Today commemorates, approximately, the 450th birthday of William Shakespeare and so to mark the occasion I have chosen to revisit a piece of text that first made me realise just quite what a genius he was. I was fifteen and reading Romeo and Juliet as part of my GCSEs and decided I'd do a little exercise in close reading. Never one to self edit, the result was a 3000 word monstrosity of coursework. Here I present a much revised, hopefully much shorter, and pretty irreverent commentary on one of the most famous exchanges in the play.
ROMEO: If I profane with my unworthiest hand,
This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this,
My lips two blushing Pilgrims ready stand,
To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.
JULIET: Good Pilgrim you do wrong your hand too much
Which mannerly devotion shows in this,
For saints have hands, that Pilgrims' hands do touch
And palm to palm is holy Palmers' kiss.
ROMEO: Have not Saints lips and holy Palmers too?
JULIET: Ay Pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer
ROMEO: O then dear Saint, let lips do what hands do,
They pray, grant thou, lest faith turn to despair.
JULIET: Saints do not move, though grant for prayers' sake.
ROMEO: Then move not, while my prayer's effect I take.
[Act 1, Scene 5]
And they snog.
Now everyone likes a good flirt but if you flirt with Shakespeare's words in your mouth well, heaven help your flirtee. But before we get to these words, let's get some context. Although with minimal dramatic licence most productions of R&J will have had them making googly eyes at each other before this exchange, the first important thing to note is that Romeo has already spotted Juliet, but she has not necessarily seen him. He's likened her to a 'snowy dove' among crows and foreshadowed her death by observing that she seems 'for earth too dear'. For him, Juliet is dazzling energy itself ('she doth teach the torches to burn bright') and this is in direct contrast to the darkness of Romeo who 'shuts up his windows, locks fair daylight out/And makes himself an artificial light' (the 'artificial light' I think it's fair to assume, is a metaphor for Rosaline). Their love will consume them entirely- light annihilates the darkness as darkness annihilates the light. Their story is a juxtaposition of opposites and balance and it has already started.
Now just a note on the verse form and then I promise we'll get going. This is, when read in isolation, a sonnet. And a sonnet is traditionally one of the most trussed up of verse forms. This version is a classic Elizabethan version, written in iambic pentameter with a defined rhyme scheme. Which makes it a Mr-Darcy-in-a-wet-shirt sort of exchange. The structure means that we can all see exactly what's underneath, and it's hot: the sensuality is there clad in translucently restrictive garb. The regular, heart beat rhythm that ebbs and flows between the two characters dominates but there are a couple of heart-skippy moments: both of which up the ante that bit more. Shakespeare packs the sonnet with noun repetitions: 'saint', 'prayer', 'hands' but when the repeated word 'lips' crops up in line 9 the first de-dum that you would expect from an iambic line gets sort of squashed, and the heartbeat skips a beat. It does the same when Juliet says 'move' in line 13 and stops the flow of the line. Clever, eh?
Now to the words. Romeo really goes for it doesn't he? To him, as I've already said, Juliet is other-worldly: the summary of his lines is basically: you are biblically hot, am I allowed to kiss you? He's ready to profane but once again Shakespeare balances this with doubt, and the hyperbole is tempered by the opening word 'If' and the coyly 'gentle sin'. On the other hand his lips are blushing with both doubt and arousal and you try saying 'smooth touch' without making a kissy face (you just tried it, didn't you. Adorable). So cards are very much on the table. Oh Mr. S, you are so cunning. But this is no peacock display: the ball is quite determinedly placed in Juliet's court. And she has yet to make her judgement.
'Good Pilgrim' are her first words. Good being a good sign, and a repetition of Romeo's description of himself making it clear that she's in on the joke, and she likes it. You know that people attracted to each other mirror each other's body language? Well, this is the verbal equivalent. Juliet immediately picks up on the imagery but neutralises it somewhat 'Saints have hands that Pilgrims' hands do touch': hey buddy, you've got hands, I've got hands. Get me off this pedestal a bit and let's do something with... hands. Flirty, sexy undertones but joining in the Saint/Pilgrim joke. Are these two made for each other or what? With this encouragement Romeo then decides to try it on a bit: 'Have not Saints lips..?', Juliet reciprocates 'Ay Pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer'.
So, if hands come together in prayer 'let lips do what hands do' says Romeo, ever the logician. Crunch time. Come of Jules, we're all rooting for you. 'Saints do not move, though grant for prayers' sake' she says. Alright Your Royal Coyness. She's brought the metaphor home and is not going anywhere, except to be kissed, the word 'move' ironically grounded mid-sentence by a comma. A hesitation, but crucially, she's has the deciding line, and she has given Romeo the divine right. 'Then move not' he says as he leans in and the entire audience go wobbly kneed, 'while my prayer's effect I take'.
If only this was the grand finale, eh? The curtain comes down and the world goes away with a happy heart. But the prologue has told us otherwise and it's already gone wrong as Juliet realises just after this exchange: 'my only love sprung from my only hate/Too early seen, unknown, and known too late' which, brutal though it is, is a phenomenally balanced line.
So like so many teenage infatuations, this post is over before it has barely begun. Despite that however, I hope you've enjoyed my little analysis: sad to say perhaps, but this is one of my absolutely favourite ways to spend my time. But for now I'll bid you adieu: I'm off to have a slice of cake in the great man's honour.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Queenie- Alice Munro
It seems fitting that a short story should be afforded a short post (I am also writing this under time pressure on my lunch break) but I couldn't let this one go without writing a brief note on this fabulous story.
I bought a tiddly £1.99 copy of Queenie in Waterstones a few weeks ago, not long after it was announced that Alice Munro had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. I enjoy short stories but don't read enough of them- which is absurd because they should be the perfect companion to my daily commute (and could be just the thing I need to wean myself off of Candy Crush Saga, which has already consumed so much of my 27th year).
It's the first of Munro's stories I have read and, on finishing, I was overawed at her mastery of the form. Indeed, unlike Munro, I am struggling and about to fail to describe the story in a way that is not cliched or better summarised by somebody else. Sufficed to say therefore that the story, about a woman, Chrissy, who travels to Toronto to stay with her estranged step-sister, the eponymous Queenie and her husband, feels like the TARDIS, such is its extraordinary capacity for detail and literary economy.
Through the first person narrator Munro immediately draws the reader into a deep intimacy with herself and her characters but also skilfully builds and maintains a sense of isolation that permeates the story, and particularly her central characters. The story encapsulates the awkward reality of the re-consolidation of female intimacy while addressing the shift in dynamic between once close sisters whose roles have now been complicated and re-assigned to that of wife and housekeeper in the case of Queenie and unemployed sister-in-law in the case of Chrissy. Several roles are played by both characters throughout the story- and indeed Chrissy foreshadows this at the start of the story when she describes Queenie's appearance as being a costume when she meets her from the train. The necessity of artifice is a theme that returns later in the story and is something that Chrissy comes to recognise as a means of protection, of getting ahead in the city both personally and professionally. I'm interested to see whether this chameleon-like portrayal of female characters is a characteristic of Munro's stories in general and what such a portrayal might indicate.
Whole characters, such as the druggist and his officious wife who offers Chrissy a job, are sketched in one or two sentences but rather than feeling Impressionistic, the story is profoundly robust, clear and highly structured. Indeed it is Munro's matter-of-factness in her delivery of the story that makes the ephemeral thoughtfulness of the closing paragraphs, as Chrissy tries to find her sister again and again, all the more heartbreaking. I felt bereft for the characters and of the story as soon as I read the final line.
In fact, the story left such an impression that I instantly ordered Munro's 'Dear Life' collection. If any of these stories leave half such an impression as this one has had on me, expect many a half-baked blog post to come in the next few weeks!
I bought a tiddly £1.99 copy of Queenie in Waterstones a few weeks ago, not long after it was announced that Alice Munro had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. I enjoy short stories but don't read enough of them- which is absurd because they should be the perfect companion to my daily commute (and could be just the thing I need to wean myself off of Candy Crush Saga, which has already consumed so much of my 27th year).
It's the first of Munro's stories I have read and, on finishing, I was overawed at her mastery of the form. Indeed, unlike Munro, I am struggling and about to fail to describe the story in a way that is not cliched or better summarised by somebody else. Sufficed to say therefore that the story, about a woman, Chrissy, who travels to Toronto to stay with her estranged step-sister, the eponymous Queenie and her husband, feels like the TARDIS, such is its extraordinary capacity for detail and literary economy.
Through the first person narrator Munro immediately draws the reader into a deep intimacy with herself and her characters but also skilfully builds and maintains a sense of isolation that permeates the story, and particularly her central characters. The story encapsulates the awkward reality of the re-consolidation of female intimacy while addressing the shift in dynamic between once close sisters whose roles have now been complicated and re-assigned to that of wife and housekeeper in the case of Queenie and unemployed sister-in-law in the case of Chrissy. Several roles are played by both characters throughout the story- and indeed Chrissy foreshadows this at the start of the story when she describes Queenie's appearance as being a costume when she meets her from the train. The necessity of artifice is a theme that returns later in the story and is something that Chrissy comes to recognise as a means of protection, of getting ahead in the city both personally and professionally. I'm interested to see whether this chameleon-like portrayal of female characters is a characteristic of Munro's stories in general and what such a portrayal might indicate.
Whole characters, such as the druggist and his officious wife who offers Chrissy a job, are sketched in one or two sentences but rather than feeling Impressionistic, the story is profoundly robust, clear and highly structured. Indeed it is Munro's matter-of-factness in her delivery of the story that makes the ephemeral thoughtfulness of the closing paragraphs, as Chrissy tries to find her sister again and again, all the more heartbreaking. I felt bereft for the characters and of the story as soon as I read the final line.
In fact, the story left such an impression that I instantly ordered Munro's 'Dear Life' collection. If any of these stories leave half such an impression as this one has had on me, expect many a half-baked blog post to come in the next few weeks!
Monday, 6 January 2014
The Edible Woman- Margaret Atwood
Hello there, and a happy new year to you.
It doesn't take a genius (no offence) to work out that this new post coincides with the new year and all of the procrastination-guilt that is so prevalent at this time of year. Already in my mind this morning I have determined that I will be at least 20 mins early for work every day (already scuppered by a truly awful commute), will run an entire 5km race by September (my third run yesterday ended prematurely when I schlomped nauseated and exhausted into a thicket) and will write at least a short post about every single book I read in 2014. A ridiculous overachieving set of goals which I have no doubt I will fail at but here we go, no more mucking about, book one of 2014: The Edible Woman by Margaret Atwood.
If you have never read any Atwood then do, she is a rare breed of author who manages to create a really dynamic reading experience whilst still giving you time and space to think about the things she's writing about. I was shocked to find that she wrote the first draft of The Edible Woman aged 24 such is the skill found in the novel but given the subject matter and main protagonists it makes a lot of sense. The main character, Marian, is in her early to mid-twenties and lives in an apartment with her female friend Ainsley above their disapproving landlady. She has a not-quite-run-of-the-mill job (for a female graduate in '60s Canada) at a market research agency, and a sensible (read dull and traditional) boyfriend, Peter. All is formulaic in Marian's life until she meets English graduate and all-round odd-ball, Duncan, and Ainsley in bohemian fancy determines that she wants a baby, without the need for the man to stick around. Most bizarrely, as Marian's world unravels she finds herself afflicted in a very particular way by finding it harder and harder to eat anything.
At its heart the novel is about the deconstruction of the self, and more specifically, the feminine in the society the characters inhabit. Marian represents the teetering middle-ground of feminine existence- neatly reduced by society to the gap between sexual inexperience and marriage. She similarly finds herself perched ever more precariously between her work friends, otherwise called the 'Office Virgins' for their mutual- although not identically reasoned- no sex before marriage stance, and her old school friend Clara, who is married and mother to 2 and soon after 3 children who have all appeared in exhaustingly quick succession.
The female experience in relation to sex, the not having it in the case of the Office Virgins, or, in the case of Ainsley and Clara, the seemingly inevitable product of it, is at the heart of this novel and yet the book underplays, even coyly removes itself, from the act itself. This surely is deliberate as each woman in the novel appears to be defined by it and yet Atwood treats it as almost a queasy topic, in the same way that food becomes progressively less appetising to Marian. Throughout the novel Atwood cleverly plays on the concept of the femininity being equated to reproduction- and in a society where a woman was expected to give up her job when she got married the equation between marriage and motherhood is absolute. Marian both consciously and subconsciously rejects this, as Atwood emphatically does so. I'll try not to spoil it but at the grand denouement of the intriguing relationship between Marian and Duncan all parties are left unsatisfied. Indeed, satisfaction for Marian comes later and in a more surprising form.
The narrative structure itself flips between first person (Marian) to third person and back to the first again for the very final chapter. In this way, Atwood allows for the disintegration of Marian's character both literally in the structure of the novel as well as in the plot itself, before the emphatic recapturing of self at the end. Marian ends the novel on the ambiguous note, but the optimistic reader will end the novel with Marian's eyes looking up and not back. It is intriguing then that Atwood has asserted that written before the second wave of Feminism of the late '60s, this is not a feminist book. From 2014 it certainly reads like the germination of a new era for women and perhaps therefore it should be read, not as the book that changes perceptions, but the earth into which such seeds can grow in the minds of both women and men (corny, eh? I thought of that one myself). And yet, at some point I will read the novel again with Ainsley at the forefront and probably come to a different conclusion.
In short, this novel is as relevant for a modern audience as it was when it was written and, although driven by the female experience, will appeal to anyone trying to make sense of their life's direction.
It doesn't take a genius (no offence) to work out that this new post coincides with the new year and all of the procrastination-guilt that is so prevalent at this time of year. Already in my mind this morning I have determined that I will be at least 20 mins early for work every day (already scuppered by a truly awful commute), will run an entire 5km race by September (my third run yesterday ended prematurely when I schlomped nauseated and exhausted into a thicket) and will write at least a short post about every single book I read in 2014. A ridiculous overachieving set of goals which I have no doubt I will fail at but here we go, no more mucking about, book one of 2014: The Edible Woman by Margaret Atwood.
If you have never read any Atwood then do, she is a rare breed of author who manages to create a really dynamic reading experience whilst still giving you time and space to think about the things she's writing about. I was shocked to find that she wrote the first draft of The Edible Woman aged 24 such is the skill found in the novel but given the subject matter and main protagonists it makes a lot of sense. The main character, Marian, is in her early to mid-twenties and lives in an apartment with her female friend Ainsley above their disapproving landlady. She has a not-quite-run-of-the-mill job (for a female graduate in '60s Canada) at a market research agency, and a sensible (read dull and traditional) boyfriend, Peter. All is formulaic in Marian's life until she meets English graduate and all-round odd-ball, Duncan, and Ainsley in bohemian fancy determines that she wants a baby, without the need for the man to stick around. Most bizarrely, as Marian's world unravels she finds herself afflicted in a very particular way by finding it harder and harder to eat anything.
At its heart the novel is about the deconstruction of the self, and more specifically, the feminine in the society the characters inhabit. Marian represents the teetering middle-ground of feminine existence- neatly reduced by society to the gap between sexual inexperience and marriage. She similarly finds herself perched ever more precariously between her work friends, otherwise called the 'Office Virgins' for their mutual- although not identically reasoned- no sex before marriage stance, and her old school friend Clara, who is married and mother to 2 and soon after 3 children who have all appeared in exhaustingly quick succession.
The female experience in relation to sex, the not having it in the case of the Office Virgins, or, in the case of Ainsley and Clara, the seemingly inevitable product of it, is at the heart of this novel and yet the book underplays, even coyly removes itself, from the act itself. This surely is deliberate as each woman in the novel appears to be defined by it and yet Atwood treats it as almost a queasy topic, in the same way that food becomes progressively less appetising to Marian. Throughout the novel Atwood cleverly plays on the concept of the femininity being equated to reproduction- and in a society where a woman was expected to give up her job when she got married the equation between marriage and motherhood is absolute. Marian both consciously and subconsciously rejects this, as Atwood emphatically does so. I'll try not to spoil it but at the grand denouement of the intriguing relationship between Marian and Duncan all parties are left unsatisfied. Indeed, satisfaction for Marian comes later and in a more surprising form.
The narrative structure itself flips between first person (Marian) to third person and back to the first again for the very final chapter. In this way, Atwood allows for the disintegration of Marian's character both literally in the structure of the novel as well as in the plot itself, before the emphatic recapturing of self at the end. Marian ends the novel on the ambiguous note, but the optimistic reader will end the novel with Marian's eyes looking up and not back. It is intriguing then that Atwood has asserted that written before the second wave of Feminism of the late '60s, this is not a feminist book. From 2014 it certainly reads like the germination of a new era for women and perhaps therefore it should be read, not as the book that changes perceptions, but the earth into which such seeds can grow in the minds of both women and men (corny, eh? I thought of that one myself). And yet, at some point I will read the novel again with Ainsley at the forefront and probably come to a different conclusion.
In short, this novel is as relevant for a modern audience as it was when it was written and, although driven by the female experience, will appeal to anyone trying to make sense of their life's direction.
Thursday, 29 August 2013
Cloud Atlas- David Mitchell
I was bought the subject of today's blog nearly ten years ago. I got about twenty pages into it, stopped reading, and it sat on my bookshelf at my Dad's house until the beginning of August when I went home, needed something to read on the train and picked it up again. This is going to sound ridiculous but I think that that very act of not reading, and then returning to Cloud Atlas, made my experience of the book that much more spine-tingling (come on now: it wouldn't be my blog if I didn't unleash a super-sized hyperbole in the first paragraph). Let me explain why.
Cloud Atlas is a big, fat, interesting book written by a very clever writer (it's not the David Mitchell by the way, although I'm sure he could write books as well). The premise is gargantuan: Mitchell layers together and then pulls apart six narratives spanning several centuries, from the early/mid 19th Century to some point in the distant future with characters that are connected by seemingly more than chance (no spoilers but keep an eye out for a comet-shaped birthmark). Does the structure always hold together seamlessly? No, some of the segues between the narratives feel a bit forced. Should every A Level English student give it a read? Absolutely: it's a tour de force of narrative structures. Fundamentally Cloud Atlas is an ideas book- a terrible phrase but very appropriate, and for a book that wants to make you think, no bad thing.
I love to be swept away by a good, straightforward tale, and there are certainly moments when I did get swept away, but this is definitely a book that, even as it focussed on one storyline, keeps an eye on the wider point of the novel: that everything and everyone is connected. But because of the structure of the novel, as a reader this is an idea that you are drawn into rather than confronted with on the first page. This is how the novel links together.
The first section is the journal of an American, sent on business to the mid-Pacific. This journal is then picked up (literally, in a library) in the early 1930s in Holland by a aristocratic (although destitute) composer, Robert Frobisher writing to his friend. Frobisher's Cloud Atlas Sextet is heard in a based-on-a-true-story novel by the novel's protagonist Luisa Rey, who is trying to expose the dangerous truth of a nuclear facility using the research conducted by Frobisher's friend, Sixsmith. This novel is being read by an ageing editor, Timothy Cavendish, who's farcical life is made into a film. This film is seen by Somni-451 (who's identity I won't spoil) who's interview is then held in biblical esteem by Zachry, who lives in post-apocalyptic Hawaii. Zachry's section forms the heart of the novel, after which the narratives unfurl themselves in the reverse order.
The reason I've explained this is to give a sense of just how much of a mind-bend this book is when you start to think about it as a whole. But individually the sections are not pretentious or deliberately abstract at all- Zachry's section in particular is incredibly well written in melodic dialect. In fact, it would be interesting to re-read both parts of each section together- so that the book becomes a series of short stories through time. Because that is what it essentially is. But what Mitchell does is so much more than that because of the way that each of his stories and characters slot together. And because of his authorial bravery he can ask several colossal questions- what is the nature of the soul? Should we take our own reality for granted? Can we view our own place in the world, and in time, with any real degree of comprehension?
And just as these questions are posed to the reader, so the reader is asked to consider where their own life falls- between wonder and terror, hope and desolation- Mitchell's characters often career between the two. Even if sometimes Mitchell's authorial head pokes above his narrative structures, the journey is wild, goose-bumpy, mind-blowing. And when I finished Cloud Atlas this evening, I felt like my own little story, the seventeen year old who put the book back on the shelf, and the twenty-six year old who picked it up again had completed. Which was nice. But even if you don't leave it nine years between the start and finish, read and enjoy this book. It's a helluva ride.
Cloud Atlas is a big, fat, interesting book written by a very clever writer (it's not the David Mitchell by the way, although I'm sure he could write books as well). The premise is gargantuan: Mitchell layers together and then pulls apart six narratives spanning several centuries, from the early/mid 19th Century to some point in the distant future with characters that are connected by seemingly more than chance (no spoilers but keep an eye out for a comet-shaped birthmark). Does the structure always hold together seamlessly? No, some of the segues between the narratives feel a bit forced. Should every A Level English student give it a read? Absolutely: it's a tour de force of narrative structures. Fundamentally Cloud Atlas is an ideas book- a terrible phrase but very appropriate, and for a book that wants to make you think, no bad thing.
I love to be swept away by a good, straightforward tale, and there are certainly moments when I did get swept away, but this is definitely a book that, even as it focussed on one storyline, keeps an eye on the wider point of the novel: that everything and everyone is connected. But because of the structure of the novel, as a reader this is an idea that you are drawn into rather than confronted with on the first page. This is how the novel links together.
The first section is the journal of an American, sent on business to the mid-Pacific. This journal is then picked up (literally, in a library) in the early 1930s in Holland by a aristocratic (although destitute) composer, Robert Frobisher writing to his friend. Frobisher's Cloud Atlas Sextet is heard in a based-on-a-true-story novel by the novel's protagonist Luisa Rey, who is trying to expose the dangerous truth of a nuclear facility using the research conducted by Frobisher's friend, Sixsmith. This novel is being read by an ageing editor, Timothy Cavendish, who's farcical life is made into a film. This film is seen by Somni-451 (who's identity I won't spoil) who's interview is then held in biblical esteem by Zachry, who lives in post-apocalyptic Hawaii. Zachry's section forms the heart of the novel, after which the narratives unfurl themselves in the reverse order.
The reason I've explained this is to give a sense of just how much of a mind-bend this book is when you start to think about it as a whole. But individually the sections are not pretentious or deliberately abstract at all- Zachry's section in particular is incredibly well written in melodic dialect. In fact, it would be interesting to re-read both parts of each section together- so that the book becomes a series of short stories through time. Because that is what it essentially is. But what Mitchell does is so much more than that because of the way that each of his stories and characters slot together. And because of his authorial bravery he can ask several colossal questions- what is the nature of the soul? Should we take our own reality for granted? Can we view our own place in the world, and in time, with any real degree of comprehension?
And just as these questions are posed to the reader, so the reader is asked to consider where their own life falls- between wonder and terror, hope and desolation- Mitchell's characters often career between the two. Even if sometimes Mitchell's authorial head pokes above his narrative structures, the journey is wild, goose-bumpy, mind-blowing. And when I finished Cloud Atlas this evening, I felt like my own little story, the seventeen year old who put the book back on the shelf, and the twenty-six year old who picked it up again had completed. Which was nice. But even if you don't leave it nine years between the start and finish, read and enjoy this book. It's a helluva ride.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Work in Progress - May Day Poem
My own poems come to me quite rarely but tonight I was in luck (though without a pen so I wrote it, bizarrely, on my phone on the tube home). Although I love all the seasons, and particularly the transitional stages between them, this is one of my very favourite times of year. So this little poem reflects that and the image that I took to accompany it. It doesn't feel quite finished/right at the moment (I might add another verse later to the end and to somewhere in the middle) but I thought I'd post it anyway as a little Mayday Elephant-Brained moment...
Monday 13th May.
It's approaching after hours,
And so I move to sit and wait
To have a conversation with the white bird
Hid amongst the pillars and lost chairs.
From up here May sings
Flirtatious, greenish melodies--
As chlorophyll and pigment flaunt and hum
Coquettish with the metropolitan.
I gaze, unseeing
As slight and spiteful breeze
Stirred up and over steps
Glances at me.
The white bird, gladly unperturbed,
Hops, eyes, turns to me and cries again
"May is the time"
He waits, then flies.
Perhaps it is.
But so often, as he drifts away
Becoming blossom dancing far below
The pirouettes of transient confetti
Still spin up into glimmerlets of hope...
Monday 13th May.
It's approaching after hours,
And so I move to sit and wait
To have a conversation with the white bird
Hid amongst the pillars and lost chairs.
From up here May sings
Flirtatious, greenish melodies--
As chlorophyll and pigment flaunt and hum
Coquettish with the metropolitan.
I gaze, unseeing
As slight and spiteful breeze
Stirred up and over steps
Glances at me.
The white bird, gladly unperturbed,
Hops, eyes, turns to me and cries again
"May is the time"
He waits, then flies.
Perhaps it is.
But so often, as he drifts away
Becoming blossom dancing far below
The pirouettes of transient confetti
Still spin up into glimmerlets of hope...
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Some Thoughts as it's World Book Night... I Capture The Castle by Dodie Smith
The 23rd April is a big day in England as it's St George's Day. It's also Shakespeare's birthday. And it's also World Book Night, a night when all things literary are celebrated. 500,000 books are given away absolutely free to encourage people to read something new by 'givers' specifically chosen because they love the 25 books chosen each year. Along with this, there are readings and events going on all over the country in a celebration of the written word. So I thought, in homage to all of the above, (and due to the fact that I'm feeling poorly-sick and not going out to one of these events) I'd write a little bit about my favourite novel I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith.
I first read I Capture the Castle when I was fifteen and have read it every year or so since then. The story is quite a simple one: Cassandra Mortmain is a seventeen year old girl writing a diary in 1935 full of thoughts and feelings about herself and her unusual family. The Mortmains comprise of her brilliant, avant-garde novelist father with writer's block, James Mortmain; glamorous former artist's model and nudism enthusiast step-mother, Topaz; desperately dramatic, hopeless, beautiful older sister Rose; younger school-boy brother Thomas; and the late housekeeper's son, the Adonis-like Stephen. They live in a tumbledown castle ruin in rural Suffolk wondering how they're going to survive on the dwindling royalties from Mortmain's Joycean first novel 'Jacobs Wrestling' when the new, young, rich American owners of their castle, and of the neighbouring Scoatney Hall estate, Simon and Neil Cotton, rock up. Instantly Rose determines to marry one of them to help them out of their alarming poverty and her own personal misery, and by the end of the novel she has succeeded as Cassandra looks on. As always, the plot stops here- if you want to know the hows and whys, you'll need to read it yourself.
Alright, so far, so ridiculously twee you think: this is going to be a tale of plucky young women winning round the men of their dreams- a sort of mouldering (Cassandra's word, here borrowed) Pride and Prejudice in a gentle comedy of manners. Well, yes and no (and a P & P comparison is nothing to be sniffed at in my book)- but it's not half as simple as that. The novel is deceptively 'grown-up' despite its very naive narrator. In Cassandra we have a little of the Nick Carraway (I'm half way though a blog on Gatsby and mega-excited for the film hence the slightly left-field comparison): she is a narrator almost buffeted along through the story by seemingly stronger characters, but who nonetheless delivers to her reader a view of the world which is both crystal clear and oddly blinkered. But despite being in amongst these strong, and often nutty characters, the novel is always Cassandra's story and, reflected by the time it was written in, there is a substantial departure from innocence for Cassandra over the course of the novel that Smith achieves with beautiful lightness of touch. Seemingly innocuous transitions of emotion compound on each other to bear witness to Cassandra's profound heartbreak, which occurs about two thirds of the way into the novel, and confusion that everything she has held as truth is not as it seems- which lasts until the end of the novel and, we are led to believe, beyond.
So many novels deal with a coming of age but I've never read a novel that so accurately portrays how miserable that can actually be and how first, or unrequited, love can be agony. Not to say that reading this novel is a morose affair- it is far from that. Cassandra, even at her lowest ebb, has a wonderful capacity for marvelling at the beauty around her and, along with the other components of the novel, happily combines moments of the absurd with a lovely understated reality: 'I write this' writes Cassandra in the novel's famous opening line, 'sitting in the kitchen sink' which is sweet, daft and literally informative all at the same time. Similarly in my favourite section of the novel, which also marks it's tonal transition, Cassandra performs a Pagan-lite Midsummer ritual in the same way she has done since she was a child before being whisked away to Scoatney Hall for dinner by her sister's fiance. Throughout the novel Smith juxtaposes the profoundly innocent with impending, and on occasion almost sinister, adulthood so that Cassandra, and by extension the reader, only just manages to keep up with proceedings. This is helped no end by the fact that Cassandra is often writing the diary to make sense of what has happened rather than her original intention to 'capture' her family in prose. This device also makes the organic unravelling of time over the course of the novel feel very natural.
The first image of Cassandra writing in the kitchen sink tells you almost all you need to know about how the novel works. The novel is undeniably domestic and 'small'- the social commentary that Smith chooses is understated, but that's not to say it's unimportant to the reading of the novel. Smith raises important questions around the nature of class, of the place of women, of the importance of art at a time when all of these questions were very important indeed (and in different ways, still are today). But this is ultimately a story that unites the reader with Cassandra, as Smith explores the notion of growing up, even when this process should be at an end (James Mortmain's regression in his quest to recapture his literary talent to an almost childlike state perfectly encapsulates this). Fundamentally it seems that, although her protagonist is very young, Cassandra is a means by which Smith lets her reader know that we are all going through the indefinite process of growing-up (at twenty-six, I certainly am) and becoming who we are, but that this also never changes.
In this way (brace yourselves) Smith and Sartre share a common bond and Cassandra in I Capture the Castle almost acts as a beginning point for early development that Sartre deems to end at the 'age of reason'. I am exactly half way between seventeen and thirty-five and so maybe that's why this makes sense to me now. And maybe my favourite book will take on another significance when I am thirty-five, or fifty or eighty. I think that it will, and perhaps this is also why it is my favourite book. And I think that's why it is always important to keep reading- even when you think you might have all the answers.
So on that thought, happy World Book Night everyone.
I first read I Capture the Castle when I was fifteen and have read it every year or so since then. The story is quite a simple one: Cassandra Mortmain is a seventeen year old girl writing a diary in 1935 full of thoughts and feelings about herself and her unusual family. The Mortmains comprise of her brilliant, avant-garde novelist father with writer's block, James Mortmain; glamorous former artist's model and nudism enthusiast step-mother, Topaz; desperately dramatic, hopeless, beautiful older sister Rose; younger school-boy brother Thomas; and the late housekeeper's son, the Adonis-like Stephen. They live in a tumbledown castle ruin in rural Suffolk wondering how they're going to survive on the dwindling royalties from Mortmain's Joycean first novel 'Jacobs Wrestling' when the new, young, rich American owners of their castle, and of the neighbouring Scoatney Hall estate, Simon and Neil Cotton, rock up. Instantly Rose determines to marry one of them to help them out of their alarming poverty and her own personal misery, and by the end of the novel she has succeeded as Cassandra looks on. As always, the plot stops here- if you want to know the hows and whys, you'll need to read it yourself.
Alright, so far, so ridiculously twee you think: this is going to be a tale of plucky young women winning round the men of their dreams- a sort of mouldering (Cassandra's word, here borrowed) Pride and Prejudice in a gentle comedy of manners. Well, yes and no (and a P & P comparison is nothing to be sniffed at in my book)- but it's not half as simple as that. The novel is deceptively 'grown-up' despite its very naive narrator. In Cassandra we have a little of the Nick Carraway (I'm half way though a blog on Gatsby and mega-excited for the film hence the slightly left-field comparison): she is a narrator almost buffeted along through the story by seemingly stronger characters, but who nonetheless delivers to her reader a view of the world which is both crystal clear and oddly blinkered. But despite being in amongst these strong, and often nutty characters, the novel is always Cassandra's story and, reflected by the time it was written in, there is a substantial departure from innocence for Cassandra over the course of the novel that Smith achieves with beautiful lightness of touch. Seemingly innocuous transitions of emotion compound on each other to bear witness to Cassandra's profound heartbreak, which occurs about two thirds of the way into the novel, and confusion that everything she has held as truth is not as it seems- which lasts until the end of the novel and, we are led to believe, beyond.
So many novels deal with a coming of age but I've never read a novel that so accurately portrays how miserable that can actually be and how first, or unrequited, love can be agony. Not to say that reading this novel is a morose affair- it is far from that. Cassandra, even at her lowest ebb, has a wonderful capacity for marvelling at the beauty around her and, along with the other components of the novel, happily combines moments of the absurd with a lovely understated reality: 'I write this' writes Cassandra in the novel's famous opening line, 'sitting in the kitchen sink' which is sweet, daft and literally informative all at the same time. Similarly in my favourite section of the novel, which also marks it's tonal transition, Cassandra performs a Pagan-lite Midsummer ritual in the same way she has done since she was a child before being whisked away to Scoatney Hall for dinner by her sister's fiance. Throughout the novel Smith juxtaposes the profoundly innocent with impending, and on occasion almost sinister, adulthood so that Cassandra, and by extension the reader, only just manages to keep up with proceedings. This is helped no end by the fact that Cassandra is often writing the diary to make sense of what has happened rather than her original intention to 'capture' her family in prose. This device also makes the organic unravelling of time over the course of the novel feel very natural.
The first image of Cassandra writing in the kitchen sink tells you almost all you need to know about how the novel works. The novel is undeniably domestic and 'small'- the social commentary that Smith chooses is understated, but that's not to say it's unimportant to the reading of the novel. Smith raises important questions around the nature of class, of the place of women, of the importance of art at a time when all of these questions were very important indeed (and in different ways, still are today). But this is ultimately a story that unites the reader with Cassandra, as Smith explores the notion of growing up, even when this process should be at an end (James Mortmain's regression in his quest to recapture his literary talent to an almost childlike state perfectly encapsulates this). Fundamentally it seems that, although her protagonist is very young, Cassandra is a means by which Smith lets her reader know that we are all going through the indefinite process of growing-up (at twenty-six, I certainly am) and becoming who we are, but that this also never changes.
In this way (brace yourselves) Smith and Sartre share a common bond and Cassandra in I Capture the Castle almost acts as a beginning point for early development that Sartre deems to end at the 'age of reason'. I am exactly half way between seventeen and thirty-five and so maybe that's why this makes sense to me now. And maybe my favourite book will take on another significance when I am thirty-five, or fifty or eighty. I think that it will, and perhaps this is also why it is my favourite book. And I think that's why it is always important to keep reading- even when you think you might have all the answers.
So on that thought, happy World Book Night everyone.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
The Age of Reason- Jean-Paul Sartre
There's a quote from The Simpsons, in the episode where Springfield hosts a film festival, where guest judge and film critic Jay Sherman impresses the Simpson/Bouvier women by saying 'Camus can do- but Sartre is smartrer' (much to Homer's chagrin). I love a pun so I've always thought this quote was quite funny but, although I read a bit of Camus at uni, I could never really claim to understand it as I'd never read any Sartre. This has now changed (hence the title and subject of today's blog) but I thought that starting the blog with a reference to The Simpsons might assure you that reading Sartre doesn't turn you into a cultural snob (which, I have to admit, was a fear of mine before I started).
The story of The Age of Reason could be described as a multi-level exercise in problem-solving. The protagonist Mathieu, a 35 year old philosophy lecturer living in Paris, is trying to find enough money to give to his sort-of girlfriend of seven years, Marcelle, so that she can get a safe abortion from a Jewish doctor who, in light of the gathering spectre of the Second World War, is only in the country for a few more days before leaving for America. At the same time Mathieu is also trying to figure out whether he is in love with a much younger, plainer (and I only mention this because Sartre mentions it repeatedly) woman, Ivich, who is the sister of one of his students, Bruno. Bruno in turn is having an undefined affair with a much older cabaret singer, Lola. Alongside Mathieu there is also his louche, handsome but troubled friend Daniel, who is also involved with Marcelle, although unbeknownst to Mathieu. The novel itself is set over two days- from the time Mathieu finds out that Marcelle is pregnant, to the resolution of Mathieu's predicament. As with Beloved in my previous post I don't want to give too much away about the plot needless to say that these characters interact with each other with the underlying duplicity and savagery of cats competing for territory.
So what with Sartre's rendering of the atmosphere of Paris in the 1930s, where the prospect of war is rarely alluded to but hangs over the novel like a dark cloud (the novel itself was published in 1945), and the building existential crises that permeate every character of the story, the tone of the novel is unrelentingly oppressive. My penguin edition of the novel runs to 300 pages of small type which, when you consider that the novel is set over an almost uninterrupted two-day time period, makes for a very densely written story indeed. Having said this, Sartre's constant manoeuvring between the 'reality' of Mathieu's quest for money with his internal quest for resolution with regard to his feelings for Marcelle, Ivich and himself, is done with a clear and readable prose- no doubt helped by a very good translation, by Eric Sutton in my edition.
One of the main contributors to this feeling of oppressiveness and indeed one of the main themes running throughout the novel is the notion of 'running out of time' and the consequences that procrastination and introspection have on Mathieu and by extension the characters around him. In the most basic sense, Mathieu is running against the clock to secure the abortion, which in turn has existential implications for Marcelle as a woman, a lover and, potentially a mother, as well as for the unborn baby. The potential resolutions of the situation, to obtain the money and have the 'safe' abortion; to risk the cheaper but deadlier, back-alley procedure; or to do nothing and have the baby all have seismic consequences for the characters' lives. Sartre makes his readers aware that Mathieu is being forced out of a world of stasis- where he project-managed his relationship with Marcelle in a seemingly eternal state of nothingness- into a world where whichever direction he chooses he will be entering into a new level of existence which he cannot control. The world cannot stay the same and, even though it initially appears that we are merely witness to a snap-shot of the characters lives, what we read not only fundamentally alters these lives- professionally, socially, mortally- but that these revelations will also continue to have consequences after the novel is finished.
Sartre is certainly, then, smartrer. Because throughout what could be perceived to be quite a melodramatic, self-indulgent story (and it is still that) the novel also takes on a greater significance. From his vantage point in 1945 Sartre knows that in the period of time he is writing about, Europe and the rest of the world is hurtling into a period of human disaster. 'By doing nothing' he seems to say, 'you, and the world, are nothing. By doing anything, you and the world, change'. Mathieu is 35 in the novel and is grappling with the notion that his youth is over, that he has purportedly reached the titular 'age of reason'. Whether this understanding that he has reached the age of reason translates into Mathieu's freedom to exist in a changed world is up for debate, and Sartre leaves it for us to decide. Nonetheless the novel certainly raises an important question about whether the notion of existence is a constant struggle against an ever-changing reality. Which is succinctly summed up for me in another Simpsons quote: D'oh.
The story of The Age of Reason could be described as a multi-level exercise in problem-solving. The protagonist Mathieu, a 35 year old philosophy lecturer living in Paris, is trying to find enough money to give to his sort-of girlfriend of seven years, Marcelle, so that she can get a safe abortion from a Jewish doctor who, in light of the gathering spectre of the Second World War, is only in the country for a few more days before leaving for America. At the same time Mathieu is also trying to figure out whether he is in love with a much younger, plainer (and I only mention this because Sartre mentions it repeatedly) woman, Ivich, who is the sister of one of his students, Bruno. Bruno in turn is having an undefined affair with a much older cabaret singer, Lola. Alongside Mathieu there is also his louche, handsome but troubled friend Daniel, who is also involved with Marcelle, although unbeknownst to Mathieu. The novel itself is set over two days- from the time Mathieu finds out that Marcelle is pregnant, to the resolution of Mathieu's predicament. As with Beloved in my previous post I don't want to give too much away about the plot needless to say that these characters interact with each other with the underlying duplicity and savagery of cats competing for territory.
So what with Sartre's rendering of the atmosphere of Paris in the 1930s, where the prospect of war is rarely alluded to but hangs over the novel like a dark cloud (the novel itself was published in 1945), and the building existential crises that permeate every character of the story, the tone of the novel is unrelentingly oppressive. My penguin edition of the novel runs to 300 pages of small type which, when you consider that the novel is set over an almost uninterrupted two-day time period, makes for a very densely written story indeed. Having said this, Sartre's constant manoeuvring between the 'reality' of Mathieu's quest for money with his internal quest for resolution with regard to his feelings for Marcelle, Ivich and himself, is done with a clear and readable prose- no doubt helped by a very good translation, by Eric Sutton in my edition.
One of the main contributors to this feeling of oppressiveness and indeed one of the main themes running throughout the novel is the notion of 'running out of time' and the consequences that procrastination and introspection have on Mathieu and by extension the characters around him. In the most basic sense, Mathieu is running against the clock to secure the abortion, which in turn has existential implications for Marcelle as a woman, a lover and, potentially a mother, as well as for the unborn baby. The potential resolutions of the situation, to obtain the money and have the 'safe' abortion; to risk the cheaper but deadlier, back-alley procedure; or to do nothing and have the baby all have seismic consequences for the characters' lives. Sartre makes his readers aware that Mathieu is being forced out of a world of stasis- where he project-managed his relationship with Marcelle in a seemingly eternal state of nothingness- into a world where whichever direction he chooses he will be entering into a new level of existence which he cannot control. The world cannot stay the same and, even though it initially appears that we are merely witness to a snap-shot of the characters lives, what we read not only fundamentally alters these lives- professionally, socially, mortally- but that these revelations will also continue to have consequences after the novel is finished.
Sartre is certainly, then, smartrer. Because throughout what could be perceived to be quite a melodramatic, self-indulgent story (and it is still that) the novel also takes on a greater significance. From his vantage point in 1945 Sartre knows that in the period of time he is writing about, Europe and the rest of the world is hurtling into a period of human disaster. 'By doing nothing' he seems to say, 'you, and the world, are nothing. By doing anything, you and the world, change'. Mathieu is 35 in the novel and is grappling with the notion that his youth is over, that he has purportedly reached the titular 'age of reason'. Whether this understanding that he has reached the age of reason translates into Mathieu's freedom to exist in a changed world is up for debate, and Sartre leaves it for us to decide. Nonetheless the novel certainly raises an important question about whether the notion of existence is a constant struggle against an ever-changing reality. Which is succinctly summed up for me in another Simpsons quote: D'oh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)