Meant to write this a little while ago and I kept forgetting.
In class and some of the blog posts I've been hearing a lot of scorn towards Abelard for having an affair. To be honest, I never really thought much of it, so I was kind of surprised that some people held it against him. To me, infidelity is an excusable flaw in a person's character, depending on what the person is like and the circumstances of the affair. A perfect example would be the movie Henry & June, which Dr. Cantrell's class watched on Tuesday.
Anais Nin, the protagonist, had affairs with several men while maintaining affection for her husband, and he was none the wiser. She seemed to fall in love with someone, then tire of them and fall for someone else, then feel love towards her husband again, and so on. Honestly, it didn't much bother me that she did so, because she seemed like a decent, kind-hearted person otherwise, and strove to keep her husband's feelings undamaged by it all.
June Miller, on the other hand, had a similar situation of multiple affairs, and I completely hated her. She was cruel, cold, manipulative, and emotionally damaging towards her husband. I didn't excuse her affairs because they didn't have the same qualities as Anais', nor did she have other redeeming qualities.
To me, Abelard falls into the Anais category of infidelity. I excuse his affair because he otherwise seems like a good man, and I suppose--if I'm going to be perfectly honest--because his wife doesn't find out. If she had, and had been hurt by it, I might have felt differently about him. As it stands, I consider it an excusable transgression.
I guess in his culture it was more acceptable to have a mistress or multiple mistresses. I think Abelard is an excellent father but not a faithful husband. For me, being a good father is more important than a good husband. That is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan in the sense that I believe that the culture is more accepting of having mistresses. Which is not at all surprising considering the hypermasculinity that runs through even the American-born Dominicans.
ReplyDeleteEven though I hate infidelity (why get married if you're just going to sleep around?) I am willing to overlook it simply because Abelard is a great man.
It seems that Diaz wants us to see Abelard as an altogether admirable character. I personally can't agree with the statement that Abelard's infidelity is ok because he's an otherwise good guy. His unfaithfulness is not unforgiveable, certainly, but it just doesn't sit right with me.
ReplyDeleteI had to think about Ryan's statement that "being a good father is more important than a good husband" but I agree when I think about it in terms of families with divorced parents. The father might not have been a good husband, but he can still be an awesome dad to his kids. And Abelard does seem to have really tried to be a good father. Overall, I think it shows that there's more to people than labels: husband, father, and (yes) adulterer - these are just part of who Abelard is.
I do agree with what Bethany has said: infidelity is not very acceptable. However, I agree with Ryan's thought that Abelard is meant to be an admirable character. Compared to the bigger picture (death, torture, possible rape by Trujillo), having a mistress is not a big issue. I think that Junot Diaz presents this infidelity as a way of showing that Abelard has faults, but he is a good man who protects his family against the tyranny of a dictator.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really think that Abelard's wife had no idea that he had this mistress? In the book I definitely got the impression that it was a years-long thing. Those kinds of relationships are very very difficult to keep secret, as Hollywood and Congress can attest. Is it unfaithfulness in the way we think about it if both parties know and choose to live with it? (All things being equal.. I don't want to dismiss the aggressive double standard in patriarchal cultures in which the man has needs and the woman has responsibilities. But part of the conversation surrounding this book, particularly surrounding Beli as both abuser and victem, appears to be that we are all victims of culture even as we are abusers-- but one's participation in either role doesn't preclude authentic choices and the selves we create from them. In other words: I feel like Abelard's wife, [whose name escapes me] deserves more credit than we're giving her.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like what you're doing comparing the infidelities of individuals but I don't think you go far enough.
"I didn't excuse her affairs because they didn't have the same qualities as Anais', nor did she have other redeeming qualities."
Then why is the judgement stemming from sexual fidelity to begin with? I think the obvious conclusion of your study here is that the stigmatization and shaming of adulturers comes from a lack of compassion within and relevant information for the outsider judging, not from anything inherent to the act.