Full disclosure: I read only 571 of the 800 pages of Natchez Burning,
and that was because the central story regarding long-unsolved civil
rights crimes in Mississippi and the men who perpetrated them was
really, really exciting.
However, I stopped reading
long after I should have. I found Greg Iles' depiction of women in this
novel sexist. Men were characters with purpose, whose actions defined
them and whose purpose was clear. Not so for women.
In Natchez Burning,
women are caricatures who smell like sex and whose actions are not
honest or honorable. Women are described regularly with ample
adjectives: beautiful, ambitious, desirable, wild, sexual or ruthless.
Their actions need adjectives and adverbs, and they're reduced to
hormones and a uterus.
At first, I thought it was the
failure of the characters. I thought maybe that is just how Penn Cage
saw them. Maybe Penn Cage was the sexist. Alas, I should have taken a
clue when Albert needed to turn on a fan to get a woman's sex smell out
of a room early in the book. Following that, Tom and Page both thought
Viola smelled like sex, then Katie Royal was "never the same" after her
wild encounters with Pookie. Then Mrs. Doctor Cage was the
stand-by-your-man wife of 52 years with literal blind trust in her
husband and seen only in relation to them. Then Pithy was the town
gossip. The myriad of nurses were stalwart, but rather forgettable.
Then
there was Caitlin, the beautiful, ambitious, ruthless and cruel
newspaper publisher whose only thought was a story that could win her a
second Pulitzer Prize. However, her sexuality was never far away: one of
the first conversations between Penn and Caitlin involve Penn asking
how late her period was, to distract her from wheedling information out
of him. Thus I understood what I suspected would become a major plot
complication.
Caitlin's male counterpart, Henry, is
ambitious and working in near-obscurity to crack wide open a story
steeped in civil rights struggles and murder. Henry's physical
description is part of the story, but the narrative doesn't describe his
"flashing green eyes," not once. Caitlin, however, has flashing green
eyes — and, when she dashes out to a story, the narration notes that she
doesn't have time to fix her hair or put on makeup. Her ambition, her
wealth, her drive, her physical presence and feminine elements are
described in great detail. Henry, however, simply does his job without
mention of his need to shower, shave or primp.
I slowed
down a little when Caitlin described how her life may change with the
responsibilities of home and hearth. She reviewed the whole career-home
dichotomy, which may have been fair. However, Penn the single father
rarely worried about how his activities would affect his pre-teen
daughter, Annie. Aside from a couple of inconveniences when his family
or fiancĂ©e stepped in to help him with — well, anything, Annie was not a
major concern.
Caitlin was ruthless almost to the
point of twirling a virtual mustache. She shows more interested in
whether Henry will be her employee to give her the story he's developed
over the years than in his physical safety or health. Caitlin pumps her
arms in glee that she has a story while Henry is in eminent danger. She
has lived and worked in close proximity to the people and place of the
news but shows interest only when it's big enough for her and shows
interest in Henry only for what he can give her. Penn has built a
relationship, but Caitlin has bought a story.
What made me close this book? The stupidest conversation I ever read between two ambitious, successful women.
Penn
and Caitlin met Jordan and John for a major plot complication. The men
marched off to talk business, and the women presumably did the same —
only not. Penn and John mentioned the women only peripherally, and that
was to confirm the wall between their professional and private roles.
Jordan and Caitlin, however, began with griping about their men, which
then devolved into "don't wait to make marriage and babies because life
is too short." Really? Two women with three Pulitzer Prizes
between them, one of whom had been in a war zone, who are knee-deep in
solving a historic civil rights mystery (and possibly earning another
Pulitzer each) aren't talking about the case, but over-sharing about
their family lives.
I had to put it down.
I
am very disappointed. I was sucked into an exciting story that had
scope, pathos, historic resonance and relevance. What I got was a man
who created female caricatures.
Let me know what you thought of the characters and the depiction of the sexes in Natchez Burning. I would love to be proven wrong, or maybe even over-sensitive. I'm a huge fan of Iles and I don't want to be disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment