Submitted by ThrowingSomeBruddahs t3_z8iaj5 in books

>CLARE: It's hard being left behind. I wait for Henry, not knowing where he is, wondering if he's okay. It's hard to be the one who stays.
>
>...
>
>Long ago, men went to sea, and women waited for them, standing on the edge of the water, scanning the horizon for the tiny ship. Now I wait for Henry. He vanishes unwillingly, without warning. I wait for him. Each moment that I wait feels like a year, an eternity. Each moment is as slow and transparent as glass. Through each moment I can see infinite moments lined up, waiting. Why has he gone where I cannot follow?

The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, page xxi

​

>HENRY: It's ironic, really. All my pleasures are homey ones: armchair splendor, the sedate excitements of domesticity. All I ask for are humble delights. A mystery novel in bed, the smell of Clare's long red-fold hair damp from washing, a postcard from a friend on vacation, cream dispersing into coffee, the softness of the skin under Clare's breasts, the symmetry of grocery bags sitting on the kitchen counter waiting to be unpacked.
>
>...
>
>And Clare, always Clare.

The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, page xxiv

Always interesting to unpack the fantasy of a romance. Despite its reputation as a genre full of cliché and sentimentality, there may be no better barometer for the state of a society than its romance novels. In the case of The Time Traveler's Wife, both a romance and science fiction in the tradition of H.G. Wells. A romance novel reveals the state of the relationships between individuals who choose to be voluntarily associated in a society: the attractions and the tensions that define them.

The basic conceit of The Time Traveler's Wife, as I understand it, is that Henry, the man, is transported randomly and without warning through time while time passes normally for his wife Clare. But although this may sound like an outlandish story, when you look at the language employed by its author, it's actually quite a familiar one.

Clare represents a fantasy of a stoic woman who "wait[s] for Henry." At home, while he time-travels. But how much does the fact that he time-travels actually matter? At the very beginning of the novel, Clare compares Henry to men who "went to sea," while the women "waited for them." Of course, the men who went to sea went to sea as fishermen, working long hours in dangerous conditions in order to feed their families. By creating this comparison, Niffenegger reveals that Henry's time-travel is a form of labor.

And if we read a bit further, we'll find that the comparison holds true. Henry "vanishes unwillingly." Most people working in the world today don't perform their jobs voluntarily—they do so in order to survive. Their real lives are always elsewhere: at home. He vanishes "without warning," the way that many people are called in to their jobs at odd hours, or asked to stay longer than usual, at the drop of a dime, an opportunity that many feel compelled not to refuse. Here, we have an old fantasy: the woman stays at home, the man goes "where [she] cannot follow."

For her part, Clare spends her time waiting for Henry, her personality obliterated in the face of the love that she feels for Henry. This signals to the reader the strength of her love precisely because she is driven into her own kind of time-travel ("each moment ... feels like a year, an eternity," "each moment is as slow and transparent as glass") by the love that she feels for Henry: a love uncomplicated by his presence in her life.

On the opposite end of the relationship, we find that the time traveler, Henry, lives a chaotic life, in which he is transported at random to various points in time, naked. Leaving aside the erotic implications of a (undescribed, and therefore whoever you want him to be) naked man who can appear spontaneously literally anywhere, we find him fit into the fantasy because, despite living this life filled with excitement (where, we are told, he freely steals and is often arrested), he longs only for "homey" pleasures. And "Clare, always Clare."

In this narrative, Henry's true life begins and ends at home, where Clare waits. When he goes where she cannot follow, he wishes only to return. And Clare, for her part, does little other than "keep herself busy" waiting for Henry's return. This is a fantasy that seems almost anachronistic, belonging more to an era like the 1950s than 2003. But, then, there are plenty of people even today who idolize the 1950s as an idyllic time when "men were men" and "women were women." If you're looking for fantasy, it doesn't get more concrete than Henry missing "the symmetry of grocery bags... waiting to be unpacked." Henry is a man who yearns even for the promise of domestic chores.

And this is, ultimately, a romance that must thrive through the alienation of capitalism. Henry is a man called away from home against his will, to work at random hours, while his wife waits for him at home. Yet, despite this, and the alienation he feels (an alienation from space and time itself), he thinks of nothing except returning home to his wife, the smell of his wife's hair, the softness beneath his wife's breast, and grocery bags waiting to be unpacked. This all within the first four pages of the book.

A fascinating reading of society's barometer in the year 2003.

42

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mirrorspirit t1_iycaen5 wrote

At the time, American people were going off to fight an unpopular and interminable war in Iraq. It seems like that gave readers a sense of wanting to stay home to a stable life like they had pre 9/11, rather than get blown up halfway across the world for poorly explained reasons by the people electing to commit their nations to this war.

To me there seemed to be less emphasis on the gender roles and more on the raw separation: husbands from wives, wives from husbands, parents from children, etc. Troops had no idea how long they would be gone for, whether or not their stay would be extended, or if they would be able to come home at all.

20

FiggyStars t1_iyc86l0 wrote

If you’re setting your standards of romance (in 2003) by The Time Traveller’s Wife, one has to wonder why you even bother at all with the romance genre.

16

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyc8cli wrote

I mean, you have a point there. I’m reading the book as part of a larger list of 3,000 works that claim to be the “best” literature. So my exposure to the romance genre in 2003 is literally just this book—and at the time of writing this post, I had read literally four pages of the book, but found the prologue interesting, so here we are.

−4

FiggyStars t1_iyc9gn1 wrote

If that’s the case, you’re doing yourself a major disservice by having this one as your “romance” introduction. Personally I loved the book when I first read it, though it has been a long time.

A lot of romance readers would also argue with you that it’s not romance within the conventions of the genre, which sets you on the back foot immediately, because instead you’ve chosen a popular title that is more contemporary romantic fiction, not romance per say (though for me this is contentious, since I think romance = romance, and it’s the only genre that is so strict on its conventions). Despite its billion dollar empire, romance novels are often excluded from “best of” lists, or “true” romance novels are overlooked instead for books like TTW which are not conventional within the genre but instead are traditionally published for wider market appeal so people can be like, “it’s romance, but it’s not romance and not feel ashamed they’re reading something that is a “guilty pleasure” read.

Also in saying that, with a list so…long? You’re bound to encounter genres that you wouldn’t necessarily read and/or already have confirmation bias against, which I’m assuming from the sounds of this post, you already for anything that borders between romance and the dreaded term “women’s fiction” (which most would label TTW as). For reference, 2,093 true-to-genre romance books were traditionally published in 2003.. TTW wouldn’t even be included in that stat, since it was not published as a “romance” book.

I know this has turned into an extremely long…diatribe, but if you’re goal is to read from a list of what someone has considered best literature, maybe read more than the prologue before inadvertently disparaging the (not quite) genre the book is from.

15

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iycacou wrote

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I really appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion.

First, my intention with this post was not to disparage the romance genre, but rather to give a close reading of four paragraphs to argue:

1.) because nobody actually time travels, time traveling stands in for a kind of labor, where Henry is taken away from Clare for extended periods of time while she waits at home

And

2.) the figure of Henry is a woman’s fantasy of what a man might be, who thinks of the woman he loves constantly, even when he’s literally being chaotically displaced through space and time

I admit that I don’t read a lot of romance, but it seems like these claims aren’t inherently offensive? At least I didn’t intend them to be. I think a lot of literature is a fantasy of one form or another: a fantasy of romance, a fantasy of intellectualism, a fantasy of violence, what have you.

It seems like people believe that I’m trying to make sweeping claims about TTW, when my only purpose with this post was to jot down some preliminary observations about romance based on the language used in the prologue to the book.

I hear you that many readers don’t consider this a pure romance. I think I consider it a hybrid between the romance genre and the science fiction genre (specifically HG Wells). I still think it’s interesting to think about how the science fiction elements in the book affect the romantic entanglement described in the prologue.

Anyway, thanks again for the conversation in good faith. I really appreciate it.

5

laconicflow t1_iycayt8 wrote

From what I know about the romance genre, TTTW is fairly close to a high water mark for the year.

I do know what a close reading is. . . I think most practitioners of the form suggest finishing the book before performing one.

I confess I am largely opposed to the close reading you've done. I feel as though in general this kind of reading is kind of a game majors in English Literature like to play where they see what claims a work of fiction can bear the weight of.

I was irritated because I like the book for telling a good story well, and I've given you more shit than I intended. I'm sorry about that, I hope you like the book, and I'd be interested to see how you think your close reading holds up once you finish it.

9

Unfair t1_iye0d7q wrote

It would be nice to have your level of confidence

3

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyezb3f wrote

It doesn’t hurt that I have three degrees in writing and literature. I’m confident in my close reading skills. But I could have been more clear that this was a preliminary exercise and not the final word on the book.

0

Unfair t1_iyf2a4d wrote

Well it was impressive, maybe you could read the first 4 pages of her other novel and let us know what you think.

5

Balloon_Feet t1_iybv6cp wrote

I loved the novel so much!

15

laconicflow t1_iybzs6i wrote

Me too. Doesn't sound like op did.

6

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyc071v wrote

I literally just read the prologue before writing this. Haven’t read enough to make a judgment about whether I like the book. But even if I didn’t like it, that wouldn’t mean I had nothing to learn from it.

Edit: do people on r/books just not know what a close reading is? Sure seems like it.

−5

greatblackowl t1_iyd7wgo wrote

I'll admit to not knowing the term "close reading" prior to a moment ago, but from my brief research, it seems that the idea of a close reading is not to do it out of context-- that you should read a book prior to doing a close reading of the book's prologue?

It's been a few years since I've read it, but my recollection is that the time-travelling is more a representation of miscommunication and alienation from someone very constant and familiar, rather than of someone going to work. I'm not sure what that does to the close reading of the "men at sea" section but it certainly seems relevant.

7

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyf8wb0 wrote

I think you can perform a close reading on any self-contained unit, and at least in my experience, close readings are usually performed on smaller units of text, because they pay very close attention to the specific language used in a text in order to build a larger interpretation of what the text means.

In this case, the self-contained unit I chose to examine was the prologue. However, it seems like my mentioning that this was “just from the first four pages” wasn’t a clear enough signpost that I was just reading the prologue. I’ll be more clear in the future about exactly what I’m up to.

−3

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iybzwa7 wrote

I’m just starting! Literally only read the prologue before performing the close reading.

−3

Hopefulwaters t1_iyc8n4c wrote

This might be the most superficial over analyzing premise of all time. I’d give a very easy counter argument that would make a cannon ball spoiler in your analysis but it would spoil the entire book that you've only just begun.

12

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyc8su1 wrote

Cool. It’s a close reading of four paragraphs in the prologue of a book I haven’t read.

Try to argue from the text and I’ll listen.

−13

laconicflow t1_iybznrz wrote

Its been fifteen years since I read this book, so the details are fuzzy. But the reason why what you've said bothers me, is that if memory serves, and it probably does, the author is a great storyteller who commits to her premis, and the characters feel like real people. The sex of the time traveler could have been swapped, and how that would have changed the story would be interesting to know.

And I agree with you that a novel like this one does tell you something about a time and place and ethic. But I think what you've done is stuff a good story with symbolism like a turkey.

7

nimitzhunter t1_iyc6s38 wrote

Op said he just read the prologue before writing this post. There is really not much to analyze from just a few short pages.

16

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyc0ddj wrote

I’m not sure I follow. What symbolism have I stuffed the book with? All I’ve done is performed a close reading of the text and offered up an interpretation of the prologue. It’s the only part of the book I’ve read so far.

Edit: do people just not know what a close reading is? The arguments I’m making are supported by the text of the prologue.

−4

Tanagrabelle t1_iycn4ts wrote

Unless you've edited it, nowhere in your initial post do you indicate "I have read no more of this book than the prologue."

14

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyf92wf wrote

I thought “this just from the first four pages” was enough of a signpost, but it appears that I was mistaken. I’ll be more clear in the future about the limitations of my analysis.

0

Stats_n_PoliSci t1_iyd8hfw wrote

You’re reading way too much into the prologue. While correct in the context of the prologue, it’s giving you a very misleading perspective on Clare. The prologue sets up the story, but does not always, or often, give you a good perspective on the characters. It’s jarring to those of us who have read the book, especially since you don’t say in your post that you haven’t read the book yet.

4

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyf8fhf wrote

Yeah, I’m now about a quarter of the way through the book and can see that the dynamics are much more complex than the prologue suggested.

1

CJ_Thompson t1_iyclq6h wrote

It is also a good barometer for how many women’s lives are still centered around a man, even in today’s society. The Time Traveler’s Wife portrays the difference of life between men and women. Men are still perceived as doers with separate lives out in the world. Whereas women are the keepers of the home and family. We really haven’t come all that far from when “men went to sea.”

5

Stats_n_PoliSci t1_iyd8u6i wrote

I never saw Clare as primarily a homemaker.

3

Orbeef t1_iydh793 wrote

She had a job but literally her entire life revolved around him, when she would see him next, where/when he was, erc.

4

vivahermione t1_iydq5q2 wrote

It's been a long time since I read it, but I'd definitely agree that this was true at the end of her life. He said when he >!died that he'd see her again in her 80's, but he also told her, "Don't wait for me." And yet, she did. She stayed in the same house, never remarried, and I got the impression she'd lived for this meeting. You could argue that it was her choice, but my heart broke for her. I wanted more for her than to mourn the rest of her life!<.

2

CJ_Thompson t1_iyezuhj wrote

Just a generalization of the theme. Men have adventures and lives outside the home where women stay back and have lives at home somewhat dependent on men.

1

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyf9h2u wrote

And I don’t think my intention was to call her a homemaker, merely to point out the fantasy of domesticity in Henry’s narrative and then to make the claim that in terms of the metaphor of time-travel, Clare stays “at home” in linear time the way that women wait for men to come home from the sea. And, in fact, this is what Clare says herself in the prologue.

0

impendingwardrobe t1_iydnd5e wrote

That's an interesting reading of the first few pages, and there are overtones of your ideas on the book, but I think there are many ways that Clare is not the 1950s house wife including that she has a career of her own and actively builds a life outside of Henry.

I think that there is a significant amount to unpack in this book about relationships, about the unchallenged need to follow societal milestone expectations (marriage, children, house) in the face of enormous adversity, fate vs free will, etc. If you're reading with an analytical lense, you're in for a good time.

5

ThrowingSomeBruddahs OP t1_iyf86bl wrote

Yeah, I certainly didn’t mean to give the sense that Clare is literally a 50s housewife, merely that in the metaphor of time-travel, she’s the one who stays “at home” in linear time.

1