The Guts and Nuts

"The Guts" by Chuck Palahniuk undoubtedly shares some distinctly transgressive traits evinced thus far in our explorations of transgressive British literature. To begin, the prevalent theme of sexuality, or moreover a search for some former clarity brought about by this activity. "The Guts", explores how this sexuality comes about for young men living in modernity or post modernity. Similar to Amis and Ballard, there is an obsessive and methodologically driven nature behind this sexuality. Indeed, young men and their obsessive relationship with their penis when they first discover the phenomenon of the orgasm is probably not a peculiarity one could ascribe to the postmodern condition. Regardless, the young men in "The Guts" and their extreme explorations of the means and ends of their own sexuality resonate well with the transgressive British fiction we have read thus far. Along a similar trajectory, each of the boys either explicitly, or implicitly, are exposed in one way or another for their freakish endeavors. This too, reminds us of both Amis's characters demise and Ballard's main characters obsession. In all of these works, what was meant to be private, or what perhaps should be private, becomes a spectacle in one way or another.

The pornographic gaze and soul predicament

“Nelsons Academy accommodated those who were perturbed in their bodies and wished to verify, however unequivocal, however much they cost, the pleasures of the flesh were, at bottom, splendid. But, as for Madame Schreck, she catered for those who were troubled in their…souls”

There is a stark contrast between “Nelson’s Academy” and “Madame Schreck’s” that I think Carter Carter offer’s us for a reason. That is, I think Carter is commenting on something about how view women as opposed to how we engage with women. That is, the contrast offered seems to be one which comments, very subtly mind you, on the objectification of women in two different contexts. “The Academy”, is what one could putatively regard as a whorehouse, no if and’s or maybes. Nelson’s is in no way a representative of a new phenomenon but is rather a thing that people have done since the dawn of civilization- sell their bodies that is. I don’t think Carter is justifying it, but rather presenting it as a vice of humanity that, if managed properly, isn’t the most degraded existence one could live. Be that as it may, as it stands in contrast to Madame Schreck’s, it seems to represent a new phenomenon that has permeated the modern experience, pornography. That is, it seems to present women as creatures of a subhuman level and more importantly as spectacles to be watched through glass. However, this is not enough, but rather the following exchange between Fevvers and Mr. Rosencrauntz, seems to characterize how detrimental such spectacles become. Indeed, as Fevvers states above, Madame Schreck’s was “catered for those who were troubled in their….souls.” More evidence needs to be cited but for now let us turn briefly to another transgressive text which also demonstrates the danger of the pornographic gaze in the postmodern, or modern experience. Take for instance John Self’s relationship with Martina Twain versus Selina Street in Martin Amis’s Money. Selina Street is described by John from the beginning in strictly pornographic terms. What he enjoys about her is a body and a sexuality that is a spectacle. From her sexy outfits, to their economical sexual exchanges, and even with Self’s proclivity for hitting women, his relationship to her is one that seems sublimated with the notion that women are objects. Again, this is offered in contrast to another relationship between Martina Twain and Self, which is the antithesis of the aforementioned. In the end however, John could not help his pornographic tendencies and destroys himself by making himself and Selina a sexual spectacle in the eyes of the women he actually loves.

Granted these assertions need more developing, but this theme of the sexual spectacle seems prevalent in the texts and to a certain extent is perhaps characteristic of a post-modern predicament regarding how men and women engage the world.

Malapropsim

“Her voice. It was as if Walser Had become a prisoner of her voice, her cavernous, somber voice, a voice made for shouting about the tempest, her voice of a celestial fishwife. Musical as it was, yet not a voice for singing with; it comprised discords, her scale contained twelve notes. Her voice, with its warped, homely, Cockney vowels and random aspirates. Her dark, rusty, dipping, swooping voice, imperious as a siren’s.

Yet such a voice could almost have had its source, not within her throat but in some ingenious mechanism or other behind the canvas screen, voice of a fake medium at a séance” (43).

This passage seems relevant to the discussion of “delicate malapropisms”. Carter notes that Walser is in some captive to Fevvers voice, yet the description of what exactly captivates him is unclear. That is, the timbre of the voice itself is a discontinuous as it is initially described as both “somber and cavernous” yet also embodies an angelic and disruptive quality. Carter continues that it is seemingly musical but not in the conventional sense. Rather, this is musical discord is comprised of two things that produce an uncertain authoritative quality. More succinctly, her distinct regional tone and ambiguous pattern or paces of speech are factors which entrance the young journalist. Moreover, Carter explains that even by reducing the voice to its component parts, it still maintained an unnamable disembodied quality of some secret clerical origin. In short, it seems that Carter is expressing Fevver’s voice- her medium of communicating her life story to the young journalist- as one endowed with an ominous authority that is undefinable. In some way Carter seems to suggest Fevver’s narrative has a mystical truth about it, in some way resembling a kind of religious authority. It is important to note that this passage comes briefly after Walser mistakes the amount of time that has passed, an experience that Carter frames as one that is seemingly real to Walser, and thus reads as somewhat surreal to readers. With that in mind, the latter passage is purposefully unclear in order to convey the entire experience thus far as one that may or not be entirely grounded in reality. Perhaps Carter is expressing in very subtle terms the surreal actuality of such a candid diatribe performed by a woman during the early 1900’s. There is a sense that what is surreal is not that fact that this woman has wings but rather that she has commanded Walsers undivided attention, and our own, by her frankness alone. Maybe Carter is pointing out that in order to listen to one another meaningfully we require an arbitrary ambiguity with respect to one another. What is worth knowing is not what we say to one another, but how we say such things.

I am Donal Draper and will act accordingly

“Television is working on us. Film is. We’re not sure how yet. We wait, and count the symptoms. There’s a realism problem, we all know that. TV is real! some people think. And where does that leave reailty? Everyone must have, everyone demands their vivid personalities, their personal soap opera, their street theatre, everyone must have some art in their lives….Our lives, they harbor form, artistic shape, and we want our form revealed even though we only move in our detail, with keys, spongebag, coffee cups, shirt drawer…..money”(332-333).

I feel that the passage above really hones in on the recurring theme of acting, or actors, in Money. Better put, the quote speaks to the theme of entertainment and how it has disconnected us from a true handle on what is real. Starting from the final sentence and working backwards it seems that Amis is speaking to consumer culture. Not merely to consumer culture, but to the “realism problem” that has stemmed from a mass consumption of entertainment. These are not groundbreaking ideas, however I think that there is an ironic sentiment worth exploring. That is, as the book comes to a close in what seems to be a journal entry, reflecting back upon the events the story to me seemed to play out like a well devised soap opera with witty commentary to assure it a context of satire as opposed to seriousness. Nothing was what it seemed and everyone played a role that was more a less an archetype orbiting John Self. Self was pulled into the façade through the prospect of money and was a central cog in one “actors revenge”(347). Indeed, the ultimate revenge for an actor could perhaps be an immense manipulation of reality in reality- also known as fraud. This fraud however could only exist around the condition of the “postmodern man”,(played by Self and observed by us) who would easily follow the money trail, which would lead him to those “vivid personalities”, he and we demand. Self understands that these vivid personalities, like Lorne Guyland, are crucial to making his film a success and so, accommodates a story for them to make real. This is precisely I believe to be the point. That is, these archetypes inform our reality and how we know what is real, regardless of their distance from us on screen. John Self, also accommodates a story by so readily embodying the archetypal modern man with no scruples and a desire to acquire the “details” that would give his life “artistic shape”. I think that what Amis is saying above is that, like John Self, we are subject to these forces and must consider more thoroughly what it means that John Q. Public loves to be surrounded by a world of escape characterized by “mythomaniac” stories like Act of Valor and Rambo.

The Postmodern Meng

“If a car follows me round two corners, I narrow my gaze and tighten my hold on the wheel, covertly, like an actor. Round three corners, and it’s red alert. That’s what paranoia is after all. Red alert. I lock the doors and shut the windows….. Sometimes I get contact paranoia from the cars in front: the cars in front might be paranoid of me, in case I’ following them. Sometimes I think the car behind thinks I’m following the car in front. In an attempt to reassure everyone, myself included, I often overtake- or I try…. I realized why I felt paranoid. No one was following me.” 223
Elie Edmonson’s essay, Martin Amis Writes Postmodern Man, informs us of the actuality of John Self, a character who embodies the predicament of the postmodern man. Self’s narrative above, to me exemplifies this predicament in a number of ways. First and foremost, in context to travel the quote above demonstrates Amis’s delusion and misunderstanding of his time travel, or more simply his proper agency through life. Moreover, in a certain sense, the quote is characterized by John’s desire for something to happen. Indeed, nothing comes of this and to a degree Self realizes the absurdity of this paranoia. However, this yet another instance of Self as a main character characterized by a desire for a “teleological world view”, which, as Edmonson explains, is a delusion of the postmodern man that Amis endeavored to challenge throughout Money. Perhaps the most important element characterized above though is not only the desperate need for narrative but also how the quote demonstrates Edmonson’s assertion that, “in postmodernity a truly autonomous voice, one independent of cultural forces, is an impossibility”(2). I think what’s important is how Self is constantly affirming the characteristics of a postmodern man yet also in a strange sense aware of this absurdity implicitly. That is, here is John Self sharing his thoughts and his ideas about the thoughts’ of others. Yet at the end of the passage and throughout the rest of our reading his desire for both a teleological narrative and his presentation as an autonomous voice is constantly in juxtaposition to a world that presents this pretense as absurd. That is, his sense of autonomy and egomania become more absurd as the plot thickens in the life of John Self. Indeed, as the plot thickens, in rather unusual ways with no sense of pace or reason, his ideas about narrative begin to seem even more absurd as we witness a continuum of action unfold as opposed to a simple “beginning middle and end”(3).