Women's Barracks... yeah, I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I read this and honestly, I was embarrassed to check it out of the library because of the lurid, cheesy cover. I was curious because I like to study lesbian history and I read this kind of stuff with an analytic and evaluating mind. This books is a reprint of 1950's pulp fiction, and in this case, it's an actual true story french novel. I knew that back in the 50's LGBT people had to live deeply in the closet and so if you were gay or lesbian, it was difficult to even know if there were others like you. Lesbianism wasn't talked or written about openly, and apparently the only sources telling of its existence at that time were these kind of cheap pulp fiction novels. I was curious what they were like, and wondered if they had any literary value besides cheap entertainment. In retrospect, this book probably appealed to the prurient interest, or at least the readers' prurient fantasies, though it isn't even on a soft porn level. But in the 50's, it was probably shocking. So this book is supposed to have a "lesbian theme." When I finished it, I really disagreed with that statement, because even though there actually are 3 lesbian characters, they are not the main characters at all. The book is narrated by Tereska Torres, who was stationed with many other women of the French Free Forces in England in the women's barracks. Most of the action in this book consists of who these women sleep with because hooking up with other soldiers is all they are interested in. Apparently Tereska was a great listener, because she knows lots of detail about the other women, even as she narrates scenes in which she was not present at all. She talks about the inner thoughts and feelings of her comrades with more knowledge than is usually possible. Mostly she talks about poor little Ursula, who lied about her age to sign up for the Free French Forces, (which were similar to our WACS), who matures and becomes a woman by finally being brave enough to have sex with a man. Ursula had sex with one of the women at first, but then felt guilty, yet was struck with a huge crush on that woman who proceeded to totally ignore her. Thankfully the author says that woman wasn't even a real lesbian, because she slept with men just as easily. I was somewhat relieved about that, because if this character had been the lesbian example, that would have cast lesbians in a really inaccurate and bad light. The real lesbians in this book deal with the usual lesbian relationship intrigues. Interestingly, the narrator sees them dealing with the same problems the straight women encounter - seeking true love. Not everything she mentions about them is judgmental. None of the lesbians in this book go crazy, or kill themselves, which is what I had heard always happened to them in pulp fiction. But the narrator does pass some severe judgment on them, that they are lonely, sad, unsatisfied, never smile, and the that only male company they keep is that of "pederasts". (Pederasts are men who have homosexual relationships with young boys.) She describes one of the older lesbian officers in unflattering words as having the air of a "little old man." And she judges the two younger lesbians' relationship as unsatisfying because one of them is apparently so frustrated because she just can't make the other one pregnant. These two then proceed to have a threesome with her brother (yes, so realistic) and when he fails to get her girlfriend pregnant, they drift apart. Alas. So basically, here we have see some severe judgment of lesbian relationships: they must be unsatisfying because they can't get each other pregnant. This isn't the main story of the book, but probably the most saliva-producing for the uptight 1950's reader. Apparently, even though the straight women were quite liberated and made the independent choice to join the army and serve their country, they could only become "real women" once they had sex with men. This is the case not only for pathetic little Ursula but also for fun loving, easy going, confident Mickey. Mostly the book is about their sexual relationships and how they try to get married. I found this message ridiculous and reading about their efforts boring, but, like I said, my primary goal was to evaluate how lesbians are portrayed in pulp fiction. The book has some redeeming value because it is anti-war. In the end, it is pretty sad when certain characters die. Ursula's boyfriend in particular was a deep thinker and had great ideas about how life could be better after the war. Also, he was a Polish Jew, so at least this book was not anti-semitic, just misogynistic and homophobic. Three stars, because it is probably has value as a literary marker and sign of the time. Its messages are questionable but exactly what you wold expect.
The thing that struck me most about Women’s Barracks was how modern and dated it felt in equal measure. Modern in the sense that the setting, as the title suggests, exists away from the influence of men (all fighting in the war), a device that chick-lit has done to death in recent times eg. Sex and the City. Yet any hint of modern day sensibilities come crashing down with outmoded language. At times, comically to the modern reader, “gay” is used to mean “happy” but understandably stands out as an example of how language has changed. More jarring was the liberal use of “invert” as a descriptive term for lesbianism in the narrators more judgemental moments (this is explained by an interview with the author Torres. She clarifies that these lines were requested in the English translation as an attempt to appease any moral outrage that might arise from a book all about lesbians – Torres herself says she never held such disapproving views.)While this 1950 book is undoubtedly ground breaking and laid the foundation for the pulp fiction that was to come it’s incredible how, from a modern point of view, the narrative conforms to the status quo. For example the main characters are heterosexual with bisexual sensibilities. The self-identifying lesbian in the novel are side players. I felt the love triangle between Ann, Petite and Lee could have been more at the forefront of the story, yet isn’t. This is perhaps a sign that this idea was to boundary pushing even in a novel that tested perception of lesbianism? Interestingly the heterosexual relationships within the story are played out in traditional fashion of this time, namely actions outside of the traditional are punished in some way. In other words pre-marital sex leads death, grief, suicides or unwanted pregnancies. The equilibrium is always restored.Putting aside all these criticisms the book was written in 1950 where a sexual revolution was but a futuristic event. This novel should very much be read in that context, for that you should definitely read the foreword and afterword if you are reading the FEMME FATALES edition. While I enjoyed the book, it was certainly far from perfect. That being said I will be seeking out more from the pulp genre.
Do You like book Women's Barracks (2005)?
I know this book is representative of retro lesbian fiction and I'm sure it was something for the time it came out and had its market, but classic with historical value doesn't always translate to well written. I did listen to the whole book, but I found many of the characters tedious in who they are and the writing style was very disconnected. The narrator is a person telling a story years later after knowing all the events after the fact. However, in the telling, she rambles from one character to another with no clear focus and I found it both boring and distracting. As far as any lesbian content, it's very vague really. Some of the characters exhibit certain tendencies, however, it's kept rather vague. I can see how a lesbian reading this at original publication time would have loved it or identified.Still though, it was interesting on the level of getting a glimpse into a certain time period in history and how women got along in it during war.
—LVLMLeah
