I am very interested in the way that Bechdel analyzed the Winnicott writings to tease out meaning in her relationship with her mother. Combined with Bechdel's musings and observations on Woolf, Plath, Rich (even Kumin and Seuss), Are You My Mother? is a dissertation on the mother / daughter relationship.
For most of the book the literary references were providing a guide to understand the narrator's relationship to her mother, like an academic paper citing sources as evidence of a logic-based analysis. But by the end of the book, there was a turn (somewhere--where did it happen?) and suddenly Bechdel's story became the evidence and citation for the analysis of Winnicott's work-- almost as if Bechdel's own story is secondary to the analysis of the literature.
I found the turn, better said--the fulcrum, by which the story and the literary analysis is supported and balanced. It is the exchange starting on 228 through 229:
***
narrator: Whatever it was I wanted from my mother was simply not there to be had. It was not her fault.
mom: I don't know why you can't understand me.
narrator: And it was therefore not my fault that I was unable to elicit it.
mom: Can you understand?
narrator: I know she gave me what she could.
She had just sent me another $1500 check, for god's sake, while I pursued a calling she was not happy about.
(hangs up the phone on mom) Yet I did not feel guilty about hanging up.
Her check would see me through until I moved and got a part-time job in September to supplement my cartooning income.
Mom had supported me for nine months.
The significance of this particular length of time does not escape me.
Things had once been much simpler between us.
***
The whole book was complete for me at the end of this passage. I was happy that there was more to read (because I was being entertained) but I didn't need for more after page 229.
Darin, I find your reflection interesting. At times I wondered what Bechdel's real motivation for utilizing the literary and psychoanalytical references in this text were. In her need to create patterns which allow the multiple narratives of her life to hold together with meaning, it seemed as though these references created a net of codified and popularly accepted meanings which reified her own interpretations. Simultaneously I found the way in which she provided a sort of 101 to Winnicott's theories acted as an invitation to the reader, to join her in the process of learning and reflecting. This made it impossible for me to not then consider my own life beside her's and beside the theories themselves. The story was in a sense transfered to me. And in this I think she succeeded in vesting her story with broader symbolic meanings relevant beyond the bounds of her small life and the life of her family.
ReplyDelete"For most of the book the literary references were providing a guide to understand the narrator's relationship to her mother, like an academic paper citing sources as evidence of a logic-based analysis. But by the end of the book, there was a turn (somewhere--where did it happen?) and suddenly Bechdel's story became the evidence and citation for the analysis of Winnicott's work-- almost as if Bechdel's own story is secondary to the analysis of the literature."
ReplyDeleteThat's a great thought, Darin, and I think you're onto something here. As I said in Uni's post, I, too, thought and questioned why Bechdel analyzes Winnicott's work to a tee, almost submerging herself into his analyze and thus dissipating her own identity.
But I think that was her risk-taking. She somewhat deconstructs her ego and psyche via Winnicott's work in order to "annihilate" herself, like she says that she does of her mother, and surmounts that deconstruction. I feel like that's why the ending scene with its black surrounding is so poignant.
I love the idea that Bechdel's book is a case study of Winnicot's work. You write that the book could have ended for you on page 229, what is the significance in the remainder of the book for you?
ReplyDelete