I like to say that I have read plenty of horrible romance stories in my lifetime, and have seen plenty of interesting (read: “disturbing”) tropes regarding relationships in the process. So when I received a content warning regarding this book, I simply brushed it aside thinking that it wouldn’t be too bad on my end.
For reference, I have survived reading the Twilight series, “After Forever”, briefly looking over the accursed, satirical coronavirus romance trilogy, and having to glimpse over more unhinged premises of books I would love to unread.
Admittedly, “The Lover” (Marguerite Duras) isn’t as bad as the examples I had listed above. But it still has some elements that some people would not be okay with as a plot point (namely a romantic relationship between 2 people with very different ages).
So imagine if Lolita was autobiographical and was written from the perspective of the titular character.
That’s pretty much the premise of this book.
But while both relationships are absolutely inappropriate, but a girl in her mid-teens (and especially when it is told through her perspective) is going to be read a lot differently compared to a book written through the predator’s perspective about a pre-teen girl.
And in the case of Duras’s novel, she at least desires her rich Chinese partner, she has some agency in what is happening, even though her hand is forced by the abuse in her family (which is such a typical unfortunate situation in real life as well — to simply swap one form of abuse for another). So her relationship is also a story of abuse.
Duras makes it clear that as a young girl, she felt forced by necessity to become involved with an older man in order to survive based on several factors. Her family was incredibly poor. Her mentally unsound mother forbade the relationship. But the lover was generous, and their family desperately needed the money. Then, she screams at her daughter and beat her (with the lover being a way to escape her pain).
This is not just an average love story, or an average story about the tragedies of poverty, or a story about how the loved ones in her life mistreated her. She just wants to write down what happened and make peace with it. The result is something that is unexpectedly beautiful and meaningful.
After all, there’s genuinely nothing wrong with a person recounting their truth in light of their experiences.
What exactly does it mean to love a person? Do you think it is true romantic love if one gets into a relationship based on a financial necessity?
6 Comments
Arella,
I personally did not read this novel as I read, “The Trenchcoat” by Manea, but apparently everyone chose this book so I will be commenting on your blog. I personally did not choose this because I thought the story would be too disturbing for me, but after reading all these blogs, I want to read it now too (LOL). I think it is not “true romantic love” if a person gets into a relationship purely based on financial necessity. It may be necessary for one to be successful but I wouldn’t classify it as “real love.” This may sound cheesy but I believe “true love” is when a person stays with their partner through the thick and thin. They are not driven away by the hardships and are willing to stick with them through the toughest of times.
Hi Arella, I appreciated your perspective of how Duras wanted to write about her experience and make peace with it. Many people may not like the fact that this book discusses a romantic relationship between two people with a large age gap, but Duras is simply sharing her experience in the way she knows best, and that takes a lot of courage.
Hello, Arella,
I really like the question you raised.
In my opinion, loving someone simply means remembering them in your heart, being willing to do many things for them, and wanting their happiness. It doesn’t depend on how they reciprocate, and they may not even give you anything in return. After all, loving them is my own choice, and how they treat back doesn’t matter.
Jialu Xu
Hi Arella!
Loved what you had to say this week. I agree with you on all counts. This book was not nearly as disturbing as I thought it would be, and there’s an almost melancholic honesty to it that overall makes it more sad than disturbing. To your question, I believe we’ve been asking ourselves what it means to love somebody for millennia. To avoid getting overtly philosophical, however, I do believe you can love a person in the context of financial necessity, if only because they relieve you of struggle and strife. Thanks for this!
B.B.
Arella, I think it is definitely comparable to Lolita in a way and, yes, you make an excellent point that the difference in narrative voice is key in shifting the perspective. Your blog also made me reflect on when/how external circumstances might conflict with personal agency or the illusion of one since you mentioned that her decision was also influenced by “the abuse in her family.”
Thanks for your comment!
– Tesi
Hi Arella, I loved your blogpost and thought similarly about the book. To answer your question, I believe the meaning of love varies from person to person. In this case, the protagonist was very poor and so she might have felt that love meant someone “taking care” of her financially.