Multiple Reading Personalities

“Bollocks to the rules! We’re strong – we hunt! If there’s a beast, we’ll hunt it down! We’ll close in and beat and beat and beat –!”

Lord of the Flies was a re-read for me (“duh!”, thinks the American reader, “you read it at school!” — well no, because for one reason or another, it has not gone over to French culture as a “must-read”, more as a secondary choice most people have probably never heard of; but its influence in American pop culture is so pervasive, I heard about it one way or another a few years ago. It’s been love since).

Of course, it’s also the stuff nightmares are made of. The bastion of the “bad guys” – or rather, where the boys retreat when the “lord of the flies” (devil) takes over their psyche – is called Castle Rock. I’m no Stephen King scholar, but it seems fitting that it would be the heart of darkness in King’s books (which a quick wikipedia check just confirmed is an intentional homage on his part).

The story in itself is quite simple: a group of schoolboys gets stranded on a desert island during an unnamed war. The island offers plenty to eat (lots of fruits, some fish, an indigenous race of pigs), the weather is forgiving, and there even is a promontory on which to keep a fire to call for help. Surely, as the officer who will ultimately rescue the boys states, “a pack of British boys” would be “able to put on a good show” there?

Well, of course not – and the reason is exactly that we are talking about a “pack” much more than we are talking about a society. The annoying intellectual of the band, Piggy, tries to force the other boys to create one, with rules, a parliament and a project (rescue): the respect he gains for it is manifest in his nickname, and all he gets for it is death. The good intentions of the early days, championed by a truly civilized boy named Ralph, are rapidly forgotten: the lack of personal consequences for disobeying the rules (no grown-ups, a forgiving nature), a power-hunger and demagogic rival to Ralph’s authority (Jack) and the fear of unnamed monsters will soon bring chaos to island. Three boys will ultimately die: Piggy, first mocked, then stolen from, and finally executed; Simon, a boy who seems to embody the spiritual much in the way that Piggy embodies the intellectual (just as Piggy has his weaknesses – pedantry, physical laziness and self-importance, Simon has his  – trances resembling epilepsy, inability to communicate, shyness – but he sees through the illusion of the monster); and a third, unnamed little boy with a mark on his face who is so forgotten at the end that even Ralph will not mention him when telling the officer how many boys died on the island.

The two main reasons I love this book are the terrifying ring of truth of the story and the sharpness of the writing. The starting situation has been treated, over and over again, in an idealized boy-scout manner for young boys dreaming of adventures and independence; Golding tells us what would happen if we were really left unchecked (note that his view of human nature is even more pessimistic in that he doesn’t seem to consider that we get civilized as we age: the older boys are the ones waging war on the island, and beyond it the world of adults is at war too). One of my cousins evoked The Drifting Classroom, a Japanese manga, as pushing the cruelty much farther, making Golding look tame by comparison. I have ordered the first two volumes in the series so I can judge for myself, but I’ve noticed that they are labeled as “horror”, meaning that I expect them indeed to push things further, but probably not to have the same horrifying feel of reality.

The writing I mentioned as just lovely: no verbosity, every sentence feels tight and necessary – yet there is no dryness to it. Too often I find the modern paradigm of “cutting the fat” to lead in less gifted writers to books dessicated as beef jerky, all nerve and no depth(1). None of this here: Golding uses ample narrative ellipsis (doesn’t tell us every single detail of every day, which can sometimes make the descent into savagery feel rushed), but takes the time to work in scenes of intense sensory flavor and symbolic potency. I’m not sure why his other books are not as famous as Lord of the Flies, but I will certainly put more on my reading list!

(1) note: I love beef jerky, and yes it can be argued that good beef jerky has depth of flavor. But that’s the simile that came to mind, so there! :)

“We are not a boy and girl, to be captiously irritable, misled by every moment’s inadvertence, and wantonly playing with our own happiness.”

Anne Elliott is past her prime, and nobody cares. 8 years ago, she turned down a marriage proposal from Wentworth on the advice of her good friend Lady Russell. This was a rare slip in judgment from both women, brought on by Wentworth’s impecuniousness. Since then Anne has come to realize that he is the only man she’ll ever want to marry, and Wentworth has made his fortune, but the broken engagement stands like an unforgivable offense between them. When Wentworth starts looking for a wife, he looks everywhere but at Anne, who seems headed for heartache.

A lot will indeed try to interpose between Anne and Wentworth: first two pretty sisters, the Musgrove girls, take a fancy in Wentworth and pique his interest. Austen will dispose of one (Henrietta) by reminding her to a truer flame, and of the other (Louisa) by showing that her apparently steadfast temper, so seductive to Wentworth, is in fact closer to obstinacy. Then it is Anne’s turn to be courted, first by Bentwick, a widower who will ultimately be matched to Louisa, then more significantly by her cousin, Mr Elliott. Despite Mr Elliott’s social graces, Anne is weary of his smoothness, and specifically of his lack of “warmth”. She will learn through an acquaintance how perceptive that is of her: Mr Elliott is an amoral man primarily interested in securing by marriage the baronet title of Anne’s father.

While Anne is overall surrounded by good people, her family is far from palatable: her father is vapid and shallow; her oldest sister Elizabeth (also unmarried, but never called a spinster, probably because of her position as the eldest daughter and of her beauty?) is his female counterpart; her youngest sister Mary is a nightmare of a selfish, whining woman; and all of them being callow and silly cannot but feel that they have nothing in common with Anne, and treat her at best as a utility. Family ties are further abused by a preference given by Elizabeth to Mrs Clay, a vulgar woman, over her own sister, and by the way Mary treats her children, whom she overindulge by weakness rather than fondness. There’s however hope beyond the Elliott’s family circle: the Musgrove sisters are always affectionate and supportive of one another; similarly, Wentworth and his sister not only display fondness for one another, they are also able to converse intelligently. All in all however, Austen seems dispatches family love with her usual comic wit, and constantly reminds her reader than a family is no better than its members.

The choices everyone (especially women) has to make, and where they fall on a scale of hardheadedness to inconstancy, is another key theme. Anne has not always been perfect: she let herself be persuaded to abandon Wentworth when it was a treason of both him and herself. However, she learns from it. Other women serve to illustrate the dangers of less moderate choices, but Austen seems to pay lip-service to the dangers of excessive pliability (as illustrated by Henrietta, almost talked out of a match with a long-loved cousin). Contrast to that Louisa Musgrove and her childish obstinacy which will cost her an almost-deadly fall; Mary Elliott, whose stubbornness is resented by all; Elizabeth Elliott, dazzled by her own importance and never accommodating reality. Each of these characters gets much more “wordtime” – and is mocked with much more passion – than poor Henrietta.

It makes little doubt that Austen values adaptability over persistence in most cases, making sure to point out the difference with submissiveness through the character of Mrs Smith (“here was something more; here was that elasticity of mind, that disposition to be comforted, that power of turning readily from evil to good, and of finding employment which carried her out of herself, which was from nature alone. It was the choicest gift of Heaven.”)

This calls of course for a more active role of women, a partial empowerment embodied by Mrs Croft (Wentworth’s sister, childless, married for love instead of money and a true companion and equal to her husband) – and Austen is clear this will be to the benefit of both sexes. This might not be feminism yet, but a view of women that lets them become adults instead of society’s toy is nothing to complain about.

“I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware!” (the monster)
“Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.“ (Frankenstein)

Illustration by Abigail Larson

I needed two quotes instead of one for what I liked in Frankenstein – its saving grace – was its duality. Is Victor Frankenstein a victim and his creation purely a “fiend” – or might Victor not be the real monster, and his creation the martyr?

Brought up in a loving Swiss family, Victor is an imaginative teen with a passionate intellect vulnerable to the wildest scientific theories. Despite his reclusive nature, Victor prepares to leave family to study at the university of Ingolstadt when he suffers his first misfortune: the death of his mother. Another shock waits for him in Germany, where he learns that the philosophers and naturalists he has been studying passionately (alchemists and mystics such as Paracelsus) are widely discredited. He decides to study physics and chemistry, quickly mastering these two disciplines.

In his studies, Victor stumbles upon “the secret of life” – and of course decides to test it. Assembling a semblance of a human being in his laboratory, he finally imparts it with life after months of grueling labor, only to feel a disgust of his creation so overwhelming he flees it in blind terror. When he finally returns to his laboratory, the creature is nowhere to be seen. Victor falls into a long delirious illness, nursed by his childhood friend Clerval.

From there, the tale descends into horror: Victor only finds his strength back to lose it again and again. He recovers from his illness to return home and find his youngest brother murdered and a family protégée falsely accused. Victor knows the real culprit is his monster, but cannot prove it. The creature seeks him out, eager to tell him the story from his point view, the rejection by all men including his creator, the accident that led to the murder of Victor’s brother, his solitude and his thirst for company. The monster offers a deal: if Victor creates him a companion, he will disappear forever. Victor accepts, and travels to England to seek out some scientists who can help him build his second creation (apparently, he forgot the trick). A fit of thinking however makes him realize that he’s putting the rest of humanity at risk by unleashing a second fiend upon it, and he destroys his labor. In revenge, the creature kills Clerval, and promises to destroy all that remains of Victor’s happiness on the night of his wedding.

Unable to imagine that this would be a threat against his fiancée, Victor decides to marry her as fast as possible, so he can once more confront – and maybe even this time fight – his monster. Alas! The fiend kills Elizabeth and Victor’s father, ravaged by grief, soon follows into the tomb. Creator and creature then start a chase that will lead them to the North Pole, where Victor dies without having been able to undo his deed. At his deathbed, the creature expresses his remorse, and departs to immolate himself in the wilderness, therefore erasing all his traces.

There are weaknesses aplenty in the book, and they are difficult to overlook: gaping plot holes, characters displaying limited mental abilities (despite his unparalleled brilliance, Victor rarely thinks ahead, and when he does his nerves betray him, or the book would end up much sooner), unrealistic exposition devices (someone writing in a letter: “you know that…” and then proceeding to explain in details what his correspondent knows) and an exaltation sometimes bordering on silliness… Yet this was the work of an author barely 18-year old! Her vivid imagination and enthusiasm are not the last of the charms of the book.

The main interest, however, is the mystery of the monster: are we to believe its account of itself, and feel the cruelty of its fate, or are we to embrace the point of view of the main narrator, Frankenstein, and feel his instinctive hatred for his creation? Perhaps from the weakness of the narration, I could not like Victor at all – found him to be a self-absorbed, timorous prick – and therefore had to side entirely with the monster. I had to share Mary Shelley’s reservations about human nature and its destructiveness, though I would not espouse her view of nature as the healer of it.

“Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”

I was extraordinarily confused, when discussing Orwell and Huxley with my husband a few weeks ago, to realize that I had somehow mentally concatenated 1984 and Brave New World into a single horrendous story. This is the reason why keeping this blog is so important: my memory, much as that of the 1984 characters, appears to be very flexible – though I do not require a Ministry of Truth and doublethink to achieve that suppleness.

1984, then: a world divided between three warring powers (Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia) and a society split between the vast masses of the proletariat (“the proles”) and the ruling bureaucracy of the Party. The hapless party members are under constant surveillance, every deviancy ruthlessly punished, none harder than mind crimes. Under Big Brother, the ultimate transgression is independent thought.

An employee of the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith is part of the huge administration in charge of constantly readjusting any documentation of the past to obliterate any Party failings. All day, he rewrites newspapers that are then reprinted to replace the originals. While he enjoys the minutiae of his job, revolt is growing in his heart, but he is too terrified to act on it… And where to begin when even your sleep is being watched?

Winston starts with a diary – a transgression made possible by a suspicious find (the paper diary, found in a prole shop) and a suspiciously favorable disposition of his apartment (which has an alcove hidden from the eye of the telescreen). From there conspiracy reaches out to him: first a colleague, Julia, initiates an affair with him, and then the Underground (the mythical resistance, which existence remains a question) reaches out to him via O’Brien, a member of the Inner Party. There are touching moments of a man waking back up to himself as long-forgotten memories of his family come back to him, as his body’s constant soreness fades – but of course, as Winston always knew, his escapade soon ends in the caves of the Ministry of Love. There, he is “re-educated”: physically and psychologically tortured until his broken spirit comes to accept the Party’s doctrine as true.

Re-reading 1984, I was just as awed as I remembered being at first read by the completeness of Orwell’s vision. The precision of it, the well-chosen details give it utter reality, and the philosophical erudition of the writer supplies intellectual conviction. Yet, much like Winston before his conversion, I couldn’t help but feel that the Party could not forever endure, no matter how sophisticated the sophisms defending it. Orwell convincingly warns of the dangers of totalitarian collectivism if it was ever cut from its humanitarian roots – dangers we have seen realized in the former USSR (and some manifestations of which we have come to see realized in our very own vision of a “meritocratic” democracy); he is slightly less convincing in his belief than perfect cynicism would somehow be less soluble in human nature than perfect idealism. Yet the danger is here, in our economic life if not in political bureaucracy. I can think of a dozen examples in my own corporate experience of doublethink, of Inner Party corruption and taste for power/ money, of minor vexations, of disgruntled employees enjoying the tasks if not the goals, and ignoring the later to focus on the firsts, of rewriting the past without seeming to notice. In fact, as I type this, I become more and more troubled by the analogies.

I wonder if and how Orwell would write this book today.

“Arm yourself, my dear child, for the worst; and resolve to lose your life sooner than your virtue.”

I am afraid Pamela will not be treated here with my customary enthusiasm… In short I found it a very silly book. I could have stretched my tolerance to accept its trying morals as being simply outdated, but the writing itself (long-winded, pretentious and frankly repetitive) did not help much. In the end I was pretty much reduced to use Pamela as a learning aid for such expressions as “sauce-box” (impertinent) or “rake” (libertine). It would be a lie to pretend that I did not take the party of the rakes against the sauce-box more than once.

Pamela is a fifteen year-old maid and protegee to Mrs B, an apparently excellent woman, who recommends her to the care of his son with her dying breath. Alas! The young Mr. B, though perfection itself in every other regard (by which apparently Richardson means fortune, birth and beauty) is not as serious as he should be. Pamela’s attractions decide him to have her; but the girl is virtuous, and will not succumb to seduction. As it is quite unimaginable to court a servant, and even more that he should renounce his pleasures, he then decides to rape her. Alas again, he does not manage it: Pamela keeps fainting with fear, and apparently his delicacy will not accept an unconscious unwilling partner. Over the course of many, many letters written by Pamela, we learn of all Mr. B’s tricks and of her imprisonment in not one, but two of his houses. Friends betray her, bad advice is given, fear and promises are alternatively pressed on her, but Pamela never falters in her resolution to be dead rather than lost. This admirable behavior, coupled from everything he learned from reading her letters, finally overcomes the last of Mr. B’s reticence, and he marries her in an effusion of feelings.

Beyond the stilted writing of a beginning author and the outdated morality of the book, I took issue mainly with the protagonists. Mr. B I think I need not dwell on. As for Pamela, her virtue is unassailable, and she is presented as a paragon of all that is good in a woman: yet she appears coquettish (always very aware of her clothes and beauty, though to protest to the contrary at all times), judgmental (“Sir Simon, it seems“, says she, ” who has been a sad rake in his younger days” before treating him as one) and quite a gossip. She also lacks sadly in intelligence, if not in invention: she can envision nothing more beautiful than a future spent toiling by her poor parents’ side, never thinking of any other plan than to join them, and resisting Mr. B rather in all the right ways to excite his ardors. There’s not one original thought in her: presumably I should blame it on the author rather than on her (I guess he thought it the height of art to inform us that she was very good looking by having her protest at lengths others’ reports of it), but the result is the same annoyance.

Part of the problem springs from the work being a morality piece for a public expected to be unsubtle (young women); a contributing factor is that Richardson was so intent on creating a young and modest Pamela that he did not realize her naivete made for a very dull narrator. I love epistolary novels, but they’re easier to read when their voices are those of brilliant cynics like Choderlos de Laclos’s characters than when they are insubstantial little prudes such as Pamela.

“C’est cela que c’est, la Tragédie, avec ses incestes, ses parricides: de la pureté, c’est-à-dire en somme de l’innocence.”
[quick and dirty translation: "That's what Tragedy is, with it incests and its parricides: purity, or in essence: innocence"]

Giraudoux’s Electra doesn’t care much for the men in her life, and abhors the women – or rather the woman, her mother Clytemnestra. Obsessed with her father’s death and in love with revenge, she manipulates her brother Orestes to murder Clytemnestra and her lover, their uncle Aegysthus, guilty of Agamemnon’s death.

Through Giraudoux’s eyes, Electra is both a martyr and an inquisitor, a burning flame of merciless justice. Little does she care what might need to be sacrificed in her quest for justice: the well-being of a city, the life of her brother, a few innocents slain during a civil war? None of it matters if her justice triumphs.

Similar to Anouilh’s Antigone, Electra (the one who illuminates) opposes bourgeois happiness and demands a life of truth and absolutes. Hers is an elitist attitude, intense, chilling in her rejection of compromises. She refuses quietude, forgiveness or tenderness – and brings nothing in return but tragedy and a fanatic’s purity.

The alternative, however, is nothing to get excited about: lukewarm feelings, mediocrity,a life devoid of passion, a system built to forever uphold status quo and stagnation. Aegysthus is much more its defender than Clytemnestra (who was also moved by violent passions), a king who hides in valleys so the Gods will not pay attention to either him or his city. It is an insult to everything Electra stands for, and she forces him to declare himself, to rise up and fight.

Giraudoux does not take sides; the reader can make his own decision between the corrupt but peaceful king or its pure, death-dealing daughter-in-law. Aristocrats or revolutionaries? The choice is well nigh impossible… Or is it?

Giraudoux might suggest an answer to the dilemma with two unexpected, secondary subplots. One is that of the gardener to whom Electra is almost married early in the story, in a desperate attempt by Aegysthus to deflect the wrath of the Gods on a peasant family. The wedding is called off at the last hour, and the poor gardener is left to deliver a monologue extolling the values of love. In it, he also reveals his very real love for Electra, and his bitterness at the broken marriage that leaves him to face a life of loneliness. There is sadness in the monologue and no attempt to avoid it, but there is also acceptance, transforming what could have been the tragedy of his life into drama.

The other secondary character who might hold a piece of the answer is Agathe: married to the epitome of bourgeois values, Agathe cheats on her husband as much as she can, but always lies about it, preserving her family’s peace. Inspired by Electra, she reveals herself for who she really is and accepts her inconvenient feelings… but as she does so before her lies have become as deadly as the House of Atreus’s, she gives life a chance, making it stronger, more truthful, and Electra can comment that “the Queen (Clytemnestra) envies Agathe.” Beyond the political questions that permeate the play, this manifests the psychoanalyical resonances to it – fitting for the story of Electra!

“…the pioneer debauchee, who during one phase of the American life brought back to the Eastern seaboard the savage violence of the frontier brothel and saloon.”

Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby – a short, finely-wrought novel – as a demonstration of his talent. Now considered a success in this respect (among many!), it however received a lukewarm welcome upon publication.Wide success would not come to it until after Fitzgerald death, in December 1940.

The narrator of the story, Nick Carraway, is a well-born, well-bred young man come to New York to learn a trade. While Nick ostensibly tells the story of his neighbor Gatsby, he also shares how the experience helped him realize what his values truly are, and how to live accordingly.

Shortly after arriving to New York, Nick renews his acquaintance with his cousin Daisy Buchanan and her husband Tom. Both appear to be rather vapid characters. While affectionate and charming, Daisy appears to be self-absorbed and superficial; as for Tom, the fabulous wealth and physical talents hide an egocentric brute who cheats on his wife and doesn’t even bother to hide it. He doesn’t treat his mistress Myrtle Wilson any better, lying to her, even beating her up when drunk. Nick also gets to know his neighbor, the parvenu Jay Gatsby, who gives decadent parties in his gaudy property, with the local gentry in full attendance, trading rumors about their host past, in which he successively appears a murderer, a spy or a bootlegger.

As Nick gets to know Gatsby, however, he realizes that the man is fundamentally naive. Gatsby reminded me a little of Pip (from Great Expectations), a child from a humble family with the ambition to become a gentleman for the love of an idolized lady, in Gatsby’s case Daisy Buchanan. Gatsby lives in an illusion, and tries to weave his own with a sort of earnest dishonnesty: he is a liar, let there be no doubt about it, but a core of truth subsist in all his stories (for instance, he lets other thinks of him as “an Oxford man” by telling them he “went to Oxford” – for five months, as a veteran, not as part of a rich kids’ education as is implied). Similarly, the accusions of having made his money in a dubious manner are true – but certainly not the murder rumors, and one can legitimately wonder if he even realizes that his business dealings are shoddy.

In contrast, the wealthy set he admires keep very little illusions, whether about themselves or about the world. This constrains them to a sort of impotence (while Gatsby truly loves and builds his fortune, they are idle, bored and superficial), but also endows them with power to destroy other people’s dreams. When Tom realizes that his wife is becoming enamored with Gatsby, he promptly shatters his reputation. True to her shallowness, Daisy deserts her lover, and when in her emotion she runs over Tom’s mistress, she flees the scene.  Tom demonstrates his amorality again by blaming the accident on Gatsby, leading to his assassination by Myrtle’s husband. The Buchanans will not even attend the burial Nick organizes for his friend. The young man, his eyes open to the corruption of the East Coast, then decides to return to the Midwest.

Beyond the denunciation of the corruptive power of money, Fitzgerald asks some powerful question about the fundamental myths on which American society is built. It might seem at times as if he is denouncing the “Jazz Age” as a corruption, with the East Coast as its epicenter. However, other details (such as the quote I choose, or the fact that he concludes “I see that this is a story of the West after all – Tom and Gatsby, Daisy and Jordan and I were all Westerners…“) indicate that the issue might have deeper roots into the American psyche, in the thirst for freedom and material ease of its first pioneers. Nick does not return only to “the West”, he returns to his West, “not the wheat or the prairies or the lost Swede towns, but the thrilling returning trains of my youth“, a place which is also a time of his life, that of childhood with its hopes, its illusions and its lofty goals. Gatsby was not wrong because of his striving, but rather because of what he strived for. Fitzgerald, with his fascination for rich girls, fancy living and his habit of writing for material gain rather than for his art, fought the same battle in much of his personal life. The Great Gatsby is all the more moving for giving us insight into its author’s inner life.