Something New

    We feature each fortnight Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books. 

“AT THE GRAND GLACIER HOTEL” by Laurence Fearnley (Penguin, $NZ36.99)

I am a little behind the band, but I have only now got around to reading Laurence Fearnley’s novel At the Grand Glacier Hotel. It was first published in 2024 and it was a finalist for the Ockham NZ  Books Awards in 2025. I have read nearly all of Laurence Fearnley’s novels. I recall reviewing in newspapers her earlier novels Mother’s Day and Edwin and Matilda. And in this blog you can find my reviews of her The Hut Builder, Reach, The Quiet Spectacular [ the novel that I thought was too preachy], To the Mountains - an anthology , and Winter Time which I think is one of her most readable novels. [To see all these reviews, look at Laurence Fearnley on the list at the right.]. When I reviewed Winter Time, I said “…her greatest skill… is setting her story in a harsh South Island winter, which she depicts with careful and close observation. Fearnley has much expertise when it comes to mountains and the outdoors (remember she co-edited an anthology about New Zealand mountains, and helped write a mountaineering friend’s autobiography). It shows here as she charts the seasons changing, the snow, the semi-thaw, the way plants behave in the cold and the inconveniences for walkers and other travellers. The chilliest images in Winter Time are of [a man] alone in the family home, with the cold biting at him. A perfect image for a man who is lonely, worried in his heart...”

Fearnley’s skill is in At the Grand Glacier Hotel as well, where she can easily tell us about the flora and fauna of the South Island and give us a sweeping view of the West Coast as well as looking into the matter of birds and other creatures that are unique to the South Island. It is also clear [and apparently related to her own life] that she knows about what it is to become ill and having to put up with being in hospital… as well as the matter of growing older.

A brief synopsis goes like this. The novel is written in the first person by “Libby” Holt.  She and her husband Curtis have been married for 25 years. They live in Dunedin. Libby is about 50. They have one daughter Hannah who appears in the novel only occasionally. Libby and Curtis can’t go overseas. Out of nostalgia, they decide to go the Grand Glacier Hotel, which is on the West Coast and where they had holidayed when they were younger. But, by a mistake, Curtis has to leave her as he dashes away and then has to go back his work. At one point in the novel, Libby says “What he said about not missing each other was true but it didn’t reflect poorly in our relationship. Before I got sick, we were both happily independent; it defined our marriage. One of us would often be away, Travelling for work, and we enjoyed busy lives and careers. Time together was a welcome addition, but not something we clung to”. [Chapter Eleven]  So Libby is on her own in the very old Grand Glacier Hotel. The main point here is that Libby has gone through the trauma of having cancer and also having a tumour on her leg. Although she is doing reasonably well, she is often hurt when she walks or when she has to get out of the bath. Very often, she remembers with horror all the times when she had to be in a hospital or being dealt with by doctors. Chapter Twenty-Seven  Late in the novel she says: “ For months I’d endured blood tests, cannulas for CT and MRI scans, transfusions and IV’s, not the mention general anaesthetics. I’d become almost immune to needles and been merely curious about the track marks and the bruises that extended from my shoulder to my thumb. But every now and then, during my worst moments, the prodding and strain had been too much and my teeth would begin to chatter. I could feel the same thing beginning to happen now…” [ Chapter Twenty-Seven]

At first in Grand Glacier Hotel, she feels all alone, and not capable of walking alone on the paths; but she does get to know some of the people, some of whom seem to be regulat visitors  – a young woman who seems to be writing pop novels; a cult of people who sometimes speak in Esperanto; and an older man called Mc.Kendrick who has some sort of relationship with a younger man called man James. She also goes through a severe storm where there is a power-cut. But despite her pain, she is still determined to walk the wet and sometimes steep paths. She says “ I could still feel the bruising burn across my breasts and all the way down my shins. The heaviness that never let up had a hold on my leg, weighing it down like a toddler clinging to my calf. Every step required a concentrated lift up, followed by a swing forward. I was so completely worn down, I wanted to go back to my room but I needed to prove to myself that I could do it. Mind over matter: I wasn’t a complete failure. So here I was, making the most of the outdoors again.” [Chapter Eighteen]

Clearly, Laurence Fearnley wants us to see Libby as both a brave and thoughtful person, not one to whine, but also not presented as a hero. She is an intelligent common-sense person who simply wants to get on with things and not waste time. It is an appealing image, carefully presented by the author. Libby, it turns out, is greatly helped  by the younger man James, who knows the tracks, knows many things about birds, flora and fauna including bats in caves, and opens her eyes to the nature of the Wild West Coast. Now if this were a Hollywood film, Libby would fall in love with young James etc. etc. Not a bit of it. James helps Libby and Libby has a lot to think about. Two mature people, and it turns out that James has also gone through some physical pain in his life. Libby also learns what some the Coasters mores are which she didn’t know.

There is only one thing in this novel that irks me. There is in the novel a sort of scavenger hunt in which James sometimes works out where thing are hiding, and enlightening Libby about these things. This seems very artificial. A small quibble though. I think this is one of  Laurence Fearnley’s best.

  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *.  *

Footnote: In this novel there is comment made on the way the glaciers on the West Coast have diminished over the years. This I know well. About 40 years ago my wife and I toured around the South Island and we stopped to look at both the Fox and the Franz Josef Glaciers. They had both retreated into the mountains far from the sea, but there was still much glacier to see.  Last year we took a similar journey and saw the same two glaciers. There had retreated even further into the barren mountains so that there was very little to see at all.

Somthing Old

 Not everything worth reading is hot off the press. In this section, we recommend "something old" that is still well worth reading. "Something Old" can mean anything from a venerable and antique classic to a good book first published year or two ago. 

THE DEFINITIVE JUDGEMENT OF WILLIAM GOLDING’S WORKS                                                             [No other judgement will be accepted.]

 

For the last three months I have been working my way through all of William Golding’s novels and writing comments about them. As I said when I began this enterprise I was not going to write about his first novel Lord of the Flies because any true reader would have read it and already know what it is about. It has been published and re-published more than any other of Golding’s works. Lord of the Flies is often used as a text in high-schools. Indeed those who do not read much assume that Lord of the Flies is the only novel by Golding that is worth reading. I also noted that, before I began reading all of Golding’s works, I had read Golding’s second novel The Inheritors which, life-long, Golding said he thought was his best novel. I wrote on this blog about The Inheritors some years before I decided to read and review all his other novels. I am aware that Golding wrote a play, two collections of reviews and commentary, and a book about visiting in Egypt; but I deal only with his novels – and one collection of novelle.

Golding’s earlier novels were what could be called fables or allegories, and in all of them he speaks of what is deeply flawed in the human race. Despite being thinking creatures, we homo sapiens are capable of being murderous creatures, deceiving, making war, being jealous, lusting for power, and getting others to follow down the wrong path. Of course this is not true of all homo sapiens, but it has formed much of history. In Lord of the Flies, Golding has schoolboys stranded on an idyllic island which at first seems paradise, but one gang of boys take over, first learning how to hunt and kill pigs; and then ending up hunting – and killing – the boys who are not part of their gang. There is a more-or-less saintly boy called Simon who understands what evil is. It is not outside us. It is within us. Two other boys Ralph and “Piggy” are reasoning boys who understand that something is wrong. But these three boys are the target of the hunters. So, in many ways, we are flawed. What made us go wrong? If you were a Christian, you would talk about Original Sin – God gave us Paradise, but we disobeyed God. Many other religions have ideas on how things went wrong, such as the Ying and Yang saying there is a permanent war between good and evil… and so on.

But, as I interpret it, Golding was not entirely satisfied with his first novel. He wanted to give us a more persuasive version of “the fall of man”.  Many savants have attempted to explain why there has always been violent discord among human beings. In the 17^th century Thomas Hobbes said “life in the state of nature is solitary, nasty, brutish, and short” and this was taken to mean that there was a sort of unending war among primitive human beings. Hobbes solution was that there should be a dominating force, a firm government to control any society. In the 18th century Rousseau, with typical naivety in his treatise De L’Inegalite Parmi Les Hommes, claimed that early primitive peoples were happy and peaceful when they were “hunter-gatherers” [not that Rousseau knew that term] but human beings became violent and fought wars only when they set up barriers and fences and claimed land as their own.  Golding’s The Inheritors is not as naïve as Rousseau’s idea, but he comes very close to it. In a far distant time Golding pits Neanderthals against Homo Sapiens Sapiens – in other words us. The Neanderthals are presented as peaceful, caring creatures who look after their tribe, do not know what aggression is, are thoughtful, and have their rituals. By contrast the “inheritors”- us -  are capable of violence, don’t mind killing Neanderthals, are capable of going to war etc. So here is Golding’s version of “paradise lost”. Golding, towards the end of the novel, does suggest that the “inheritors” have at least the merit of being able to create arts. And one Neanderthal infant is captured and looked after, perhaps suggesting that the two species will combine… and it is true that recent examinations of D. N. A.  show that many people have some genes coming from the Neanderthals. But what Golding got wrong was the idea that Neanderthals were permanently peaceful. The most recent studies show that they were as belligerent as the Homo Sapiens who followed them. So his attempt to explain The Fall does not persuade. Yet The Inheritors is still a compelling story.

Golding’s next novels are also allegories. Pincher Martin, the sailor who was stranded on a rock in the middle of the ocean, does not realise he is dead until he comes face-to-face with God. A “wicked man” [as Golding described him to his wife] Pincher curses God. He has been in Purgatory. Golding, raised by an atheist father and an Anglican church-going mother, decided to use the Catholic idea of Purgatory. At least then he would be able to make his character have the time to repent. Free Fall gives us the long self-confession of a man who was only interested in himself and had never helped others. He was self-obsessed. Only late in his life does he understand that he has under-valued  others… but it is not as simple as that. As is often the case in Golding’s work, the ending is ambiguous. The Spire deals with hubris, placed in a medieval setting where a priest is more concerned with his prestige than with his religious duties. The novel also touches a clash between religion and early science.

When we get to The Pyramid, we are reading a very different type of novel. It is not allegory, but is more in the nature of a version of Golding’s youth. Not entirely, and many events are fictitious, but certainly looking back at some things he recalled; and very readable. After which he went dry. Apart from the three novelle that were put together with the title The Scorpion God,  Golding did not write any more novels for a bit over ten years. What had happened? The hard fact is that Golding had become an alcoholic and found it hard to focus. When he got himself together, his next novel Darkness Visible again gnawed at the idea of God, or at least some substitute thereof. The novel includes a naïve but Christ-like character called Matty who has to deal with evil. But it was not necessarily a struggle with God. It was more a struggle with what evil is in us. When it came to The Paper Men, he was not only satirising publishers and pests who wanted to write his biography; but by having as his main character a drunkard, he was really depicting himself.  I regard his trilogy To the Ends of the Earth  [Rites of Passage, Close Quarters, Fire Down Below]  as his relief as a former seaman, certainly dealing with the sordor of ships in the early 18^th century and even dealing with some pure evil, but not really dealing with God or no God. By this stage, he had himself declared that he was a Christian. In his posthumous novel The Double Tongue, set in decaying Ancient Greece, Golding warns us that all societies ultimately decay and fade away, and perhaps this also means the decay of religion.. But though the main character, a priestess, has lost her faith with the gods, she still yearns  for “The Unknown God”. Perhaps Golding is saying, like it or not, that we human beings will always feel the need for a greater force than ourselves. In other words, God.

So what critique can I give you after reading all his novels? I admit that I found Darkness Visible and The Paper Men to be hard reading, in some places almost cryptic. Having said that though, most of his prose is clear and he makes a good case for still trying to work out whether there is or is not a God.

Footnote: Apart from Lord of the Flies, all William Golding’s novels are examined on this blog.  

Something

   Nicholas Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree or disagree with him.    

                                   ROYALTY ARE NOT GODS                    

In the Nineteenth Century, in the reign of Queen Victoria, the wise Walter Bagehot said that the only thing keeping Royalty going was “mystery” and having a “dignified role”. Famously he said “Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” What he was clearly telling his readers was that kings and queens are not outstanding people and are not always wise… and common people would be disappointed if they saw or knew about the behaviour of royalty in their ordinary lives, including sexual matters. Royalty are usually mediocre.

Obviously I am leading you to think about the [former] Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Thirty or so years ago it was common for happy pundits to call him “Randy Andy” as if it were all a jolly joke. Now he has been found to be a lecher who has sexually messed up the lives of under-age girls, leading at least one to commit suicide. He has also made illegal deals with shady entrepreneurs. His mother, the late queen, often said that Andrew was her favourite child. It seems obvious that he was particularly pampered by his mother and thought in some way that he was beyond the law. Remember, too, that he took – with his mother’s approved – a large wad out of the common purse to pay off one the young women he had sexually messed with.

But then I’m not too surprised by all this. Kings, queens and other royalty in many countries often saw themselves as above the law in one way or another. But let me focus on England. In the medieval era, in the Wars of the Roses, royalty fought with one another, slaughtering and often raping both peasants and commoners… and they left behind them unstable kings who were sometimes overthrown. There was nothing romantic about it. But then they were above the law… In the 16^th century, King Henry 8th went through six women and chopped off the heads of two of them. He was above the law. In the 17^th century King Charles the Second had a barren wife and left behind him no heir. But he sired at least 16 children from five women – all gentlewomen and most duchesses. But, to his credit, he made sure that his offspring were well looked after, the duchesses were honored by his shagging and society didn’t care. But then he was above the law…. In the early 19^th century the heir to the throne was a rake who took women when he pleased. This was George IV. But then along came the Victorian era. Queen Victoria was very prim and her husband was very prim too. No scandals in their court. But Victoria lived for so long that her son Edward had nothing to do but gambling, carousing and bedding women. When finally Victoria died and Edward became Edward VII,  he married and had children and it all looked respectable… but his favourite enjoyment was making use of the brothels of Paris. For some he was called “Dirty Bertie”. His son George V seems to have been upright, but his eldest son was the nitwit Edward VIII who abdicated and who rather liked that German guy Hitler. His brother became King George VI who seems to have done well and there was no scandal about him. And so to his daughter Queen Elizabeth the Second. I have heard no scandal about the queen herself and she worked diligently but [sorry for the easily offended among you] it is now widely rumoured that her consort Prince Philip had many extra-marital affairs… but the delusion of a perfect marriage had to be maintained. And so we come to the present king, King Charles the Third. Like Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth the Second lived for a long time so that her heir Charles was – and is – an old man. Has he done anything outrageous? Well when he was young, he did marry a young woman who was as naïve as he was. They had children but the marriage fell apart. His young wife said she was tired of having to put up with “three in a bed” – meaning that another woman was also shagging Charles. Anyway she died in a car crash and he then married the other woman who is now his consort.

Now I know what you are thinking. You think I have just been peddling cheap scandal of the sort that you could find in the gutter press. I would also guess that some of you want to tell me that there are, and have been, dictators and corrupt presidents who have done much worse things than the English monarchy. But I already knew that. One last defence of the English monarchy I have heard that, whenever a member of the royalty had done something obnoxious, somebody says  “ Well they’re only human”. Well yes indeed they are.

All of which brings me back to Walter Bagehot’s statement on royalty: “Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” The fact is that the “magic” is now long gone and the “daylight” is loudly shouting. In the U.K., every newspaper and every magazine and every television channel follows what the “royals” are doing, for good or bad. Some very minor members of “the firm” are not in the spotlight; but the major members of “the firm” are in the spotlight. I think the real turning point was in 1987 when younger members of the Royal family took part in a “Royal Knockout” – based on a T.V. show. What it signalled was that the members of the game were trivial twits trying hard to be “just ordinary folks”.

What do I think of the Royal Family now? As far as I know, the great majority of people in England still like having a King [or Queen] and its up to them to say whether or not it should stay that way. But there are now many grumbles in England about the large areas of land that “the firm” owns… and ideas that numbers of the royalty should be scaled down…  and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been of no help.

As a New Zealander, I am far away from England, though I have lived in the place a number of times. Royal members visit New Zealand only every so often, but our country runs itself. Laws are made in New Zealand, not in England, though occasionally New Zealand lawyers appeal to England when they are dealing with thorny cases that have been disputed. So really I’m not the man to say how long it will be until the English royal system is either reformed or has disappeared… or, more likely, it will just go wobbling along.