Many texts often explore androcentrism and are repressive in relation to women, perpetuating ultimately degrading representations of women and assigning cultural constructs of gender roles. As H. Bertens writes in ‘Literary Theory: The Basics’, women are traditionally seen with “helplessness and renouncing all ambition and desire”, where “female independence…gets a strongly negative connotation”. However, Lionel Shriver’s ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin’ ultimately seeks to subvert and challenge these representations of women in the form of motherhood, exploring how a woman's achievements and value may lie in their role as a mother. This novel shows this through her letters to her husband Franklin, flashbacks to the past after her son Kevin commits mass murder in a school shooting, and the consequences as his mother. The reader witnesses the reality of how degrading Eva becomes as she takes on a role as a mother, and the gender divide within the family. Drawing upon feminist literary criticism, this essay seeks to partially disagree with this statement as the novel ultimately does show the reader that Eva's maternal instincts will mean she will always ‘love’ her son.
Ideas of unequal expectations are reinforced from the beginning of the novel with the overriding sense of guilt or self-pity the reader feels from Eva with language saying “she lacks incentive these days” and a sense that Eva accepts the hatred from her neighbors “proved so anodyne”. The theme of blood and death is introduced as Eva’s “house looked like its throat had been slit” with “gallons of crimson paint”. This creates a foreboding tone to ‘that Thursday’ that isn’t yet discussed or revealed which creates tension as to why Eva is so ‘damaged’ and what part she plays as a perpetrator in contrary to a victim. The blood imagery of the ‘crimson paint’ acts as a metaphor of her life as the “front door stuck, glued shut with thick crimson enamel” acts as a symbol of inevitable bloodshed, and the writer uses this as a metaphor to show how Eva is ‘stuck’ and trapped by this layer of blood and symbol death that she cannot get rid of as the “enamel isn’t water soluble”. The writer is also highlighting how whatever happened ‘that Thursday’, that is later revealed to be an act of mass murder by her son, is arguably not her crime to blame, but at this point she is blamed with an ‘impassive mask’ that reflects how in society a mother’s value is only set in what their children become. The reader may argue that her cold, neglectful characterization revealed later is a reason to blame Eva and reinforces themes of nurture versus nature, which ultimately may have sexist undertones as it may support ideas of gender roles and women as the emotional nurturers of the family.
Shriver also shows examples of how unequal expectations are enforced on women during the pregnancy of the writer’s female character Eva, who confesses she’s “absolutely terrified of having a child”, “afraid of being the archetypal figure in the doorway frowzy, a little plump – who waves good-bye and blows kisses”. The imagery used to describe the motherly stereotype explores how desperate Eva feels, not to fit into these gender roles, depicting a common, unrepresented and unacceptable fear in society through the repetition of ‘afraid’ seeking to ‘revalue women’s experience’, as suggested by P. Barry in ‘Beginning Theory’. Shriver foreshadows Eva's negative experience into and through motherhood as she expresses feeling ‘strangely cold’ in her pregnancy, before Kevin, her son, is even conceived. Her uncomfortable pregnancy faces the uncomfortable reality that Eva’s identity, achievements and travels will be overlooked and taken away as she takes on the role as a mother, which social constructs believe is wholly ‘positive’ and traditionally a woman's life purpose. Another way the writer shows how society reinforces gender roles by men is using dialogue as Franklin her husband tells her: “Welcome to your new life”. This reveals to the reader how the pressure and life changes are only expected on the mother, as Franklin the father uses the pronoun ‘your’ to infer it is not both lives as parents changing, but just Eva’s. In Eva’s situation and confessions, however, she reveals her frustration over the unequal expectation as “men have always gotten to name children after themselves, while not doing any of the work”, ultimately showing how Lionel Shriver can challenge and expose ideas of a traditional mother figure, and at this point maternal instincts through the characterization and dialogue of Eva.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Further on in the narrative, Shriver discusses the ways in which Eva’s ‘approach to parenting was conditional’ and that she “did not want to mother an imbecile or paraplegic”, depicting a somewhat unlikeable, cold character with an arguably selfish and conceited attitude. She did not want to nurture, and when the reader considers the fact that Eva’s decision to have a child was “to have something to talk about”, creates a questionable, unnerving characterization of a mother to be. The reader consequently sees how this is not the usual comment or justified reason for bringing up a child, and the lack of emotion creates a harrowing undertone that foreshadows what sort of character Kevin will become. The novel's title ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin’ mirrors this quote, and the title not only directly links to the theme of motherhood, but reflects the stereotype that a mother has constant concerns about their child, who is represented in the novel as Kevin, whom Eva “associated...with not only limitations, but defeat”. This signifies to the reader an atypical view of a mother and reaction to the birth of a child, as there is a stronger sense of fear than maternal love, completely challenging and subverting traditional ideas of a mother figure.
As the novel progresses into Kevin’s upbringing, the possible effects of Eva’s cold attitude to parenting leads the narrative to climax, to a point where from the point of view of Eva Shriver depicts her to believe Kevin was the one to remove Cecilia, her daughter's eye. Cecilia is characterized as the polar opposite and juxtaposes with Kevin, representing complete innocence and is a sweet child that “would believe anything”. Shriver also depicts Cecilia as a more male-centric stereotype of a little girl, unlike Eva, who doesn’t fit typical female stereotypes, too squeamish and weak, and is a victim of Kevin, calling her a ‘doormat’, which is ironic as Kevin walks all over her. The writer uses Cecilia to represent innocent women as victims in society by men as her weaknesses are exploited. The reader also questions Eva as a reliable narrator as the crime is never admittingly proven, and through flashback dialogue, Franklin blames Eva, saying: “I can't believe you left it out”. This suggests how in a moment where there is a parenting hiccup the blame is ultimately left on the mother, and this idea is reflected on the rest of the novel as it seems Eva struggles with the guilt of her son's actions as a mass murderer that society blames her for, not Franklin or even Kevin. As the scene progresses, Franklin's anger silences the argument with a liturgical finality, and this finds a relationship between sex and power, in which the distribution of power over the male and female partners mirrors the distribution of power over males and females in society at large, as Franklin feels he is in control of the situation as Eva challenges society’s ideas of a mother by believing he did it.
Conversely, by the end of the novel, with an honest conversation with mother and son, it could be argued that Shriver shows that first and foremost Eva’s maternal instincts override all other dislikes towards Kevin, as a powerful moment appears of maternal ‘love’. The reader sees that frightened Kevin makes a peace offering to Eva by giving Celia's prosthetic eye to bury, and telling her, although she’s “not quite sure… like[s] to think that he choked, ‘I’m sorry’”, creating a lack of catharsis as Kevin may not be showing a true level of remorse. Shriver positions the reader to question whether Eva’s perspective as a narrator is reliable, as it does not form a conclusion when Eva asks for the first time why he committed murders, and Kevin replies that he is not so sure. The reader also sees Eva admit her guilt as Shriver uses this theme to create a cyclicality as Eva says “I’m sorry” to Kevin and reflects how she has come full circle, and in asking petulantly whether Thursday was her ‘fault’ she may be asking the wrong question, reflecting onto the reader whether Eva is a bad mother and what ultimately motivated Kevin to stage ‘Thursday’. Significantly, Eva concludes that, despite what he did, “can finally announce that I am too exhausted and too confused and too lonely to keep fighting, and if only out of desperation or even laziness I love my son”, ultimately challenging the statement with the pivotal point that ‘stereotypical maternal instincts’ are seen in the characterization of Eva.
In conclusion, it is obvious that Eve can challenge the ideas of traditional motherhood in many aspects. This is seen through Shriver's cold-hearted characterization that is able to position the reader to question whether Kevin is an inevitable consequence of an unaffectionate mother. However, against all odds, once Kevin serves his full sentence, she is seen to proclaim that she will welcome him home, and perhaps the writer is highlighting Eva as a victim of motherhood, rather than a bad mother. Therefore ultimately, this essay was an attempt to partially disagree with the statement as the end of the novel is able to show a breakthrough of ‘love’, revealing stereotypical maternal instincts of a traditional mother figure.
Stuck on your essay?
