Havisham by Ronald Frame (spoilers),

I loved this book so much, and I can't understand why it didn't get better reviews on Goodreads. From what I can make out, I think people were disappointed by the way that Frame depicted the relationship that broke Miss Havisham's heart, expecting it to be something like Wuthering Heights, madness included, but it was far more subtle than that. Havisham describes the reason that Catherine falls for Compeyson in the first place and why she reacts in such a way to his rejection. Coming from a socially climbing family, she loses her mother at a young age, growing up without companions convinced that she is not really beautiful. She feels rejected by her father when he brings her loathsome secret half-brother to live with them and sends her away to live with another family to become more ladylike. Catherine slowly discovers that most of the people in her life have hidden agendas, so it is pretty much inevitable that she will fall in love with a man who pays her attention, only to feel utterly devastated when he jilts her at the altar.  Compeyson also manages to wreck the brewing business she attempts to run when her father dies, so she is pretty much left with nothing.

She is depicted as being both rather self-obsessed and blind to both the faults and good qualities of others. However, I think Frame manages to make the reader sympathetic to her eventual madness, and avoids descending into Gothic melodrama. Again, this is handled subtly.  He explains the slight changes he makes from the source material as Great Expectations being a novel that Pip is writing, but I didn't find the deviations jarring.

I thought that the way he describes her end as being beautifully handled and quite spiritual.

It did remind me a little of Wide Sargasso Sea, although it is less experimental and probably doesn't delve quite as deeply into the protagonist's psychological state.

Bittersweet by Miranda-Beverly Whittmore

Warning: This review is going to spoiler the hell out of the book. This is quite an odd book and it is difficult to interpret both the author's intentions and the motives of Mabel, the first person narrator. The whole book is from the point of view of the ugly duckling Mabel who becomes friends with the glamorous Ev and her family. As I grew more and more frustrated with the utterly self-obsessed Mabel I began to wonder if the author was portraying her as an unreliable narrator and if we are supposed to dislike her? She certainly turns out just as unlikable as any of the family she exposes. Everything she discovers is pointed out in VERY BIG LETTERS, like the readers are unable to draw their own conclusions. Birch is flagged up as a bad guy from half-way through the novel by his cruelty to the dog, from there he is only a tiptoe away from becoming a Nazi Art looting father of incestuous children.

Anyway, the first half increasingly reads like a YA novel about the relationships between the young people, and I got increasingly impatient for the mystery element, as all Mabel seemed to be doing was mooning over Ev and her brother Galway (was it me or did he just seemed to be sort of tagged randomly with Mabel? All of a sudden he showed up and fell in love with her even though they had nothing in common other than her creepy obsession with his family?). The second half veers into overblown Gothic with the discovery of the incest, art looting and the murder, up until the horrible end where Mabel marries rescues Lu, marries Galway and the bad guy drowns. It just seems a bit, well, preposterous that everything get tied up so neatly and Mable 'wins' becoming part of the Winslow family.
I think I judged this harshly because with all the Paradise Lost references and some of the techniques she used such as deliberately obscuring the time setting, I was expecting this to be a bit more literary. As it was, I found it quite frustrating to read. 

I know I am no writer, just a woman who has read a lot of books, but in my humble opinion here is what I would do with it:

• Make Birch a more rounded character, not just an evil villain with a mask of geniality. All he needed really was a waxed moustache to twirl.
• Cut down the number of incestuous children to one, two makes it seem a bit overblown. There could also be a bit more doubt about the incest so that it looks more like Mabel is being manipulated.
• Make Mabel and Galway have something in common other than the creepy family, even if it's a liking for flippin' Paradise Lost. 
• Yes, I know it has the potential for being a bit dull and boring, but all that financial stuff Mabel was going into also had the potential for being quite interesting, I'm sure the Winslow's could have profiteered more from Great Depressions and wars, it's just I had the feeling the author was nervous about writing about it. 
• Focus more on Tilde, who is a much more interesting character than Indo, the colourful mad aunt. Indo isn't really needed to prompt Mabel's investigations, Mabel doesn't need a motivation, she is obsessed with the family anyway and an incurably nosy voyeur who seems to be there whenever anybody has sex.
• Change the pacing a little so that the mystery is drawn out more over the first half and it's less about meeting the 50,000 members of the family and Ev's relationship with John. We get it, it's a large clan.
• Change the ending, I suppose I would have found it more satisfying if Mabel had walked away and encountered Galway/Ev/Tilde in the future, subsequently finding that they had changed the family around, rather than Mabel being the catalyst and choosing to ignore everything that had gone on if the family returned the art.  As it is, nobody in this book seems to develop as a character, especially Mabel.
• Don't spell everything out in minute detail, readers can usually draw their own conclusions.This was particularly bad after Mabel discovered that Ev and John were brother and sister. We knew as soon as Mabel remembered that John's mother's name was Pauline, we didn't need Mabel explaining, we only needed her reaction. The subtle elements of the story get overlooked if there are aspects of the narrative that are applied with a paint roller rather than a delicate brush. For instance, the use of Paradise Lost as a metaphor, good, but not so good if it's used too much. I liked the Turtle bit too, but Lu didn't need to become a Marine Biologist.  

Anyway, I hope I haven't been too nasty and given constructive criticism. As a non-writer I don't like slating books, it's just that I thought this book had unrealised potential.

Brighton Rock by Graham Greene (spoilers)

This was the first Greene novel I’ve read and certainly won’t be the last. I loved the lyricism of the writing, the plot was gripping and the characters were really well written.  The story is about Pinkie, a young gang leader who tires to seduce and marry a young girl whom he fears will give away his alibi, pursued by Ida, who investigates him and tries to prevent him from marrying Rose.  It’s one of those books I would like to re-read or even study in a bit more depth, but at the same time I found it quite hard writing this review, even though I felt so enthusiastic about it. 

Love this image (link)

 Pinkie is a disturbing anti-hero, yet it is still possible for the reader to feel some sort of sympathy for him given his background and experiences and the fact that everything he tries to do fails. He can be completely cold and feels only repulsion for Rose because of witnessing his parent’s sexual intercourse. He has some twisted ideas about Roman Catholicism, believing that it doesn’t matter how evil he behaves in life, he can still be saved if he repents at the point of death ‘betwixt the stirrup and the ground’. He sees his marriage as a mortal sin, and although he is completely horrified by the idea of sex, he refuses to get married in church as he feels that it will not be a proper wedding if they get married in a registry office. 

Rose could be described as a passive, innocent character in the way that she falls under Pinkie’s attempt to seduce her, but in other ways she seems to realise that she has some power over him and wilfully ignores the signs that he is disgusted by her. There is a sense that she is trying to get away from her parents and takes the only way out that she can find, by marrying the first man who asks her. There is quite a disturbing passage in the book where Pinkie, who needs her parent’s consent because they are both underage, buys her off her parents who don’t seem to care very much about her. He believes that he is taking her in, but she seems to know very well what is happening and why he suddenly pays her attention. She forces him to make a recording for her of his voice so that she can keep it for later, one of the tragic elements of the novel is that she doesn’t realise that although he tells her that he has recorded a loving message, he has really recorded a horrible message for her which she will presumably listen to after his death. 

Ida, is an appealing investigator and almost the complete opposite of Pinkie. Whereas Rose and Pinkie are Roam Catholic, Ida has no real faith, just a belief in the power of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ and a belief in life after death in that she perform séances. She is a sensual woman who enjoys sex, likes a drink and enjoys her food, whereas Pinkie has few pleasures.  

Brighton is vividly described, acting as an appropriately sleazy backdrop to the story, representing heaven and hell.

Pinkie falls over the cliff in the course of trying to escape the police, having failed to convince Rose to commit suicide. It is a bleak ending; Rose seeks absolution from a priest and convinces herself that she has salvaged something from her love for Pinkie through her pregnancy and the love she believes he has confessed on the recording, the reader knows that she has deluded herself. It is left to the reader to fill in the blanks –Is Rose really pregnant? What will happen to her when she listens to the recording?

Love and Inheritance by Fay Weldon (spoilers for both books)

 First, a general update. Although I am doing pretty well on the general reading and keeping up to date on my Goodreads target, I am not doing that great on the Proust, particularly during the half term I have just enjoyed. This week I am hoping to get to a point where I can start writing another section for BIHNR. Otherwise, I have two reviews that I want to write for books that I have read recently.

I have recently read two books out of the Love and Inheritance trilogy. I have previously read some Fay Weldon, but not that much. I admit, I was expecting the books to be a bit more literary and I found them quite a disappointing read overall, although they were quite entertaining and readable, they could also be quite frustrating at times. 

The books chart the fortunes of a rich family at the beginning of the twentieth century, in the first one there are descriptions of both the lives of the family and the servants, but in the second book Long live the King there is not as much description of the servants. The primary reason I think that the first book is a let down is that the family are both quite dislikeable and the use of reported speech seems to remove them from the reader so that they don’t come across as being that realistic. Rosina, the daughter, seems to fair particularly badly. She is a complete prig with seemingly no redeeming features or much of a reason for being the way that she is, so she just puts the reader off. By no means am I saying that a writer should write characters that readers would want to be friends with (as Jennifer Weiner has spouted off about recently), but there should be something that makes the reader want to follow the course of their story. 

To be honest, none of the characters are really that interesting, and I doubted the veracity of Isobel (the wife’s) title and position as a leader of society considering she was the illegitimate daughter of a showgirl and a coal magnate and her parents never married.  They are really snobbish towards the Baums (Robert’s lawyer who tries to save their fortune) in particular, for little reason. 

The plot of Book one (Habits of the House) centres around the attempts of the family to marry the son off to a wealthy meat heiress as they have lost money during the war in Transvaal, and to organise a dinner party for the Prince of Wales. The dinner party is never covered, the book ends on the invitations being sent out, and the loss of money is never that keenly felt. Just as Arthur is about to marry his meat heiress, the head of the family (Robert) saves them all anyway by winning a fortune on a horse and the book ends abruptly.

Book Two opens a couple of years later with Arthur and his meat heiress married (there were some problems as Minnie had left America having had a well-publicised affair with an artist which she had foolishly admitted to Arthur) and the introduction of Adela, a cousin who lives with her strict religious parents. There is a little less emphasis on the servants of the family, and a bit more on the Baums, who I found interesting, particularly Mrs. Baum the Zionist scientist; I think I would have preferred it if there was more emphasis on her. 

There is less use of reported speech, thankfully, but Rosina still gets short shrift. This time, she has a romance with an artist which is scarcely described, I wonder if Fay just didn’t like writing about her? The parts with Adela start off promisingly but descend into a ludicrous plot about clairvoyancy culminating in her saving the King’s life by touch alone. The King and the Queen are good friends of the family and there are lots of dinner parties where Isobel advises the Queen on what to wear and what crown to have created. It doesn’t lend an air of realism to the book. 

Lucky they've got the illegitimate daughter of a showgirl and a coal baron to advise them

Overall, the first book got two stars and the second book got three (out of five). I feel a little bit like I am being a bit harsh here and giving the books a hatchet job, and they are both readable and entertaining, I think the most disappointing thing about them is that there are good books poking out in places, which makes it frustrating for the reader. There is a sense that she was cashing in on Downton, but at least with Downton you feel some sympathy with the characters and the plot is engaging, even when it’s being more like a period soap. I will read the third book, but I’m not in a hurry to buy it or get it out from the library as soon as it comes out.

Run by Ann Patchett (spoilers)

I am finding this novel quite hard to review. I generally enjoyed it, it was a quite gentle read with some good characters and plot twists, and I love Patchett’s writing style, but at the same time I found myself feeling quite dissatisfied with a few aspects, maybe this was because I enjoyed State of Wonder so much and found this paler in comparison.

The novel explores family relationships between Bernard Doyle and his three sons (Sullivan, who is his biological son and his two adopted sons Tip and Teddy) and Tennessee and her daughter Kenya, and what happens when Tennessee and Tip are involved in an accident. Although Tip, Teddy, Tennessee and Kenya are black, I would argue that the novel doesn’t go into race issues in any depth. The fact that Tennessee and Kenya live in a housing project and she is too poor to afford medical insurance is glossed over, as are Bernard’s previous political aspirations and life as a mayor. This would have been interesting to explore in more depth. 

 I can’t say that I felt particularly engaged with the characters, perhaps this was due to the number which meant that their stories were spread quite thin.   I agree with Leah Hagen Cohen’s  remark in her review in the New York Times suggesting that the characters ‘ultimately feel less real than symbolic, as wooden as the Virgin’s statue’ (September 30^th 2007). The problem seems to be that there is a sense that they are defined by few characteristics, particularly ‘sweet’ Teddy and ‘clever’ Tip. Father Sullivan and his namesake, Sullivan are more interesting characters in comparison, but again, Father Sullivan’s apparent healing of two women is not really explored, it’s sometimes as if she’s thrown everything in but not really found time to explore it or tie it together. 

The final issue was the clunky anaesthesia-induced reunion of Tennessee and her friend Tennessee Alice Moser. I understand why she did it (to reveal a secret to the reader that the rest of the characters weren’t supposed to ever learn), but I found it a bit of a cheesy plot device.

 In comparison, I thought the motif of the statue of the Virgin Mary was handled nicely and the ending was quite satisfying; it gave the novel a nice kind of symmetry and a sense of progression. Overall, I liked the plot as well.  I feel as if I’ve mostly written about the negative aspects, even though I didn’t feel that negatively towards it when I was reading it. Overall, it’s an uplifting, entertaining book, and I am probably judging it too harshly for what it isn’t rather than what it is. 

References

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Cohen-t.html

The Go-Between by L. P. Hartley (some spoilers)

Wonderfully appropriate cover image

First, a word about the edition.  I’ve been reading the 2003 Penguin edition edited by Douglas Brooks-Davies and not been that keen. His introduction and notes are peppered with numerous spoilers and he has a tendency to over-analyse everything. If I was studying the book properly or re-reading it I would be really happy with it, but as it is a book that should be read without that much knowledge of the plot, I was disappointed with the heavy-handed editing. Having read the Colm Toibin introduction (available here on the NYRB Classics website), I think I’d prefer that edition. 

Leaving the edition aside, I really liked this book.  Hartley uses lyrical, evocative prose which perfectly captures the voice of young Leo and gives a sense of the period. I could see the resemblance between Hartley’s narrative style and Proust’s, but it wasn’t quite as difficult to read – paragraphs are shorter and are interspersed with dialogue. 

The plot is quite simple, but builds tension well. It begins with Leo remembering the summer of 1900 spent at Brandham Hall with a school friend. Leo innocently agrees to pass love letters between Marian (the school friend’s sister) and Ted (a local farmer) not realising why he is doing it or the implications that it will have for the family and for himself. 

The book works because of the way it is narrated in the first person with Leo gradually discovering what he is doing. He is an incredibly naïve character who is teased by the family because of it, and several humourous incidents in the novel occur due to his misunderstanding or interpreting something too literally. He lives with his widowed mother with whom he has a close relationship and is a rather sensitive child, who believes that he can affect circumstances with magic. With a lack of male guidance at home and feeling an outsider due to the fact that he is from a lower class than his friend Marcus, he is attracted to Marian, to Lord Trimingham (Hugh) and to Ted in turn.  

His relationship with Ted is peculiar; there is a suggestion that he is sexually attracted in the way that he admires Ted’s body and particularly in a deleted scene where Ted gives him a swimming lesson.  But this is a book which is about sexual awakening, Hartley uses belladonna as a symbolic device suggesting the ‘poisonous’ sexual undercurrents, alongside the imagery of the zodiac signs of the Virgin and the Water-Carrier and the changes in temerature.  Although it isn’t as explicit, the passage describing the swimming scene where Leo first observes Ted reminded me of Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, there is a similar overlap between the natural world and sexuality, and like Mellors, Ted is unashamed of his body and sexuality:

His clothes were lying at his side; he hadn’t bothered to seek the shelter of the rushes. Nor did he now. Believing himself to be unseen by the other bathers, he gave himself up to being alone with his body.

The first person narrative leaves the relationship between Ted and Marian open to interpretation.  Marian can be read as a rather selfish, cold character who intends to use Leo from the moment he arrives at Brandham Hall, and is using Ted as a bit of fun before she marries Hugh, or as a rather mixed-up woman who is about to be forced into a marriage with a man she doesn’t love for the sake of the propriety of marrying within her own class and living at Brandham Hall who has an intense relationship with a local farmer. By the end, many years later, it is clear that she is still deceiving herself about the relationship with Ted, having intended to carry it on even when she was married.  Hartley apparently intended the reader to disapprove of the relationship, particularly of Ted apparently seducing Marian, but despite Leo’s suspicion that he is being used by both parties, there is something nice about the character of Ted, he is probably the most likable character in the book as the upper class characters can be rather cold and distant. 

The ending, before the epilogue is devastating. Although I knew what was going to happen, it was still a surprise. It is done in such a quick way.  People have criticised the prologue and the epilogue as a framing devices, in some ways the epilogue could be seen as somehow ‘softening’ the impact of the end of the story, but in other ways this is a book about the past and its effect particularly on Leo, but also on other characters in the novel, both the events of the novel and the significance of the wars the characters have participated in. The prologue and the epilogue show that Leo has rejected relationships completely. Perhaps this is because of his latent homosexuality, but there is a sense that after his nervous collapse, Leo not only finds it difficult to form romantic relationships, but also finds it difficult to trust anyone. 

Overall, it's one of those books that stays with you, and having thought about it since finishing the book I find myself realising more about the book. It will quite likely become a re-read in the future.