You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ruth_neese 's review for:
Woman on the Edge of Time
by Marge Piercy
This book jumps between the experiences of 1970s Consuelo (Connie) Ramos in New York and the future of 2137. Connie is poor, lacks a college degree, and is Mexican-American. She has also been labeled "violent" and "mentally ill" for two reasons. One, her lover, Claud, died and she hit her daughter in a drunken haze of anger and despair. Two, she attacked her niece's pimp and broke his nose. Much of the 1970s narrative is set in a dismal inpatient mental institution to which Connie was involuntarily committed after she attacked her niece's pimp.
While in-between her first and second involuntary commitment, Connie encounters Luciente, a person from the future. Luciente seems corporeal, but is actually a mental projection. Connie is able to visit the future in the same way, as a mental projection. She finds the gender-neutral, technologically restrained, ecologically conscious future to be quite confusing. Especially when she snaps back to her bleak, over-medicated present. The crux of the novel is what will Connie choose to do about this potential future?
Marge Piercy wrote a new introduction for the 2016 edition of the book that explained how she was able to portray such an accurate picture of mental health care (or the lack of it) in the 1970s. At that time, anyone labeled "mentally ill" had no rights, legal or civil. Informed consent for treatment did not exist, and one of the most horrendous human experiments in New York history (Willowbrook) is mentioned in the book. As I nurse, I have practiced since the 1970s, and Piercy's depiction of mental health institutions is disturbingly accurate for that time period.
The triple jeopardy of being female, poor, and a woman of color is also a strong theme in the book. Women's rights were not written into law in the 1970s, and Connie suffers because of this lack of rights. This is why the future confuses her and why she has to make a painful choice.
While in-between her first and second involuntary commitment, Connie encounters Luciente, a person from the future. Luciente seems corporeal, but is actually a mental projection. Connie is able to visit the future in the same way, as a mental projection. She finds the gender-neutral, technologically restrained, ecologically conscious future to be quite confusing. Especially when she snaps back to her bleak, over-medicated present. The crux of the novel is what will Connie choose to do about this potential future?
Marge Piercy wrote a new introduction for the 2016 edition of the book that explained how she was able to portray such an accurate picture of mental health care (or the lack of it) in the 1970s. At that time, anyone labeled "mentally ill" had no rights, legal or civil. Informed consent for treatment did not exist, and one of the most horrendous human experiments in New York history (Willowbrook) is mentioned in the book. As I nurse, I have practiced since the 1970s, and Piercy's depiction of mental health institutions is disturbingly accurate for that time period.
The triple jeopardy of being female, poor, and a woman of color is also a strong theme in the book. Women's rights were not written into law in the 1970s, and Connie suffers because of this lack of rights. This is why the future confuses her and why she has to make a painful choice.