I was interested in the bits involving Jerome. Before we know that he is an art forger we see him making tea with "real Wedgwood" (212) but in the remaining pages where he is an active character, there are repeated references to things not real, or used as substitutes for the real. We learn that he is "wanted for treason in Britain" (213), an example of being false to his country. There is a "flying jacket that not possibly belong to [him]" (213). Margarita, not able to find an ashtray, uses a saucer (213). Then he greets Rudi with "mock-bows" (215). More examples of things not being what they are or standing in for something else are in the scene where he and Margarita argue about the painting. When she points a gun at him he says, "this isn't the movies" and later refers the gun as a "little toy" (250). He says that Rudi is her "puppet-master" (250). During the argument Jerome refers to his "forgery" (250). In a particularly vicious tirade is his reference to Margarita's "makeup and hairdo, you encrusted tart" (251). What finally frosts her is Jerome's calling her "my dear," she replies to this by telling him, "my name is not 'my dear.' My name is Margarita Latunsky" (250). After she shoots him, she repeats, "Margarita Latunsky" (251).
What got me thinking along these lines was the reference to Foucault of criminality. Pieter Vermeulen writes, "the category of 'criminality' covers a series of life forms lurking behind such criminal acts: 'the delinquent, the monster, the homosexual, the pervert'" (Vermeulen 388). I would not want to accuse David Mitchell of homophobia, but I wonder about his writing the forger as a homosexual who almost comes across as a stock character. Margarita comments about his apartment, "Jerome keeps the place tidier than a woman would" (213). I noted references to things being not real/authentic--is Mitchell implying that the ultimate forgery in Jerome's life is that he is not a "real" man, especially compared to Rudi. I think I might be over-reading on this one.
Cheers,
Wayne
Wayne,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are really over reading this. As Jennifer has pointed out, it seems that there are a plethora of sexist depictions of women though few of the men end up looking terrific. Now that I say that, I think that really no one looks good. The women are scheming and subservient and the men are crazy for power and sex. The comment about Jerome and his housekeeping is downright ridiculous. It's probably true that women on average may be neater than men, but I've certainly known quite a few sloppy women and some male neat freaks. The analogy is at its core faulty. As for Mitchell being homophobic, it's certainly possible given that he employs many stereotypes throughout the novel. It's certainly worth thinking about why he chose a homosexual character for that role. Also, isn't Alfred in London homosexual? He certainly comes off looking better than most of the men but he has issues as well. Anyway, it's an interesting question you raise about Jerome as a forgery of a man.
One thing I did not go into detail was what I had referred to as the "vicious tirade" of Jerome's towards Margarita when he talked about her sexual encounters to help set up the thefts. This was a hateful comment on female sexuality as well as pointing out Margarita's using her body as a commodity. Reinforces yet another stereotype of gay men hating women or are jealous of them. I believe/hope such irrational thinking is passe but Mitchell sure reinforces it.
ReplyDeleteThis was quite interesting! I hadn't paid much attention to the language surrounding Jerome, and how that you point it out, it seems that he is a deeply troubled and flawed character. I wonder if his falseness in not just himself, his art and his surroundings echoes the falseness of a globalized world. He has many curios that don't belong in Russia, and they're not something he seems to have purchased through a world trade economy, but something he has brought with him. It seems to be referencing the post modern, and lack of depth in the current world.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent point, Wayne. Its actually hard to track where these arguably homophobic depictions are coming from since Mitchell inhabits or mimics different styles and voices--in St Petersburg, of the sort of mystery novel. If these stock gendered descriptions are a legacy of that genre and he is repeating them, then this raises a question about the politics of Mitchell's "global" form--namely, where is the accountability of forms are just endlessly circulating with no origin or terminus?
ReplyDelete