Kepesh and Femininity in Roth’s ‘The Dying Animal’
Philip Roth’s novel ‘The Dying Animal’ (2001) is the third installment in a series concerning literature professor David Kepesh. It describes David Kepesh at an old age rather than predecessors ‘The Breast’ and ‘The Professor of Desire’ do, and it is a gripping novel from beginning to end. In this novel Kepesh has a relationship with student Consuela Castillo for whom he developes a romantic interest during his classes and during a party at his house. There is, at first, a clear unbalance in their relationship as Kepesh is, due to his position as professor, public figure, and self-proclaimed intellectual, in control of her. Kepesh even admits this disequilibrium in saying ‘’There is no sexual equality and there can be no sexual equality, certainly not one where the allotments are equal, the male quotient and the female quotient in perfect balance. (…) It’s the chaos of eros we’re talking about, the radical destabilization that is its excitement (Roth 11).’’ And it is this unbalance that characterises the novel. Consuela Castillo and David Kepesh are never equals at one point; there is always a certain instablity between them.
At least one of the causes of instability in the relationship between Kepesh and Castillo is the promiscuous personality of the older of the two. He is characterised by his intellectual abilities which he uses to entice women, and his many affairs with, allegedly, hundreds of women. He also has an almost uncontrollable need for sex. It even goes as far as there being a particualr scene where he is shown thinking ‘’She thinks, I’m telling him who I am. He’s interested in who I am. That is true, but I’m curious because I want to fuck her. (…) How much more am I going to have to go through? Three hours? Four? (…) I want to fuck this girl, and yes, I’ll have to put up with some sort of veiling, but it’s a means to an end (Roth 18) .’’ Because of insights in Kepesh’s mind one could even go as far as saying that he considers women as objects, which are disposable, and which can be replaced as they mean nothing more to him than ‘simple’ women he can sleep with. Another option is that Kepesh is not looking for women because they are women, but rather because they are people he can exert power over, and assert his own dominance.
There is, however, a turning point in the novel where the balance of power indefinitely switches from Kepesh to Castillo. This is, undoubtely, the scene where Kepesh performs an action similar to semi-rape on Castillo to which she responds by showing him her teeth in unmistakable fashion. From that moment on Castillo at least has the physical edge over Kepesh. It is not clear yet at that point whether the balance of power has switched entirely as, in performing the action, she does not speak. Thus, Castillo partially emancipates and takes control with that one particular action, but she is not completely ‘on top’ yet. This final act of taking control occurs in the penultimate scenes where Castillo relates her life to Kepesh. This last switch is unexpected, and happens only because Castillo is diagnosed with breast cancer. This causes her to lose one of her breasts, and with that one of the ‘things’ Kepesh is so very interested in. Paradoxically, this hands the agency to Castillo as Kepesh cannot leave her even though he now covets her less in the physical sense. He then appreciates her for who she really is, and decides to go to her. He is however stopped by the person whom he is relating his tale to, and it is left to the reader to decide what happens next.
The most important woman in ‘The Dying Animal’, Consuela Castillo, is an object in this novel. Her professor David Kepesh has complete control over her for most of the novel, and even when this is no longer the case she is still objectified. While it is difficult to say that all women in ‘The Dying Animal’ are seen and described as objects it is safe to say that Consuela Castillo is objectified. This only fuels the debate about Philip Roth and whether or not he is a misogynist writer.
floork 12:18 pm on October 16, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hoi Mickey, goed geschreven essay en interessant om te lezen, ik vind het alleen jammer dat ik je eigen menig een beetje mis. Dat in ‘The Dying Animal’ de vrouw, en dan voornamelijk Consuela, wordt neergezet als object is duidelijk, en dat heb je ook heel duidelijk geanalyseerd. Wat ik me alleen afvraag en wat naar mijn idee niet echt naar voren komt, is wat jij hier zelf van vindt. Je noemt het debat over of Philip Roth een misogynistische schrijver zou zijn, wat zou je hier zelf van zeggen op basis van deze (en misschien nog andere) roman?
simonevs 8:15 pm on October 16, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Mickey en Floor,
I like how you analyse the role of Consuela in The Dying Animal. I do worry however when you state that ‘this only fuels the debate about Philip Roth and whether or not he is a misogynist writer’. What exactly is it that you mean: that Roth writes interesting stories ABOUT mysogynism? Or that Roth is a misogynist himself? If in any case, the latter is what you mean, I have to disagree that this is not worth debating. Firstly, because it is quite impossible (the same dilemma occurs when you tell somebody: ‘prove that you’re not a racist’) and secondly because it is irrelevant when discussing Roth’s literature. For sure, if you are planning to write a biography of P.H this may be of interest, but otherwise it would be very simplistic to state that, because Roth’s work entails misogynistic characters, the author too is a misogynist. Is Nabokov a pedophile because he wrote Lolita? Is Jonathan Littel a nazi because he wrote a 900 page book about from the perspective of an SS-officer? Or – to point out the absurdity of such an argument -, is Flaubert an aldulterous woman because he wrote Madame Bovary?
Whether you actually meant is as such or not, an interesting discussion anyway;-)!
crispiness 1:47 pm on October 18, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Mickey,
while I agree that Kepesh objectifies Consuela when he is still seducing her, I’m not sure if he is still objectifying her by the end of the novel. You identified the turning point as being the moment where Consuela snaps back at the professor, an event which is followed by Kepesh’s jealousy, his drinking of her blood, her rejecting him and her eventually relating the story of her disease to him. As you say, after she loses one of her breasts, “this hands the agency to Castillo as Kepesh cannot leave her even though he now covets her less in the physical sense. He then appreciates her for who she really is, and decides to go to her.” However, in your conclusion, you seem to contradict yourself by saying: “Her professor David Kepesh has complete control over her for most of the novel, and even when this is no longer the case she is still objectified.” If, in the end, Kepesh has learned to appreciate Consuela ‘for who she really is’, doesn’t that mean he has effectively stopped objectifying her, or is there some subtle distinction I’m not properly understanding?
Jeroen 2:49 pm on October 18, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with crispiness, I’d like to see some elaboration on whether or not, and in what form, Kepesh’s objectification of Consuele continues.
bobreijnen 3:31 pm on October 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ik twijfel sterk aan hoeveel macht Kepesh over Consuela heeft — zowel in het begin als op het einde. En ook in hoeverre zij geobjectiveerd wordt. Bijna direct bij het begin van hun relatie, maakt Consuela Kepesh gek. Hij wordt niet alleen gek van verlangen naar een begeerlijk object, maar ook van jaloezie en onzekerheid. Dus het lijkt me dat zij vanaf het begin al veel meer macht heeft over hem dan andersom en dat er geen louter ‘lustobject’ is die zoveel sterke gevoelens in iemand losmaken. Je kunt moeilijk verliefd worden op een object. Kepesh verliest juist de afstand die nodig is voor de esthetische ervaring van een object.
Daphne Boutens 1:29 pm on October 26, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Daar ben ik het mee eens. Consuela zegt zelfs in het begin dat ze nooit van Kepesh zal zijn. Daardoor grijpt zij al een deel van de macht. En omdat dat haar anders maakt dan de andere meisjes is Kepesh zo bang om haar te verliezen. “That was not Consuela. Yet, that was why the fear of losing her to someone else never left me, why she was continually on my mind, why with her or apart from her I never felt sure of her.” Het is duidelijk dat, bewust of onbewust, Consuela macht heeft over Kepesh.
winonah 10:37 pm on November 5, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ik ben het ook met Bob en Daphne eens. Als docent en als ‘expert’ op cultureel gebied heeft hij misschien meer macht, maar verder lijkt zij inderdaad vanaf het begin meer macht over hem te hebben. Dat dit zo overkomt zou natuurlijk ook kunnen komen omdat het verhaal een terugblik is, dat haar macht achteraf zo ingevuld wordt door Kepesh.