Freddy’s Book
Freddy’s Book by John Gardner (1980). Published by Ballantine Books. 214 pages.
The story of Freddy’s Book starts in modern times, narrated in the first person by a chummy professor named Winesap, open minded and jolly, a professor of something called “Psycho-history. Winesap is a refreshing character, genuinely optimistic and kindly, free from all the overblown vanity and professional jealousy that characterize academic characters in most modern literature. It’s especially noteworthy that he seems to be a champion of the talents of the young: he is easily inspired by the prospect that one of the students he lectures to may be “some young Gibson or Macaulay not yet conscious of how good he is.” At a party, Winesap meets a crotchety, mean-tempered professor named Agaard, a scholar of Scandanavian history whom Winesap admires academically even though he finds him personally repulsive. After accepting an invitation to Agaard’s house, Winesap then patiently sits by and endures a barrage of criticism hurled at him by Agaard: real history should be confined to fact, not fiction and fancy. In Agaard’s eye, Winesap represents a sign of fatal decadence.
Why, then, does Agaard invite Winesap to his house at all? The answer has to do with his son, Freddy. Described by his own father as a monster, Freddy Agaard stands seven feet tall and has voluntarily locked himself in a room filled with books. He shows signs of being a genius, but the real nature of his intelligence remains a mystery because he refuses to show anyone the book he’s written. Agaard knows that Freddy admires the work of professor Winesap, and hopes that Freddy will show his book to Winesap, which he eventually does, dropping it off for him in the dead of night.
The book is called King Gustav and the Devil. The first 57 pages of Freddy’s Book tells the story of how Winesap gets possession of the book on a cold, snowy Wisconsin night and the rest of the novel consists only of the text of this strange story Freddy has written. We never find out what Winesap’s reaction to the book is, we never find out whether Freddy eventually is able to escape his self-imposed isolation. But the framing story of Freddy, Winesap and Agaard does serve to prime our minds for the fact that we’re embarking on a weird journey into a narrative terrain very remote from anything we’d expect from contemporary American fiction.
The story concerns Gustav Vasa of Sweden, an actual historical figure, and his faithful friend, the knight Lars-Goren. Lars-Goren is a taciturn man, who is “considered to be of great intelligence, for though he thought slowly, he thought clearly and soundly, so that again and again his opinions were found to be more valuable in the end than the opinions of men quicker and more dazzling.” Indeed, throughout the story Lars-Goren’s thinking process is so slow that he seems entirely inactive. He basically acts as a passive, but very reflective witness as he watches his friend Gustav Vasa be tempted by the Devil himself into starting a revolution against Denmark for Swedish independence. While the plot is filled with historical upheavals, with insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, conspiracies and military campaigns, all these events occur at such a remote distance to the plot that we get the sense that these are merely a mask for something that is emerging much more slowly: the birth of a new sort of civilization.
The most striking element of the story is the Devil, who walks freely about, takes on all sorts of forms, and often makes no secret as to who he is. His role is always to entice more turmoil and bloodshed. He appears on all sides of every conflict, counseling not only Gustav Vasa but also the Danish King Kristian and the supremely cynical Bishop Brask.
We get the sense that for the Devil, all the constant struggle and change in government actually represents a sort of stasis: as long as people keep sowing conflict, the human spirit can never grow.
And the Devil seems farthest away during the prolonged and serene reveries of Lars-Goren as he turns his back on the business of helping found a kingdom and visits his estate, taking joy in seeing his children going up and reflecting on the duties a feudal lord bears to his peasantry. He is especially touched when he sees Bernt Notke’s statue depicting St George’s slaying of the Dragon, a statue that comes to symbolize for him the notion that the Devil himself can eventually be overthrown.
Although we never see an actual glimpse of Freddy again, his character traits do keep popping up in the narrative of King Gustav and the Devil. For instance, take a look at some of the things Winesap says to encourage Freddy:
“It’s not easy writing books! You know, that’s the one place where all human beings are equal . . . whatever we may seem to be—humpbacked, tall or short, pale or ruddy, never mind . . . when we pick up that pencil we’re all in the same boat . . . A man may say anything when he’s just talking . . . but when he’s writing he ha time to think it over and re-do it until it’s right.”
This description of slow, deliberative thought complements the description of Lars-Goren’s own process of circumspection. And the recollections of Bishop Brask also recall the bookish nature of Freddy:
“When I was young, I was a great reader of books. They were my chief pleasure—my very life. . . But books are expensive and you’d be surprised how easily they burn, if the fire gets hot enough. And so one involves oneself in money-grubbing and politics, even war. For the luxury of reading the gentle thoughts of Plato or St. Ambrose, or sharing the pastoral meditations of the Emperor who turned his back on Rome to run a chicken farm—for the supreme pleasure of musing at one’s ease on the glorious illustrations of the Arabs or the masters of Byzantium—one turns one’s whole attention to manipulating fools full of bloodthirts and ambition . . . crushing underfoot all that God and the philosophers have stood for.”
In the end, Lars-Goren and Bishop Brask are sent out to the frozen waste of Lappland on what appears to be a fool’s errand—they must kill the Devil. During the journey across the vast expanse of land, there is little for them to do but talk, debating lofty issues. Brask seems to dominate the discussion, bolstered as he is by his extensive knowledge of philosophy, but Lars-Goren, the man of few words, is the one who proposes new and challenging ideas—a model for tolerance and universal human decency that challenges Brask’s cynicism.
Interestingly, the opening, modern, section of Freddy’s Book reads very much like a contrivance, whereas the fictional story of Lars-Goren feels far more genuine for all its fantastical elements. A modern reader may well be put off by the long sections of philosophical discussions at the end of the book. I think we’ve all been somewhat entrained to interpret novels as plot outlines for movies and there’s a waning recognition of the fact that they can also serve as a wonderful nursery for meaningful ideas and ways of looking at life. In this book, John Gardner seeks to remind us that great ideas may linger locked away for generations inside labyrinths of obscurity unless we engage that most enlightened and democratic forms of action: careful, patient, open-minded listening.
The story of Freddy’s Book starts in modern times, narrated in the first person by a chummy professor named Winesap, open minded and jolly, a professor of something called “Psycho-history. Winesap is a refreshing character, genuinely optimistic and kindly, free from all the overblown vanity and professional jealousy that characterize academic characters in most modern literature. It’s especially noteworthy that he seems to be a champion of the talents of the young: he is easily inspired by the prospect that one of the students he lectures to may be “some young Gibson or Macaulay not yet conscious of how good he is.” At a party, Winesap meets a crotchety, mean-tempered professor named Agaard, a scholar of Scandanavian history whom Winesap admires academically even though he finds him personally repulsive. After accepting an invitation to Agaard’s house, Winesap then patiently sits by and endures a barrage of criticism hurled at him by Agaard: real history should be confined to fact, not fiction and fancy. In Agaard’s eye, Winesap represents a sign of fatal decadence.
Why, then, does Agaard invite Winesap to his house at all? The answer has to do with his son, Freddy. Described by his own father as a monster, Freddy Agaard stands seven feet tall and has voluntarily locked himself in a room filled with books. He shows signs of being a genius, but the real nature of his intelligence remains a mystery because he refuses to show anyone the book he’s written. Agaard knows that Freddy admires the work of professor Winesap, and hopes that Freddy will show his book to Winesap, which he eventually does, dropping it off for him in the dead of night.
The book is called King Gustav and the Devil. The first 57 pages of Freddy’s Book tells the story of how Winesap gets possession of the book on a cold, snowy Wisconsin night and the rest of the novel consists only of the text of this strange story Freddy has written. We never find out what Winesap’s reaction to the book is, we never find out whether Freddy eventually is able to escape his self-imposed isolation. But the framing story of Freddy, Winesap and Agaard does serve to prime our minds for the fact that we’re embarking on a weird journey into a narrative terrain very remote from anything we’d expect from contemporary American fiction.
The story concerns Gustav Vasa of Sweden, an actual historical figure, and his faithful friend, the knight Lars-Goren. Lars-Goren is a taciturn man, who is “considered to be of great intelligence, for though he thought slowly, he thought clearly and soundly, so that again and again his opinions were found to be more valuable in the end than the opinions of men quicker and more dazzling.” Indeed, throughout the story Lars-Goren’s thinking process is so slow that he seems entirely inactive. He basically acts as a passive, but very reflective witness as he watches his friend Gustav Vasa be tempted by the Devil himself into starting a revolution against Denmark for Swedish independence. While the plot is filled with historical upheavals, with insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, conspiracies and military campaigns, all these events occur at such a remote distance to the plot that we get the sense that these are merely a mask for something that is emerging much more slowly: the birth of a new sort of civilization.
The most striking element of the story is the Devil, who walks freely about, takes on all sorts of forms, and often makes no secret as to who he is. His role is always to entice more turmoil and bloodshed. He appears on all sides of every conflict, counseling not only Gustav Vasa but also the Danish King Kristian and the supremely cynical Bishop Brask.
We get the sense that for the Devil, all the constant struggle and change in government actually represents a sort of stasis: as long as people keep sowing conflict, the human spirit can never grow.
And the Devil seems farthest away during the prolonged and serene reveries of Lars-Goren as he turns his back on the business of helping found a kingdom and visits his estate, taking joy in seeing his children going up and reflecting on the duties a feudal lord bears to his peasantry. He is especially touched when he sees Bernt Notke’s statue depicting St George’s slaying of the Dragon, a statue that comes to symbolize for him the notion that the Devil himself can eventually be overthrown.
Although we never see an actual glimpse of Freddy again, his character traits do keep popping up in the narrative of King Gustav and the Devil. For instance, take a look at some of the things Winesap says to encourage Freddy:
“It’s not easy writing books! You know, that’s the one place where all human beings are equal . . . whatever we may seem to be—humpbacked, tall or short, pale or ruddy, never mind . . . when we pick up that pencil we’re all in the same boat . . . A man may say anything when he’s just talking . . . but when he’s writing he ha time to think it over and re-do it until it’s right.”
This description of slow, deliberative thought complements the description of Lars-Goren’s own process of circumspection. And the recollections of Bishop Brask also recall the bookish nature of Freddy:
“When I was young, I was a great reader of books. They were my chief pleasure—my very life. . . But books are expensive and you’d be surprised how easily they burn, if the fire gets hot enough. And so one involves oneself in money-grubbing and politics, even war. For the luxury of reading the gentle thoughts of Plato or St. Ambrose, or sharing the pastoral meditations of the Emperor who turned his back on Rome to run a chicken farm—for the supreme pleasure of musing at one’s ease on the glorious illustrations of the Arabs or the masters of Byzantium—one turns one’s whole attention to manipulating fools full of bloodthirts and ambition . . . crushing underfoot all that God and the philosophers have stood for.”
In the end, Lars-Goren and Bishop Brask are sent out to the frozen waste of Lappland on what appears to be a fool’s errand—they must kill the Devil. During the journey across the vast expanse of land, there is little for them to do but talk, debating lofty issues. Brask seems to dominate the discussion, bolstered as he is by his extensive knowledge of philosophy, but Lars-Goren, the man of few words, is the one who proposes new and challenging ideas—a model for tolerance and universal human decency that challenges Brask’s cynicism.
Interestingly, the opening, modern, section of Freddy’s Book reads very much like a contrivance, whereas the fictional story of Lars-Goren feels far more genuine for all its fantastical elements. A modern reader may well be put off by the long sections of philosophical discussions at the end of the book. I think we’ve all been somewhat entrained to interpret novels as plot outlines for movies and there’s a waning recognition of the fact that they can also serve as a wonderful nursery for meaningful ideas and ways of looking at life. In this book, John Gardner seeks to remind us that great ideas may linger locked away for generations inside labyrinths of obscurity unless we engage that most enlightened and democratic forms of action: careful, patient, open-minded listening.
The French Lieutenant’s Woman
By John Fowles
First in a series of 3 installments — 26 October 2008
The Magus is a book about a modern man drawn into a scheme that, while fascinating, is really more like an intricate private fantasy than anything we can imagine happening in real life. The Collector takes place buried in the psychological prison of an enclosure behind a secret door at the back of a basement. How disconcerting it was that the third book of Fowles’ I read should open up its doors on the Victorian era.
For readers of the English language, the Victorian era is the closest thing we have to public space in the world of literature. Wuthering Heights, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, Alice in Wonderland, The Christmas Carol; even in a modern America that shuns literacy and denies the importance of anything even slightly old or unfamiliar, our schools and our teachers do seem to recognize that there’s something universal in these stories that can engage children. From early childhood it was always Victorian images that were the strongest in my mind when I was asked to imagine the past, the way the world must have been before the invention of cars and lightbulbs. Knights in armor, cowboys and horses, all these had the aura of something that was partly make believe. But the Masterpiece Theater world of Victorian England was the world as it really was.
In this book, Fowles puts his own research at the forefront. He’s constantly breaking into the narration with references to his sources, with data about the working life of Victorian servants, the prejudices of the middle and aristocratic classes, and especially with reminders about how we must not mistake the attitudes of the Victorians with those of today’s world.
Far from breaking the illusion, these references serve to make this novel feel more real and more interesting, not only because you feel like you’re getting a really high quality tour of the world as it once existed, but also because in setting his novel in the Victorian Era, Fowles has found a perfect setting for his own ideas.
This is how I would propose it: In The Collector, Fowles shows us two people separated by a wall that cannot be broken. The wall is composed of class prejudices, of sexual desire and internal repression, of primal fear and of self-absorption. In The Magus, we see the story of a man who, through the extraordinary efforts of an eccentric millionaire, is allowed for just a moment to see his own personal walls shattered. It’s a compelling story, at least to me, but it’s somehow very hard to understand completely what barriers it is that Nicholas Urfe breaks down, because he lives in the same world we all do.
But the world of The French Lieutenant’s Woman is far enough removed from our own that we’re able to distance ourselves from the character of Charles Smithson, a young man who expects to inherit a baronetcy and a substantial fortune, who’s on the verge of affecting a very comfortable marriage with a woman—Ernestina—who seems perfectly satisfactory by all the standards Charles has been trained to apply to the world around him.
And then there’s the outcast woman, Sarah Woodruff, called “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” by some and “The French Lieutenant’s Whore” by others, because she is said to have lost her virginity to a handsome foreigner who has since abandoned her.
John Fowles tells us that the phenomenon of Charles falling in love with Sarah is identical to the end of the Victorian era. And because he’s dug up so many wonderful facts and stories about 19th Century England to illustrate his point, this rather abstract metaphor becomes quite visceral and believable. Unlike Nicholas Urfe’s brief period of disorientation at the hands of the scheming Maurice Conchis, Charles’ crisis is drawn out over more than a hundred pages as he resists Sarah, condemns her as mad, sees his hopes for inheritance dashed, runs for consolation to the seamy demimonde of London, and finally succumbs to the temptation to destroy the self that Sarah represents.
It works precisely because Victorian literature is characterized by such a wonderful tradition of coincidence. Whereas Maurice Conchis’s whole consciousness shattering project seemed a labyrinthine contrivance whose complexity often obscured the revelation at its own heart, the downfall of Charles Smithson seems to be driven by the same forces that drove the fates of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens’s characters.
IB Singer said that every writer needs to find stories that no one else can tell. It’s impossible for me to imagine anyone else telling the story of Sarah Woodruff. Fowles intentionally makes her an enigma. The great characters of the Victorian era, Sherlock Holmes and Emma Woodhouse, Ebenezer Scrooge and David Copperfield all are so vivid that they can live inside our minds. But Sarah Woodruff seems to pass mysteriously just beyond our grasp in a way that eludes the Victorian style and makes this novel seem truly a feat of magic.
Second in series of three installments — 2 November 2008
So what is it that this Sarah Woodruff symbolizes? Like the White Whale in Moby Dick, she stands at the center of a network of symbolism that fills up the whole book, but she never quite passes completely into the realm of pure symbol. In one very interesting chapter Fowles pulls out of the narrative entirely and declares that, although Sarah, like all the characters in the novel, is his creation, he cannot and will not reveal her inner motives, although he had planned to do so. She won’t reveal them up to her author.
Sarah stands out as being the only character in the book that acts even slightly an adult. This is another theme that seems to run through Fowles’s books—although the characters are all adults with adult responsibilities, they seem to be ruled by a set of childish vanities. Charles and Ernestina go through life as though they’re living in a fairy tale, partly because that’s precisely what they are doing. They’re both slated to earn huge inheritances, and while they each have their little cavils and pouting fits with one another, they’re both bolstered deep down by the thought that the ultimate struggle that lies in store for them is the choice of what kind of prosperity exactly they want to choose. Will they move into the large manor house or the small manor house? Will Charles carry on with his amateur paleontology, or will he find some other hobby to occupy his time but not fulfill his longing to ambition.
At first, Sarah seems to be childish as well. She spends her life moping about, staring at the sea, presumably in hopes that the French Lieutenant who once seduced her will come back. But as the novel progresses and she continues to meet with Charles in the primeval groves of the wild region known as the Undercliff, it begins to become clear that she’s not as much a victim of childish passion as we first thought. Does she really have any illusion that her French Lieutenant will ever come back? Did she even love him in the first place? And if not, why does she willingly allow herself to remain in a community where she’ll always be shunned as a fallen woman? Confused by these questions, Charles confides in his fellow Darwinist Dr Grogan, the only man he can trust to respond rationally.
As a Darwinist and atheist, Dr Grogan seems to stand outside the prison of stereotypes and that defines the Victorian era of this book, and yet his response hardly seems that of a reasonable man. He feels certain that Sarah is dangerously ill and must be institutionalized immediately. She is, after all, the inferior of Charles, who must seem to her like a god.
As it turns out, Dr Grogan is correct in thinking that Sarah represents a great danger to Charles’s future as a happy Victorian gentleman, but his notion that Sarah is mad seems diametrically opposed to the sort of rational humanism that Grogan wishes to represent.
The Undercliff, where Charles and Sarah meet, is home to a series of fossils that inspire Charles to realize the fact that Darwin’s natural not only carries the potential for evolutionary progress but also for mass extinction. Sarah Woodruff represents all the forces that will eventually extinguish the Victorian era, but what are those forces? I think that the answer lies in the other name that she’s given by the people of Lyme Regis, the name that’s used least frequently in the book: Tragedy. The true blindness of the Victorian era is not just a denial of sexual desires or the baser nature of even the most refined gentleman, but rather the denial of the tragic nature of life, in the sense of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy where a system destroys itself by its own striving toward nobility. The name “Tragedy” is appropriate for Sarah, but not so much because she’s a victim of tragedy but an agent of tragic catharsis. Although I doubt I can get to the bottom of it, I will try to expand on that idea in my next installment of this review.
Third installment • 23 November 2008
I remember one time I had an acting teacher who suggested that we almost always see the people around us as representations of something rather than as actual human beings. We see people as representations of our ambitions, as challenges to our status, as political opponents or as collaborators at work, as role-models and as supervisors, as parents or children, but it’s exceedingly rare that we simply view them as people who have been set as unwillingly and unwittingly into the great en medias res of life as we ourselves have been.
That memory came to me today as I was thinking about what more there was for me to say about French Lieutenant’s Woman. It seems to me that in all of Fowles’s works I’ve read so far, his central theme is precisely this blindness we carry around with us, this blindness which keeps us from ever quite recognizing the people around us for what they really are. Victorian society especially seems to depend on such blindness. Charles and his fiancée Ernestina enter into the book with a pat answer to every question of human nature that might come their way.
What makes this argument worth listening to is that Fowles doesn’t write off the blindness of the age as a mere handicap. He’s explicit about the fact that he has a great admiration for the achievements of Victorian society, for the incredible productivity and creativity that arose during that time, but he does seem to suggest that these benefits were achieved at the price of creating a society that was incredibly rigid and unyielding in its notions of human value.
I think that one of the weaknesses of Fowles is that his focus on satori-like moment when the scales fall away from a person’s eyes requires him to make his plots pivot on these moments of personal revelation that are very difficult to communicate to the reader and that must seem contrived and alienating to anyone who hasn’t experienced such moments themselves. One of the ways that Fowles manages to get around this problem is by repeatedly bringing up excerpts of poetry by Tennyson and Clough that are always closely attuned to the inner entrapments and awakenings of Fowles’s characters. Another way that he manages this is by admitting that the character of Sarah Woodruff resists even the omnipotence of the novelist. He cannot see fully into her mind, cannot even guess at her true motivations, and in the end this puts her not only beyond the Victorian stereotypes that Charles uses to navigate his way through life, but also puts her outside of the Freudian and Marxist analyses with which Fowles tries to explain his other characters.
First in a series of 3 installments — 26 October 2008
The Magus is a book about a modern man drawn into a scheme that, while fascinating, is really more like an intricate private fantasy than anything we can imagine happening in real life. The Collector takes place buried in the psychological prison of an enclosure behind a secret door at the back of a basement. How disconcerting it was that the third book of Fowles’ I read should open up its doors on the Victorian era.
For readers of the English language, the Victorian era is the closest thing we have to public space in the world of literature. Wuthering Heights, Emma, Pride and Prejudice, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, Alice in Wonderland, The Christmas Carol; even in a modern America that shuns literacy and denies the importance of anything even slightly old or unfamiliar, our schools and our teachers do seem to recognize that there’s something universal in these stories that can engage children. From early childhood it was always Victorian images that were the strongest in my mind when I was asked to imagine the past, the way the world must have been before the invention of cars and lightbulbs. Knights in armor, cowboys and horses, all these had the aura of something that was partly make believe. But the Masterpiece Theater world of Victorian England was the world as it really was.
In this book, Fowles puts his own research at the forefront. He’s constantly breaking into the narration with references to his sources, with data about the working life of Victorian servants, the prejudices of the middle and aristocratic classes, and especially with reminders about how we must not mistake the attitudes of the Victorians with those of today’s world.
Far from breaking the illusion, these references serve to make this novel feel more real and more interesting, not only because you feel like you’re getting a really high quality tour of the world as it once existed, but also because in setting his novel in the Victorian Era, Fowles has found a perfect setting for his own ideas.
This is how I would propose it: In The Collector, Fowles shows us two people separated by a wall that cannot be broken. The wall is composed of class prejudices, of sexual desire and internal repression, of primal fear and of self-absorption. In The Magus, we see the story of a man who, through the extraordinary efforts of an eccentric millionaire, is allowed for just a moment to see his own personal walls shattered. It’s a compelling story, at least to me, but it’s somehow very hard to understand completely what barriers it is that Nicholas Urfe breaks down, because he lives in the same world we all do.
But the world of The French Lieutenant’s Woman is far enough removed from our own that we’re able to distance ourselves from the character of Charles Smithson, a young man who expects to inherit a baronetcy and a substantial fortune, who’s on the verge of affecting a very comfortable marriage with a woman—Ernestina—who seems perfectly satisfactory by all the standards Charles has been trained to apply to the world around him.
And then there’s the outcast woman, Sarah Woodruff, called “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” by some and “The French Lieutenant’s Whore” by others, because she is said to have lost her virginity to a handsome foreigner who has since abandoned her.
John Fowles tells us that the phenomenon of Charles falling in love with Sarah is identical to the end of the Victorian era. And because he’s dug up so many wonderful facts and stories about 19th Century England to illustrate his point, this rather abstract metaphor becomes quite visceral and believable. Unlike Nicholas Urfe’s brief period of disorientation at the hands of the scheming Maurice Conchis, Charles’ crisis is drawn out over more than a hundred pages as he resists Sarah, condemns her as mad, sees his hopes for inheritance dashed, runs for consolation to the seamy demimonde of London, and finally succumbs to the temptation to destroy the self that Sarah represents.
It works precisely because Victorian literature is characterized by such a wonderful tradition of coincidence. Whereas Maurice Conchis’s whole consciousness shattering project seemed a labyrinthine contrivance whose complexity often obscured the revelation at its own heart, the downfall of Charles Smithson seems to be driven by the same forces that drove the fates of Jane Austen and Charles Dickens’s characters.
IB Singer said that every writer needs to find stories that no one else can tell. It’s impossible for me to imagine anyone else telling the story of Sarah Woodruff. Fowles intentionally makes her an enigma. The great characters of the Victorian era, Sherlock Holmes and Emma Woodhouse, Ebenezer Scrooge and David Copperfield all are so vivid that they can live inside our minds. But Sarah Woodruff seems to pass mysteriously just beyond our grasp in a way that eludes the Victorian style and makes this novel seem truly a feat of magic.
Second in series of three installments — 2 November 2008
So what is it that this Sarah Woodruff symbolizes? Like the White Whale in Moby Dick, she stands at the center of a network of symbolism that fills up the whole book, but she never quite passes completely into the realm of pure symbol. In one very interesting chapter Fowles pulls out of the narrative entirely and declares that, although Sarah, like all the characters in the novel, is his creation, he cannot and will not reveal her inner motives, although he had planned to do so. She won’t reveal them up to her author.
Sarah stands out as being the only character in the book that acts even slightly an adult. This is another theme that seems to run through Fowles’s books—although the characters are all adults with adult responsibilities, they seem to be ruled by a set of childish vanities. Charles and Ernestina go through life as though they’re living in a fairy tale, partly because that’s precisely what they are doing. They’re both slated to earn huge inheritances, and while they each have their little cavils and pouting fits with one another, they’re both bolstered deep down by the thought that the ultimate struggle that lies in store for them is the choice of what kind of prosperity exactly they want to choose. Will they move into the large manor house or the small manor house? Will Charles carry on with his amateur paleontology, or will he find some other hobby to occupy his time but not fulfill his longing to ambition.
At first, Sarah seems to be childish as well. She spends her life moping about, staring at the sea, presumably in hopes that the French Lieutenant who once seduced her will come back. But as the novel progresses and she continues to meet with Charles in the primeval groves of the wild region known as the Undercliff, it begins to become clear that she’s not as much a victim of childish passion as we first thought. Does she really have any illusion that her French Lieutenant will ever come back? Did she even love him in the first place? And if not, why does she willingly allow herself to remain in a community where she’ll always be shunned as a fallen woman? Confused by these questions, Charles confides in his fellow Darwinist Dr Grogan, the only man he can trust to respond rationally.
As a Darwinist and atheist, Dr Grogan seems to stand outside the prison of stereotypes and that defines the Victorian era of this book, and yet his response hardly seems that of a reasonable man. He feels certain that Sarah is dangerously ill and must be institutionalized immediately. She is, after all, the inferior of Charles, who must seem to her like a god.
As it turns out, Dr Grogan is correct in thinking that Sarah represents a great danger to Charles’s future as a happy Victorian gentleman, but his notion that Sarah is mad seems diametrically opposed to the sort of rational humanism that Grogan wishes to represent.
The Undercliff, where Charles and Sarah meet, is home to a series of fossils that inspire Charles to realize the fact that Darwin’s natural not only carries the potential for evolutionary progress but also for mass extinction. Sarah Woodruff represents all the forces that will eventually extinguish the Victorian era, but what are those forces? I think that the answer lies in the other name that she’s given by the people of Lyme Regis, the name that’s used least frequently in the book: Tragedy. The true blindness of the Victorian era is not just a denial of sexual desires or the baser nature of even the most refined gentleman, but rather the denial of the tragic nature of life, in the sense of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy where a system destroys itself by its own striving toward nobility. The name “Tragedy” is appropriate for Sarah, but not so much because she’s a victim of tragedy but an agent of tragic catharsis. Although I doubt I can get to the bottom of it, I will try to expand on that idea in my next installment of this review.
Third installment • 23 November 2008
I remember one time I had an acting teacher who suggested that we almost always see the people around us as representations of something rather than as actual human beings. We see people as representations of our ambitions, as challenges to our status, as political opponents or as collaborators at work, as role-models and as supervisors, as parents or children, but it’s exceedingly rare that we simply view them as people who have been set as unwillingly and unwittingly into the great en medias res of life as we ourselves have been.
That memory came to me today as I was thinking about what more there was for me to say about French Lieutenant’s Woman. It seems to me that in all of Fowles’s works I’ve read so far, his central theme is precisely this blindness we carry around with us, this blindness which keeps us from ever quite recognizing the people around us for what they really are. Victorian society especially seems to depend on such blindness. Charles and his fiancée Ernestina enter into the book with a pat answer to every question of human nature that might come their way.
What makes this argument worth listening to is that Fowles doesn’t write off the blindness of the age as a mere handicap. He’s explicit about the fact that he has a great admiration for the achievements of Victorian society, for the incredible productivity and creativity that arose during that time, but he does seem to suggest that these benefits were achieved at the price of creating a society that was incredibly rigid and unyielding in its notions of human value.
I think that one of the weaknesses of Fowles is that his focus on satori-like moment when the scales fall away from a person’s eyes requires him to make his plots pivot on these moments of personal revelation that are very difficult to communicate to the reader and that must seem contrived and alienating to anyone who hasn’t experienced such moments themselves. One of the ways that Fowles manages to get around this problem is by repeatedly bringing up excerpts of poetry by Tennyson and Clough that are always closely attuned to the inner entrapments and awakenings of Fowles’s characters. Another way that he manages this is by admitting that the character of Sarah Woodruff resists even the omnipotence of the novelist. He cannot see fully into her mind, cannot even guess at her true motivations, and in the end this puts her not only beyond the Victorian stereotypes that Charles uses to navigate his way through life, but also puts her outside of the Freudian and Marxist analyses with which Fowles tries to explain his other characters.
The Collector
by John Fowles. (1963) Published by Dell. 255 pages.
Reviewed 21 October 2008
I decided to change my reading habits a little. Normally, I try to read switch directions as often as possible, to jump from classical to contemporary authors, from fiction to nonfiction and so on as often as possible. But I decided to see what it would be like to focus on one author whom I like a lot. After being so bowled over last year by The Magus, I decided to go back to John Fowles and find out what else he’s written.
The Collector is a book whose subject is so dark—it tells the story the kidnapping of a girl by a young man with a distinctly bland set of sociopathic tendencies—that it’s hard to say “Oh, I just love that book” without depicting oneself as something of a pervert.
While the scenario itself has all the lurid elements of captivity and depravity that are celebrated today in the mythology built up around Hannibal Lecter or the Saw series of movies, it’s notable that there are no scenes of outright torture in this book. The kidnapper, who adopts the false name Ferdinand, goes out of his way to create a comfortable environment for his captive. Does that mitigate his crime or does it serve rather to underscore the fact that no amount of comfort can serve as compensation for the crime of depriving an innocent of her freedom.
There’s something essentially acidic in John Fowles. I think he knew deep down the strident, judgmental direction that literary criticism was headed in, the way that young students especially are encouraged to condemn first and foremost to condemn the author. I think that at some level the sly and Machiavellian Fowles not only anticipated this trend, but he also decided quite deliberately in this, his first published novel, to offer himself up as a sort of intentional sacrifice, and then to profit from the confusion of those who would condemn him.
The first knee-jerk reaction of today’s critic would be to condemn Fowles for writing the ultimate puerile male fantasy novel, a masturbatory wish fulfillment of a man who seeks only to possess a woman, to own her as an object without ever recognizing her as a person.
The second part of the novel takes the form of the diary of “Ferdinand’s” captive Miranda. It is clear after only a short time that Miranda has a far greater claim to the author’s sympathies, and this must give the lie to the knee-jerk condemnation of the book laid out above. If Miranda were to principally define herself as Ferdinand’s victim, if she developed the sort of subservient mentality that he would like to see in her, there might still be a strong case for condemning the book as an example of male objectification. But Miranda is surprisingly indifferent to the person of Ferdinand. Indeed, she’s quite contemptuous of him as a non-entity; she loathes his utter lack of aesthetics. The second part of the book hinges not so much on Miranda’s struggle for her freedom as her attempts to come to terms with her own identity as an artist. Her thoughts are characterized by the anxiety and self-absorption typical of any young artist, but as Miranda’s situation becomes direr it becomes clear that her real struggle is to move as quickly as possible away from her naiveté, to face the fact of her own limitations and come to terms with the facts of her own mortality without the luxury of the slow, ideal ripening processes that most souls in liberty would hope to enjoy.
The Wikipedia entry on this book describes Miranda as a snob. Is she really? Certainly, she’s aware that she’s been trained to look down on Ferdinand for his bluntness of wit and lack of education. But there’s also a deep welling of sympathy in her, an impetus to find redeeming qualities even in her captor.
John Fowles made no secret that he was an elitist, and our young critic eager for a cause to condemn this book might be torn between which character is the more worthy of the reader’s contempt. Does Ferdinand represent the ruling gender elite, or does Miranda represent the ruling cultural elite?
I think the central virtue in Fowles is that he realized the great potential in wandering into this sort of philosophical briar patch. He recognizes the almost visceral need of the reader to rush toward judgment, and he uses it as an engine for his own narrative tension. In some ways, this is a silly book, a little too obvious, with too many heavy-handed references to The Tempest and too much focus on Miranda’s mentor G.P. (Gentle Prospero?) a curmudgeonly and lecherous artist who’s enigmatic pronouncements are not nearly so profound as Fowles thinks they are. But I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to see how paradox and uncertainty can bring a novel to life, and how the fundamental challenge to any reader is to withhold judgment enough that it’s possible to listen to what’s really being said.
Reviewed 21 October 2008
I decided to change my reading habits a little. Normally, I try to read switch directions as often as possible, to jump from classical to contemporary authors, from fiction to nonfiction and so on as often as possible. But I decided to see what it would be like to focus on one author whom I like a lot. After being so bowled over last year by The Magus, I decided to go back to John Fowles and find out what else he’s written.
The Collector is a book whose subject is so dark—it tells the story the kidnapping of a girl by a young man with a distinctly bland set of sociopathic tendencies—that it’s hard to say “Oh, I just love that book” without depicting oneself as something of a pervert.
While the scenario itself has all the lurid elements of captivity and depravity that are celebrated today in the mythology built up around Hannibal Lecter or the Saw series of movies, it’s notable that there are no scenes of outright torture in this book. The kidnapper, who adopts the false name Ferdinand, goes out of his way to create a comfortable environment for his captive. Does that mitigate his crime or does it serve rather to underscore the fact that no amount of comfort can serve as compensation for the crime of depriving an innocent of her freedom.
There’s something essentially acidic in John Fowles. I think he knew deep down the strident, judgmental direction that literary criticism was headed in, the way that young students especially are encouraged to condemn first and foremost to condemn the author. I think that at some level the sly and Machiavellian Fowles not only anticipated this trend, but he also decided quite deliberately in this, his first published novel, to offer himself up as a sort of intentional sacrifice, and then to profit from the confusion of those who would condemn him.
The first knee-jerk reaction of today’s critic would be to condemn Fowles for writing the ultimate puerile male fantasy novel, a masturbatory wish fulfillment of a man who seeks only to possess a woman, to own her as an object without ever recognizing her as a person.
The second part of the novel takes the form of the diary of “Ferdinand’s” captive Miranda. It is clear after only a short time that Miranda has a far greater claim to the author’s sympathies, and this must give the lie to the knee-jerk condemnation of the book laid out above. If Miranda were to principally define herself as Ferdinand’s victim, if she developed the sort of subservient mentality that he would like to see in her, there might still be a strong case for condemning the book as an example of male objectification. But Miranda is surprisingly indifferent to the person of Ferdinand. Indeed, she’s quite contemptuous of him as a non-entity; she loathes his utter lack of aesthetics. The second part of the book hinges not so much on Miranda’s struggle for her freedom as her attempts to come to terms with her own identity as an artist. Her thoughts are characterized by the anxiety and self-absorption typical of any young artist, but as Miranda’s situation becomes direr it becomes clear that her real struggle is to move as quickly as possible away from her naiveté, to face the fact of her own limitations and come to terms with the facts of her own mortality without the luxury of the slow, ideal ripening processes that most souls in liberty would hope to enjoy.
The Wikipedia entry on this book describes Miranda as a snob. Is she really? Certainly, she’s aware that she’s been trained to look down on Ferdinand for his bluntness of wit and lack of education. But there’s also a deep welling of sympathy in her, an impetus to find redeeming qualities even in her captor.
John Fowles made no secret that he was an elitist, and our young critic eager for a cause to condemn this book might be torn between which character is the more worthy of the reader’s contempt. Does Ferdinand represent the ruling gender elite, or does Miranda represent the ruling cultural elite?
I think the central virtue in Fowles is that he realized the great potential in wandering into this sort of philosophical briar patch. He recognizes the almost visceral need of the reader to rush toward judgment, and he uses it as an engine for his own narrative tension. In some ways, this is a silly book, a little too obvious, with too many heavy-handed references to The Tempest and too much focus on Miranda’s mentor G.P. (Gentle Prospero?) a curmudgeonly and lecherous artist who’s enigmatic pronouncements are not nearly so profound as Fowles thinks they are. But I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to see how paradox and uncertainty can bring a novel to life, and how the fundamental challenge to any reader is to withhold judgment enough that it’s possible to listen to what’s really being said.
Angels and Insects
by AS Byatt. (1992) Published by Chatto & Windus. 292 pages.
Reviewed 15 October 2008
Nobody can write about ideas the way the AS Byatt does. She allows the worlds of her stories to crystallize around the concepts and issues that she’s chosen to focus on, and this method is illustrated extremely well in the two novellas that sit side-by-side in this polished and successful work.
The first story, Morpho Eugenia, is focused on questions of evolution and creation. The tension between the two is not so much that of a two equal rivals going head-to-head. Rather, it’s the tension of the torch being passed somewhat unwillingly from an old, established sire and a young upstart. The story is that of the young scientist William Adamson who has found himself nearly destitute after losing most of the results from his recent expedition to the Amazon. He gains quick patronage from the Alabaster family; the old patrician Harald wants to use Adamson as a sounding board for his idea about a book that argues the case for God’s existence even in a post-Darwin world. The discussions between the two men are civil, but around the edges of the debate all the more volatile elements of the subject seep their way into the story. As a suitor for Harald’s daughter Eugenia, Alabaster is faced with all the antipathy of a British class system in which wealthy and titled families are infatuated above all with themselves, with their own rituals and routines and the belief in their own innate superiority.
Reading this story, you can understand why, at the tail end of the Victorian Era, a thinker like GB Shaw became so interested in the idea of a “life force.” The world of the landed elite is a sort of shell, ornately beautiful, essentially dead. As William becomes more and more entangled in the world of the Alabasters, he seems to draw his vitality not from the desiccated culture at its core, but from the enthusiasm of those who exist at its edges, the children and servants who inspire William to undertake an engaging project of carefully studying and depicting the natural history of the ant colonies surrounding the Alabaster home.
The real “life-force” that’s breaking through here is essentially the imagination, the ability to create and connect with the world in a meaningful way. Although the world of the Alabasters offers all sorts of material comforts, full acceptance comes at a price of the ability to take part in the world in any creative way. At the same time as Adamson discovers the limitations of the Alabasters’ world, we the readers also discover a lot of the richness of the biological world he studies. This is especially brought out by Matty Crompton, a woman of uncertain status who lives with the Alabasters and serves often as the driving force behind Adamson’s endeavors. Crompton is fascinated by the myriad references to mythology that are woven into the nomenclature of species as assigned by Linnaeus, and she’s inspired by this to create a series of fables which illustrate the way that science in the 19th century really inherited the wealth of imaginative energy that had once been the domain of religion.
In the second story, Conjugal Angel, the situation is quite different. Here, instead of looking at an imaginative journey at its beginnings, we survey it from its end. The story is largely about the strange love triangle Alfred Lord Tennyson, the poet Laureate, his sister Emily, and the young genius Arthur Henry Hallam, who was engaged to Emily and who, after his untimely death from a brain hemorrhage, was immortalized by in Tennyson’s long poem In Memoriam A.H.H.
This is very familiar territory for anyone who’s read Byatt’s Possession. To me, this story is a lot harder to read than Morpho Eugenia, but also a lot more rewarding because Byatt is focusing on something she’s extremely passionate about: the connection we form over time with select handfuls of words, snatches of poetry, little remarks, epigrams and observations; the way that these are colored by the criticism and the prying curiosity of the coterie of scholars and biographers and enthusiasts who form a sort of cage around the world of literature. If Morpho Eugenia seemed to be set against a dazzling world of sunshine and picnic-weather, Conjugal Angel has been quite deliberately set in a world of gloom and encroaching night, and all the scientific wonder and clarity has been abandoned for the spooky Victorian fixation on the occult.
After making such a strong case for science in her first story, why does Byatt seem to betray herself by writing a story in which séance goers seems to commune with sinister spirits? I think this is a way of consciously affirming the fact that there is something unscientific and arcane about literature, something inherently backward looking and yet necessary, at least for those who can be moved by careful examination of words. The folks around the séance table are deeply engrossed in a world of Swedenborgian theories and occult associations that seem not so much profane or ludicrous as just hopelessly antique to us now, a system of belief that may be fascinating to us, but which we can’t imagine actually subscribing to and inhabiting. But in order to really understand literature at it’s core, Byatt argues, you have to be willing to reincarnate these ghost worlds, these old systems of sentiment and fashion, these old mores and compulsions that once defined the way that people thought. It requires a lot of patience to follow Byatt as she pries open the minds first of Emily Tennyson and then her brother Alfred, but as you go along you feel that you’re witnessing first hand the way a writer is truly able to enrich herself, to strengthen her arsenal and to use fiction as a way of learning the real purpose of how it is she’s chosen to invest the deepest of her passion.
Reviewed 15 October 2008
Nobody can write about ideas the way the AS Byatt does. She allows the worlds of her stories to crystallize around the concepts and issues that she’s chosen to focus on, and this method is illustrated extremely well in the two novellas that sit side-by-side in this polished and successful work.
The first story, Morpho Eugenia, is focused on questions of evolution and creation. The tension between the two is not so much that of a two equal rivals going head-to-head. Rather, it’s the tension of the torch being passed somewhat unwillingly from an old, established sire and a young upstart. The story is that of the young scientist William Adamson who has found himself nearly destitute after losing most of the results from his recent expedition to the Amazon. He gains quick patronage from the Alabaster family; the old patrician Harald wants to use Adamson as a sounding board for his idea about a book that argues the case for God’s existence even in a post-Darwin world. The discussions between the two men are civil, but around the edges of the debate all the more volatile elements of the subject seep their way into the story. As a suitor for Harald’s daughter Eugenia, Alabaster is faced with all the antipathy of a British class system in which wealthy and titled families are infatuated above all with themselves, with their own rituals and routines and the belief in their own innate superiority.
Reading this story, you can understand why, at the tail end of the Victorian Era, a thinker like GB Shaw became so interested in the idea of a “life force.” The world of the landed elite is a sort of shell, ornately beautiful, essentially dead. As William becomes more and more entangled in the world of the Alabasters, he seems to draw his vitality not from the desiccated culture at its core, but from the enthusiasm of those who exist at its edges, the children and servants who inspire William to undertake an engaging project of carefully studying and depicting the natural history of the ant colonies surrounding the Alabaster home.
The real “life-force” that’s breaking through here is essentially the imagination, the ability to create and connect with the world in a meaningful way. Although the world of the Alabasters offers all sorts of material comforts, full acceptance comes at a price of the ability to take part in the world in any creative way. At the same time as Adamson discovers the limitations of the Alabasters’ world, we the readers also discover a lot of the richness of the biological world he studies. This is especially brought out by Matty Crompton, a woman of uncertain status who lives with the Alabasters and serves often as the driving force behind Adamson’s endeavors. Crompton is fascinated by the myriad references to mythology that are woven into the nomenclature of species as assigned by Linnaeus, and she’s inspired by this to create a series of fables which illustrate the way that science in the 19th century really inherited the wealth of imaginative energy that had once been the domain of religion.
In the second story, Conjugal Angel, the situation is quite different. Here, instead of looking at an imaginative journey at its beginnings, we survey it from its end. The story is largely about the strange love triangle Alfred Lord Tennyson, the poet Laureate, his sister Emily, and the young genius Arthur Henry Hallam, who was engaged to Emily and who, after his untimely death from a brain hemorrhage, was immortalized by in Tennyson’s long poem In Memoriam A.H.H.
This is very familiar territory for anyone who’s read Byatt’s Possession. To me, this story is a lot harder to read than Morpho Eugenia, but also a lot more rewarding because Byatt is focusing on something she’s extremely passionate about: the connection we form over time with select handfuls of words, snatches of poetry, little remarks, epigrams and observations; the way that these are colored by the criticism and the prying curiosity of the coterie of scholars and biographers and enthusiasts who form a sort of cage around the world of literature. If Morpho Eugenia seemed to be set against a dazzling world of sunshine and picnic-weather, Conjugal Angel has been quite deliberately set in a world of gloom and encroaching night, and all the scientific wonder and clarity has been abandoned for the spooky Victorian fixation on the occult.
After making such a strong case for science in her first story, why does Byatt seem to betray herself by writing a story in which séance goers seems to commune with sinister spirits? I think this is a way of consciously affirming the fact that there is something unscientific and arcane about literature, something inherently backward looking and yet necessary, at least for those who can be moved by careful examination of words. The folks around the séance table are deeply engrossed in a world of Swedenborgian theories and occult associations that seem not so much profane or ludicrous as just hopelessly antique to us now, a system of belief that may be fascinating to us, but which we can’t imagine actually subscribing to and inhabiting. But in order to really understand literature at it’s core, Byatt argues, you have to be willing to reincarnate these ghost worlds, these old systems of sentiment and fashion, these old mores and compulsions that once defined the way that people thought. It requires a lot of patience to follow Byatt as she pries open the minds first of Emily Tennyson and then her brother Alfred, but as you go along you feel that you’re witnessing first hand the way a writer is truly able to enrich herself, to strengthen her arsenal and to use fiction as a way of learning the real purpose of how it is she’s chosen to invest the deepest of her passion.
Begin Chess
Begin Chess by D.B. Prichard
I don’t know if I’ll ever be really good at chess, having picked up so late in life, and being more attracted to the idea of chess than to the game itself. But reading this book reminded me of the difference that the right approach to teaching a subject can make. Until now, my most “formal” introduction to the game was from another book which, like Prichard’s Begin Chess, was targeted toward children: Let’s Play Chess, a hardcover book filled with lavish illustrations in which the chess pieces are depicted as warriors from a fantasy world, the rooks as riders atop wooly mammoths, the queens as beautiful women in translucent shifts who are capable of firing energy beams from their fingertips. Great food for the imagination, but the text focused jumped quickly from explaining the moves of individual pieces to recounting whole endgames and then entire matches transcribed from the great games of such folks as Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov. While it certainly got me interested, it also frustrated me because I felt steps were being skipped.
What I like about Prichard is that for most of the book he forsakes the full chessboard and focuses on fields of sixteen or twenty squares and the conflicts that arise from just a few pieces. He keeps stressing that, while it’s tempting to memorize important scenarios, openings, and even entire games, it’s much more effective to learn a few principles that you’ll then be able to hold onto in a variety of situations. Prichard, I think, gives a little more credit to his audience, trusting that someone who has the time to devote to his tiny illustrations of chess tactics and strategy will then be able to translate them into the more chaotic world of real play.
I especially like that I came away from this book understanding that the chessboard, for all its apparent uniformity, actually has its own geography. Certain squares have their own importance, and this importance changes as the terrain itself is set up by the positioning of the pieces, particularly the pawns. This book has taught me why it might be interesting not just to play chess, but to undertake the thought processes involved in the game.
I don’t know if I’ll ever be really good at chess, having picked up so late in life, and being more attracted to the idea of chess than to the game itself. But reading this book reminded me of the difference that the right approach to teaching a subject can make. Until now, my most “formal” introduction to the game was from another book which, like Prichard’s Begin Chess, was targeted toward children: Let’s Play Chess, a hardcover book filled with lavish illustrations in which the chess pieces are depicted as warriors from a fantasy world, the rooks as riders atop wooly mammoths, the queens as beautiful women in translucent shifts who are capable of firing energy beams from their fingertips. Great food for the imagination, but the text focused jumped quickly from explaining the moves of individual pieces to recounting whole endgames and then entire matches transcribed from the great games of such folks as Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov. While it certainly got me interested, it also frustrated me because I felt steps were being skipped.
What I like about Prichard is that for most of the book he forsakes the full chessboard and focuses on fields of sixteen or twenty squares and the conflicts that arise from just a few pieces. He keeps stressing that, while it’s tempting to memorize important scenarios, openings, and even entire games, it’s much more effective to learn a few principles that you’ll then be able to hold onto in a variety of situations. Prichard, I think, gives a little more credit to his audience, trusting that someone who has the time to devote to his tiny illustrations of chess tactics and strategy will then be able to translate them into the more chaotic world of real play.
I especially like that I came away from this book understanding that the chessboard, for all its apparent uniformity, actually has its own geography. Certain squares have their own importance, and this importance changes as the terrain itself is set up by the positioning of the pieces, particularly the pawns. This book has taught me why it might be interesting not just to play chess, but to undertake the thought processes involved in the game.
Vanity Fair
by William Makepeace Thackeray. (1848) Published by Penguin Classics. 814 pages.
Up to page 426. Reviewed 19 July 2008.
In his introduction to this book, J. I. M. Stewart makes it clear that Vanity Fair is a second-tier work as far as 19th Century British fiction goes. Why even read a book that’s not the best of the best, especially if it’s such a long and involved endeavor as this one?
I’m interested in books from different periods of time for the same reason that I’m interested in learning foreign languages, because it lets me distance myself from the place I live and the habits of thought that I otherwise take for granted. I’m especially interested in the way that humor has evolved over time. Vanity Fair has a few bits of good comedy. For instance, there’s the comedy of mistaken intentions when William Dobbin, the novel’s most sympathetic character, sits down with Miss Jane Osborne, who is dearly smitten with him, and tries to have a conversation with her. The poor Jane interprets every word as a sign that William Dobbin is about to propose. It’s just a short scene, but each little turn of the conversation is so well played out that it comes alive.
Later on in the story we watch the young wastrel Rawdon Crawley as he prepares to go to war, bidding farewell to his young wife Rebecca before going off with Wellington’s army to stave off the advance of the Napoleonic army. Touched by the sudden intimation of his own mortality, Rawdon scrambles to think of every last possession that Rebecca might be able to pawn off in case he dies. At the same moment that we’re amused Rawdon’s venality we’re also touched by the fact that this is the closest he’s going to get to real romantic love. And as soon as he leaves, we take a look into Rebecca’s head and see how she’s already scheming about how she might actually be better off if her husband dies on the battlefield.
Brilliant little Becky Sharp is probably the best reason to read this book. She’s a character calculated to defy every expectation of her era’s class-consciousness. An orphan girl of humble origins, she uses all her assets (a keen intellect, a perfect command of French, a nasty sense of humor and a remarkable beauty) to make the rich and powerful fall head-over-heels in love with her. She has generals making fools of themselves, she brings her best friend’s marriage to the brink of collapse, and she makes herself the toast of Belgian high society after Napoleon is defeated. Those who are won over by her let their imaginations run wild, ascribing to her the noblest, most romantic origins they can think of. In the same way, Thackeray encourages us to let our imaginations go as well when it comes to this character, so that by the time the novel is halfway finished we no longer need Thackeray to remind us of Becky’s ruthless character because we already feel as if we have an intimate understanding of her gloriously amoral style of getting a leg up on the whole world.
Although Thackeray claims this is “a novel without a hero,” it is also not a satiric comedy that’s all pitched at the same level. There are plenty of characters that we’re meant only to find ridiculous, such as the spinster Miss Crawley and the swarm of sycophants who gather around her hoping for a bit of her inheritance. But there are also characters who are more tragically than comically flawed, such as old Mr Osborne, who wants deeply to come to peace with his dead son George but is too stubborn to forgive the way George defied his father’s will and married without permission.
What makes this book worth reading is to see how even a second tier novelist of Thackeray’s era devoted himself to the nuance and texture of the world he created, creating space on the stage for humor and sarcasm to give way to moments of true emotion when the need arises.
pp. 426-660; reviewed 2 August 2008
At the end of a hectic day in our hectic world, it’s such a pleasure to sink into the world of a writer like Thackeray who, writing as he did in a serialized form, had every reason to draw his story out, to linger at every little point of interest, to wander off into idle jokes and contemplation. Especially after the battle of Waterloo has been put behind us, Thackeray seems to sit back and let his plot unfold at a slow pace.
This is a book about waiting. Becky and Rawdon and all their relatives wait for the wealthy Miss Crawley to die and pass on her inheritance. Amelia waits for her bitter father-in-law to forgive his grudges against his rebellious son. Poor William Dobbin waits for himself to build up the courage to finally reveal his love for Amelia. And as readers, we’re waiting for the Becky and Amelia’s sons to grow up. Young George Osborne is the spit and image of his dead father, and develops all his father’s overconfidence and bravado. Young Rawdon Crawley’s father is still alive, but has undergone a sort of spiritual death at the hands of the scheming Becky Sharp, who has encouraged him to dull his wits and go to seed while she pursues her own ambitions to penetrate the highest levels of society and especially to take as much advantage as she can of the lecherous Lord Steyne.
A different, more deliberate novelist might have recognized that the story has a natural climax in the battle of Waterloo. All the themes of the book are present there. We can see clearly the rivalry between Becky and Amelia, the inevitable cuckolding of Rawdon Crawley and the frustrated love of the honorable William Dobbin, who makes so many sacrifices to Amelia and yet can’t bring himself to admit his love for her. Once the smoke has cleared and we learn that George has died in battle, the story proper could end, and we could skip ahead to an epilogue where young Rawdon and George are grown, where Amelia and Becky confront each other, as they must inevitably do.
Such a plot structure would be far more economical and probably better. With all the wooly digressions done away with, this would be the sort of precise, clever book that actually makes a point about some theme, be it the vanity of all our worldly pursuits or the virtue of those who live a life without pretense. As it is, though, the novel is beautiful because it’s so inefficient, because it sprawls and wanders so much as Thackeray moves from point A to point B. We get lovely glimpses of the way old Rawdon Crawley nearly finds fulfillment in fatherhood, but doesn’t quite have the wit to understand what’s happening to him. We get to cringe at the injustice as Amelia not only loses her beloved son George, but also is all but forgotten by him. And all of Becky’s bad characteristics, already established prior to the Waterloo episode, get to come forward and develop fully.
More than half of this book is an extended epilogue, slow paced and idle, but what better form for a book whose purpose is to draw a vast mural of all the idle pursuits that people are guilty of.
p. 660 to end. Reviewed 16 August 2008
The most interesting part of this book’s end is the section where, after spending his entire adult life pining for Amelia Osborne nee Sedley, William Dobbin finally stands up to her and declares that he’s realized she isn’t worthy of him by dint of the fact that she’s spurned him all these years when anyone with sense would have recognized and embraced the worth of so much devotion. It stands out because it’s the closest thing there is in the book to a heroic monologue. During the course of the novel, Thackeray finds few emotional causes worthy of his endorsement. Those tract writers and parliamentarians who oppose the slave trade meet only with scorn. The plight of those less fortunate characters, such as Miss Briggs, are recognized, but only as an afterthought; after we get a dark laugh at the way Becky Sharp cheats Briggs out of her small fortune, we’re comforted by the fact that in the end someone looks kindly on her and provides her with a small income. But Thackeray doesn’t seem outraged at the lot of the poor in the way Dickens often was; he’s merely cushioning the novel out so as not to let Briggs distract from the central theme of the book. There are various devout Christians in the book, but we’re led to believe that, while they may be correct in their beliefs, they’re all rather dull.
In the sections leading up to the battle of Waterloo, we witness a literal overnight transition of George Osborne from a philandering good-for-nothing to a man with noble and heroic character who suddenly recognizes the great debt of love he owes his dear wife, Amelia. Here especially, Thackeray seems to be intentionally filing off the sharp edges of his claws. He admits outright that his domain as a writer encompasses only the activities of civilian life, and so here at the border of the military world he feels obliged to drop his own cynical view of the world and bestow Osborne with a fiction of nobility that Thackeray neither believes nor disbelieves, but one from which he can easily distance himself because it’s not of his own design.
But if the battlefield between warring armies is outside Thackeray’s narrative grasp, the battlefield between those who are celebrated and those who are jilted is firmly within it. That’s why Dobbin’s speech jolts us awake after we’ve spent nearly an eternity snoozing through the descriptions of Amelia and Dobbin’s trip to Germany. In Thackeray’s world, the wounds of a man who’s loved his entire life in vain are far more real than the wounds suffered by soldiers in war or by the widows of those soldiers who find themselves left behind to raise their children.
Dobbin’s speech is foreshadowed by the impassioned outburst of Lady Jane against her husband, Sir Pitt, who is on the verge of granting safe harbor to the scheming Becky Crawley. Lady Jane would be a totally forgettable character if it weren’t for this speech that comes out of nowhere in which this character suddenly finds her voice, reminding her husband of her unwavering loyalty and demanding asserting that in this one instance she must be able to make the rules: she will not be under the same roof as Rebecca Crawley.
Becky is the common denominator in both of these outbursts. Even though William is rejecting Amelia, his eyes have been opened to her flaws only because she’s willing to welcome Becky into her home.
Becky is central to the novel, but it’s difficult to understand what she represents. If I were pressed, I’d have to say that she represents the fact that the social world as Thackeray sees it is a zero-sum game. In order for one person like Becky Sharp to prosper and thrive, to gain the recognition of nobility and royalty, to be considered of “good character,” a whole range of people must unwittingly suffer.
There’s a great story here, but it feels as if Thackeray arrived at it almost by chance. Our own age of efficiency-in-fiction would demand that, having discovered his central theme, Thackeray must then go back over his whole narrative, trimming the fat, carefully orchestrating all the subplots and sideshows of the novel so that they somehow resonate with the story of Becky Sharp and her cursed ambitions.
I’ve no doubt that that sort of creative process would have resulted in a better book. However, for the student of writing it’s worthwhile to examine Vanity Fair as it exists today precisely because it’s so easy to see the novels flaws and its potential resting side-by-side. Each of us would probably revise the novel in our own way. If I were to take the story and run with it, I would first try to expand on the story of Becky’s lover, Lord Steyne. Having established the character of Becky, Thackeray needed to create a temptation worthy of her. Steyne is the Darth Vader of this novel. When Thackeray describes Steyne’s world in the chapter Gaunt House, his language immediately heightens itself, and we get a sense that we’re wandering into a territory where there are many ugly secrets. Later on we see how, confronted with the prospect of a duel with Rawdon Crawley, Steyne is able to essentially buy the man off with the offer of an out-of-the-way post as a colonial governor. And near the end of the book, when Becky is tempted to try to win Steyne back, one of his henchmen gives her an ultimatum that essentially tells her that she’s nothing but an embarrassment to the man, and can either get out of town now or face being killed in the dead of night. It’s a portrait of darkly varnished evil that’s all the more fascinating because Thackeray seemed to stumble on it inadvertently. If he’d been a more organized writer, Thackeray doubtless would have seen the value of the character and “capitalized” on it, introducing him earlier and fleshing him out and making him more central to the books narrative. There’s a lesson here to be learned by any young writer. But perhaps the sword has its double edge. I would wager that if Thackeray had been a less spontaneous, less meandering author, Thackeray never would have wandered into this character at all.
Up to page 426. Reviewed 19 July 2008.
In his introduction to this book, J. I. M. Stewart makes it clear that Vanity Fair is a second-tier work as far as 19th Century British fiction goes. Why even read a book that’s not the best of the best, especially if it’s such a long and involved endeavor as this one?
I’m interested in books from different periods of time for the same reason that I’m interested in learning foreign languages, because it lets me distance myself from the place I live and the habits of thought that I otherwise take for granted. I’m especially interested in the way that humor has evolved over time. Vanity Fair has a few bits of good comedy. For instance, there’s the comedy of mistaken intentions when William Dobbin, the novel’s most sympathetic character, sits down with Miss Jane Osborne, who is dearly smitten with him, and tries to have a conversation with her. The poor Jane interprets every word as a sign that William Dobbin is about to propose. It’s just a short scene, but each little turn of the conversation is so well played out that it comes alive.
Later on in the story we watch the young wastrel Rawdon Crawley as he prepares to go to war, bidding farewell to his young wife Rebecca before going off with Wellington’s army to stave off the advance of the Napoleonic army. Touched by the sudden intimation of his own mortality, Rawdon scrambles to think of every last possession that Rebecca might be able to pawn off in case he dies. At the same moment that we’re amused Rawdon’s venality we’re also touched by the fact that this is the closest he’s going to get to real romantic love. And as soon as he leaves, we take a look into Rebecca’s head and see how she’s already scheming about how she might actually be better off if her husband dies on the battlefield.
Brilliant little Becky Sharp is probably the best reason to read this book. She’s a character calculated to defy every expectation of her era’s class-consciousness. An orphan girl of humble origins, she uses all her assets (a keen intellect, a perfect command of French, a nasty sense of humor and a remarkable beauty) to make the rich and powerful fall head-over-heels in love with her. She has generals making fools of themselves, she brings her best friend’s marriage to the brink of collapse, and she makes herself the toast of Belgian high society after Napoleon is defeated. Those who are won over by her let their imaginations run wild, ascribing to her the noblest, most romantic origins they can think of. In the same way, Thackeray encourages us to let our imaginations go as well when it comes to this character, so that by the time the novel is halfway finished we no longer need Thackeray to remind us of Becky’s ruthless character because we already feel as if we have an intimate understanding of her gloriously amoral style of getting a leg up on the whole world.
Although Thackeray claims this is “a novel without a hero,” it is also not a satiric comedy that’s all pitched at the same level. There are plenty of characters that we’re meant only to find ridiculous, such as the spinster Miss Crawley and the swarm of sycophants who gather around her hoping for a bit of her inheritance. But there are also characters who are more tragically than comically flawed, such as old Mr Osborne, who wants deeply to come to peace with his dead son George but is too stubborn to forgive the way George defied his father’s will and married without permission.
What makes this book worth reading is to see how even a second tier novelist of Thackeray’s era devoted himself to the nuance and texture of the world he created, creating space on the stage for humor and sarcasm to give way to moments of true emotion when the need arises.
pp. 426-660; reviewed 2 August 2008
At the end of a hectic day in our hectic world, it’s such a pleasure to sink into the world of a writer like Thackeray who, writing as he did in a serialized form, had every reason to draw his story out, to linger at every little point of interest, to wander off into idle jokes and contemplation. Especially after the battle of Waterloo has been put behind us, Thackeray seems to sit back and let his plot unfold at a slow pace.
This is a book about waiting. Becky and Rawdon and all their relatives wait for the wealthy Miss Crawley to die and pass on her inheritance. Amelia waits for her bitter father-in-law to forgive his grudges against his rebellious son. Poor William Dobbin waits for himself to build up the courage to finally reveal his love for Amelia. And as readers, we’re waiting for the Becky and Amelia’s sons to grow up. Young George Osborne is the spit and image of his dead father, and develops all his father’s overconfidence and bravado. Young Rawdon Crawley’s father is still alive, but has undergone a sort of spiritual death at the hands of the scheming Becky Sharp, who has encouraged him to dull his wits and go to seed while she pursues her own ambitions to penetrate the highest levels of society and especially to take as much advantage as she can of the lecherous Lord Steyne.
A different, more deliberate novelist might have recognized that the story has a natural climax in the battle of Waterloo. All the themes of the book are present there. We can see clearly the rivalry between Becky and Amelia, the inevitable cuckolding of Rawdon Crawley and the frustrated love of the honorable William Dobbin, who makes so many sacrifices to Amelia and yet can’t bring himself to admit his love for her. Once the smoke has cleared and we learn that George has died in battle, the story proper could end, and we could skip ahead to an epilogue where young Rawdon and George are grown, where Amelia and Becky confront each other, as they must inevitably do.
Such a plot structure would be far more economical and probably better. With all the wooly digressions done away with, this would be the sort of precise, clever book that actually makes a point about some theme, be it the vanity of all our worldly pursuits or the virtue of those who live a life without pretense. As it is, though, the novel is beautiful because it’s so inefficient, because it sprawls and wanders so much as Thackeray moves from point A to point B. We get lovely glimpses of the way old Rawdon Crawley nearly finds fulfillment in fatherhood, but doesn’t quite have the wit to understand what’s happening to him. We get to cringe at the injustice as Amelia not only loses her beloved son George, but also is all but forgotten by him. And all of Becky’s bad characteristics, already established prior to the Waterloo episode, get to come forward and develop fully.
More than half of this book is an extended epilogue, slow paced and idle, but what better form for a book whose purpose is to draw a vast mural of all the idle pursuits that people are guilty of.
p. 660 to end. Reviewed 16 August 2008
The most interesting part of this book’s end is the section where, after spending his entire adult life pining for Amelia Osborne nee Sedley, William Dobbin finally stands up to her and declares that he’s realized she isn’t worthy of him by dint of the fact that she’s spurned him all these years when anyone with sense would have recognized and embraced the worth of so much devotion. It stands out because it’s the closest thing there is in the book to a heroic monologue. During the course of the novel, Thackeray finds few emotional causes worthy of his endorsement. Those tract writers and parliamentarians who oppose the slave trade meet only with scorn. The plight of those less fortunate characters, such as Miss Briggs, are recognized, but only as an afterthought; after we get a dark laugh at the way Becky Sharp cheats Briggs out of her small fortune, we’re comforted by the fact that in the end someone looks kindly on her and provides her with a small income. But Thackeray doesn’t seem outraged at the lot of the poor in the way Dickens often was; he’s merely cushioning the novel out so as not to let Briggs distract from the central theme of the book. There are various devout Christians in the book, but we’re led to believe that, while they may be correct in their beliefs, they’re all rather dull.
In the sections leading up to the battle of Waterloo, we witness a literal overnight transition of George Osborne from a philandering good-for-nothing to a man with noble and heroic character who suddenly recognizes the great debt of love he owes his dear wife, Amelia. Here especially, Thackeray seems to be intentionally filing off the sharp edges of his claws. He admits outright that his domain as a writer encompasses only the activities of civilian life, and so here at the border of the military world he feels obliged to drop his own cynical view of the world and bestow Osborne with a fiction of nobility that Thackeray neither believes nor disbelieves, but one from which he can easily distance himself because it’s not of his own design.
But if the battlefield between warring armies is outside Thackeray’s narrative grasp, the battlefield between those who are celebrated and those who are jilted is firmly within it. That’s why Dobbin’s speech jolts us awake after we’ve spent nearly an eternity snoozing through the descriptions of Amelia and Dobbin’s trip to Germany. In Thackeray’s world, the wounds of a man who’s loved his entire life in vain are far more real than the wounds suffered by soldiers in war or by the widows of those soldiers who find themselves left behind to raise their children.
Dobbin’s speech is foreshadowed by the impassioned outburst of Lady Jane against her husband, Sir Pitt, who is on the verge of granting safe harbor to the scheming Becky Crawley. Lady Jane would be a totally forgettable character if it weren’t for this speech that comes out of nowhere in which this character suddenly finds her voice, reminding her husband of her unwavering loyalty and demanding asserting that in this one instance she must be able to make the rules: she will not be under the same roof as Rebecca Crawley.
Becky is the common denominator in both of these outbursts. Even though William is rejecting Amelia, his eyes have been opened to her flaws only because she’s willing to welcome Becky into her home.
Becky is central to the novel, but it’s difficult to understand what she represents. If I were pressed, I’d have to say that she represents the fact that the social world as Thackeray sees it is a zero-sum game. In order for one person like Becky Sharp to prosper and thrive, to gain the recognition of nobility and royalty, to be considered of “good character,” a whole range of people must unwittingly suffer.
There’s a great story here, but it feels as if Thackeray arrived at it almost by chance. Our own age of efficiency-in-fiction would demand that, having discovered his central theme, Thackeray must then go back over his whole narrative, trimming the fat, carefully orchestrating all the subplots and sideshows of the novel so that they somehow resonate with the story of Becky Sharp and her cursed ambitions.
I’ve no doubt that that sort of creative process would have resulted in a better book. However, for the student of writing it’s worthwhile to examine Vanity Fair as it exists today precisely because it’s so easy to see the novels flaws and its potential resting side-by-side. Each of us would probably revise the novel in our own way. If I were to take the story and run with it, I would first try to expand on the story of Becky’s lover, Lord Steyne. Having established the character of Becky, Thackeray needed to create a temptation worthy of her. Steyne is the Darth Vader of this novel. When Thackeray describes Steyne’s world in the chapter Gaunt House, his language immediately heightens itself, and we get a sense that we’re wandering into a territory where there are many ugly secrets. Later on we see how, confronted with the prospect of a duel with Rawdon Crawley, Steyne is able to essentially buy the man off with the offer of an out-of-the-way post as a colonial governor. And near the end of the book, when Becky is tempted to try to win Steyne back, one of his henchmen gives her an ultimatum that essentially tells her that she’s nothing but an embarrassment to the man, and can either get out of town now or face being killed in the dead of night. It’s a portrait of darkly varnished evil that’s all the more fascinating because Thackeray seemed to stumble on it inadvertently. If he’d been a more organized writer, Thackeray doubtless would have seen the value of the character and “capitalized” on it, introducing him earlier and fleshing him out and making him more central to the books narrative. There’s a lesson here to be learned by any young writer. But perhaps the sword has its double edge. I would wager that if Thackeray had been a less spontaneous, less meandering author, Thackeray never would have wandered into this character at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
