind of cathedral-like structure that reflects the abundance that we have access to. Abundance is not something you can sneer at, and I’m legitimately amazed by all the choices you find there. It’s a piece of infinity.’(para. 6) By parodying Walmart in her novel, Kleeman both satirises contemporary consumerism, and presents it as a Utopian allegory of abundance. Wally’s, nor the Church of Conjoined Eaters, can be considered pure satire, as Kleeman clarifies: ‘as much as I want people to laugh at the absurdity of it all, I also want them to feel the in awe of it—which I think is as much a part of our present existence as the grotesquerie’(para. 6). It is interesting that in Kleeman’s mind, awe and the grotesque are not incompatible. The grotesque is unnatural, or obscene: which conflicts with our

45 conventional associations of awe with beauty and the natural world. If the Transcendentalists found revelation by going into nature, in Kleeman’s caricature of consumerism, transcendence is found in, or rather, through, the supermarket.

In Jameson’s figuration of Walmart as a Utopia, ‘Wal-Mart is then not an aberration of an exception, but rather the purest expression of that dynamic of capitalism which devours itself, which abolishes the market by means of the market itself’(para. 3). Jameson’s discourse of a capitalism ‘which devours itself’ plays into the idea of consumerism as referring to both consumption and destruction. If the market is corporealized, that dynamic of capitalism can be seen to operate in the same way as anorexia: through starvation, the anorexic devours themselves, abolishing the body by means of the body itself. The Church of

Conjoined Eaters is not only closely aligned with Wally’s – A first finds its leaflets in the store, and is transported to the Church from the back of the supermarket – but is similarly predicated on consumption, both in the economic and edible sense. It preaches the exclusive consumption of Kandy Kakes, and owns shares in the company which produces them. Yet as eating is synonymic with destruction, its name foreshadows the fundamental emptiness of the

Church and its teachings.

During a ‘lesson’, a Manager tells the gathering of ‘Eaters’ that the Church will ‘help you filter from your bodies that Dark matter that interferes with your process toward an ideal ghost state, that stalls the eventual discard of your body husk’(220). The capitalisation of

Dark and Bright makes them absolute states: not adjectives, but conditions. Filtration is achieved through not only an exclusive diet of Kandy Kakes, but through a concerted effort of ‘unremembering’. Unremembering is achieved through meditation, emptying the mind of external associations and meaning. In order to become a perfected self, the Church argues, it is necessary to reduce all traces of self from one’s material being, preaching the importance

46 of ‘self-subtraction’. Despite initially expressing scepticism towards the church, A becomes convinced by its promises:

I had avoided all the Dark foods, I had eaten whatever approved ones had been put to

me by those who knew better. And then when Darkness had been discovered in these

approved foods, I had stopped eating them, too. When approved food dwindled to the

singular, I ate the only thing that was permitted. I had done everything that was

demanded of me, and my progress must be going well, therefore. I should

increasingly be resembling my ghost, my truest and most recognizable self. And yet it

didn’t quite feel like that was happening. I had seen the few things I cared about

forget me seamlessly. I had seen the life I never really fit into heal up around my

absence like a wound scabbed over.(266-267)

Unlike Robinson’s reduction of being into essentials, the extreme reduction of A’s diet, and subsequent reduction in weight, cannot be considered an enhancement. The austerity of A’s physical existence does not correspond with an expanded spiritual comprehension, but leads her to feel A ejected from a life she was never fully a part of. Her increased adherence to the

Church’s teachings causes her body, agency, and identity, to dwindle. Despite believing that she ‘would grow clearer, thinner, Brighter’(203), A simply, yet dramatically, loses weight, until she realizes that she is starving: ‘Look at me,’ she implores, ‘I look like people who are about to die’(275). A believed that ‘with the help of these Kandy Kakes, I would finally become better in the Bright future ahead’(203), however, their almost negligible nutritional value (just sixty-five calories in two) causes A to starve. The calorific emptiness of the

Kandy Kake illuminates not only the vacuity of the Church’s teachings, but renders consumerism culpable for A’s physical and emotional deprivation.

Rene Girard disputes such correlation of anorexia and consumerism, arguing that as capitalism ‘systematically favors consumption over abstinence,’ it inherently cannot be

47 attributed to ‘our dieting hysteria’(6). Certainly, as Brumberg notes, ‘a historical perspective shows that anorexia nervosa existed before there was a mass cultural preoccupation with dieting and a slim female body’(6). However, diet culture does not undermine the association between anorexia and capitalism. Diet culture is consumerism via negativa, creating new needs and empty products to satisfy that new need. As parodied by the Kandy Kake, diet culture interprets the anorexic desire for nothingness through the literal, answering physical hunger with physical food which lacks almost any but superficial substance.

A eventually realizes the extent of her malnutrition by recognising her similarity to the starving body of the cartoon Kandy Kake mascot. ‘I was like the Kandy Kakes commercial where Kandy Kat just sits on the floor,’ she says, ‘starving and wasting away and staring straight out into empty space as the dust settles in his open mouth, coating his tongue’(278). Valeria Luiselli argues that Kleeman’s novel is ‘ultimately about losing touch with ourselves and other people as we become increasingly caught inside the web of our prosthetic electronic souls, replacing things in our lives with proxies, our loved ones with avatars. Here it is television, rather than the Internet, that marks one’s sense of belonging and non-belonging in a world subject to a constant “ghosting process.”’(para. 3) Despite this judgement, Luiselli notes, ‘curiously, there are few references to the Internet and social networks’(para. 3). This is because Kleeman’s focus is not on the internet, or even technology, but consumerism, consumption and our experience of embodiment.

A is obsessed with consumption, both in an abstract sense, and the very processes of consuming. A recounts her childhood obsession with the food-chain; watches her B eat popsicles with the scrutiny of a wildlife documentary-maker; becomes fixated on a news story about a man who steals, hoards, and consumes vast quantities of veal out of ‘parental protectiveness’. In contrast, A describes C as ‘a graceful consumer’, as ‘he could consume without being consumed in turn’(31).Yet for A, consumption is ceaseless: ‘even though a

48 portion of myself was interested in this, interested in climbing to the top of this hunger and discovering what it felt like at its end, it was a normal human life that I was living, and that meant continuing to eat, eating with no end in sight’(72). To ‘climb to the top of this hunger,’ metaphorizes hunger in terms of a mountain assent, or adventure, evoking Robinson’s view of American literature which sees its protagonist go on a journey, leading to a kind of realization. However, in A’s metaphor, that discovery can only be reached by surpassing the state of hunger, anticipating her later starvation.

As Michel Delville and Andrew Norris note, ‘the explosion of eating disorders coincided with the globalisation of commercial and cultural exchange.’(120) The production and consumption of commercialised, pre-packaged food has increased since the 1970s, and the growth of advertising has seen this drive to consume reflected in the substance-less space of the television and internet. In the time that packaged food has become commonplace, eating disorders have proliferated.

This sinister association is satirised by the Kandy Kake commercials, the evolving narrative of which maps onto the character development of A herself. In the first commercial described by A, Kandy Kat ‘has been chasing a single, smallish Kandy Kake across a scrolling variety of different cartoon and live-action landscapes […] At last there is no place for the snack cake to run, and it looks like Kandy Kat may get to eat something for once. So he advances on the little cake and grabs it with both bony hands, he lifts it to his mouth. But at just that moment the little cake opens its own mouth hugely and eats Kandy Kat in one big bite. His tail sticks out of the cake’s mouth a little, wriggling, so that the cake suddenly extends a little arm from its round pucky body and with it pushes the last of Kandy Kat into its maw, swallowing hard. There’s a muffled crunch as Kandy Kat’s whole body packs down into what must be a tiny little stomach, and you hear a muffled whimper escape. A moment

49 later, the Kake succumbs to delayed cartoon gravity and falls to the ground, collapsing beneath the burden of its new weight’(14).

The Kandy Kake is a representation of the corporation which does not care for the wellbeing of its customers, which will consume – and destroy – them, like ‘polar bears killing seals, tearing ovoid chunks from out of their smooth, round bellies.’(Kleeman 283) The cake

‘eats Kandy Kat in one big bite’: unlike C, the Kat is a consumer who cannot avoid being consumed in turn. The description of Kandy Kat’s hands as ‘bony’, his desire for the intangible and his immense hunger, are all signals of the anorexic aesthetic, suggesting that even the signification of consumerism cannot avoid being consumed in turn.

The personification of the Kandy Kake, imbuing it with not only connotative significance, but a cartoonish agency, evokes A’s description of an orange in the terms of a human body. She says, ‘an orange wasn’t a type of food so much as another entity, looking out for its own interests, secretive and sealed, hiding its insides from the outside world’(139).

With the projection of human characteristics onto the orange, it is metamorphosised, collapsing the division between the consumer and the consumed. During a lecture, an

Instructor in the Church declares:

Oranges, in and of themselves, are neither Dark nor Bright. […] Oranges, however,

are a popular American fruit. They show up in our grocery stores, in our Little League

games, in our sack lunches, in the moments at which we are the weakest and lowest.

They are a major player in the collective Darkness of our former world, and as such

they are one of the most dangerous objects you could encounter or think about.(221)

Oranges are not considered dangerous because they are ‘Dark’ or ‘Bright’ – their actual substance is irrelevant. It is the orange’s representative meaning, their association with

American culture which makes them ‘dangerous’. In contrast, by having artificial ingredients

– ‘just chemicals, flour, aspartame and some food-grade plastic’(278) – and a fake orange-

50 syrup core, Kandy Kakes are semantic vessels, imbued only with the meaning ascribed to them by the company. Unlike the (female) body, their signification is absolute, unmediated by external connotations.

If you are what you eat, consumption becomes an articulation of not only identity, but agency. Maud Ellman argues that, ‘as the mouth that refuses to eat becomes the mouth that refuses to speak, the fraught body of the starving or fasting artist challenges traditional dichotomies between signifier and signified, self and world, production and consumption, mind and matter’(4). While the refusal of food has been historically associated with female religious piety and mysticism, the British suffragettes of the 20th century adopted the hunger strike – a form of protest typically adopted by male dissidents – as a way to contest the injustices faced by women under an all-male government. The hunger striker ‘breaks the tethers of need,’ emancipating themselves from the system which imprisons them, be it a government, ideology, or mentality. Passive resistance is a particularly compelling form of protest, as it challenges the authority of the dominant system by exposing the limits of its repressive rationale.

While Robinson denounces contemporary American capitalism as ‘one of joyless urgency, many of us preparing ourselves and our children to be means to inscrutable ends that are utterly not our own,’ and forcing new generations into ‘economic servitude’(3),

Michel Delville and Andrew Norris analogize consumerism as a kind of rape, arguing that it,

‘closes up all the orifices of the body as portals of pleasure, as it forces the pleasure in’(170).

In this context, they argue, ‘self-starvation either voluntary or involuntary begins to seem like an intelligible response to this nightmare scenario’(171). The logic of the anorexic aesthetic as a reaction to, and rejection of, consumerism, is intensely tied to the female body. In The

Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels claim that ‘the bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in

51 common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women’(11). In a society in which women are considered merely means of production, anorexic starvation can be considered a hunger strike, deliberately reducing the body in order to emancipate the self from the tethers of external objectification.

The anorexic aesthetic is therefore associated with a refusal of not only consumption, but exploitation. Yet for Delville and Norris, ‘that the hard-pressed subject must resort to such a pathological “solution”, of course, tells us something about the insidious tyranny of consumerist ideology’(120).

In Housekeeping, Robinson does not critique consumerism per se, but materialism, which she defines as ‘a discipline of exclusive attention to the reality that can be tested by scientists’(Givenness 12). In her opinion, materialism devalues the grace, and pre-eminence of human life, which cannot be valued nor conceptualised in material terms. However,

Robinson criticises those ‘who would rather think darkly about those materialists who have emptied the shelves of things we had on our lists, who stand with their cars full of loot between ourselves and the cash register’(Givenness 281). Yet this is a defence of the freedom of thought, rather than capitalistic consumption. Robinson sardonically states: ‘in this capitalist environment, we can only marvel that we are not quite as grasping as everyone else.

Well, not the people we know, really, but those hordes out beyond somewhere who collectively exude this toxic atmosphere […] It is very easy for me to imagine that my life might have gone another way, and that I might be one among those great multitude about whose inward life nothing is known, upon whom social pathologies can be projected’(Givenness 280). The unknowability of the inward life means that we should not condemn the consumer themselves, but the ‘toxic atmosphere’ of contemporary consumerism.

52 However, this is not to deny the interpretation of the anorexic aesthetic as a critique of the ‘grasping materialism’ of contemporary American society. Indeed, Robinson has said that, ‘the economics of the moment, and of the last several decades, is a corrosive influence, undermining everything it touches, from our industrial strength to our research capacity to the well-being of our children’(When I was a child xiv). Ruth’s starvation is not simply an articulation of the ill-health of a culture which is eroding from the inside, but the proposition of a way out. Susan Sontag argues that advanced capitalism, ‘requires expansion, speculation, the creation of new needs (the problem of satisfaction and dissatisfaction); buying on credit; mobility – an economy that depends on the irrational indulgence of desire.’(63) In this context, the anorexic aesthetic appears intensely rational, the anorexic desire of nothingness more comprehensible than the indulgence of irrational desire and artificial need. If capitalism forces the creation of ‘new needs’, necessity becomes an artificial imperative, trapping us into an economic bind that can only be escaped through a complete rejection of that system.

If anorexia nervosa is a disorder of consumption, the anorexic aesthetic becomes a rational metaphor to challenge the disorder of consumer capitalism.

Moreover, the anorexic aesthetic is illuminated as a means to reject the cultural and biological objectification of the female body, doing away with the status of women as mere means of production. Through the grotesquery of starvation, the body becomes a site of resistance, its physicality aestheticized as a repudiation of consumer capitalism.

53 Conclusion

The anorexic aesthetic is not simply an invocation of the symptoms of anorexia, but a literary vehicle through which the associations of anorexia are developed beyond their direct significance. By choosing to investigate the presence and presentation of the anorexic aesthetic in Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping and Alexandra Kleeman’s You Too Can

Have A Body Like Mine, this thesis has necessarily been guided by the common context these texts provide: contemporary American womanhood. The mutual identification of the anorexic aesthetic in the poetry of Emily Dickinson and Louise Gluck – also American women writers

– enhances my reading of the aesthetic through this specific lens.

The female body is the medium through which the anorexic aesthetic is expressed, however, like allusion, the anorexic aesthetic expands the discourse beyond the limits of language, or symptom. It is like an estuary, opening a river out onto a broader ocean of understanding. By dismantling material boundaries – be that of the body, through starvation, or of language, through allusion – the anorexic aesthetic liberates the subjective self from the tethers of corporeality, and reveals the vast capacity of the human mind.

By filtering my examination of the anorexic aesthetic through Ruth’s expression,

‘breaking the tethers of need’, my interpretation has been influenced by the contradictory

American contexts of consumer capitalism and Transcendentalism. The spiritual fullness of

Robinson’s austere doctrine of ‘reduction of being into essentials’ contrasts the excessive, empty consumerism of Kleeman’s satire. However, the failure of both Ruth and A to find substantive meaning in the churches available to them signals a common critique of materialism. The anorexic aesthetic returns agency to the individual, separating them from the destructive influence of consumerism.

54 However, for A, the self is too closely inculcated in the mechanics of consumerism or consumption for starvation to offer a viable way out: she is unable to exceed the material boundaries of the body. Yet A does achieve a kind of revelation by passing through to the other side of starvation, yet this liberates her from the consumerist doctrines of the Church of

Conjoined Eaters, not from consumption itself. In contrast, through the expansive capacity of the anorexic aesthetic, Ruth is able to access a state of transcendent revelation evocative of

Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Emily Dickinson.

Through the aesthetics of disorder, the female body is simultaneously granted the semantic significance of the divergent, and the subjectivity of the default. It is both liberation from the repressive allegorization of the female body, and the secularizing tendencies of the material, which reduces the body into a duplicable, consumable object. Through the symbolic rejection of food, the anorexic aesthetic becomes a repudiation of both domesticity and consumer capitalism, and enables the female protagonist to achieve a kind of transcendence conventionally reserved for meditations upon nature.

The anorexic aesthetic is fundamentally an aesthetic of liberation, operating through the logic of negative theology. As Amy Hungerford gestured towards, the aesthetic articulates a concern with how the self – the ‘voice’ – can be expressed, yet presents a view of spirituality which does not deny subjectivity. It enables liberation through paradox, exposing the limits of the material to show the fullness of the spiritual, cognizant self.

55 Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. The Edible Woman. 1980. London, Virago Press Ltd., 2013.

Bruch, Hilde. The Golden Cage: The Enigma of Anorexia Nervosa. 1978. Cambridge,

Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2001.

Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. Fasting Girls: The History of Anorexia Nervosa. London, Vintage

Books, 2000.

Church of England. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and

other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of The Church of

England. Introduction by James Wood, London, Penguin Books, 2012.

Criado Perez, Caroline. Invisible Women. London, Chatto & Windus, Penguin Random

House, 2019.

De Rossi, Portia. Unbearable Lightness. London, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd., 2010.

Delville, Michel, and Andrew Norris. The Politics and Aesthetics of Hunger and Disgust:

Perspectives on the Dark Grotesque, Routledge, 2017.

Desbordes, Emmanuelle Borgnis. ‘Anorexia, Anxiety, and the Object’. Psychoanalytic

Review, 101 (4). August 2014. pp. 571 – 602.

https://doi.org/10.1521/prev.2014.101.4.571 Accessed 10 January 2019

56

Dickinson, Emily. ‘Renunciation’, The Poems of Emily Dickinson. Edited by R. W. Franklin,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

--- ‘The Brain is Wider than the Sky’, The Poems of Emily Dickinson. Edited by R. W.

Franklin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press, 1999.

Domestico, Anthony. “Imagine a Carthage sown with salt’: Creeds, Memory and Vision in

Marilynne Robinson’s ‘Housekeeping’.” Literature & Theology, vol. 28, no. 1, 2014,

pp. 92-109, https://doi.org/10.1093/litthe/frt006. Accessed 20 April 2019

Donoghue, Emma. The Wonder. London, Picador, 2016.

Ellmann, Maud. The Hunger Artists: Starving, Writing, and Imprisonment. Cambridge,

Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1993.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. ‘Nature’, 1836. Ralph Waldo Emerson: Selected Essays. London,

Penguin Books. 1985

--- ‘The Poet’, 1844. Ralph Waldo Emerson: Selected Essays. London, Penguin Books. 1985

Geyh, Paula E. ‘Burning Down the House? Domestic Space and Feminine Subjectivity in

Marilynne Robinson’s Housekeeping’.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 34, no. 1,

1993, pp. 103-122 www.jstor.org/stable/1208504 Accessed 20 October 2018

57

Girard, Rene. Anorexia and Mimetic Desire. Translated by Mark R. Anspach, Michigan,

Michigan State University Press, 2013.

Hallet, Nicky, ‘Female Religious Houses.’ The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern English

Literature and Religion, edited by Andrew Hiscock and Helen Wilcox, Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2017, pp.414-430

Halse Anderson, Laurie. Wintergirls. Scholastic, 2016.

Hedrick, Tace, and Marilynne Robinson. “On Influence and Appropriation.” The Iowa

Review, vol. 22, no. 1, 1992, pp. 1-7 doi.org/10.17077/0021-065X.4086 Accessed 11

May, 2019

Heywood, Leslie. Dedication to Hunger: The Anorexic Aesthetic in Modern Culture.

Berkeley, University of California Press, 1996.

Hungerford, Amy. Postmodern Belief: American Literature and Religion since 1960.

Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2010.

--- “ENGL 291: The American Novel Post 1945. Lecture 16 Marilynne Robinson,

Housekeeping (cont.)” Open Yale Courses, 2008,

oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291/lecture-16 Accessed 20 April, 2019

Jameson, Fredric. ‘Wal-Mart as Utopia’. Verso Books Blog, July 14, 2016,

58 www.versobooks.com/blogs/2774-fredric-jameson-wal-mart-as-utopia. Accessed

June 19, 2019.

Julian of Norwich. Revelations of Divine Love. Translated by Elizabeth Spearing, edited by

A. C. Spearing, London, Penguin Books, 1998.

Kaviola, Karen. “The Pleasures and Perils of Merging: Female Subjectivity in Marilynne

Robinson’s Housekeeping.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 34, no. 4, 1993, pp. 670 –

690 DOI: 10.2308/1208805 Accessed 18 January, 2019

Keats, John. The Letters of John Keats. Edited by H E Rollins, 2 vols. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Kleeman, Alexandra. 2015. You Too Can Have A Body Like Mine. London, 4th Estate, 2017.

Lacan, Jacques. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Edited by Jacques-

Alain Miller, translated by Alan Sheridan, London, Hogarth Press, 1977.

Literary Aesthetics: A Reader. Edited by Alan Singer and Allen Dunn, Oxford, Blackwell

Publishers, 2000.

Luiselli, Valeria. “‘You Too Can Have a Body Like Mine,’ by Alexandra Kleeman.” The

New York Times. September 4, 2015, https://nyti.ms/1hHgSZe Accessed 20 May,

2019

59 Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. 1848. Introduction by Yanis

Varoufakis. London, Vintage, 2018.

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. London, Penguin Classics, 2012.

Olsen, Stein Haugom. “Literary Aesthetics and Literary Practice.” Mind, New Series, vol. 90,

no. 360, 1981, pp. 521-541, www.jstor.org/stable/2253285 Accessed 12 April, 2019

Orbach, Susie. Hunger Strike, 1986. London, Karnac Books, 2005.

Oxford English Dictionary Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019.

--- "aesthetic, n. and adj." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/3237 . Accessed 27 June 2019.

--- "anorexia, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/8080. Accessed 27 June 2019

--- "body politic, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/273303. Accessed 5 July 2019.

--- "consume, v.1." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/39973. Accessed 4 July 2019.

--- "disease, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/54151. Accessed 30 June 2019.

60

--- "ghost, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press, June 2019,

www.oed.com/view/Entry/78064. Accessed 4 July 2019.

Penny, Laurie. Meat Market: Female Flesh Under Capitalism, Hampshire, 0-Books, 2011.

Robinson, Marilynne. “That Highest Candle: A Review of Harold Bloom’s American

Religious Poems.” Poetry Magazine, vol. 190, no. 2, 2007, pp. 130,

www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/detail/68859 Accessed 23 April

2019

--- “The Book of Books: What Literature Owes the Bible.” The New York Times, December

22, 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/books/review/the-book-of-books-what-

literature-owes-the-bible.html Accessed 23 April 2019

--- “Marilynne Robinson on Finding the Right Word”. The New York Times, September 22,

2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/books/review/marilynne-robinson-on-finding-

the-right-word.html Accessed 18 June 2019

--- Housekeeping. 1981. London, Faber & Faber Limited, 2014.

--- The Givenness of Things. London, Virago, 2015.

--- When I Was A Child I Read Books. London, Hachette Digital, 2012.

61 Serio, Alexandra, and Alexandra Kleeman. “The Rumpus Mini-Interview Project #111:

Alexandra Kleeman”. The Rumpus, November 24, 2017, therumpus.net/2017/11/the-

rumpus-mini-interview-project-111-alexandra-kleeman/. Accessed 3 June, 2019

Sewell, Lisa, “‘In the End, the One Who has Nothing Wins’: Louise Gluck and the Poetics of

Anorexia.” Literature Interpretation Theory, vol. 17, no. 1, 2006, pp. 49-76

doi.org/10.1080/10436920500468642 Accessed 12 June, 2019

Singer, Alan and Allen Dunn, Literary Aesthetics: A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers,

2000.

Sontag, Susan. Illness as Metaphor & AIDS and its Metaphors. London, Penguin Random

House, 1991.

Stewart, Susan. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the

Collection. Durham and London, Duke University Press, 1993.

The Bible. Authorized King James Version, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. 1854. Edited by Jeffrey S. Cramer, New Haven and London,

Yale University Press, 2006.

Warin, Megan. Abject Relations: Everyday Worlds of Anorexia. New Jersey, Rutgers

University Press, 2010.

62

Warner, Marina. Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. Berkeley, Los

Angeles, University of California Press, 2000.

Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth. London, Vintage, 1991.

Kang, Han. The Vegetarian. Translated by Deborah Smith. London, Portobello Books Ltd.,

2015.

63