Main
Search This Site

« back to Vonnegut's Asshole
» forward to Let's Discuss

Discussion Archives
Bel Canto
blindness
A Box of Matches
Bridge of Birds

a canticle for leibowitz
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Chronicle of a Death Foretold
A Confederacy of Dunces
confessions of an ugly stepsister
Coraline
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

descent into hell
The Dew Breaker
The Diamond Age
Doctor Zhivago
don quixote

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Fight Club
The Five People You Meet in Heaven
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe

The Ghost Writer
good in bed

harry potter and the sorcerer's stone
A Home at the End of the World
House of Leaves

If on a Winter's Night a Traveler
invisible monsters

The Kite Runner

Life of Pi

memoirs of a geisha
Middlesex
Motherless Brooklyn
mysterious skin

Neverwhere
noir
Norwegian Wood

One for the Money

the poisonwood bible

revenge
Running with Scissors

The Secret Life of Bees
shopgirl
The Solitaire Mystery
The Stupidest Angel

Things Fall Apart
Thumbsucker
The Time Traveler's Wife
Troll

Veronika Decides to Die

The Wasp Factory
Watch Your Mouth
What is the What
A Wrinkle in Time
Wuthering Heights

 

April 23, 2007

Discussion: The Wasp Factory by Iain Banks

The Wasp Factory is a fantastically disturbing book that brings to a head the question of nature versus nurture. Narrator Frank Cauldhame is by his own admission a naughty boy who runs around the isolated island killing bunnies and wreaking havoc. He does boyish stuff like blowing things up and having private wars using any living creature he can find. By all means, he is very masculine in his behavior. He has grandiose ideas of secret powers that he can usually control, but he admits that sometimes these powers are even beyond his command. He has a far-fetched imagination, creating a fantasy world where everything has dark names like his catapult, “the black destroyer,” and areas of the island called “sacrifice poles,” “snake park,” and “bomb circle.” The title of the book comes from the “wasp factory” he created in order to predict the future.

Frank’s family is very strange. His father lives off what is left of the family wealth and is an eccentric ex-hippy. He and Frank seem to have an OK enough relationship, even though Frank knows his father has been spending most of his life telling lies which seem to be for just the heck of it. Frank’s mother abandons him, adding to his hatred of women, which turns ironic as we discover the end of the story. Frank also has a brother, Eric, who escapes from a sanitarium. Eric had been put away for setting dogs on fire and scaring the local children by stuffing worms and maggots into his mouth.

Note: If you have not yet read this book, SPOILERS appear below.

At the end of the book, we find out that Frank is actually female. His father uses an attack by a dog, in which Frank supposedly loses his testicles and most of his penis, as an experiment. Born a girl, Frank’s father pumps her full of steroids and goes as far to create a fake set of male genitalia out of wax. His father obviously has his own issues, but why did he do this?

There are so many strange aspects worth examining in this book. I would first like to discuss Frank’s claim that he has murdered three people. Frank is not a reliable narrator; he has an overly active imagination and a grandiose idea of himself. He claims to have taken his first victim at the age of six. He supposedly killed his cousin with an Adler snake as revenge for the previous year when his cousin killed their bunnies with Eric’s homemade blow torch. Also, Frank claims to have encouraged his younger brother Paul to blow himself up with a bomb found on the beach and to have made an enormous kite allowing his cousin Esmeralda to fly away and never be seen again.

Has Frank really done these things? We do know he has a taste for killing animals, which psychologists often say is a sign of a future serial killer. Could the cause have been the male hormones? Or perhaps Eric does all the killing while Frank tries to take credit for it, and maybe this is the real reason why Eric was sent away. Could the deaths all have been just freakish accidents that occurred when Frank was around? What do you think?



TrackBacks
 
http://www.bookblog.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/471
 
comments

In terms of Frank's father, I am not exactly sure why he turned his son into a daughter. My best guess is that Eric was already exhibiting signs of deviant behavior and Frank could have offered him a second chance at a "normal" son. To understand this part of the book better, I really think I need to reread it.

One reason why I enjoyed The Wasp Factory so much is because of Frank's unreliability. When I think about the books I most like, an unreliable narrator usually figures into the story and I enjoy trying to figure out what to believe and what not to believe. It makes the main character more interesting to me since it feels a lot like dealing with real people. My favorite quote from the book (which I don't have a copy of at the moment) goes something like: Eric is completely insane while I (Frank) am totally sane. Uh, no you're not considering that you use wasps trapped in a clock face to tell the future. It gave me a good laugh.

Did Frank really kill three people? I doubt it because the deaths seemed improbable. I could believe the snake, but banging on a bomb and flying away on a kite are a little more than I'm willing to suspend disbelief. Frank certainly does exhibit deviant behavior, so I do feel we can believe some of what happens in the book. However, I'm still up in the air over what's "real" and "not real." I love how Frank gets upset at Eric for his insanity, as if setting dogs and sheep on fire is more crazy than blowing up bunnies.

Frank's ease with his own behavior while simultaneously being frustrated with Eric's actions helped make him likeable to me. It's sort of like how I'll do something bitchy and be okay with myself, but I could get angry when I encounter someone else being bitchy. Although Frank and Eric are extreme examples, their dynamic is something I often see in everyday human behavior and interaction.

It never occurred to me to question whether or not Frank really killed those people. Then again, I tend to read fiction books without questioning the narrators' statements...probably not always a good idea but it's their tale so...

::shrug::

Just for the record, I'm not going to examine too closely the possibility that suspension of critical thought also applies to people's statements outside works of fiction. No reason to incriminate myself, is there?

Anyway, regarding marydell's comment that "the deaths seemed improbable"...what would seem more likely, though? Running them down in a car? Blowing them away with a gun? Perhaps a bit of poisoning? These (supposed) murders took place when Frank was between six and ten years old. I think the bizarreness of the deaths can be explained by the Frank's intelligent but bizarre nature. Ultimately, I see them as a product of the author's creative tendencies.

One more thing..."[Frank's] hatred of women, which turns ironic as we discover the end of the story"...that, in my opinion, is a major spoiler!

Zonker, yes, I suppose the irony quip is a huge spoiler. Although Joanne didn't include the spoiler line in her original post, I added it since the entire book hinges on the ending. I'm of a mixed mind when it comes to spoiler alerts since this is a discussion site (as opposed to reviews) and the assumption is that participants have finished the book first.

However, RSS readers get every post and could have a hard time knowing which ones to skip. One of these days I'll get around to changing the feed so continuation posts containing spoilers require a click rather than appearing in full in a reader. Thanks for pointing it out and making me think about this issue.

"Anyway, regarding marydell's comment that 'the deaths seemed improbable'...what would seem more likely, though? Running them down in a car? Blowing them away with a gun? Perhaps a bit of poisoning?"

Sure, all of the above are much more realistic to me than building a gigantic kite and floating a victim away. Which, by the way, reminds me of a scene in Roald Dahl's The Twits. In it, Mr. & Mrs. Twit play cruel tricks on each other for amusement. For one trick, Mr. Twit attaches bunches of helium balloons to Mrs. Twit because he convinced her she was shrinking and the rise of the balloons would stretch her back to normal height. Rather than float away, Mrs. Twit breaks the strings and comes crashing down on Mr. Twit. This then reminds me of a scene in James and the Giant Peach, and, well, it goes on and on...

As I wrote above, I love books with unreliable narrators because the main character becomes very real to me. When I deal with real people, I often catch myself wondering about what I hear. For example, do people who hand out frequent compliments do it because they really mean it or are they trying to bolster the recipient's ego or are they trying to be liked or are they seeking a return compliment or are they simply sycophantic? Because questions run constantly through my head (I've mentioned my hard existence, haven't I?), unreliable narrators feed my questioning compulsion and I enjoy trying to figure out the author's purpose in creating such a character.

Although I'm sure taking Frank's homicidal tendencies either at face value or with a question doesn't interfere with enjoyment of the book, it's an indicator of different approaches to reading. Which is, clearly, an individual activity. I'm too often stuck inside my own head, so talking about our individual approaches helps me expand my repertoire of ideas.

And, yes, I'd have to agree that Banks is exceptionally creative.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply that uncritical acceptance of the narrator's tale was, in any way, a more valid approach. Quite the contrary, in fact. Since I started my (admittedly vague) participation here, I've started paying more attention to what I read rather than just getting carried along obliviously. Less reading for escapism, I guess. In my opinion, that's a good thing for me.

Anyhow, one point regarding the improbability in the methods of the murders...I was also trying to suggest that the methods chosen were methods accessible to Frank. I doubt he had easy access to either a gun or a car. Poison, perhaps, but the matter of getting away with the murder is at least as important as anything else. A strong argument against my points: drowning isn't used in any of the murders. Seems like that'd be a no-brainer given the location. Then again, perhaps that's why Frank/Iain didn't choose to use it. Round and round we go...

Off-topic but...Roald Dahl kicks butt. If you haven't already done so, I highly recommend reading his short fiction (the stuff for grownups, not the stuff for kids).

Peace people

We love you

I think, that is interesting for all.

One thing that I noticed while skimming over the story again was how much Frank tries to impose order through his various rituals. Perhaps the dam building, too, but he also destroys the dams after he builds them so who knows. In any event, while he certainly seems to leave a fair amount of mayhem in his wake, a lot of his actions seem to be based around creating order in his life. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Significant or just part of the story?

I definitely think this book was anything but boring!

I tended to not question Frank in terms of whether he had actually killed anyone. It just seemed so natural to who he was, it was part of him. He seemed to accept it and I never got the impression that he knew killing was bad, it was just something he had done in the past.

I also believe that he lived in his own world, he made it up and he was just telling his story. Although the manner in which he said he killed them was somewhat unlikely, I felt that Frank controlled what went on in his world. To the victors go the spoils, so it went to Frank to determine how they died, even if it didn't completely align with how it actually happened. Also, when his dad made the comment that maybe it should be Frank that should be locked up, it just made it seem more realistic, like it actually happened. At that point, though, I actually thought Eric might have taken the fall for it.

It is a good question, though, but regardless of whether or not he actually did it, it was still troubling to read.

I did have some questions though, I may have missed in reading it. First, why did Eric start dressing up like a girl? I believe his dad said it was ok if it made him manly. Did I just read this wrong or was it supposed to have an effect on Frank as if to say "it's alright if you want to dress up like a girl, it makes you more of a man"?

The second question involves Franks's dad's friend (I can't recall his name), but I got the impression that he shouldn't be alone with Frank. I never found out why, did he know about Frank's true identity and would he tell? Was it something else, was the friend just not comfortable with Frank or visa versa? It also brings up the point of the people that new what Frank's dad was doing, maybe even including Eric. He was born a girl and I believe the accident didn't happen until he was three. The family and some town's people had to know, why didn't they do anything about it?

Now, I don't have any faint idea what the amount of hormones he was taking would do to a teenager, but I found it very odd that he just accepted that he could never be a normal man. As a boy, or a girl, I would be devistated, especially as a teenager. Did this inability to cope with reality cause him to retreat into his own world? Zonker, do you think the factory and all it's rituals were his safe-haven? His way to try and control a life that he did not have a choice in?

My last question deals with insanity, did it run in the family? What sane person would think passing off a scarred daughter as a man would be a viable option? I mean, as bad as scars are, she was 3, the scars would have a lifetime to fade before her accident really came into play.

I guess I also never understood why, or even if the mom ran away. I mean, at this point, no character is really trustworthy. Could Frank's or even Eric's mom have been killed by the dad? If not, how could Frank's mom abandon him?

Ok, I know I posted quite a number of questions, it just seemed like there were a lot of loose ends (I may have missed some, though). I definitely thought Banks was creative and I enjoyed his style of writing. However, I'm not sure I liked so many points left up to my interpretation. Maybe I just need to read and dig a little deeper into the book?

Hi, Cynthia! Glad you were able to read this one and join in.

Okay, I totally think I missed the bit where Eric started dressing like a girl. Since you brought it up, it makes sense now that I know the ending. He probably was old enough to know Frank was a girl before the dog attack. Maybe their father's experiment is what drove Eric mad and made him set dogs on fire? Or, if Eric started dressing like a girl before the attack, it's what gave the father the idea to turn Frank into a girl?

I originally thought Eric's madness made the father lose his son and want to try again with his daughter. But now I'm not so sure. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the book and can't go back to find the cross dressing bit. Gah! I'm all confused.

In any case, clearly, the entire family is insane. And I wondered about the townspeople and other relatives, too, when I finished the book. Although living on an island is isolating, someone had to have known Frank was born a girl. Didn't Frank say something about their housekeeper being the midwife at his birth? Wouldn't she have known? Why doesn't she ever say anything?

You've brought up a lot of good questions, Cynthia. When I got to the end and found out the big twist, I asked myself, "Whoa. Did I just read what I think I read?" It was a shocker. However, I never thought about the ending in terms of the foreshadowing in the rest of the book. This one just got put on my list of books to reread because it truly deserves more attention.

I definitely see Frank's various rituals as an attempt to surround himself with a "sane" universe. I can't say that he's particularly successful, of course, and I think his idea of order is truly his alone. Nonetheless, I do think that his motivations behind the rituals are as normal as they get; namely, attempts create some sort of order out of chaos.

As for the question of who among the town's people knew the truth about Frank, I always did (and still do) believe that the housekeeper definitely knew. As for the rest of the townies, I'd guess that probably a fair number of the older residents knew although they probably didn't think of it in the same way that you or I might. First of all, I'm inclined to believe that they're rather tolerant of eccentricity when it's one of their own. Then the story of Frank being an occasional guest of "his uncle" on the island helps maintain the charade. Both of those, combined with the isolated nature of the Cauldhame's home and the usual closed-mouthed nature of a small town, would seem be enough to keep things under wraps.

Dear all,

have just read this book at uni in Germany and wanted to add a thought to your discussion. In case anyone is still reading this, as its a very old discussion...
Well, anyway, I think part of Frank's beahviour is due to his feeling of not being a proper boy/man. Thus he tries overexessively to do boyish or manly things. And for him that's killing, destroying, controlling etc. So I guess he tries to compensate for his lost manhod...

I am studing this book as a part of my A-Levels and I feel that the real issues of the novel are not in the murders Frank committed (or imagined he committed) but in the way he narrates them and deals with them. He sees them as a victory and something to be proud of and to be boastful about.

About Eric and his part in the book; I feel he is truely sane and I do not think that it is due to his father but rather due to what it tells you in the novel itself, the disabled child. This part of the novel was the most chilling and disurbing and therefore I find it hard to believe that someone would not go insane in witnessing it.

I feel Frank's father is an integral part of the plot and therefore I am focusing my thesis on the relationship between father and son. Although Frank's father is not a very well developed character I feel this adds to the sense of mystery of him and is a good techinque employed by Iain Banks.

This book was amazing and very different due to the ending and narration! Could not put it down!

post a comment














Comments on this site are moderated. If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by BookBlog before your comment will appear. Thanks for waiting.



 

Advertisements
 
 
Author:
Title:

Keyword:
Additional Features:
 First Edition
 Signed
 Dust Jacket
 Any Binding
 Hard Cover
 Soft Cover