The reader who is really interested in The Sexual Life of Catherine M. will probably be dissatisfied because "there is absolutely nothing in it of what you might expected with this title-. For instance, "her first kisses are not being recalled, but there is nothing about the first real touches she felt neither- (Károlyi 25.). This is the reason why a lot of people puts it away disillusioned: they are supposed to read narratives that are full of these descriptions. But for those, who represent the other aspect, the source of confusion will perhaps be that the writer ranks all her stories among chapters like the quantity, the space or the wrinkled space, trying to put its tone into philosophical heights. Though "placing the adventures among these clumsy, affected chapter titles might represent some kind of will for correct composing and this means we can comprehend it as a not quite good experiment to make it a literary work- (Károlyi 25.).
But as we know, the reader, love it or not, will probably want to get a good explanation on the not very usual attitude of literary experts. On the one hand, they seem to agree that "seeing this book as a piece of art is completely impossible- (Károlyi 25). On the other hand, various interpretations of it appear again and again. Trying to explain how it is possible that a book, which, as we know, simply does not belong to contemporary literature, is still in the focus of literary criticism, would be a very daring, but not a useless act. So after one of the most important critics, the reader himself, did not know how to deal with it, how to understand it and where to put it, the criticism took over and tried to solve the problem.
Few interpretations tried to approach it as a postmodern work of art, but soon it became obvious that a book "without any personalities, with no feelings, love, passion or desire, a book that does not even give a chance to its readers to analyze its characters, because they are so empty and unscrupulous, and a book that is neglecting even thrill and tension is, unfortunately extremely boring, and cannot be seen as something that represents the art of nowadays- (Károlyi 25.
