As Meat Loves Salt, Maria McCann
Summary
McCann's As Meat Loves Salt follows Jacob Cullen, a former gentleman turned servant, through the tumultuous civil war that plagued seventeenth century England. A reflection of the war-torn and class-torn country itself, Jacob battles madness. His dark humor and passion color his relationships throughout the novel- whether it be his family, fellow soldiers, community members, or the man he is obsessed with.
Review
To review this book first requires me to take a *deep* breath. I have read many novels in my life, the majority of which end sadly. However, I have never read a book like this- a book this dark. As any reader will discover, Jacob Cullen is insane (Note: I use the term insane in the colloquial term, not the scientific. I will make mention in the side notes at the end my thoughts on applying psychology to this novel). I would not call Jacob a protagonist as that alludes to him being a heroic character, but the novel is written through his point of view. Furthermore, seeing through his eyes for over five hundred pages, it is quite hard not to sympathize for him. Time and time again throughout the novel Jacob makes unforgivable mistakes, but, as readers, we almost try to excuse him and think he can redeem himself. And the novel is very much that- rooting for someone to redeem themselves and struggling with feelings of sympathy and contempt for our narrator. I think this novel could be uncomfortable, but sparks a good discussion. It begs readers to explore their own philosophy in terms of good and evil, forgiveness, love, etc. This novel is also LGBT historical fiction, though I do not see either of those topics being huge themes throughout the novel. Of course the setting is significant, but I would not consider it a war novel. Likewise, the LGBT relationship is significant, but I would not consider it an LGBT novel as the relationship is very dark and erotic and not as representative as others. All in all, the book was good, I'm glad I read it. It was beautifully written and I have never come across a book like it- a book that it intended to make readers *so* uncomfortable. It isn't super quotable (and ya'll know I love a good quotable novel), but the title is truly beautiful and there are some interesting illusions to it in the novel. Rating: 3/5.
Themes
Unreliable Narrators: I believe the first thing that needs to be touched on in order to have a candid discussion on this piece is unreliable narrators. Let's just throw it out in the open now: Jacob is crazy. As a result of his being an unreliable narrator, it leads to several questions down the road. I think, at least initially, readers are more prone to accept whatever he says at face value. But, after reading the ending, we can more judiciously draw conclusions as to what is real and what is not. For starters, was Sister Jane really Caro in disguise? At first I believed yes, but now I am not convinced. I think that the idea that Caro has a grand scheme uproot her life and join a random colony just to taunt her rapist and former husband by pretending to not know him is absurd, and something only Jacob would do. Were Ferris and Caro really hooking up in the woods while Jacob went to get the letter? I was never convinced of this. Jacob said himself that a woman could never steal Ferris from him, only a man. Furthermore, considering Ferris paid no mind to Catherine's advances, I find this so unlikely. Do I believe Jacob raped his brother as children though he cannot remember it when Zeb confronts him as adults? Considering he has raped two other people- yes. And I think this is such an important takeaway from this novel- Jacob's action seem, at very least, understandable if you listen to his rationalizations. But what we must remember is that he is being fed information from an evil voice in his head. This novel tracks his dissent into madness, and his actions are just that- mad. So when he acts on information from that voice, we must first ask ourselves, is that information true, is the speaker reliable? And then we can begin to judge the actions themselves.
Good vs. Evil: This novel sparks an interesting debate on if evil truly exists. I think many readers will feel similarly, in the sense that one opens the book optimistic about Jacob's potential for redemption and slowly loses that faith as the work progresses. Jacob is frequently described by Ferris as a bad angel- does such a thing exist? Initially I presumed it did not, but now I am at a loss for how else to describe him. And a subtopic off of this is, does Jacob have the capacity for love? Internally, at least, he expresses tenderness for Isiah, Zeb, Caro and Ferris- but his actions are contradictory. Is it possible for Jacob to love people, but also rape them? An interesting fact I read while doing research on this novel is that rape is more an act of control than of sex. How can we reconcile the two images of Jacob- one where he is strolling through cobble stone streets with Ferris, teasing him by holding his hat out of reach and another where he is raping his brother in the fields as children. I don't know if evil exists, but Jacob is the closest thing I have seen to it.
Side notes
Title: I have to say, the title of this book is one of the most beautiful and fitting I can think of. I just think it has such a haunting quality to it- especially in hindsight. As Meat Loves Salt expresses love in a much more raw, needing way than most readers are used to. Think about it, the book could have easily been titled As Coffee Loves Cream or As Milk Loves Honey. Both beautiful, traditional expressions of love- portraying it as two things that compliment one another. Furthermore, they have a sweet connotation to them. But if we think of the relationship between meat and salt, especially back in those days, salt was *needed* to preserve meat. It was not a relationship of choice, but one of necessity. And, in relating it to the main characters, their relationship is very much one of need. And I do not use need in the sense of they are two halves that make one poetic whole- they are codependent, twisted, masochists. Their love operates in the shadows, after dark, in the woods. Their relationship could very well be considered more of an obsession than love. Furthermore, I must say the forward about the king and the princess is absolutely beautiful and almost lends the book a maleficent quality- darkly beautiful.
Mental Illness in Literary Interpretation: I wanted to touch on this topic because I saw some people saying Jacob was schizophrenic (because of the voice in his head) and that was responsible for his actions. First and foremost, I would like to dismiss this as an interpretation. I think mental illness can only really be a legitimate literary interpretation if it is overtly stated that the character is mentally ill. The reasoning for this, one, is that I think chalking Jacob's actions up to illness cheapens the novel and circumvents the entire theme of good and evil. Furthermore, I think it is offensive to say Jacob's actions are a result of schizophrenia because it is unintentionally saying symptoms of schizophrenia are rape and murder. I think Jacob is an evil person, not a mentally ill one. I do not think the two terms should be in any way assimilated by readers who want to try to find a medical reason for his actions. I think part of what makes this novel haunting is we never know why Jacob acts as he does- we do not understand how someone can continually teeter between sweet and evil, Jekyll and Hyde.
McCann's As Meat Loves Salt follows Jacob Cullen, a former gentleman turned servant, through the tumultuous civil war that plagued seventeenth century England. A reflection of the war-torn and class-torn country itself, Jacob battles madness. His dark humor and passion color his relationships throughout the novel- whether it be his family, fellow soldiers, community members, or the man he is obsessed with.
Review
To review this book first requires me to take a *deep* breath. I have read many novels in my life, the majority of which end sadly. However, I have never read a book like this- a book this dark. As any reader will discover, Jacob Cullen is insane (Note: I use the term insane in the colloquial term, not the scientific. I will make mention in the side notes at the end my thoughts on applying psychology to this novel). I would not call Jacob a protagonist as that alludes to him being a heroic character, but the novel is written through his point of view. Furthermore, seeing through his eyes for over five hundred pages, it is quite hard not to sympathize for him. Time and time again throughout the novel Jacob makes unforgivable mistakes, but, as readers, we almost try to excuse him and think he can redeem himself. And the novel is very much that- rooting for someone to redeem themselves and struggling with feelings of sympathy and contempt for our narrator. I think this novel could be uncomfortable, but sparks a good discussion. It begs readers to explore their own philosophy in terms of good and evil, forgiveness, love, etc. This novel is also LGBT historical fiction, though I do not see either of those topics being huge themes throughout the novel. Of course the setting is significant, but I would not consider it a war novel. Likewise, the LGBT relationship is significant, but I would not consider it an LGBT novel as the relationship is very dark and erotic and not as representative as others. All in all, the book was good, I'm glad I read it. It was beautifully written and I have never come across a book like it- a book that it intended to make readers *so* uncomfortable. It isn't super quotable (and ya'll know I love a good quotable novel), but the title is truly beautiful and there are some interesting illusions to it in the novel. Rating: 3/5.
Themes
Unreliable Narrators: I believe the first thing that needs to be touched on in order to have a candid discussion on this piece is unreliable narrators. Let's just throw it out in the open now: Jacob is crazy. As a result of his being an unreliable narrator, it leads to several questions down the road. I think, at least initially, readers are more prone to accept whatever he says at face value. But, after reading the ending, we can more judiciously draw conclusions as to what is real and what is not. For starters, was Sister Jane really Caro in disguise? At first I believed yes, but now I am not convinced. I think that the idea that Caro has a grand scheme uproot her life and join a random colony just to taunt her rapist and former husband by pretending to not know him is absurd, and something only Jacob would do. Were Ferris and Caro really hooking up in the woods while Jacob went to get the letter? I was never convinced of this. Jacob said himself that a woman could never steal Ferris from him, only a man. Furthermore, considering Ferris paid no mind to Catherine's advances, I find this so unlikely. Do I believe Jacob raped his brother as children though he cannot remember it when Zeb confronts him as adults? Considering he has raped two other people- yes. And I think this is such an important takeaway from this novel- Jacob's action seem, at very least, understandable if you listen to his rationalizations. But what we must remember is that he is being fed information from an evil voice in his head. This novel tracks his dissent into madness, and his actions are just that- mad. So when he acts on information from that voice, we must first ask ourselves, is that information true, is the speaker reliable? And then we can begin to judge the actions themselves.
"Speak to me, Jacob. Do not play the tyrant.
Speak to me."
Good vs. Evil: This novel sparks an interesting debate on if evil truly exists. I think many readers will feel similarly, in the sense that one opens the book optimistic about Jacob's potential for redemption and slowly loses that faith as the work progresses. Jacob is frequently described by Ferris as a bad angel- does such a thing exist? Initially I presumed it did not, but now I am at a loss for how else to describe him. And a subtopic off of this is, does Jacob have the capacity for love? Internally, at least, he expresses tenderness for Isiah, Zeb, Caro and Ferris- but his actions are contradictory. Is it possible for Jacob to love people, but also rape them? An interesting fact I read while doing research on this novel is that rape is more an act of control than of sex. How can we reconcile the two images of Jacob- one where he is strolling through cobble stone streets with Ferris, teasing him by holding his hat out of reach and another where he is raping his brother in the fields as children. I don't know if evil exists, but Jacob is the closest thing I have seen to it.
"I was not made to be loved"
Side notes
Title: I have to say, the title of this book is one of the most beautiful and fitting I can think of. I just think it has such a haunting quality to it- especially in hindsight. As Meat Loves Salt expresses love in a much more raw, needing way than most readers are used to. Think about it, the book could have easily been titled As Coffee Loves Cream or As Milk Loves Honey. Both beautiful, traditional expressions of love- portraying it as two things that compliment one another. Furthermore, they have a sweet connotation to them. But if we think of the relationship between meat and salt, especially back in those days, salt was *needed* to preserve meat. It was not a relationship of choice, but one of necessity. And, in relating it to the main characters, their relationship is very much one of need. And I do not use need in the sense of they are two halves that make one poetic whole- they are codependent, twisted, masochists. Their love operates in the shadows, after dark, in the woods. Their relationship could very well be considered more of an obsession than love. Furthermore, I must say the forward about the king and the princess is absolutely beautiful and almost lends the book a maleficent quality- darkly beautiful.
"For the meat was nothing without the salt"
Mental Illness in Literary Interpretation: I wanted to touch on this topic because I saw some people saying Jacob was schizophrenic (because of the voice in his head) and that was responsible for his actions. First and foremost, I would like to dismiss this as an interpretation. I think mental illness can only really be a legitimate literary interpretation if it is overtly stated that the character is mentally ill. The reasoning for this, one, is that I think chalking Jacob's actions up to illness cheapens the novel and circumvents the entire theme of good and evil. Furthermore, I think it is offensive to say Jacob's actions are a result of schizophrenia because it is unintentionally saying symptoms of schizophrenia are rape and murder. I think Jacob is an evil person, not a mentally ill one. I do not think the two terms should be in any way assimilated by readers who want to try to find a medical reason for his actions. I think part of what makes this novel haunting is we never know why Jacob acts as he does- we do not understand how someone can continually teeter between sweet and evil, Jekyll and Hyde.
"How do men make themselves loved, I wondered. I had passed all my life with men who were loved but I seemed never to have learnt the lesson"
Comments
Post a Comment