Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

EG's picture

ambiguity

We discussed briefly yesterday about how purposeful ambiguity  in both straight and LGBTQI prose can be frustrating for the reader.  In fact, Stein's ambiguity of subjects, objects, nouns and banter in "Lifting Belly" was likely the culprit of the distaste that some of us voiced in class.  Alex spoke briefy, also, about how gender ambiguity can be frustrating from the outside; when we can't make sense of concrete things, we get bored or annoyed; we find the work personally inaccessable or meaningless (as Julia said in class, we feel excluded).  Then some people (read: Becky) found that ambiguity sort of intriuging, powerful, mysterious.  This whole conundrum reminds me of (while we're on the topic of lesbian love prose) a love scene in my favorite Jeanette Winterson novel, Lighthousekeeping, in which gender has been left out completely.  Though the writing is perhaps easier than Stein's to comprehend, by leaving out gender, I would imagine that some people would feel there is some key information missing.  Is that okay?  And because of it, doesn't this passage  have a completely different feel from love scenes we're used to?

 

Whatever it is, it's kind of hot, if it's your thang.  If you don't have too much time, read the second half.  Here it is again.

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
4 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.