We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books
I’m always
wary about narrative techniques that are described as “postmodern”.
Take the
technique of having an author-narrator who butts into a novel and comments upon
it, drawing the reader’s attention to the novel’s style and technique and
artifice. This is supposed to be very postmodern and a sign of the “new novel”
which deconstructs itself before our very eyes, puts a meta-narrative in
control of a narrative, and so forth.
But I keep asking myself – is
this carry-on all that new? Isn’t it really a reversion to the way novels were
routinely written in the nineteenth century and earlier, with all their authorial
comment and direct address to the reader? The postmodern novelist who
deconstructs his/her narrative for our conscious inspection is only a whisker
removed from Thackeray with his “Dear Reader” asides, or Charlotte Bronte
having Jane Eyre say “Reader, I married
him!” or the likes of Henry Fielding and George Eliot dropping long,
self-contained essays and general observations on life into their tales.
Readers then were frequently reminded that an author was in charge of whatever
story they were reading, and that the story itself was an artificial construct
– and that is all that the “new novel” tells us too.
Postmodern? Nah! It’s just a
revival of the old.
Forgive this little rant, but it
was brought on by reading Carl Nixon’s brisk and generally entertaining tale The Virgin and the Whale.
Nixon begins by telling us that
the central idea of the story is true and was told to him by an elderly
correspondent. This may or may not be the case; but is certainly similar to
those ancient novels purporting to be true stories which have only been
“edited” by the author.
Nixon then frequently makes his
own first person asides. When, for example, he is explaining at the beginning
of Chapter 17 how a very unlikely event has completely deprived one of his main
characters of his memory, he writes:
“At this point the story will be frustrating certain readers.
‘Impossible!’ or ‘Isn’t this supposed to be based on a true
story?’
Perhaps you have already drawn back the book, set to lob it towards the
far wall. No doubt there are other far more credible narratives stacked upon
your bedside table. Or perhaps you prefer your books to be more explicitly incredible
– strange planets, or goblins and dragons…Perhaps some earnest book reviewer is
scribbling in the margin of his or her uncorrected proof copy ‘Too much
suspension of disbelief required.’ ” (pp.92-93)
And so on.
Sometimes
his intrusions and direct addresses are playful, teasing us with the way the
same story could have been written in more cliché terms. Consider this passage
in Chapter 32, where characters are entering a psychiatric hospital:
“Even though the institution has been renamed the much more felicitous
Sunnyside, it still manages to loom over the three figures walking towards the
entrance. The large wooden door is flanked by two lanterns, recently
electrified. It may give a very slight creak as it swings open. Perhaps
it does close rather heavily. But to say that the sound echoes down the
corridor like hollow laughter, well, that is a bridge too far. Such descriptions
belong to a model of mental institution that by 1919 was already antiquated.”
(p.154)
Much later – and without my
providing any “spoilers” - he suggests a
“false” ending to the novel before giving us the “real” ending.
Just as “postmodern” as the
authorial intrusions, however, is the whole conceit of this story. In short
chapters, written mainly in the present tense, it is a story that is
consciously and overtly about the telling of stories.
In 1919, shortly after the end of
the Great War, the nurse Elizabeth Whitman has returned to “Mansfield’ (i.e.
Christchurch) with her young son Jack. Jack’s father, Elizabeth’s husband, is
missing, presumed dead, in the war; but Elizabeth can’t bring herself to tell
Jack this terrible fact, and the little boy lives with the hope that his father
will some day return. Elizabeth entertains the boy with an ongoing bedtime
story about an adventurous balloonist and his encounters with a civilized
tiger. That is one story within the story – a story of hope and unlikely
survival.
Elizabeth takes on the commission
of looking after and nursing Paul Blackwell, a wealthy man in a toney part of
“Mansfield”. Blackwell, returned from the war, has completely lost his memory
after an unusual head wound sustained in the trenches (perhaps his name –
Blackwell – suggests the black hole left where his memory should be).
Blackwell’s snobbish and somewhat patronising wife hopes that Elizabeth will be
able to restore her husband’s memory, but there is not the least real hope of this.
Paul Blackwell has no memory of being Paul Blackwell and answers only to the
name of Lucky. His very first recollection is of the moment in the trenches
when he was found, hanging between life and death, by a stretcher party. In
effect, that was the moment when he began to be the man he is now.
Unlike Blackwell’s wife,
Elizabeth realizes the truth of Lucky’s situation. In telling him stories of
herself, she begins to heal him and rebuild him as a person, different from the
one that used to inhabit his body. These are the other stories within the story
– in this case, stories as therapeutic means of rebuilding a personality.
The Virgin and the Whale is subtitled “A Love Story”, so from the
title page (and from Carl Nixon’s prologue), you will probably have guessed
where this story is going without any prompting from me.
Allow me first to say a few
negative things. I think the novel’s title is an unnecessary tease. The Moon
Virgin and the helpful Whale appear very late in the novel, in the fantastical
story that Elizabeth tells her young son. True, the skeleton of another whale
is mentioned early in the novel; but the novel’s title still seems a mildly
sensationalist way of grabbing the reader’s attention. There’s also a vague
hint of Random Harvest in any story
about amnesia – once one of the most popular themes in romantic bestsellers –
and the premise of nurse and helpless-but-forceful male can’t help carrying
overtones of Rebecca, Jane Eyre etc. In saying this, Cynical
Old Me is simply saying that, whether it is based on a true story or not, The Virgin and the Whale has elements of
the romantic novelette.
But Carl Nixon’s merits as a
writer outweigh these defects. For one thing, he writes a beautiful, clean
prose. Take, for example, this early passage, where he gives a clear impression
of the process of ageing by describing what happens to the skeleton of a whale
that was once the pride of “Mansfield” (i.e. Canterbury) Museum:
“Here at the start of our story, in 1919, the time since the end of the
Great War can still be counted in months. While the citizens of Mansfield
looked away across the oceans to husbands and fiancés, sons and brothers
fighting in Europe, rain has blown in under the roof of the corrugated shelter.
The crowds had long ago dispersed. The once crisp white bones are faded to
grey. The metal rods have rusted, leaving stains the colour of strong tea
around the edges of the drilled holes. The damage is most obvious in the
multiple joints of the hands. Lichen has found a home along the southernmost
jaw (20 feet 8 inches).” (p.17)
Nixon also conjures up this past
age concisely, in telling details, which suggest discreetly class differences
and tensions rather than mere quaintness. Elizabeth Whitman’s impressions of
the Blackwell mansion and its servants contrast, without unduly lengthy
descriptions, with the cramped quarters of her parents’ home. Nixon also takes
some care in emphasising the physical damage to men who have returned from the
war, as seen in the wards where Elizabeth works before she takes up her
commission with Lucky. These men hurt physically, but are as afraid of being
looked down upon and pitied:
“The truth is that the men in Ward Six have come to despise Kind. Every
day, they look with far-seeing eyes from the mountaintop of their situation
over the kingdom of Kind. They see how it borders on the desert land of
Condescension. They understand that Kind has as its capital city the crumbled
ruins called Pity.” (p.34)
This may be a trifle forced, but
it does remind me of Siegfried Sassoon’s “Does
it matter - losing your legs? / For people will always be kind” etc. so its
grandiloquence is probably true to the novel’s period setting.
Time for a
verdict, after these disjointed remarks. I think The Virgin and the Whale is a good, enjoyable middlebrow read on
familiar themes. It has the advantage of a clear prose, which makes it a brisk
reading experience. The author’s intrusions into the narrative are urbane and
amusing and don’t hold things up unduly. But as for being postmodern –
poppycock. It’s a good yarn with authorial comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment