It's not often that I finish reading a novel and I'm so uncertain how I feel about it. You might think that such ambivalence might be an indication of great artfulness, but I'm not so sure. It might just mean this is a really messy book.
It's puzzling what to make of this carnivalesque, multi-generational fable. It's something like a mash up of the novels “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, “Orlando”, “Norwegian Wood” and “A Little Life”. It's at once fantastical and rooted in a specific period of South Korean history. It places women at the centre of the story showing their resilience and struggles in a male-dominated society, but it also sexually objectifies them. Its playful narrative voice is both charming and aggravating. It philosophically explores aspects of society and human nature, yet it's also sometimes simplistic in its observations. It's about alienation, love, greed, loneliness, revenge and large penises.
So it's difficult to know how to respond to this highly imaginative tale which primarily centres around Geumbok, a woman from humble origins whose business acumen leads her to achieve great success, and her mute daughter Chunhui whose imposing body possesses supernatural strength. The picaresque story presents their lives in a series of episodes which loop back on themselves with plenty of digressions and side characters who frequently return whether they are living or dead. It's a wild adventure which is both wondrous and frustrating.
There are many disturbing scenes of abuse, mutilation and rape. It's not the depiction of these actions which is objectionable but they are presented in a way which almost feels cartoonish because there are few physical or psychological consequences. This is probably because the mode of storytelling is like a fairy tale which isn't concerned with realistic repercussions. But then, it's a novel that's also rooted in history because it refers to the war between the north and south, the battle against communist sentiment and the popularity of John Wayne movies. So it's confusing to know whether the narrator is taking these scenes of brutality seriously or just using violence as a way to embellish the plot.
The story also casts long lingering indulgent looks at the female body describing breasts, women's genitals and large asses. This isn't simply reflecting the way they are objectified by male characters. These are often juvenile representations which don't really serve a purpose except to titillate or repulse. Equally when men are physically described it frequently focuses on characteristics such as imposing muscles or a pitiful lack of muscle or a sexual organ so large no woman could possibly resist it. Later on in the novel there is also a gender transformation which occurs or an apparent transformation. This could have been interesting but it occurs in a point in the character's life when it's not about their inability to achieve success as a woman, but about meeting a young woman so desirable the only way this character can be with her is to present herself as a man. Yes, it mentions how this character found it easier to no longer be sexually objectified as a woman but really she was progressing fine on her own. Moreover, when this character switches genders their personality also instantly changes from caring and empathetic to greedy and unkind. So rather than this being a method of exploring nuance it feels like it's simply reinforcing the gender binary.
To be honest, as discomfiting and off putting as many of these things were I could have tolerated them more if I didn't find the narration so irritating. The authorial voice guides us through this tale and frequently speaks to the reader in a casual and direct manner. At times this is quite playful, but it often questions the validity of the story being told. There are wistful speculations on possible reasons for characters' motivations and reasoning. A rhythm is built whereby the consequences of a scene are described as happening because “This is the law of... ideology, habit or gambling.” This comes to feel more simplistic than profound or rueful. It also calls into question the truth about the story being presented. For instance, in one scene a character drowns. The narrator questions whether this was really a suicide as it was initially presented but then goes on to describe in detail how this suicide actually occurred. So what's the point of the narrator raising uncertainty or claiming that certain things are unknown? The story almost always shows and makes it very clear what actually happened and why. Yes, there are many things about history which can't be known because we have no tangible evidence. But if a story is presented in a way which is definitive and allows no room for ambiguity why are you questioning it – especially as the reader is never given anything about the identity or motivations of the authorial voice? It comes across as very muddled.
Despite all these troubling aspects of the novel there's a lot about this story which is fun and surprising. I'm not trying to contradict all the points I just made, but it's definitely an engaging tale in terms of spectacle. So I was often compelled to continue reading it just to see what would happen next and its final sections are quite moving in how the story comes together. This is especially true in the disconnection between mother and daughter. The mother's drive for autonomy leads her to emotionally distance herself from her imposing daughter while maintaining a deep sentimental attachment for a gigantic sea creature leading her to build a movie theatre shaped like a whale. Equally, the daughter who has suffered tremendous abuse because of her simple and straightforward relationship with the world longs terribly for an emotional connection which can only be found with the spirit of an elephant. Rather than being able to forge honest human relationships their feelings are projected onto these giant animals in a way which I found deeply poignant.
So how do I ultimately feel about this novel? I'm really not sure: I felt frustrated and even irritated by some aspects. At other times I was absorbed by the sheer bombastic nature of it. However, a lot of that comes down to spectacle. Clearly it contains a lot of creativity and imagination, but is there a deeper meaning? I'm not convinced.
