Untitled

78 LITERATÛRZINÂTNE, FOLKLORISTIKA, MÂKSLA
that his real name was Giovanni.” (99) When listing three most famous seducers, Stella
elaborates on don Juan/Giovanni as following: “A fiction/fact. Nobody knows whether
or not he was real.” (99) The name Jove is also an alternative variant that the Romans
had for the god Jupiter (which derives from an alteration of Jovis pater, father Jove).
Jupiter, however, is the Roman counterpart of the Greeks’ Zeus. 11 Strangely, earlier Zeus
was related to Alice’s father. Therefore a connection between Alice’s relationships with
her father and Jove is clear from the elaboration on their names. By relating the names
to the so–called real life (i.e. Greek mythology or religion), the text aims at confusing
the conventional boundaries between fact and fiction.
Linguistic self–reflexivity is a useful tool for becoming aware of language’s limits
and potentials, furthermore such self–consciousness also opens up a possibility to
move beyond conventional and frozen ways of expression as well as even find alternative
languages. As shown above, in Gut Symmetries self–consciousness about language
underlines the concerns about the difficulty of expressing oneself with a medium
that so restricts its user. Since there is no other alternative to verbal language,
the narrators endeavour to create a language that would be more adequate and efficient.
In such a process a novel is shaped into an écriture feminine.
Alternative Languages
This is a sea story, a wave story, a story that breaks and ebbs, spilling the
boat up on the beach […]. Hear me. Speak to me. Look at me. 12
In order to have a framework for discussing Gut Symmetries as an instance of
écriture feminine, I need now to outline the core ideas behind Irigaray’s and Cixous’s
works on sexuality, language and writing. Both Cixous and Irigaray aim at redefining
first women’s sexuality and pleasure and then also women’s language. “This Sex
Which Is Not One” (1977) by Irigaray argues for the existence of innate and authentic
sexuality. She argues that throughout history female sexuality has been constructed
to ensure the maximum quality of male sexual pleasure. 13 Her purpose is to rethink
women’s sexuality in relation to women themselves rather than putting their pleasure
in the context of reinforcing dominating male sexual pleasure. Irigaray claims that
the multiplicity of female genitalia and desire as well as the diversity of female pleasure
create the multiplicity of women’s selves and identity. Developing from the idea
that female genitalia and thus sexual pleasure are multiple, Irigaray wants to establish
a new language and space for women. She declares that “hers are contradictory words,
somewhat mad from the standpoint of reason, inaudible for whoever listens to them
with ready–made grids, with a fully elaborated code in hand.” 14 Irigaray’s preoccupation
with linguistic structures underlines the very immediate lack of women’s sexual
and other experience in language. Yet, as Monique Wittig has pointed out,
emphasising the differences between men and women and celebrating female biological
potential might also only reinforce women’s mythical position and lesser value
and status as compared to men. 15 Nevertheless, the importance of creating alternative
languages for women to express themselves is extremely relevant for literary and linguistic
analyses.