readnblog-blog1

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 5 - end

- Personal Reaction: I am still wondering what the significance of the ugly painting competition is. Was it significant to Sheila’s development, and meant to help her along her journey? Also Margaux’s email makes it seem like she is a really famous painter but I never got that impression throughout the novel: “when i was younger and i first started to be in the papers, no matter how small or mundane the media source, no matter how banal or positive the review was, i would see my name there and feel a weight of doom that would last about a week. it was just this mix of panic, depression, and anxiety that i couldn’t escape or talk myself out of until it wore away" (286). 

It seemed like the whole novel was leading to the Ugly Painting Competition, however, the competition section was short and showed no significance to the novel. It was mostly Margaux discussing what she finds ugly: “Well, everything I like is ugly-beautiful. For me, what’s truly ugly is, like, tight blue jeans with cowboy boots and a lot of makeup—restrained things. That’s really ugly...me. Not ugly for the world—people love that—but it just looks awful to me. It looks like death (291). 

The gravedigger chapter seemed out of place, and I’m not sure what the meaning/symbolism is behind this interaction. It seems that it leads up to the gravedigger offering advice to the ditch digger: “The gravedigger said to himself, alone, “Not everyone can be a gravedigger. You have to make a neat job of it. I met a man once. He dug ditches. He wanted to see a grave. He was impressed when he saw me digging this way, how straight and deep it was. I told him: It has to be. A human body is going in this grave’” (303). 

-Literary Elements: The plot finally begins to wrap up, with falling action and resolution as the group from the very beginning of the novel meets again for the ugly painting competition. “Margaux, Sholem, Misha, Jon, and Sheila gather in Jon and Sholem’s living room. The long-awaited Ugly Painting Competition has finally arrived. Everyone sits on the couch or on chairs except for Sholem, who stands before everyone” (286). Wrapping up the novel by circling around to the beginning is a way to make the novel feel completed. Sheila’s journey also comes to a close and she becomes sure of herself and what she must do: “As Margaux walked away, I thought about what I wanted to do. I would do it, too. I knew the value of what was in that sack. I would carry that sack and never put it down. I would carry it to the end” (298). 

The end of the novel is significant, and employs imagery to convey the theme of the novel and what the novel is saying about this theme. “We remained very still, and we watched. Then finally Jon said, in his sweetly caustic drawl, “I don’t think they even know the rules. I think they’re just slamming the ball around.” And so they were” (306). The theme of novel what how should a person be and the novel shows that there is no one answer to that; you can be whoever you want and you shouldn’t care what other people view you as. This tennis match ties the theme together and shows how we are all just living, and there are no real rules. We make the rules up as we go along, and we can change them at any time to just be ourselves. 

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch 23 - Act 5

-Personal Reaction: I wasn’t really sure what Margaux meant by ‘invariables’ and how Sheila could be one. It seems like an insult, or some kind of negative thing. “Well, it’s like in life—you have the variables and you have the invariables, and you want to use them all, but you work around the invariables” (265). However, Sheila sees the term as a loving one which is interesting. 

I also am not sure why Sheila hasn’t broken up with Israel. He seems to always send her demanding emails and she never responds positively to them. Their relationship seems highly based on sexuality and not actual connection. I think the purpose of including their relationship in the plot is for Sheila to learn what kind of relationship she hopes to be in, and what kind of partner she wants to be. I also become confused when Sheila had some kind of deep realization about what she wanted with Israel: “We lay silently in my bed, and then my body felt it, deep and calm: what I wanted to do—something I had never done before. Without letting myself think about it a moment more, I shuffled down beneath the covers, saying to him as I did it, “I want to sleep beside your cock'” (271). It seems like that was Sheila’s way of ending the relationship, and letting Israel know how she really felt. 

I was really surprised when Sheila saw her husband after Act 3 because his character had never really been mentioned before, or throughout the novel. It seems like this was done on purpose because his presence in her life wasn’t helping her find her best self. 

-Literary Element: The theme is alluded to again in Ch 23 when Margaux tells Sheila she wants her to finish her play: “’“Yes! And I want it to answer your question—about how a person should be—so that you never have to think about it anymore. So that whatever you do from that point on isn’t about that question, and so our friendship won’t be either. And you can use anything you need from me to answer that question—my words, whatever, just answer it”’ (262).Throughout the novel, Sheila’s journey has been to find her identity and figure out how/who she should be. Margaux plainly acknowledges it and tells Sheila she will be her friend despite who she becomes. 

An important character development occurs in Ch 27 when Sheila finally reaches the end of her journey to figure out how  a person should be, and realizes that she shouldn’t care: “Who cares? If someone has to wind up, at the end of their long life, kneeling in a dumpster before a Nazi, it might as well be me. Why not? Aren’t I human? Who am I to hold myself aloof from the terrible fates of the world? My life need be no less ugly than the rest” (274). This is a significant realization for Sheila, and it shows that she has succeeded in reaching her goal. She is a hero, and can live in peace knowing that it is up to her who to become, and the opinions of others don’t matter. 

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch 16 - 23

- Personal Reaction: The conversation between Sheila and Ron escalated quickly in Ch.16 when he said “She is not my soul mate. My soul mate I met two years ago. God forgives me for it, I think. God understands. I do not think my wife thinks that I am her soul mate. She has never said anything about it. Do you think it is right … six years? For a woman not to sleep with a man? She is not my soul mate. Your soul mate is the one that misses you" (236). I think soul mates are real, and also believe that we have multiple we meet in our lifetimes. I think it is insightful for Ron to know his wife isn’t his soulmate, because that is a possibility. There is the possibility that his soulmate is still out there.

I notice that Sheila’s passion for Margaux is greatly described in Ch 18 when she is mourning the loss of her friendship: “I could not believe the ripping, unbreathable pain in me, the shaking knot that twisted itself into my lower back, the ache in my jaw. There was nothing but this feeling, and the love of Margaux, which I had known, but now the dark back of Margaux, which is all I would ever know; the last I would see of her as she walked away, remembering how generous she had been when I was deserving" (243).

The novel takes on a scary tone when Sheila sees a room in the building next to hers has a party that turns into a horrors scene: “There were knives and girls skinned alive and kept alive, and one woman screaming but trying to laugh it off to another, “Look what they did to my face!”—and there were the amputations performed right there, the limbs cut off, and the bars fucked with in the mouth, and all the things that can be done to a person including the pulling and ripping of everything" (244).

- Literary Elements: Heti adds another character, Ron, into the novel. Ron begins a conversation about love and soulmates with Sheila, which later leads to Sheila having a nightmare that she killed Margaux. This interaction was important to the plot because it ultimately made Sheila decided it was time to head back home: “I stood in line for the Greyhound, then got on the bus headed for Toronto and stored my suitcase in the tiny overhead rack and found a seat by the window, alone” (239).

Imagery is incorporated into Ch 17 when Sheila imagines how good her grilled cheese would be, “oozing with cheese”, and finds that it is not as she hoped: “Outside on the picnic bench I eagerly unwrapped the sandwich, but when I bit into it, it was soggy, and there was almost no cheese. It was not what I wanted, not what I had been picturing, but I adjusted myself to the reality of it. Better to have a good imagination than a good grilled cheese sandwich, I told myself. Then, thinking of Margaux: Better to have your failure right in front of you than the fantasy in your head” (240). The grilled cheese was a symbol of Sheila’s fantasy and failure to write a play. Just as Sheila had fantasized over how amazing the grilled cheese would be, she also fantasized about writing a play that would be loved by many. However, when she bit into the grilled cheese and when she left Toronto to write her play, things did not turn out as she expected. The grilled cheese further symbolizes the guilt that Sheila feels for not being able to write her play.

The name and theme of the novel and theme are brought up in Ch. 18 when Margaux writes a letter to Sheila that says “3. To be my closest friend and record me, then as soon as you’ve learned how a person should be, you’re done with me” (242). In this context, Margaux is accusing Sheila of leaving her the moment Sheila figured out who she would be and what she would be doing with her life i.e. writing a play. Sheila assumed her identity to be that of a play writer and left Toronto, and Margaux to fulfill this role.

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch. 13-16

Personal Reaction: Solomon and Sheila’s conversation about mothers and fathers carrying on Jewish traditions seems random but must serve some kind of purpose for the novel. It seems like Heti is again bringing up masculine and feminine roles as a sub-theme. For example: “But the women are the ones who run the holidays, so they know the traditions. They’re the ones who cook. I know it from my own family. So it makes sense that the women would know the traditions from growing up in their families—and that they would pass it on to their children” (211). Despite Solomon saying Judaism is a male-dominated religion, Sheila stands strong and proves her point that it is the women who typically pass the tradition along in families. Growing up Catholic, I too agree that it was my mother who taught me the traditions and kept the whole family involved. Although it is not always like this, I am able to relate to this conversation and specifically Sheila’s side of the argument.

Sheila continues to bring up strong points on the roles of women when she’s says, “Listen to what Margaret Mead said: ‘The major task of every civilization is to get the fathers involved in the child-rearing process’” (222). I like this quote and think it is very accurate; I don’t usually see/hear about fathers taking part in raising their children. For example, even while they are home after work on weeknights and on weekends, it seems like fathers are frequently thinking of other things such as golf, and then leave their wives to take car of the children. Living in a patriarchal society, I think Heti makes a strong point here through Sheila’s character and points out one of the biggest problems with the patriarchy; inequality.

Key Literary Elements: A new character, Solomon, is introduced to begin a conversation on masculine and feminine roles as well as Judaism with Sheila. Solomon’s character is developed as stubborn and also thoughtful; he tries to prove his arguments with specific examples: “Thinking is something that is not done anymore. You understand? Thinking is something that is not done anymore, because we’ve stopped thinking, because if people were thinking, we wouldn’t have gotten ourselves into the trouble we have gotten ourselves into” (215). For most of this section, Solomon’s character is developed to add to Sheila’s search for meaning and identity.

Rising action is incorporated into this section, as Sheila argues with Solomon and then goes to a restaurant to carry out Israel’s desires and ends up embarrassing herself. However the rising action lead to a new development in Sheila’s character in which she realizes “Somehow I had turned myself into the worst thing in the world: I was just another man who wanted to teach me something” (228). It is possible that this new realization is Sheila’s reward, an element of the hero’s journey. Sheila’s whole purpose throughout the novel has been to determine how/who a person should be and it is a reward to finally have a realization about her identity and who she should be. The setting changes again as Sheila’s realization cause her to buy a ticket and head to Atlantic City: “That night, I walked along the boardwalk, then stepped off the boardwalk and walked shoeless through the sand. I tried my best to remain silent and not ask myself any questions, nor look around for someone to answer questions for me. I sat down in the sand and looked out at the waves. It was so terrible to be alone. I felt how heavy my brain was in my head with all the questions that had been repeating for years” (230). Employing another element of the hero’s journey, Sheila reaches the road back in which she is about three quarters done with her journey but there is also a tone of tension as she explores what the meanings of her reward and what she intends to do with it.

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch.10 - Ch. 13

- Personal Reaction: I think it is interesting when Sheila, in her analysis of Moses, questions his actions as king and what kind of person he is in comparison to herself. I often do that same thing. For example, I too compare myself to role models and will sometimes try to be more like them or at least keep them in mind. But it can be confusing when your role model makes a bad decision, that you disapprove of, and then leaves you unsure of how you feel about them.

I love when Sheila decides to go to New York because I think that is a sign of growth. “I paused for a moment before making my decision, cradling those only-one-Important-Artist cities in my heart, as if before putting them to their death...The answer was obvious: New York” (191). As Sheila puts it, she is on a mission to see the “Important people”. I think Sheila’s character shows the most courage/strength out of the entire novel thus far when she makes this decision to surround herself with people who might help her grow and find herself.

-Key Literary Elements: The theme of the book is alluded to again in Ch. 10 when Sheila reflects on the story of Moses and how he is the king of the Jews: “And he is king of the Jews—my king. If that is what my king is like, what can I expect for myself?" (188). As Sheila continues along her journey to figure out how a person should be, and what her identity is, she often compares herself to others in an attempt to answer her questions. Moses is a biblical figure who is known to many as a man that Christ likened himself with. Therefore, in the theme of identity, Sheila wonders if she should be more like him or like Jesus, and comes to the conclusion that neither is for her.

The setting of the story is finally revealed to be Toronto in Ch. 10: “In the future, would the list say: Toronto 3?” (191). Although the setting hasn’t been too important to know in order to follow this novel, it is still nice as a reader to be able to picture where the characters are, such as in a busy city like Toronto. It’s possible that when Sheila decides to leave Toronto and go to New York, she is illustrating an element of the hero’s journey called the ordeal. Because Sheila is nervous to go there, and knows she might finish her play, the decision represents her confronting her greatest fear and leaving the world she knows for a ‘special’ one.

In Ch. 13, Heti uses beautiful language to describe Israel: “He had skin the color of tomatoes and eyes the color of mustard and ears the color of rabbit stew and feet the color of grass. And the smells from him were tomato and mustard and rabbit and grass. The words he spoke sounded like snakes in the grass. And when he smiled it was like mustard on the smile of a wound. When he touched me, my cells bred like rabbits: more blood, more flesh. All of my self came alive to breed to meet him doubly, triply; my body multiplied to satisfy him. My eyes grew hot and welled up with hot tears" (198). Heti’s language changes in this section, heavy with imagery and metaphors, to show how much Sheila misses Israel and how she sees as Israel highly sensual.

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch.6 - Ch. 10

- Personal Reaction: I was also nervous about Sheila presenting her work to Margaux - I expected Margaux’s reaction to be hesitant and weirded out. I was confused when Sheila went to an art show and saw Margaux’s buddha painting and become upset: “my heart racing and feeling nauseated. Leaving my half-empty beer bottle on his desk, I made it out the front door and headed straight for Margaux’s apartment, three blocks away" (175). Why did her painting affect Sheila so much? I was even more confused when Sheila went to see Margaux but then said she should go, and Margaux agreed. Are they not friends anymore? It seems like Sheila comes to terms with her lack of separation and independence from Margaux when she realizes: “I had plagiarized her being and mixed it up with the ugliness that was mine! Then she had looked into it and, like looking in a funhouse mirror, believed the decadent, narcissistic person she saw was her—when really it was me. Unwilling to be naked, I had made her naked instead” (180). As a reader, I am happy that Sheila comes to the realization that she looks to Margaux too much and needs to find some independence.

-Key Literary Elements: Imagery was incorporated into Ch. 6 with Margaux’s buddha painting, which was a symbol of what Margaux never wanted to become. Although Sheila thinks it is because Buddha “was the one who turned his back on the suffering of the world to sweeten himself with good feelings—privileged feelings of benevolence and purity, just like her worst fears about what it meant to be a painter” (175), Buddha also has historical significance and symbolizes a path toward enlightenment and having a clear role. Specifically, a smiling/laughing Buddha typically symbolizes abundance, happiness, and prosperity. This imagery shows how afraid Margaux is of finding true happiness and success; she is afraid of who she might become. it also illustrates how Margaux doubts herself not only as a person, but as a painter.

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 3 Ch.2 - Act 3 Ch.5

-Personal Reaction: Ch.2 seems to be a lot about finding meaning/purpose in experiences; with Sheila’s primarily being her encounter with a man at a bar. Her frequent recalls of it make the reader question why she keeps thinking about it. As a reader, I also noticed how the narrator talks about characters like they have already been introduced when they haven’t been at all and can cause some initial confusion. I think Sheila’s interactions with all the characters thus far show her something new about herself, and are helping her create her identity. Sheila’s identity seems to revolve around her play right now, but it also seems like she is exploring the meaning behind things. 

I like Ch.5 in which the conversation around the dinner table turns to the role of men and women, and I wonder if the book will introduce this as a sub theme: “BEN The women are doing everything—they’re raising the kids, they’re bringing in the money for the kids, they’re the ones who are— ANDREW —organizing communities. BEN Organizing all the movements. They’re doing everything! SHEILA And what are the men doing? BEN Drinking” (164). I think it also ties into Sheila feeling like she has to be sexually involved with Israel, and try to keep him satisfied. 

-Literary element: Ryan, another character, is added to the storyline in Act 3 Ch.2. Ryan’s character becomes signifiant when he offers Sheila his advice: “’No one wants to be friends with you two, and when they see you, they avoid you” (137). Ryan’s character is portrayed as honest, and caring, as he demonstrates that he is concerned with Sheila. 

The plot flashes back for the second time to a significant moment experienced by Sheila, “I remembered the man who came into the bar, crashing the glasses against the floor” (142). By implementing an episodic plot, the narrator creates a sense of how while time is passing, Sheila still continues to reflect back, and find purpose in this encounter; “My gut suggested that the man who was breaking bottles was the hero. I sensed something immovable in the center of him—maybe not admirable, but strong and stable and straight” (142).  Ryan’s character plays a role again as Sheila goes to him to discuss the meaning of this. 

After getting this far in the novel, and comparing the plot to the hero’s journey, it seems like the play is Sheila’s call to adventure, and everything she remembers from before is the ordinary world. It seems like her relationship with Israel, Uri, Ryan, and even Margaux are forms of tests, allies, and enemies. Margaux also appears to be her mentor, and helps Sheila cross the threshold. 

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 2 Ch.7 - Act 3

-Personal Reaction: Act 2 Ch. 7 is more intense, and the rhythm picks up as Sheila begins what is almost like a rant; about her play and then a man who says she is always drunk when he sees her. “For we are all, all of us, drunk all the time, and it’s not fair for him to single me out like that and make me the exception” (88). However, I see how Sheila relates this all back to her play and not wanting to ‘put more shit’ into the world. I thought Ch. 8 was interesting, specifically that Margaux took picture of Sheila naked at the Y and then made a painting of it. I’ve never done something like that with my friends, and it seems like Sheila and Margaux are really comfortable with each other. Their friendship becomes even more abnormal when “Margaux and I lay in one of the beds and watched as, on my computer, an heiress gave her boyfriend a hand job" (104). 

I thought Margaux had a really interesting point of view about autism: “I get really excited thinking about autism. I think, Oh! Over there in Silicon Valley there are all these kids with autism … and I think maybe it’s an advantageous human trait” (106). I’ve never heard anyone refer to it as an advantageous trait but I also understand where she is coming from - to feel paralyzed by your own feelings of empathy is a common thing, and we would all have very different experiences if we did not pick up on other’s feelings, including less guilt and shame. 

The interlude was unexpected and I think shows how dissatisfied Sheila is with Israel, and how much she wants to stick to her guns but has trouble saying no to others. 

-Key Literary Element: Act 2 Ch.7 switches the POV back to first person, and Sheila as the narrator sets an agitated tone of the chapter. The chapter adds to the plot by developing a big action that Sheila is going to attempt, writing the play, and sets her character’s purpose for now. Ch. 8 develops the main characters’, Sheila and Margaux, relationships specifically with the description of Margaux’s painting: “She said she had been working on a painting of me in a pool before she left her house that night, based on the naked photos she had taken of me in the whirlpool at the Y” (93). This interaction is important because it shows how unique their friendship is, and sets the stage for further relationship development. 

The narrator, Sheila, has an almost hyperactive personality that begins to manifest in these chapters and makes parts of the story almost sound unbelievable. For example: “So we stripped down to our underwear and got in the pool...It was Keanu Reeves!” (111). As a reader, I feel like I am trying to keep up with the narrator, like so many events are happening at once. The narrator switches back to second person during the interlude, and says “I don’t know why all of you just sit in libraries when you could be fucked by Israel” (121). It is almost a rhetorical question, because the narrator clearly doesn’t like Israel. However, this switch in POV is important because it shows the reader that the narrator wants to reveal something, her true thoughts, on the matter in a more personal way. This ties to the theme of Heti’s novel, how a person should be, and illustrates how Sheila wants to a be a certain kind of woman that has sex with Israel but deep down, she knows that is not who she is. 

[readnblog-blog1]

Act 1 Ch. 4 - Act 2. Ch. 6

- Personal Reaction: Chapter 4 included a lot more imagery that the first few chapters. I loved the way the husband’s reaction is described: “He’d had no sense of the storm clouds that had been building within me, and when he slammed out of the room, the storm clouds burst into rain, and all over my face and body was the cool wet of relief” (45). The imagery further continues to be a metaphor for the entire marriage: “The whipping about in the waves that had propelled me into my husband’s arms, through our marriage, then suddenly away from him, had died down; the sea was calm and rolled back. I stood up on the sand and looked about me. I was alone, and I was free". As a reader, I can get a better picture of how she was pressured into the marriage, and wasn’t ready for it, but was suddenly able to pull herself out of it, just as someone who is drowning can save themselves.

I became confused when the narrator described the event of the plane crashing. Or did it? I was unsure if Sheila had just imagined she jumped out of a plane into a recycling center, or if her plane actually crashed.

-Key Literary Elements: Act 2 Ch. 3 changes the point of view of the story. The narration is still from the first person, but the format is changed. Instead, a third person narrator describes the scene while Sheila speaks in the first person. The narrator then switches back to only Sheila for a page, and then switches back again: “Later that same week, after buying the tape recorder, Margaux and Sheila sit in the front window of a neighborhood diner. They order a breakfast to share and two coffees. The midday sunlight filters onto Margaux’s peroxide hair. They both wear dirty sneakers. They both wear dirty underwear. SHEILA Do you mind if I record?" (54).  

Act 2 Ch. 6 introduces Ann, an important character that points out Sheila’s bad decision making. The relationship that Sheila and Ann develop is that of a mentor and a mentee; with Ann explaining to Sheila the errors in her decision making: “fast. I had to discuss this dream with my Jungian analyst, so I went to my computer and made it gently ring. My analyst’s name was Ann. She was in her midfifties. Decades earlier, she had studied in Zurich, then moved to Toronto where she practiced for many years” (80). We can also tie this event in the novel to a stage of the hero’s journey, in addition to the development of these two characters. Ann is introduced as a character who will give Sheila advice that will help her grow and add to her character’s development.

[readnblog-blog1]

Chapters 1-3

Personal Reaction: Throughout the first chapter and half of the second, I was wondering who the narrator was. Finally, I read that it was Sheila. In the third chapter, I noticed the title was Sheila and Margaux and I was excited to figure out what their relationship would be like - what with Sheila seeing Margaux flirting with her husband. I was even more intrigued when the chapter began with Sheila’s husband going to Margaux’s birthday party, when Sheila did not. I suspected that they would be having an affair. However, Margaux’s email to Sheila showed her to have a very forward, honest character and revealed that Margaux really just wants to be friends with Sheila. From here, it seems like the theme of these chapters touches on friendship; specifically both characters craving a close girl friend. After continuing through the chapter, I think the theme elaborates into masculine and feminine roles and traits. I love the emails that Margaux sends Sheila, as it shows a lot about her character. Margaux’s character is developed as endearing and fun, while Sheila’s is developed as nostalgic and reminiscent of her past. It seems like Sheila develops a huge admiration for Margaux, and perhaps this relates to the title of the book. Maybe in Sheila’s eyes, Margaux is how a person should be. If we look back to the beginning of the book, I see that Sheila and Margaux have become close friends. However, I am still intrigued by the Ugly Painting Competition and what its significance is in this story.  

Key Literary Element:  Reading through the chapters, the narrator frequently delves into her past or remembers a significant moment. This type of plot adds a rhythm to the story, with the present and the past blended together so the reader can put together a detailed picture of the events leading up to the present moment. For example, the reader learns more about each character through the nonlinear plot, which mimics that of human recall and memory. First, we learn more about Sholem: “When Sholem was a teenager, he had dreamed of being a theater actor” (118). Next is Eli: “Fifteen years ago, there lived a painter in our town” (157). The narrator continues with Misha, and then lands on herself: “When I was little, I was truly afraid that one day I would grow up and get divorced. As I got older, this fear grew with me, and upon getting engaged, the fear raised an anchor and threw it down in my very center” (292). Lastly, the narrator remembers how she met Margaux: “She told me her name was Margaux, and I told her my name was Sheila” (312). Throughout chapters 1-3, the narrator does not speak in the present moment but instead jumps around through different time periods. However, the emails are introduced in first person: “One morning, Sheila finds an email from Margaux…” (375). Lastly, the narrator speaks to the reader using ‘you’ and says, “There are some people who say you have to find such things in yourself…Who cares what people say? What people say has no effect on your heart” (422).