"Chloe feels herself morally superior to Grace" (p. 15). She neither understands their predicaments nor forgives them their lapses. And, therefore, when the narrator speaks of Chloe's attachment to Grace's family at The Poplars, we understand what is really meant:
|
| | And perhaps it was not cupboard love which drove Chloe to choose The Poplars as her second home, and Esther as a second mother, and Grace and Marjorie as her friends, but her recognition of their grief, and their inner homelessness. It was not that she used them, or that they used each other, but simply that they all clung together for comfort.
|
| | Well. [Pp. 3233]
|
"Well." A single verbal gesture, a single word, which, for a moment, revolts against the previous sixty-three. "Well" means "I doubt it," "I don't think so," in short, "Not.'' Chloe has no fine feelings. Said and gone. The reader gets rooted in the everyday, mundane clichés of "cupboard love," "second home," and "they all clung together for comfort"and then reaches "Well," and, probably, laughs. We chuckle as we hit the ridiculous, bathetic bottom of real human motives, after being taken in by the possibility of ideal ones. As the incongruity between what is "true" and "untrue" is established, the "perhaps" of the first line, which merely qualifies there, becomes unequivocal.
|
Not only is the moment cynical and funny, but it is also noisythe space that follows is filled with the noise of Weldon's intransigence ("Well" period), but also with the sound of the response demanded from the reader. In an interview in Belles Lettres, Weldon discusses her fondness for "little one-line throwaways," which she "could explain" but chooses not to. "Somehow," she says, "the reader has to work out a response before carrying on" (Barreca, p. 7). The reader is asked to reject accept-ability in favor of response-ability. Even though only a space follows this gesture, the space is "filled with moving," and the period, it seems, is only a temporary definitive. One may conclude that the gesture revolts against and unfixes gender roles, but nothing about the moment itself reveals a coherent ideology. We are merely offered the optimistic and punkish possibility of some kind of revolt.
|
Of course, this kind of amorphous blob of an ideology may infuriate a radical feminist sensibility. Where here is a plan for social transformation? Where is the sociopolitical, economic strategy? Where is the "running beyond" to go with the "questioning of existing relations" (p. 72) that Richard Johnson speaks of? This seems, rather, to be a Nike kind of feminismthe feminism, in fact, of Toni Cade Bambara, who, when asked if fiction is the best way to unite the wrath, vision, and power of women of color, replies, "No. The most effective way to do it, is to do it!" In a single four-
|
|