THE SEXUAL LIFE OF CATHERINE M.

Marta Jiménez

About the sexual life of Catherine M.

Millet. Ed. Anagrama, "Panorama of
narratives, Barcelona, 2001

The first reading of the work of the title leads us

could lead to forming a mild protest:
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to include this?
book in a specific collection of
erotic literature? In fact, if the content
literary is debatable, explicitly
sexual is not at all, and can without
no effort to compete with any of the
titles of 'The Vertical Smile', both by the
severity as by the amount of load
sexual.

A second reflection (not reading: the

, apparently, so linear that it does not
seems to be necessary) can lead us to
to shade. Because if there is a basic component
from literature of any style (although
not the only one) is the ability to imagine. And the
an unnoticed reader tends to wonder what
what is real and what is fiction in the facts
reported by Millet. And not so much because
the narrated events may be hard to believe
(let's give this credit to the author), but
1
because it can be hard to accept that someone decides
explain them and make them public without trying
not even hiding under a pseudonym. The
título,La vida sexual de Catherine [Link] deja
to be a wink to the reader about this
particular, which tends to relate the work
with some classics of erotic literature
(case of The Story of O.)
It is the great and only joke of Catherine Millet:
on one hand, the title suggests fiction, in
the line of the anonymous in literature
classical, erotic or not; and, on the other hand, the
proudly stamped under the title
harshly takes us to the field of
reality. And this little game accentuates even more
the reader's bewilderment about the
particular. Un desconcierto que Millet parece
to assume and never try to clear up; in
at no time are there references with the object
to give credibility to the narration, nor
more or less direct appeals to the possible
reader to draw your attention to the
veracity of one passage or another.

From this first moment, the author

Catherine Millet "offers herself" to the eyes of the
reader with the same indiscriminate
indifference with which the character Catherine M.
offers to sexual games and episodes
que se narran en la obra. También a partir de
at this moment the winks disappear or
complicities with the reader. In fact, it seems
having been forgotten, overlooked, as if its

2
participation was dispensable and the fact that
to read or not what is explained was a simple
anecdotal detail; clearly, the book does not
it has been written with a reader in mind.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that

nor is there an attempt to systematize the narration.
The facts are not grouped under any criteria.
of course, it's not even attempted to maintain a line
chronologically more than slightly. The division
in chapters it also doesn't seem to have any more function
that stick to some formal minimums, and more
Well, it seems that the facts are being noted just as
as presented to the author's memory,
without barely any conscious filter, in a
confused collage.
It seems, then, that there are three characteristics
clear in the work that concerns us; the first:
the author/protagonist tends to unfold
one is Catherine Millet; the other, the
Catherine M. of the title). The second: the
misunderstanding of one with respect to the other;
there are aspects of Catherine Millet's life
who do not appear, or only in a tangential manner,
in the narrative (his profession, his family life,
his public activity...). The third: both
they dismiss the reader with the same calmness
viewer, despite the heavy burden
exhibitionist that is presumed in the
one o'clock actions and in the narration of the
another. Let's go, then, step by step.

3
Catherine Millet / Catherine M.

Catherine Millet is a professional of

prestige in his field, that of criticism of
art. She is a woman with a public projection
(even if it's within certain limits; no matter how
advanced as the French educational system is,
we do not believe that an art critic can
to equate with a pop star, neither
siquiera allí), con un sinfín de relaciones
professionals and one can believe that a life
intense social. It is the typical profile of
character who, in our Mediterranean culture
from the neighbor's patio, I would never display a life
personal tan apparently away from the
norm, and far from it, I wouldn't put it for
written. And Catherine Millet does it.

But at all times there is a reservation in this

woman, on the other hand so little shy, and it is
that, between her and the public light, puts to
Catherine M. as a screen. She is sualter.
in the narrated action, not because it
pretend to never give the impression that you are a
fictional character, but because there is always
una fina línea que las separa, creemos que sin
that it responds to a deliberate attempt to
"cover-up", but rather to an attitude
unconscious defense. But there they are
two, each on one side of the line, separated
but so united that it's hard to see where it begins
one starts and the other ends.

4
There are some data, however, that us
they allow us to distinguish them: in their explanations
"theoretical" (to make ourselves understood: when we do not
explain some sexual scene), talk Catherine
Millet, analyzing, arguing (with more or
less accuracy, that doesn't have much either
importance), always trying to establish
a relationship between the behavior of your
creature and some element of its life, of its
thought that gives meaning (the number, the
space...); not because it intends to explain itself
before the reader, nor clarify their guidelines for
behavior, nor to justify them in any way, but rather
rather because it seems incapable of observing a
image (professional deformation?) without
find a composition, a line
argumentative, a background. His speech is more
complex, more reflective, more nuanced; but
never personalized to the point of
to translucently express feelings, and that is a trait that
it strongly draws attention throughout the
reading: she is a woman capable of speaking her
sexuality, but at no point does it seem to be
capable of "feeling" in response to what it explains.

There is, deep down, a tremendous emptiness (perhaps

there should be a third character for
fill it, a part that I had just completed
this puzzling set that forms
Catherine Millet and Catherine M.?) in the place
in what we would expect to find the woman (she
Call it what you will) that explains to us "what
feels

5
response to what she feels. That woman is
absent, and we cannot know if it is a
involuntary absence, or the result of a
conscious camouflage strategy. But the
The thing is that she is not here.

Catherine Millet, on the other hand, is.

explain like a professional: describe,
analysis, composes pictorially very
living, moving pictures, narrative like
they can be collective paintings of a
Boticelli. Some paintings whose theme is always,
with any desired variations, a scene
sexual.

And in those pictures is Catherine M. She lives in

they, act on them. And, from them, we them
explain; but not with the reflective capacity of
on the other hand, but with the simplicity
a creature: does things, others do them, or
they do them, sees things, goes to places, finds
to other people... Everything is pure narration, in
the sense that it does not mix with any
reflection, nor is there any inflection in the
character: says what it does, in a way
simple, sometimes simplistic, schematic, without
shades.

This is the Catherine M. from the title. And her

frames are what is referred to in the title
sexual life, although, if we were
meticulous, we would ask the author, for
coherence, that the title referred to

6
The life of Catherine M. Because Catherine M.
he/she lives only in those moments, it is not
it is necessary to qualify the word 'life':
Catherine M. lives as she acts sexuality
that Catherine Millet explains. Each one has
a role in the performance. And their voices mix.
sometimes, but they don't get confused.

Creator / creature

Catherine Millet, therefore, is the one who allows

that Catherine M. lives; she gives him the framework, the
movement, the narrative thread. But it does not wrap.
to his creature with a life outside the frame
in which it places her: it does not allow her to relate
with herself, her author; the fact that
both speak in the first person and under the
the same name (or almost) does not give them any
type of intimacy or complicity. Like a
chorus of Greek theater, narrates the action, the
explain to the viewer/reader (with great
reservations, as we have discussed), but not
intervene: Millet does not get involved; that third one
part of the whole we were talking about earlier
he imposes his emptiness between the two of them and upon each one

of them: they seem to be surrounded and broken

through an empty space in which part is lost
of the identity of both, and that prevents them
to form a single character.

Through that void, Catherine Millet and

Catherine M. and she almost ignore each other.

7
Catherine Millet only provides the voice for the
performance of Catherine M. And this, when she performs
in his paintings, he feels no curiosity
by Millet, and does not seem to be aware of his
existence, of that part that could be of
she herself who stays outside her frame; the
a voice; it separates almost everything else.

You see it and you don't see it

That could be said about what they explain to us.

Catherine Millet and Catherine M.: we it
they tell everything; they explain nothing to us. After
to receive the evoked images right in the face
for both, to know in detail what
they do, how, where, with whom and in what
posture, we don't know anything about them.

Oh, to put it another way: we have been able to

to see them, because they have allowed us to look at them,
but they haven't taught us anything: there hasn't been
no gesture towards the reader to explain to him,
make him understand, guide him. They have left him alone
with its perplexity, and it costs us nothing
imagining them laughing mischievously like two
naughty girls who mock from a distance
his victim after ringing a doorbell and
to have forced someone to open a door.

Perhaps that was what they intended. Or perhaps they were looking for
a complicity with a third party that later does not
they have known how to earn. Or maybe they didn't count for

8
nothing with a reader, and this is just a
consequence, just a side effect
relevance, because what is truly
important for them is to speak and act their
sexuality as another way to practice it.

But, looking closely, it doesn't really have much either.

importance. The reader, after all,

you can close the book and your eyes when
I want. They, without a doubt, do not need him.

SUMMARY