Because I couldn’t speak up in class
13 04 2007The debate in class today affected me far more than I expected it to. The discussion of ‘true love’ almost brought me to tears, something that is generally extremely rare. I felt so emotionally invested in the exchange that I simply couldn’t handle participating directly in it. Many issues were raised and discussed, some of which I agree with but most of which made me realize how much I truly dislike the characters in this book. Also how incredibly cynical I’m becoming, but that’s a separate issue. I ended up scribbling down two full pages of angry notes to myself during class in response to everything that was being said. You won’t like it, and you probably won’t even agree with me. It’s ok. I’m not offended. This is going to be a long, rambling blog post, so I figure I’ll just start with two important questions.
What does Eben love about Jennie? She makes him feel wanted. She’s mysterious. She represents variation and excitement in the monotony and misery of his daily life. Does he really know her? I don’t think so.
And what does Jennie love about Eben? He’s her anchor. As she says, she’s lost, and he keeps her grounded.
Eben and Jennie are not soul mates. Let’s put aside the more obvious factors discussed in class (time difference, waiting, etc.) because all this is simply the superficial structure suggesting commitment. There is no real basis for their romance. They have no reason to love each other. Their love is not true. On Eben’s part, it’s the idea of it and on Jennie’s side…who knows? They’re both completely in love with the idea of love and the security and comfort of it.
It doesn’t even matter if she’s a figment of his imagination or not. Everything she is to him is fabricated, invented. She may be real, but their love isn’t.
A comment was made in class that Jennie exists just for Eben. That they are destined to be together and her strange passage through time is indicative of this. However, what if she’s just traveling through time in this manner anyway, and finds him along the way, something to cling to? Something to make her feel less lost.
This brings me to my greater point. Both characters are incredibly selfish. Eben is a frustrated artist. He has no inspiration. He’s washed up. Jennie is his crutch. Does Eben paint anything worthwhile during the times when Jennie is gone? Does he even try??
Jennie is lost, traveling towards an inevitable fate she already anticipates. She’s trying to hold on. She wants him to keep her back. She’s afraid.
They’re both so afraid that it leads them to believe they need– love– each other. They aren’t strong enough to fend for themselves, and if they were, they wouldn’t even try.
On to my second topic of discussion, the love-art-time triangle. We stated in class that “great art transcends time” and “great love transcends time.”
But time defines what we view as “great” and therefore time transcends both by constantly changing our perceptions of them. If these things are no longer “great”, then they lose their ability to transcend time.
Time negates everything eventually. Love and art lack this power. ART is not great. LOVE is not great. TIME is not equal to these two–it is superior. The triangle is flawed.
But if, based on this, we take the view that art doesn’t matter and love doesn’t matter, we wouldn’t get any enjoyment out of life. So we decide instead that TIME doesn’t matter. And this is exactly what Eben and Jennie do.
This is why Jennie has to die at the end. To show them both that time really does trump art and love.
The story isn’t just a “Portrait of Jennie”. Try these:
- “Portrait of Denial”
- “Portrait of Delusion”
- “Portrait of Need”
- “Portrait of Loss”
- “Portrait of Escape”
Yes, I know that’s terrible of me. But I realized something important in class. I hate Eben. I hate Jennie. They’re real, and weak. (And yes, we’re all weak. As it is so beautifully stated in The Philadelphia Story, “You’ll never be a first class human being or a first class woman until you’ve learned to have some regard for human frailty.” That’s my reminder to myself that I’m being incredibly harsh on these characters and everyone else, at the moment.) Don’t worry–I wouldn’t judge them on this alone. But the way Eben and Jennie deal with their respective problems is what really gets to me. Denial, lack of effort, and using each other. Does it really help either one in the long term? To me, they are completely ridiculous characters wholly unworthy of admiration. They are not wise, they are not instructive, they are not even laughable. They would be tragic if they weren’t each so completely self-absorbed, but I find it difficult to have any sympathy for them.
An artist who uses another person as an excuse to not even make an effort to work at his art isn’t truly an artist. And a girl who latches onto someone because she’s afraid is definitely not in love. They are not doomed lovers, they are not tragic heroes. They are irresponsible, simple, hurtful, and selfish. And I really cannot admire anything about them or their story.
This post is so passionate and wonderful-they are weak. We all are. And I can’t say what constitutes a real artist and what doesn’t, but I do believe that this love of commitment and safety is a large driving force of most loves, superficial or not.
Also,
I think you really hit on something with your “beans” idea…it got me thinking of the novel, and this course, in a whole new light. In fact, I’m not sure what I would do without it at this point in the semester. Completely enlightening. I totally owe you one.
Wow. Thank you for this post, Serena. It’s hard to be thoughtful, rigorously analytical, and passionate all at once, but you’ve certainly managed it here.
I have a lot to think about and a lot to respond to, but I needed to say right away that I am grateful you’ve shared your response with us. Electric.
What is the “beans” idea? My curiosity is picqued.
This class is going to be more prepared for “Vertigo” than any I can remember. “Vertigo,” of course, turns all these issues up to 11….
[...] Where to begin… First of all, yesterday’s class discussion on art and soulmates was probably my favorite we’ve had yet. As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m really interested in the correllation of eternal art and eternal love…are they one in the same? Who knows, I guess it’s up to interpretation. I also think that Serena’s view of what defines an artist is very interesting. To say that an artist cannot be an artist because they rely too heavily on inspiration but also use it as an excuse to not paint is very interesting. As I am not an artist, I’m not sure if I agree or disagree-I think it’s an interesting point that deserves some thought, though, because this means that an artist doesn’t simply paint, draw, or construct; this means that an artist must meet emotional and other criteria to fit the description. Very interesting… As for the film itself, I really want to see the second half because the narrative is so damned funny. (What was that one line…”All of a sudden I was aware of a consciousness I had not yet experienced” or something along those lines̷ Who talks like that? Who believes a narrative that sounds like that??? It’s ridiculous but incredibly laughable. I’d also like to note Joey’s detection of noir themes in the film…I agree to the extent that Eben’s narrative (when it happens) is detective-like, but I feel that this falls more under the classification of the old episodes of The Twilight Zone, a favorite of mine. The unnamed narrator with the straight, just-the-facts voice overs and the deliberate tone even sounds like Rod Serling! It’s like watching the old episodes but with much more ridiculous/less realistic acting and the added Eben voice overs. I feel it has some undertones of noir, but then again, by that token, wouldn’t The Twilight Zone? Genre is a tricky subject. Anything with time travel can’t be considered to be science fiction right away, can it? I admit, this seems like it has some traces of that, but I wouldn’t classify it as scifi…I also wouldn’t consider it to be a love story, though. I don’t feel that it can be a love story if the protagonists are not in love, and I don’t feel that they are here. I feel it is more of an obsession for both; how could Jenny know that she loves him so quickly? I think it’s a fancy that they pursue, and that is what drives the story. This can’t truly be a tragedy-think about it. She dies before him in history, she dies before him in real-time. And for what? It isn’t heart-wrenching for the audience (not really)-but I’m excited to see how they execute the end of the novel in the film nonetheless. I guess what I’m wondering is if there are tell-tale signs of a genre that should be setting off flashing lights in our mind. (Time travel=scifi? Love story=two people overcoming obstacles, soulmates or not? Tragedy=death of a protagonist to be with the other?) I feel that jennie is a mishmash of genres and it’s nearly impossible to pin it down as one, but I also feel that it doesn’t meet all the necessary criteria for even one of those.If there are genre signals, there are far too many in Jennie to decide on one, if any. [...]
[...] I agree with a lot of what Serenais saying in her post about how it is possible that Jennie and Eben are in love with the idea of love, and all the other various insignificant reasons to love someone that Serena lists in her blog. However, I don’t think you need a good reason to love someone. Maybe you are lonely, or afraid, or young, or naive, or stupid–but just because you don’t have a legitimate reason to be in love doesn’t discount being in love. For whatever reason, Jennie and Eben love each other. [...]
Yeah Serena, what is the beans thing? You never gave me an answer and I would really like to know.
[...] Serena, et al, this is what I think of Eben and Jennie being in love. [...]
[...] This brings me to Serena’s blog. I’ve got to applaud her brutally honest perception of Eben and Jennie. She raises valid points, like why Jennie and Eben assume they’re in love? What do they have in common? I just accepted that they were in love and never questioned it. Eben brings up our ignorance and I think you need it for this life. I never questioned their love for the same reason men dedicate themselves to god. You’ve got to have faith. You can’t believe in the concept of a soul-mate without having faith or believing in fate. My roommate said it quite frankly, what are the odds that I’d find my soul mate in the infinite number of people who lived, are living and will live? The answer is you’ve got to have faith. It’s not a great answer, but it’s the best we have to offer. I’ve got a passage that Serena might like to disembowel the way she did to that class lecture. [...]
[...] I’d like to explore the greater symbolic meanings of these colors a little further. I’m going to make a sweeping philosophical statement and assert that the interplay of courage and fear is essential to love. The euphoria commonly associated with romance is produced entirely by this balance. So is this what love is all about? Courage and fear? Perhaps. (And don’t forget the orange, the desire.) However, if these were the only necessary elements for love, wouldn’t things have worked out for Scottie and Judy? Or, perhaps, they weren’t destined to be together at all. This brings up the question of soul mates all over again. Does the fact that things don’t ultimately end well mean that it was never meant to be? Are Scottie and Judy, just like Eben and Jennie, doomed from the outset? Is their love less true because it doesn’t culminate in their lasting happiness? This question leads nicely into… PART TWO:There has been quite a lot of discussion over what exactly distinguishes Midge from Madeleine, and what makes Madeleine ‘right’ for Scottie. However, this approach is inherently flawed, because it assumes that Madeleine is right for Scottie. In my post on the 13th, I said that Eben and Jennie are not soul mates…Their love is not true. On Eben’s part, it’s the idea of it and on Jennie’s side…who knows? They’re both completely in love with the idea of love and the security and comfort of it. [...]