Diary of an Oxygen Thief - Anonymous

What is an oxygen thief? A person who steals your breath away, occurring when you gasp in shock, when you struggle to breathe immediately after a heart break.

I will admit that this novel was very difficult for me to read. I struggled to get past the blatant and revolting misogyny that oozes from it’s pages.

BUT I decided to analyze the novel as a criticism of toxic masculinity; arbitrary ideals and socially-constructed attitudes dictated by the patriarchy that enforce the gender roles of men as unemotional, violent and sexually aggressive. To clarify, when I use the term ‘patriarchy’ I am discussing the social system that unjustly oppresses both women and men by dictating gender roles, as well as enforcing white male dominance. I am not picking on men when I say ‘patriarchy’, but am discussing the archaic and problematic system that still dominates our culture.

Therefore, I believe that the novel is constructed in a deliberate way so that the reader despises the narrator. The danger of this novel lies in displaying violence against women, male dominance, mental manipulation, and abusive relationships without subverting these themes. Moreover, we should analyze the authors decision to remain Anonymous. We do not know who the author is, and therefore cannot ask them about their intentions.

Is the narrator hyperbolized to achieve an Alienation effect (distancing the audience/readers from the work so that they are capable of critiquing what they are reading)?

I can only hope and assume that the author is critiquing toxic masculinity, instead of actually supporting the narrator's claims, which could work towards normalizing victim blaming and perpetuating rape culture if taken seriously. The narrator can be analyzed as a hyperbolized anti-feminist, a hyper-masculine patriarchal and problematic character. He describes and treats women as passive, helpless animal-like creatures to be preyed upon, objects that he can use and abuse for his own pleasure. The narrator feels no remorse for his actions, and fails to acknowledge his own ignorances and prejudices.

At one point early in the novel he says “I discovered the word ‘misogynist’. I remember thinking it hilarious that it had ‘Miss’ as a prefix” (p6). This should be seen as a hyperbolized examination of toxic-masculinity that asserts sexual aggression. The word misogyny actually means “a hatred of women”, and comes from the Greek word misogynia; misein means to hate, and gyne means women/queen. The term misogyny is not funny, but if we're playing that game, then that's Miss Queen to you.

This is a moment that allows for alienation, a moment that distances the reader from the text allowing them to question what they are reading, to remember that this is just a novel and should be looked at through a critical lens, instead of getting lost in the world of the novel, and absorbing the text as natural and inevitable. The character, although I will admit he possesses some witty moments, primarily comes across as whiny, and self-absorbed asshole who craves attention, and who seems to have gotten away with his previous actions, relatively unscathed. He appears unchanged and unapologetic at the end of the novel, which leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, and reminds you of how reality sometimes leaves you feeling the same way.

Why does the author make you hate the narrator?

This is a question I have been asking myself since the first several pages. I acknowledge that maybe, not everyone hates this narrator. Someone might identify with him, or think of him as a Casanova (*makes small gagging noise*). BUT I believe that we should critique him, and we should look at him as an allegory of toxic-masculinity. This story can be interpreted and critiqued to reveal a hidden (political and/or moral) message,

a story that displays the problematic elements of how the patriarchy enforces aggressive ideals of masculinity on men. This exaggeration of the narrator's attempts at sexual dominance estranges the reader from the text. This narrator does a great job of making your skin crawl and your stomach turn. Every ounce of my being wanted to get away from this character, and I will admit that I had to put the book down for several days before I felt physically capable of returning to the novel. Maybe this is my internal and natural response to toxic-masculinity. The only way I could convince myself to finish this novel was by removing myself from the world of the text, by distancing myself so that I could read it safely. This is why I believe that the author is aiming to alienate their readers from the novel, for their readers' own mental health and safety. I hope that the author is critiquing toxic-masculinity by hyperbolizing this character, so that the readers can understand why they find him difficult to stomach, and why characters like him are problematic.

Why can't I feel satisfied with the ending?

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

The third 'part' of the novel revolves around a girl character who tricked our narrator into falling in love with her. He ironically describes her as someone who took advantage of him and hurt him (in the exact same way that he had been hurting other women). She is his foil; a character who possesses opposite qualities to highlight specific traits in the other character. If our narrator is rude, harsh, blunt, and aggressive, she is coy, cold, calculating, patient and deadly. Unfortunately, even with this foil character there is no sense of closure or accomplishment at the end of the novel. Although it appears that the female ‘antagonist’ successfully breaks his heart and humiliates him, the narrator breezes over it, barely acknowledging the event that the entire novel had been building up towards. As a reader, initially I was not satisfied with his ‘punishment’, because he showed no remorse, seeming to be barely affected by ‘her’. But the more I stepped back and thought about it, the more I could see his toxic-masculinity oozing from the pages. He is the patriarchal goal of the unemotional and unaffected male, who suppresses his feelings and refuses to acknowledge the power of a strong woman. He is a stereotype through and through. He maintains a disgusting level of ignorance and scrambles to maintain his white-male dominance throughout the entirety of the text.

If this were a critique of toxic masculinity, it may explore if, how and why these stereotypical misogynists still exist today. Unfortunately, unless the author comes forward, we can never fully understand the piece, and can only assume the author's intentions. Without the context of the author, the novel's misogynist treatment of women remains as the predominant interpretation. Through the display of these harmful actions, we only perpetuate similar stories, granting permission for these narratives to exist. We must critique them carefully, and recognize that these opinions and actions are dangerous and unacceptable in society.

Sonic Approved