We feature each fortnight Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.
“ALL THE JUICY PASTURES – Greville
Texidor and New Zealand” by Margot Schwass (Victoria University Press, $NZ40)
When I
finished reading Margot Schwass’s All the
Juicy Pastures, my main thought was “Is
this the study of an author or is it the study of a ‘case’?” The blurb tells
us that Greville Texidor wrote “dazzling”
stories, produced “a small but essential
body of work” and is “an essential
New Zealand writer.” Having read all Texidor’s published work (her short
stories and her novella These Dark
Glasses), I’m not sure that this description holds up. But I am sure that
Texidor led an interesting life. And even if the biographer’s intention is to
celebrate the work, it is the life that holds most attention in All the Juicy Pastures. A superficial
reading might find this life adventurous and somehow exciting. A bit more
attention reveals most of it to have been intensely unsettled and unhappy.
I’ll
elucidate by summarising.
Margaret
Greville Foster (who later had various noms
de guerre) was born in 1902 to a wealthy middle-class English family. Her
father was a solicitor, her mother had the leisure to be an amateur artist and
the household employed servants. This privileged life meant Margaret got a
private-school education, but she disliked it, resisted being taught and was,
lifelong, a poor speller. In the 1920s, like many of her refined background,
she became a real flapper, throwing herself into the hedonism of the era, partying,
posing for artists (the Augustus John crowd), winning a beauty contest, playing
a bit part in a film, and finally becoming a chorus girl, which led to some international
touring. Any connections she might have had with literati or the Bloomsbury set were simply as a hanger-on. She also
had numerous affairs, dabbled in drugs, and went through a period of being
hooked on heroin. Tiring of London, she moved to Spain in the early 1930s, and
continued to live the hedonistic life in the seaside town Tossa de Mar,
although now, in her thirties, she was getting bored with it and wanted
something more substantial in her life. She was briefly married to, and had a
daughter with, the Spaniard Manolo Texidor, and ever afterwards styled herself
Greville Texidor.
In Spain in 1933,
she met (and later married) Werner Droescher, nine years her junior, and a
refugee from Nazi Germany. With Droescher, Texidor became politicised… sort of.
Droescher’s politics were anarchist. The couple were involved in anarchist
causes, particularly with regard to education and welfare and including radical
ideas on the rearing of children. Droescher was suspicious of (Stalinist)
Communists and other dogmatic Marxists. But as the civil war began in Spain,
Droescher also proved to be something of a political naif. He imagined – as did many others – that the Left
would be united in fighting Franco (see p.66 and p.71). As it turned out, the
disunity of the Left was one of the main causes of Franco’s victory. It lead to
“the civil war within the civil war” in which well-organised Communists spent
as much time taking over the Spanish Republican government, and putting down
their non-Communist “allies”, as they did in fighting Franco.
At
the outbreak of the war, the Droeschers enrolled, not in an anarchist militia
but, as George Orwell did, in the POUM i.e. the militia of the anti-Stalin
Marxists, which the Stalinists regarded as “Trotskyite”. The Droeschers did not
see much direct fighting, but they were involved in at least one armed skirmish
(pp.76-77). And then the Left started eating itself. Disillusion with the war
now dominated Texidor’s thoughts. According to Margot Schwass, Texidor was later
stressed not only by the failure of the Left and Franco’s victory, but also by
the thought that she had ever taken up arms in the first place. She was evacuated
to England as the civil war drew to a close, classified in England as an “enemy
alien” and very briefly served time in Holloway prison. Then, with the help of
Quakers, she and Droescher emigrated to New Zealand.
And
here we come to what Margot Schwass intends to be the heart of the book. Note
that All the
Juicy Pastures is subtitled
“Greville Texidor and New Zealand”. Of the 219 pages
of text [after the Foreword], 82 pages concern her time in New Zealand, even
though she spent only eight of her 62 years here, from 1940 to 1948.
Greville and
Werner at first settled in the remote rural area Paparoa and tried to make a go
of farming a small plot. This lasted only a year or so. The isolation increased
Greville’s chronic depression and her views of rural New Zealanders, which
influenced many of her stories, were unsympathetic. Werner then got a job in
Auckland, and they relocated to Auckland’s North Shore. Approaching her
mid-forties Greville had a second daughter.
On the North Shore, Greville was closer to the
(mainly male) group of writers that had Frank Sargeson as its nucleus and that
approximated the “culture” which Greville missed in the backblocks. Margot Schwass admits, but I think underplays,
Sargeson’s ingrained misogyny. Apparently Sargeson is to be forgiven because –
as all his circle were aware – he was homosexual so, apparently, his anti-women
bile was just protective “camouflage” that allowed him to fit into a dominantly
macho world, where slagging off women was common pub talk (p.130). Even so, it was under Sargeson’s mentorship that Greville turned to
writing and produced in New Zealand all her publishable work. This included a
number of short stories set in New Zealand and taking a dim view of parochial,
“puritan”, culture-less Kiwi philistinism – an attitude very similar to
Sargeson’s own in the mainly sardonic stories he had been writing since the
early 1930s. Some of these stories were, thanks to Sargeson’s championing of
them, published in prestigious journals, and some have continued to appear in
anthologies of New Zealand short stories. (Surveying the books on my shelves I
note that one story by Greville Texidor appears in Dan Davin’s 1953 Oxford New Zealand Short Stories, and another
appears in Owen Marshall’s 2002 Essential
New Zealand Short Stories).
Texidor also
worked on the novella These Dark Glasses, which drew on her experience in Spain. Set in 1938, it had as its
central character a disillusioned Communist (specifically identified as such),
reaching despair as she sees that the war in Spain is lost and realises she is
now sinking back into the company of vain poseurs and wastrels whose political
ideals are skin-deep. It ends (or by implication ends) in a suicide. The
novella’s setting is a seaside town in France, though some of the characters
are based on people Texidor knew (and came to despise) in London and in Tossa
de Mar. These Dark Glasses was
finished in 1944 but was not published until 1949. There is the awkward
question of how far Sargeson’s mentorship of Texidor’s writing went. Margot
Schwass quotes the testimony of Texidor’s daughter that “Sargeson sat literally at her mother’s shoulder as she wrote,
ransacking her storehouse of pre-war European stories, coaxing them onto the
page sentence by sentence.” (p.133) Later, though, Schwass tells us that Texidor
sometimes ignored his advice.
Schwass
analyses this novella (at pp.190-195) in terms of its modernism, its existentialism and how much it is and is not autobiographical.
Sargeson, of course, loved it, called it a “masterpiece”
and claimed that it marked a turning point in New Zealand literature. But –
with great understatement – Schloss notes that the print run was small (300
copies) and “Sargeson perhaps overstates
the book’s impact on domestic readers” (p.195). It received tepid and
largely negative reviews in New Zealand, including one detailed dissection in Landfall, to which both Sargeson and
Texidor objected. Meanwhile some of
Texidor’s erstwhile English friends hated what they recognised as caricatures
of themselves, and a few even bought up copies to destroy them. (p.198)
Before
the novella was published, however, in 1948 the Droeschers had already relocated to Australia. Werner was following work and
Greville was happy to go with him as by this stage she was bored with New
Zealand. She found Queensland as dull and provincial as she found New Zealand.
The Droeschers shifted to more cosmopolitan New South Wales, where they were
sometimes in reach of the culturally-interesting city of Sydney. For a while
they worked in a camp for “Displaced Persons” (refugees from post-war Europe).
Greville tried to write longer works. She toiled over, and often re-wrote
passages of, drafts of two novels, one about a militia woman in Spain and one
about a DP camp. But neither was ever finished. She did write two radio plays
that were broadcast, and she did attempt some journalism, but basically her
writing career was over once she left New Zealand. In her Foreword, after
telling us how much Texidor left unpublished, Schwass admits “most of the unpublished material is
apprentice work… there are no unpublished masterpieces” (p.9).
In Australia,
Texidor’s depression increased. Her first attempt at suicide was in 1953, when
her mother died. Mrs Foster followed Greville on most of her travels, and is an
unseen presence in much of this book. She seems to have been a force for some
sort of quiet stability in her daughter’s erratic life. Finally bored with
Australia, Greville relocated to Franco’s Spain in 1955, tried her hand at
running a café for tourists, and attempted, without success, to recapture the
vitality she had once experienced there. Werner Droescher finally separated
from her in 1960 to take up lectureship in the University of Auckland’s German
department. Still seeking an elusive peace of mind, Texidor returned to
Australia in 1962. But she found no peace. She committed suicide in 1964.
Schwass sees
many of the mental crises of Texidor’s later life as arising from what amounted
to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, after her experiences in Spain. She
designates some of Texidor’s writing as “therapy”. There may be some truth to
this, but it is clear that there was a strong strain of depression in her
family. Her father committed suicide in 1919 when Texidor was a teenager. She
was restless and found it difficult to settle to things before she ever saw
Spain. She was constantly attempting to remake herself and frequently harboured
the delusion that merely by shifting to a new place she would find a new self.
I cannot help wondering, too, how much her early drug-use disoriented her.
Clearly the isolation of Paparoa added to her distress and by the mid-1940s her
fragile mental health led to
injections to control her “delusions”
(p.160). Her two early marriages and her many affairs were also destabilising.
Before she married Manolo Texidor, there was apparently a very brief marriage
to a “Mr Wilson” (p.52.) upon whom Schwass cannot find much information. Once
married to Werner Droescher, says Schwass “the
Droeschers had always considered their marriage an open one, reflecting the
mores of the Catalan anarchist world of the 1930s in which it had begun.”
(p.157) Okay, but the many affairs (including one with Maurice Duggan) were
also destabilising and certainly didn’t make for enduring relationships or
peace of mind.
In
themselves, none of these mental conditions call into question Greville
Texidor’s ability as a writer. (Compile a list of very good writers who had
psychological problems, and you will be compiling a very long list). But
considering how meaningful and important her writing is, is another matter.
In
both her Foreword and her coda, which she calls “The secret of her
unsuccess?”, Margot Schwass discusses the issue some have raised about
whether Greville Texidor was a really “New Zealand writer”, given that she
lived here for only eight years and given that only some of her published
writing is about New Zealand. Personally, like Schwass, I see this as a silly
non-issue, redolent of the old adherence to “nationalism” in New Zealand
literary criticism from the 1930s to the 1960s. The only significant things
Texidor ever wrote were written in New Zealand and sometimes about New Zealand,
so a New Zealand writer she is. As to how important a writer she was, that’s
another question. At one point Schwass says her New Zealand stories “register moments when an insular New Zealand
sensibility is disturbed by tremors from the world beyond.” (p.115) Perhaps
she herself was one of those tremors and perhaps her exotic background was what
made her interesting in 1940s New Zealand – stimulating because presenting
another perspective.
But
she was not able to build a literary career. As Schwass says: “What she lacked most was application, the
discipline, perseverance and confidence that’s needed to keep going as a
writer, regardless of the outcome.” (p.245) Schwass then argues that the length
of a writer’s career does not not necessarily signal that writer’s worth. True
enough, I suppose – but while I found this an interesting and well-researched book, I cannot endorse the
claims for Texidor’s ongoing significance that are made in All the
Juicy Pastures.
Personal Coda:
I have just given you a fair and balanced account of Margot Schwass’s book of the sort I always
try to give. But in this case I do have some skin in the game. I formed my own
views of Greville Texidor’s work about
twelve years ago while researching an article on New Zealand writers who had
left-wing persuasions. In my reseach, I read all her published work. First I
read These Dark Glasses in its
original 1949 edition. I see that in my reading diary, as well as extensively
synopsising it, I regarded it as “episodic
and hard to follow”. I also read all her stories (including These Dark Glasses) gathered together
and edited by Kendrick Smithyman in 1987 under the title In Fifteen Minutes You Can Say a Lot. Some were unfinished pieces
that had never been published before. Most of them (whether set in Spain or New
Zealand) were interesting, but I would be hard pressed to call any of them
outstanding.
What
I have not mentioned, of course, and what I slid past in the review above, is
that it was my father J.C. Reid who wrote the long, critical Landfall review of These Dark Glasses to which both Sargeson and Texidor took
exception. Margot Schwass covers the review on pp.196ff. and makes the
extraordinary claim that “Reid’s review…
helped confirm Greville’s exclusion from the New Zealand canon” (p.197) I
find this hard to believe. Texidor was excluded from the “canon” because she
was little read, except in the few stories that were anthologised, and did not
make a great impact outside her immediate group of supporters.
Texidor
replied to the review in a long letter in the next issue of Landfall. She ridiculed the review for
comparing her novella (unfavourably) with the well-established formula, best
known in Cyril Connolly’s 1936 novel The
Rock Pool, of stories about people pretending to intellecualise while
living rather pointless and trivial lives. Interestingly, Kendrick Smithyman (a
friend and colleague of my father) agreed, in his introduction to In Fifteen Minutes You Can Say a Lot,
that These Dark Glasses does have a
touch of The Rock Pool. My father
also said that this [mid-1940s] novella seemed to reflect a pre-war mood.
Ruefully, Schwass has to admit that Texidor was aware this was true: “Despite her crisp demolition [really?] of J.C.Reid’s review, she could not help but
agree that the novel was dated.” (p.200) Where I would fault my father’s
review is that it is simply too long (the novella could have been analysed and
evaluated at half the length) and it makes too many comparisons with other
works.
Sargeson’s
private reaction to the review, in letters to Texidor and others, was his usual
venom, referring to “that Reid swine”,
that “stinker” etc. etc. As I noted
on this blog seven years ago, while reviewing Sarah Shieff’s excellent edition
of Letters of Frank Sargeson,
Sargeson liked to think of himself as the Grand Cham and arbiter of New Zealand
literature, and resented a younger man challenging what he thought were now his
firmly-canonised opinions. His bile against my father was extreme, sometimes to
the point of hysteria.
One
final comment. Schwass says “Few in
Sargeson’s circle regarded [Reid] as
a supporter of New Zealand literature…”(p.196). Later (p.241) she notes how
much Texidor realised she had fallen behind Maurice Duggan when she saw a copy
of his acclaimed short story collection Immanuel’s
Land. This mention made me take off my shelves a copy of the original,
1956, Pilgrim Press edition of Immanuel’s
Land. In praise of the collection, the blurb quotes, at length, only one
local critic, J.C.Reid… but apparently he wasn’t a supporter on New Zealand
literature.
Dear
me. Ancient literary squabbles are fairly tedious, aren’t they? Especially ones
seventy years old. But cantankerous men like Sargeson do still have to be called
out, especially when they have been so often mythologised.
No comments:
Post a Comment