Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
An interesting perspective, astrangerhere.
I would argue that Haskel's unhappy childhood was offered as an explanation for her art rather than her sexuality, the text seems fairly explicit in this regard. I can understand how offering this sort of plot device can be harmful, but I think there is more context here.
For any author researching plausible backgrounds there is any amount of misery to be found in artist backgrounds. [Omitted various real life examples, I doubt we need them.] That art attracts those with unhappy backgrounds (or foregrounds, for that matter), is a pretty common trope in itself, of course. But my point is that the setting is as much an art and entertainment one as anything else, and so the tropes blur into one another.
Perhaps perhaps arguing that it's an arts trope rather than a lesbian relationship trope isn't all that helpful as regards the book's use of stereotypes, but it's how I read it and it didn't stand out as a problem.
For the rest, I don't read enough LGBT literature to offer comment on what tropes are common. Yes, the sexual involvement seemed overly rushed perhaps, but the book never gave me the sense that either woman was promiscuous (quite the opposite).
|
gmw, I like your statement about blurring of tropes. I had read the artist painting from a source of pain as a typical art trope. Haskel provides the example of Frida Kahlo, and I had read Haskel’s musings as also making those applicable to herself so the direct comparison made me think of art tropes.
Thank you for your post, astrangerhere. It does seem that the author put many stereotypes into this book. Your post was insightful and helpful to me in highlighting several issues. I thought some of them were awkwardly inserted into the book text and character conversations. That’s why I enjoy our book club discussions because other people’s views and life experiences can improve your understanding and reading of a text.