Why had she not said to me: "I have those tastes"? I would have yielded, would have allowed her to gratify them. In a novel I had real there was a woman whom no objurgation from the man who was in love with her could induce to speak. When I read the book, I had thought this situation absurd; had I been the hero, I assured myself, I would first of all have forced the woman to speak, then we could have come to an understanding. What was the good of all those futile miseries? But I saw now that we are not free to refrain from forging the chains of our own misery, and however well we may know our own will, other people do not obey it.
Marcel Proust, The Fugitive, p. 517
Marcel proposes that if only Albertine had honestly and openly told him of her bisexuality he would have "yielded, would have allowed her to gratify them." Beyond the fact that cuckold porn is a thing (this guy told me about it), are we supposed to believe Marcel? He was so consistently and uncontrollably jealous it's difficult to believe that he would have quietly acquiesced; it just would have changed the nature of his mania. Although . . . he doesn't really seem that passionate about her sexually, and instead appears more fixated on controlling her than truly physically possessing her. The scene where Marcel masturbates while Albertine sleeps is, as we discussed, one of the most powerful metaphors in the novel, and speaks to his desire have her in his life as compared to truly sharing his life with her. However, if he's that interested in controlling/using her, would he be able to stand her gratifying "those tastes"? And, if Albertine is truly bisexual, would Marcel more gracefully handle her being with a man or with a woman? As Proust himself observes, "But I saw now that we are not free to refrain from forging the chains of our own misery . . ."
No comments:
Post a Comment