I had almost forgotten about Kathryn Harrison and her book, or infamous book, The Kiss, until I came across it during some research for a recent project—The Kiss, the book about Harrison's incestuous relationship with her father, a book for which, surprisingly or not, Harrison took much flack and some pretty harsh media attacks.
The story, simply put, is this: Harrison had a long and not-so-great relationship with her mother; she at least had some kind of contact with her, which although it was not good, and the mother was self-absorbed to say the least, and obviously still in love with the father, seemed better than nothing at all; the two lived with the grandparents for a while. As for the mother, even though she does date other men, she remains as "true and as loyal" to the father as one can be under the circumstances, as Harrison writes,"Romantically fixated" on him, the absent and almost-ghostly figure. She is true in her heart, in so many words and, for whatever reason, perhaps his charmisma or charm, none other can take his place.
Harrison is raised by her mother's parents, she writes, and lives in their house until she is seventeen. For whatever reason, it is essentially verboten to even mention her father's name. Her parents divorce when she is six months old, leaving Kathryn with few memories of her father and only a few vague photographs to go on, and what she is told by her family, which isn't so great and will prove to be prophetic.
Her father is absent, ghostly, almost mythical in some sense, in that not being able to discuss or talk about him necessarily lends him a strange power, and though this is inadvertent, no doubt, it creates in Harrison’s mind a natural curiosity about who this man is; and more, she develops that curiosity as any child would about a missing or absent father.
When asked what she looks like by a family friend, Harrison says, I don’t know, to which the family friend responds, "Ahh, a Guardian Angel." But the mother must break the spell: "Surely angels don’t wear suits," she says snippily and almost snidely, as it sounds from what is written.
The fact of his being so forbidden only lends the father that "book on the top shelf" temptation that children have when you tell them they cannot have something; it only serves to make them yearn and become yet more curious, and surely this is what happened to young Kathryn. To compound the issue, the mother has literally censored family albums, editing out the father whenever possible and even editing out unflattering pictures of herself (this much is not so unusual, the rest seems more than odd), though she notes, the mother does save a few photographs of herself, and there remain some photographs of the father in the album, though he is "always alone in the frame."
Article comments
1 - DrPat
I'll not say how, but I do have personal experience with child abuse, and I know how it colors every other experience in the child's life, even into adulthood.
Harris is simply "writing through" this topic; perhaps when she has included it as theme or sub-note in a few more books, it will free her to write about something else.
2 - sade
right: crypto, i agree with your obviously astute observation. in Exposure she felt much freer to write about what had happened to her and even though The Kiss is cleaner in some ways - by that i mean, clearer, less cluttered if you will, it doesn't pack the emotional wallop of say, Exposure etc. Harrison can be great when she wants to be; obviously not ever going to be a classic but at the same time, a good contemporary writer. The Kiss was a bit of a let down though i worry that this is because of some voyeuristic thing on our part, and wanting to know more than perhaps we have a right? I'm not sure, it's just a fleeting thought...
thanks, as ever, for reading... be well...
3 - sade
ta ever so...
4 - Cass
It was a weird book. Perhaps I didn't enjoy it because it was hard to sympathize with the protagonist. Like you say in your article, I'm of the opinion that she could have said no at any time. *shrugs*
5 - sade
it's certainly complicated, but yes, i know what you mean... she could have said no at some point, that's my own personal feeling and it seems like Harrison had many unresolved issues with her father and perhaps on some level wanted, though i hate to say that, or needed this to happen; i can't say, i'm not her and wouldn't presume to know. So i can only say that it is no doubt a lot more complicated than most of us can ever know. But yes, i think you and i agree for the most part.
6 - sadi polizzotti
As i wrote ~~~ Mr. Henson:
Certainly, there may be some validity to that argument, though it seems to me a surface-level argument. Yes, she had reached the age of consent, but the abuse of a father can and often does continue beyond childhood, and if the abuse is bad enough, or the lacking or the loss perceived or real or otherwise, it can have a profound effect on a child, such that they are manipulated into a relationship as an adult. It may be rare, but then, where are the statistics on this? And given the shame that all too often surrounds survivors of incest, it seems unlikely that all or even most cases would be reported.
i don't see how that romanticizes in any way incest, and having written a great deal about incest as the terrible and negative thing that it is i am shocked to hear anyone say that i would write or feel otherwise. I have counseled incest survivors as a layminister, i have worked with incest survivor groups and more....
How you could possibly see any endorsement on my part here strikes me as outrageous. If you are speaking about harrison then take it up with her agent, publishing house, write to them and have the letter forwarded.
To me, she is and was a victim/survivor like any other who deserves nothing but our full empathy. If you cannot find it in your heart to empathize with her for sharing a story that may have actually helped other people, then i'm sorry, i just can't see where you are coming from...
I don't know you, but ask yourself this: what have you done to help incest survivors? Maybe a great deal - i don't know, and i dont' mean that as a challenge. I mean it as a comment that i pray will cause some introspection and less perjorative judgment of someone who had the courage to come forward.
Whatever you think, you can give her that much; i do not feel she romanticizes; i may not like Harrison, but she captured for me perfectly the seduction of a father on a young girl and it is a slow and calculated sick seducuction.
I'm sorry you couldn't see it that way.
Thanks for reading,
sadi r-p.
7 - Tim
Did it occur to you that she didn't say no to the relationship because she wanted the relationship? Why are women always victims? And why are men always predators? Is it really that unfathonable to think they were sexualy attracted to each other and went with their passion? This review of the book didn't do much for me because it had a priori moral judgments (which I guess is a fancy term I just made up that simply means prejudice) and that doesn't tell me anything about the book, just the author's puritanical worldview. Which perhaps that's what the field of criticism is really only about in the first place.
8 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
Hi Tim:
I think in any relationship of this sort - father and daughter, or teacher professor, or psychiatrist patient, priest etc - then there is a power balance and that makes all the difference. The onus is the person with the greater power to respect those boundaries.
Listen, i'm not a Harrison "fan" - and no, i'm not going to go along with your theory of, in short, "she wanted it" (in so many words, this is what you are saying when you say she wanted to sleep with him, no?). That's going too far. It's quite normal for young girls to be coy and taquine around older men, esp. their fathers, but again, the onus is on the parent not to do anything and deal with it as is.
I'm working on a whole book about this re: Lewis Carroll who many say was a pedophile and i just don't buy it for one second. So it's hardly, as you can see i hope, that i am ready to jump on the shrill-feminist-bus of "he did it he did it he did it" with absolutely no proof positive.
Harrison's book is her memoir. She's written other books that i think are far superior like "Exposure" which if you ask me is closer to the 'truth' (if indeed the story is true and i see no reason why she would make it up only to be flamed, and more, to be flamed by you, to have you flame me, etc etc - that is just stupid).
I think she is genuine. Maybe she wanted the affair for a while or thought she did, but to think that she wanted this in her right mind is simply put, nuts. She was a young girl in crisis and in need of help and likely medication as well and i'm glad she finally got the help she needed.
People will do things out of character when they are screwed up psychologically and they may even do them willingly, but does that mean we take advantage of them? OR would it have been better and more respectable for the father to have sought the help his daughter, who he supposedly loved?
AS i said, i'm not a big fan of Harrison, but you put me in a position in which you are asking me to condone what essentially boils down to an unstable young woman experiencing a break of somekind likely and being taken advantage of by someone who, by rights and who ought know better, she ought trust. That's sad... pitiful.
I can't say anymore about it.
I'm afraid you and i are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think she 'wanted it' at least, not in her 'right' mind. I understand you sticking up for men and that's fine; maybe it would help if men did not molest their daughters then there would be nothing to write about - that would be one rememdy and i write this as someone who loves men and who has done a great deal of reseach on the topic, as no doubt, have you... we're stuck.
i think we've all said what we have had to say - at least, i have. I'm glad you read and chimed in though. You raise a valid point and make me address something that perhaps i did not address in the piece.
9 - lgn
You can dance all around it, with mind exercises, but we all know that men (or women) should not molest their son's or daughters. It cannot be justified.
10 - lgn
You can dance all around it, with mind exercises, but we all know that men (or women) should not molest their son's or daughters. It cannot be justified.
11 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
you're preaching to the choir, truly truly. just take my word for it. You can always reach me directly through my web site at:
tant mieux
be well, and take good care,
sadi
12 - Marie
Having Been a victim of abuse, and never having met my father, I can relate to Harrison's experience of a abuse on some levels. But, I am also perplexed at the age that the abuse started to take place. I was 6 years old when my abuse began and it lasted until I was about 8. I believe it stopped when my abuser knew that I was old enough to understand that what he was doing was wrong,and that I would no longer be a silent victim. I guess what troubles me is that I feel like the mind and the body disassociate when sexual abuse occurs, so that even if as a victim your body is experiencing some sort of pleasure from your abuse, your mind is always screaming "this is wrong". As a 6,7, and 8 year old child I knew this.So, my question is, What chemical imbalance was present in her that she at 20 years of age, could or would not do anything to stop it. It is very troubling for me to think that at some point her mind and body became one with the abuse, and that she no longer felt sexually abused, but maybe just mentally? I have read the book twice in hopes of better understanding Harrison's experience and have yet to fully comprehend her reasons for establishing a sexual and emotional relationship with her abuser, when she did not have to but, she chose to.
13 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
Hi Marie:
Clearly, as you well know, nobody ever asks to be absued, sexually or otherwise. Age to me is of no consequence here as this is about manipulation pure and simple. Let's say that this were not her father - that this were someone else manipulating her, would you say that this were NOT sexual abuse? I would argue that it still is.
That it was/is her father makes it that much worse bcause of the conflict she surely felt - on the one hand, desperately wanting and needing his love and approval, and on the ohter, being repulsed by the means in which he would only give it. One thinks and accepts with the mind of a child and is immediately then, infantilized, in such a situation with a parent, no matter how old the person/ individual may be. Further, I think Harrison sufffered from Stockholm Syndrome and somewhat identified with her "captor" her rapist, etc. by identifying him in a more manageable way for her to cope, which was that of "lover" so that she could retain her own identity without totally losing it. I can understand that - it makes perfect sense to me.
I would not say that SHE is the one who is or was so screwed up here. I am somewhat surprised and saddened that you, as someone who has awfully been through childhood sexual abuse yourself, then you know all too well that it is never the child or the survivor who is to "blame" or who needs help or is unbalanced in some way (most often not, so why should Harrison be the exception? Because of her age? That is not logical) - this is blaming the victim, the survivor. The only person at fault here - the frankly, fucked up one, was the father.
No doubt you've read about Stockholm Syndrome, but it may be worth checking out some more. I really think that looking at her age is the wrong place - it's not her age, it's the power dynamic and that it put's her emotional age and stage right back to that of a nine-year-old and he knew it and that is positively predatory and unforgivable.
I know it, and you know it too.
Be well,
S.R.P.
14 - MARIE
Hello S.R.P,
I totally understand your reaction to what I wrote, and can appreciate your scientific, and obviously professional opinion. I have to say that unless you have been sexually molested you cannot truly apreciate what this does to your self being and your psyche. Sexual abuse, like any other form of abuse is very damning. My observation is merely that Harrison allowed her abuser to do what he did because she was a victim already. The abuse she experienced at the hands of her mother, left her open to, how she handled the abuse that took place at the hands of her father. I am not putting the blame on Harrison, I am merely perpeplexed by how her mind worked, and how she sought to protect herself from the abuse. And, I do believe that her way of coping was by substituting his abuse with love.
So, when I ask, was there a chemical imbalance, what I mean is, there must have been something missing.Something in her brain did not fully do its job. We as humans are built to cope and withstand enormous amounts of pain and hardship, right,but I also believe that, many of us can experince all those trials and tribulations, but still know that its not right. To me, harrison at 20 was perfectly capable and reasonable, and therefore should hold some accountabilty. Now, that does not mean she is to blame for the abuse, but maybe that she did not have to be victimized to that extent.Many, have even argued that the realtionship was consentual and that she might have enjoyed it. That is definitely not my view. If a 12 year old has intercourse with her 18 year old boyfriend, whom she loves, is it consentual? According to the law it isnt. Her age has everything to do with that fact the he will be spending some time in jail. Harrison, continued a relationship that was wrong by all standards. She developed emotions for her abuser that were not normal. I am sorry but either it was consentual or, as i believe it she had a chemical imbalance.
I firmly believe that someone who is completely reasonable and knows the difference between right and wrong will hopefully have come to the conclusion that what was "happening" was wrong. Which, by no means refers to her as doing anything wrong.
The point is S.R.P, that i dont think that if Harrison were truly healthy of the mind before the abuse occured, she would have allow this to happen to her. I can only draw on my experience, and say that the fact that I had not had any previous abuse or trauma in my life,helped me.I was kinda like a clean slate, and therefore was able to recognize that my abuser did not care for me or loved me, because the other people in my life who did, did not treat me like that. Abuse in any form can be very damning, specially for people who have been exposed to it repeatedly.
Thank you for you insight, This outlet has allowed me to see what people think about sexual abuse. Its no longer a big shameful secret. So, thank you for your comment.
Marie
15 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
Hi Marie:
Please, don't apologise at all - no need! I know whereof you speak absolutely, i really do.
You make many valid points, yet I still feel that Harrison was put back in the position of being that "nine year old" or however old and the power dynamic was off. I do not believe she had an imbalance, as I said, but rather certainly PTSD and / or combined with Stockholm Syndrome, which is very real and very serious.... We could really get into this and it's such an interesting topic and very sad. I really do not feel that it was consensual with Harrison, no matter what anyone has said about her in the media, which was, i think, grossly unfair and shows a profound misunderstanding, once again, of childhood sexual abuse.... as I am sure you have encountered yourself. It is all too often "blame the victim" (victim is a term I hate, b/c it really is survivor, altho no doubt the child was victimized, without question).
I will, no doubt, write more about this. When I do, I will post the link here.... There is much to say on the topic. You do, of course, no doubt, know a lot about Stockholm Syndrome I am sure: if not, and I mean no offense, so please take none (because I did not fully comprehend myself for it is not "easy" to fully grasp), if you have not already (and you prob. have, so please forgive me....) perhaps check it out some more.
I myself have great empathy for Harrison - I blame only her father. Not her one bit.
I send my very very best to you.
S.R.P.
16 - Dan
I personally believe, from what I've read here in the reviews, that no one has actually reached the main point of the book. The book, while it largely consists of her relationship with her father, isn't about the incestuous relationship. It's more about her relationship with her mother.
Had her relationship with her mother been a "healthy" relationship, most of what happened in the book wouldn't have happened.
Reasons why I believe this:
1.) She wouldn't be looking for the attention of an adult figure , more specifically a parental figure.
2.) When her mother dies, the relationship ends. As abruptly as it began, it ends.
3.) The book ends with a dream about her mother! That has to be the most obvious clue!!
4.) In the beginning of the book, Kathryn talks about how she wants to get revenge on her mom (example: mom buys dress for her that's too small -> she goes anorexic) The thing that her mother wants most of all, however, is to be with Kathryn's father again. What better way to get revenge on her mother than by starting a relationship with her father?
Also, to SRP:
You stated in one of your earlier responses that:
"Maybe she wanted the affair for a while or thought she did, but to think that she wanted this in her right mind is simply put, nuts."
You do realize that the entire book, with the exception of the part of the book that her mother dies to the end, she isn't in the right state of mind, right? Which, in turn, means that the entire relationship with her father was wanted.
17 - Gil
Best insight of the whole exchange belongs to Dan. Harrison threw a curve ball and SRP didn't get it.
The reflexive association of incest with child abuse, even when the incestuous relationship was initiated when the daughter is a young adult, prevented SRP from grasping the more nuanced meaning of the situation that Dan caught. Speculation about Stockholm syndrome, automatic regression of Harrison to childhood in the presence of her father (when his role in her childhood was distant and largely mythic), and lingering effects of childhood manipulation leading to the relationship are rather farfetched attempts to fit the relationship into the template of abuse. The issue of parental power was raised, however, the basis for the father's power over his 20 year old daughter is never substantiated. Did he become a figure or psychological power? Yes, but hardly in the sense of the power that is normally associated with a parent. As uneasy as it may make some, the best conclusion is that the relationship was one of mutuality, albeit one that reflected unhealthy drives in both father and daughter. Was the father motivated by symbolic attempt at a second chance with the relationship he might have had with his wife? Was he grasping at a closeness that he regretted never having with his daughter? Would the father have entered the relationship if he were more involved in his daughter's upbringing? Insight into the father's drives is quelled by the simplistic notion that he was a predator or a beast.
The notion of a daughter consenting to, or (in the case of Susan Smith) initiating, an incestuous relationship is an anathema, but its reality should be acknowledged. It is not necessarily a product of child molestation. One of the first lessons pubescent girls learn is that sexuality is a source of power. Sexuality can gain the favor of powerful men, including the ultimate powerful man in the daughter's world. The teacher crush phenomenon is well known and related to this dynamic. If there is a mother/daughter power struggle, sexual conquest of the father can be the ultimate power move. Add separation trauma to the mix, with conflict between independence and the desire for reassurance as the daughter approaches adulthood, the motives for daughters in incest become understandable. Not to be endorsed, just understood. None of this, of course, absolves the father of the responsibility to be the adult and make the right decision should these dynamics occur.
18 - sadi ranson-polizzotti
Gil - you're wrong. Stockholm Syndrome I know more about than I care to: I do also think that this does have a lot to do with the mother but yes, Stockholm Syndrome plays a huge role here. To pigeon hole me so neatly as you seem to have or want to (and i think this is what people want to do with Harrison too) it's just not that simple. Someone wrote, We all know that this is wrong.
Yes: I could not agree more strongly. Absolutely resolutely. It is ALWAYS wrong.
Do not presume to know me - Harrison wrote to my mind, and I'll say it again, a truer story in Exposure. The Kiss is more direct and it is honest. I think it is misunderstood because to some readers she seems complicit - and yes, of course, anyone with any experience and knowledge knows that with Stockholm Syndrome you cannot give genuine consent - that's the whole point. Same with grief repetition, which may also have played a role.
Comment away, just please don't tell me who I am or what it is you feel I am missing simply because I haven't shouted it loudly enough for you, etc. There is no reason for this sort of thing and maybe I am wrong, I hope so, but it sounded to me rather personal and a touch nasty. That's uncalled for - i should say most especially when dealing with this subject matter, but at any time. I do want to know what you have to say of course: but please do not inform me of what i already know - i also didn't say that i ride dressage. I also didn't note that there is some competitive edge between the mother and daughter that is so totally beyond... etc. There is plenty more to say... that i did not say it does not mean i do not know it. If you want an article on Stockholm Syndrome, really, I'll write it.