Conundrum is one of the
earliest books to discuss trans-sexuality with honesty and without prurience.
It tells the story of Jan Morris’s hidden life and how he decided to bring it
into the open, as he resolved first on a hormone treatment and, second, on
risky experimental surgery that would turn him into the woman that he is, or
believed, he truly was. The book is a narrative journey about dramatic human
change – both complex and fundamental.
It is a classic commentary on changing
identity. He writes of the bewilderment that never left him and the core of his
life’s dilemma – what he calls a haze inside him. Outside his “landscapes were Millais and
Holman Hunt, my introspections were pure Turner”.
It is pertinent in the current
interest in changing your own identity and various forms of sexual
transitioning. But as JM says in his
2001 introduction to this book it is already a period piece. It was written in
the 1970s and is decidedly of the 1970s with all the nuances of the time – the
fag end of empire, the power of the establishment (and their schools and clubs
etc.), and associated attitudes to sex, identity and gender reassignment.
Discussion
at Wheelwrights, Monkton Combe: August 2
2018
Style/Narrative:
The general feeling was that this was a well-written and enjoyable
read. CW enjoyed this as a biography and
his descriptions of his varied life and experiences. WM felt it provided
interesting insight into the transitioning process, though the style a tad
florid at times. JH saw it as a lyrical, rather romanticised (Welsh) view of his transitioning
journey. CB
enjoyed the writing, good descriptions of life as man, and then what it feels
like to be a woman in a man’s world. Both AA & RV consider his style rather
masculine – RV noted it was “massively male written” and that he had adopted a
style as an “avuncular woman”. AA felt JM had a rather old fashioned style -
though good on describing dynamics of relationships. He also considered style, though romantic at
time, was curiously detached and so reader more an observer rather than being
rather in. In same vein MW noted that,
considering the intimacy if the subject matter, that the writing appeared
somewhat detached and so he felt rather distanced from the character of
JM. He felt this also raised questions
as to what were JM’s motives for writing it. JH thought he was trying to tell
his story on his own terms and just trying getting his narrative in first – was
it therefore a just a good example of well-written spin?
Context/Privilege:
General concern that the book reflected limited insight into wider
social issues or debates at the time (class, gender, etc.). JM seemed not
question his privileged position, his status and his position as a member of
the establishment, or the implications of his view of the world which seemed
routed in his own social/class bubble.
JH suggested it read more by something by Evelyn Waugh than any
contemporary writer. MW felt this
one-sided, privileged view of the world became irritating over time. For the same reasons RV got to dislike JM –
particularly because of his lack of self-awareness and his class-based way of
thinking about people. AA felt JM put too much emphasis on his own view of
identity rather one in a wider context. Though WM noted as born in 1926 in a
certain social position this was understandable. CW considered that his
privileged position gave an interesting take and contrast to his description of
his life and experiences. There was a
general concern that there was surprisingly little insightful commentary on the
impact of his decision to change sex on his wife, family or friends – this
seemed to have been glossed over and what commentary there was rather
anodyne.
Gender
& Identity:
CB notes that JM wrote well on the notion that love transcends gender,
and this was a discussion that was followed up later. AA liked the distinction
between sex and gender and what that implies and entails. The book was also
seen to highlight the complexity of issues around gender and identity. JM sees identity as: the corpus of
personality, how others see him, what he considered himself to be, his status
in the world, his profession, and his purposes.
“The fact of what one is” - not just ones sex or gender. He emphasises
that it is much to do with the eye of the beholder – wart-hogs are beautiful to each other and so we should not laugh at
them.
This in turn lead to a discussion about
how we, and others in different societies, perceive changing sex and the
influence of differing cultural and time perspectives – from the impossible and
monstrous to a process of omniscience and a mark of specialness (for example the
Fa’afafine in Samoa). It was also noted
that feminists hold differing perspectives with some (for example
trans-exclusionary radical feminists – TERFs) suggesting that transgender and
transsexual people are merely reinforcing and upholding established sexist
gender roles and the gender binary.
While others (trans-positive feminists) believe that transgender and
transsexual people help challenge repressive gender norms and are fully
compatible with feminist theory.
Towards the end of the session there
was a wider discussion about the influence of nature or nurture in determining
your preference for a sexual identity and to what extent that as such transitioning
is normalised and increasingly accepted by society will there be an increase in
the numbers wanting to change their sexual identity. To support this point JH
noted that in US clinics that treat gender dysphoria (distress caused by a
mismatch between felt and perceived gender identity) report a soaring caseload.
The Williams Institute, a think-tank in Los Angeles, recently came up with an
estimate of 1.4m Americans who are considering such treatment —0.6% of those
aged 16-65.
Written comments
on the book by SC & MT who were unable to join the discussion:
SC:
First of all, I was really pleased to read this, as I hadn’t got
round to it before. Jan/James Morris’s story is one that I’ve been aware of
since my teenage years, when, as James, he was quite a prominent national press
journalist, and later when the sex change itself was the story. It reminded me
that my mother had been quite a fan of James’s writing... I think she fancied
him and was somewhat wrong-footed by subsequent events.
To someone not familiar with Morris’s background or writing I can
imagine that this story could become rather tedious in its monothematic nature.
Indeed for me at times I found myself asking whether some of the more mundane
detail was really necessary. I also was aware of some repetition at times. But
its quality lies in the sheer beauty of the prose. No wonder his journalistic
speciality was writing about unique places.
But she’s also prone to a well-used cliché - I was quite surprised to
hear her praise a phrase familiar to all who remember student posters from the
70’s and 80’s - ‘Today is the first day of the rest of your life’. I enjoyed lots of it hugely, but not without
feeling substantially conflicted while reading it.
First there is the affection of the familiar: knowing the story
from the time (early 70s) when (as James) he was writing instalments in the
Sunday papers and being written about. There is the straightforward excellence
of the writing. But there is also some misgiving. Granted the very nature of a
memoir dictates the primary subject matter- but frankly it still felt at times
a little too ‘me-me-me’ - a touch too much self-confident, donnish arrogance.
That self-certainty that is peculiar to a certain class, usually privileged,
often public school educated and likely to be embedded in or near the
establishment. Which makes it all the more extraordinary that this story, which
would chime with today’s LGBTW community, had such a posh backdrop, emphasising
that we are all individuals under the skin. Public school, Oxford, the army
(which he liked, for clubbish reasons), London gentlemen’s clubs, and one can’t
imagine a more conventional early CV for early life into adulthood.
I guess the primary interest is that here is someone who has
experienced a sex change, who possesses the ability to write engagingly about
the whole issue and surrounding processes. Nonetheless I feel sorry for
Elizabeth and I think Jan’s arrogance seeps through here. I’d have liked to
have learned a great deal more about the process from his wife’s eye-view, and
what she really felt about this possibly unique situation. I have a further
issue - I cannot help but ascribe a male gender to the narrator, no matter how
much she would wish it otherwise. Why? Partly through having known of James
before Jan, but principally because I think her voice is, fundamentally, a male
one. That’s not a criticism - more a further example of how amazing the story
is, and how fascinating it would have been to have a second balancing narrative
voice running alongside Jan’s own.
Just one quote to sum up the style and content:
“The connotation of love with physical sex seems to me a vulgar
simplicism, while the overlapping of the two words I consider one of the
weakest points of the English language”
MT
I stayed with one of their children several times in Totnes
and heard the whole story and how hard it was for the kids. I met Jan and
Elizabeth at their wedding. So the book was an interesting background on
a story I knew well. Even though the writing was obviously excellent I
did find it irritating – for example the questions that were constantly included
"would you not agree etc”. I found the first part of the book when he was
a man interesting- even though he said he did not like being a man, I felt he
seemed to like lots of it. The middle part when he was trying to be more female
was less good although some interesting comments “the more I was treated like a
women, the more women I became”. The last
part of the book was more interesting - the medical part was fascinating and I
was surprised at the suggestion of the non-sterile conditions of the clinic. When
he became more of a women physically was interesting – particularly the unique
comparison she had with men and women having been both. Although I still got
the male sense from her writing as a women (I would have thought it was a man
writing if I didn't know) - maybe reflecting some sense of loss? So in
conclusion an OK average book for me, some enjoyment, some irritation and some
insights so I will give it 5.00.
