Blue Angel

Set in the 1990’s on the outskirts of Vermont at Euston University, Blue Angel, written by Francine Prose, twists the typical relational power of the cliché professor/student illicit affair.  The positions of power are reversed; whereby, the awkward, misfit, female student, Angela Argo, holds the power over her esteemed, tenured male professor, Dr. Theodore Swenson.  In its rare resolution where the antagonist, Angela, triumphs unscathed by slanderously destroying the protagonist’s, Professor Swenson, career and personal life, it would seem that the moral of Prose’s story is to remind readers that even those who have secured positions of power can be taken down in a moment, even by those who are timid and/or unassuming, in a “buyer beware, shop with care” kind of sentiment. 

The political climate of this small university is established in the beginning of the novel.  Swenson and his wife, Sherrie, a nurse at the university, attend the English Department’s faculty meeting.  It is led by the Dean to review the newly revised sexual harassment policy for which, according to Swenson, is “Puritan” in nature.  “No Euston College faculty member shall have sexual relations with a currently enrolled or former student, nor offer to trade sexual favors for academic advancement” (Prose, 2000, p. 33).   For Swenson, the rule is clear, but as history shows, not always easy to follow.  Professors and students having sexual relations have been occurring for decades.  Swenson recognizes the “repressive” nature of academia because neither he, nor his colleagues, would ever admit the truth about the “act” of teaching being “erotic” by nature.  “All that information streaming back and forth like some…bodily fluid” (Prose, 2000, pp.33-34).   He even references the Tree of Knowledge in Genesis where the forbidden apple is not just grown on any tree, but the tree endowed with the essence of teaching and learning (Prose, 2000, p.34).  For the past twenty years of Swenson teaching creative writing at Euston, unlike many of his long-standing colleagues, he had resisted any sexual involvement with a student, for according to him, “Teacher-student attraction is an occupational hazard” (Prose, 2000, p. 34).  Even so, a part of forty-seven-year-old Swenson regrets his missed opportunity of a sexual liaison with a student in his younger days when he would not have gotten fired for it.  It is a regret that is fuelled by his perceived effects of middle-age rendering him less sexually desirable and the aforementioned missed opportunity. 

Swenson draws the analogy of the classroom to that of “a lion’s den” and, he as teacher, is “a Daniel” (Prose, 2000, p.34).  Yet, his jealous, opportunistic, pathologically lying, black widow student, Angela Argo, is the instigator that throws him into the Lion’s Den accusing him of sexual harassment.  The other lions in the den with Angela are the Dean, whose job it is to not let the this small university be sued for sexual harassment; the Faculty-Student Women’s Alliance, who stand behind any female student who accuses her male professor of such a misdeed;  classmates of Angela’s, who resented Swenson’s overt  admiration of Angela’s writing;  Matt McIlwaine, who is in retaliation against Swenson for breaking up Matt’s and Swenson’s daughter’s relationship due to Matt’s reputation of being a date rapist; and Angela’s parents, who may or may have not coached Angela’s testimony.  Even God could not have protected Swenson as “a Daniel”, for ultimately Swenson broke the codified rule of Euston’s Sexual Harassment Policy:  “Thou Shalt Not Have Sex with Thy Student(s)”.

Well before Angela turns on her creative writing professor, Swenson, she is enamored with him.  As a well-known published author, she admires his work and she asks Swenson to review her own novel.  As Angela is too shy to read her work in class to her classmates, Swenson agrees to read what was to be read out loud in class by Angela.  To his surprise, Angela is a very talented writer and Swenson starts to admire Angela, as Swenson has had writer’s block for years.  Angela’s talent as a writer triggers romantic feelings in Swenson for her which eventually deepen into what he perceives as love.  It is at this point where the actions of Swenson’s character become unconvincing as he paves the way for his demise.  It is difficult to suspend belief that relatively soon after a department meeting warning about sexual misconduct that a tenured professor would take up the request from a student to take her computer shopping and offer to pick her up at her dormitory and have sex with her in her room, let alone even enter her room.  Swenson’s lack of discretion is simply not believable. 

The story’s climax is revealed when in a fit of anger, Angela blurts out to Swenson that she seduced him in order to get him to give her novel to his publisher.  She is exasperated that Swenson’s publisher would not read a novel by a mere student of his and becomes irate and divulges her disdain of Swenson’s tenured, comfortable, economically stable life.  It is clear that she is set to have a piece of Swenson’s pie, even if she has to have all his pie eaten.  Shortly after, the Dean notifies Swenson that Angela has accused Swenson of sexual harassment and plays him a recording of their aforesaid conversation, where unbeknownst to Swenson, Angela was wired.  Swenson notices that Angela has erased parts of the taped conversation manipulating the exchange so that it sounds like Angela agreed to have sex with Swenson in exchange for him to bring her work to his publisher.  In order to save the university from a lawsuit, the Dean recommends that Swenson quietly resign.  Swenson refuses and accepts that he may be fired if he loses the intramural hearing.  Swenson’s pledge to fight for justice redeems the realness of his character.  “…Swenson decides to take the college down with him.  He’s not going to go meekly…He’ll be damned if he rolls over” (Prose, 2000, p. 303).  But he does roll over and so does the reader’s investment in Swenson’s character.  He does not get a labour lawyer, he does not show how the taped evidence was so obviously tampered with and manipulated to frame him for sexual harassment.  He does not refute Angela’s accusations against him during the hearing, which are steeped in lies.  He does not point out Angela’s questionable perception of reality when she names Swenson as Professor Reynaud, who is a character in her novel.  Even though Swenson’s internal monologue deduces that Angela is “psychotic”-  “The girl can’t tell the difference between living breathing humans and the ones she’s invented” (Prose, 2000, p.376), he never verbalizes this.   The evidence is stacked against Angela and Swenson never fights for his own justice.  He just concedes and it unclear as to why and allows his career and marriage to fall into ruins and meekly walks away.

Although the moral of the story is sobering, the ending left me very dissatisfied.  It was so uncomfortable to read the intramural hearing’s tearing a man’s integrity and life apart based on lies.  I was even more uncomfortable with Prose’s demasculinization of Swenson.  I expected the author to relieve me of my intense discomfort with some sort of a twist that would pardon Swenson’s one sexual encounter with Angela through which she seduced him by pushing Swenson on her bed and disrobing herself.  I wanted Swenson to redeem himself by proving Angela to be lying and setting him up with the tampered taped recording.  I wanted Angela to be nailed to the cross for abusing and exploiting her power and ruining her professor’s life.  Like Swenson, I too wanted to know what drove Angela to do this, but the author only left the readers to speculate and never really know.  Too many questions were unanswered at the end of the novel and protagonist’s complacency was too unrealistic, even for fiction.  I did not buy into the protagonist’s weak character and I am glad that I did not buy the book.