What view would a feminist critic take on "Enduring Love" by Ian McEwan?

Authors Avatar by sades4 (student)

What view would a feminist critic take on Enduring Love written by Ian McEwan?

‘Enduring Love’ encompasses the key message that the contrasting ideologies of science and emotion, cannot compliment each other, but in turn serve parallel meta-narratives, as expressed through the actions of Joe and Clarissa. McEwan directs the reader to believe in Joe’s rationality, where in Appendix One his assumptions are proved right. This creates the stereotypical view, that any positive outcome is led by a man and his rational decisions, thus leaving women in the background without a role to play but express their emotions, as is the case with Joe and Clarissa’s relationship. This is opposed by feminists such as Kate Millet who recognised the imbalance of the distribution of power between men and women and ‘saw very clearly that the widespread negative stereotyping of women...constituted a formidable obstacle on the road to true equality.’

McEwan formed the novel on the basis of his ‘interest in science,’ whilst he wanted to oppose the ‘sense that rationality gets a 'bad press' in literature,’ as he states ‘there are many situations in life… in which it does no harm…to try and think rationally’ thus his key message begins to evolve. McEwan portrays the science and rationality through Joe – a science journalist, who strips the events apart, layer by layer, as if he was a surgeon and then re-stitches it to provide the final outcome; once again placing the male figure in the dominant position, whereby he narrates and leads the novel, ‘let me freeze the frame’ almost having an omniscient power as he self-consciously controls the narrative. This shows, according to Lacan, that men control the power of speech and language that dominates society, whereas women are shown to revel in non-verbal communication, a common preconception which is opposed strongly by feminists.

McEwan was intentionally going to write a philosophical novel, however he uses many forms to interest the reader – the most common being the continual aspect of a psychological thriller. Chapter one opens serenely with Joe and Clarissa ‘in sunlight under a turkey oak’ however it was abruptly halted as they ‘saw the danger’. This short phrase creates a sense of foreboding, especially as it doesn’t state what the danger was, but instead leads Clarissa and Joe into ‘its labyrinths.’ The sudden change in events leaves Clarissa behind, as Joe ‘races into the story’ without her. This short scene could represent the role of women in society and perhaps undermine their value as they are marginalised, whilst men have all the power, as four others ‘were converging on the scene,’ once again re-inforcing Millet’s ideas.

Join now!

McEwan often seems to use this technique of marginalising women, as is proven by Julie’s portrayal in The Child in Time. Julie is the mother of an abducted child which the novels centers around, however her husband, Stephen, is the main protagonist. Throughout the novel we see how he suffers with the loss of a daughter. Julie is rarely mentioned except for the fact that she moved to the countryside. This is an area of isolation, not only away from society but also away from the readers. As we see, McEwan repeatedly casts women in the background, suggesting the small ...

This is a preview of the whole essay