Book review

Allan Quatermain, by H. Rider Haggard, 1897

“I have just buried my boy, my poor handsome boy of whom I was so proud, and my heart is broken. It is very hard having only one son to lose him thus, but God’s will be done. Who am I that I should complain? The great wheel of Fate rolls on like a Juggernaut, and crushes us all in turn, some soon, some late—it does not matter when, in the end, it crushes us all

Allan Quatermain is the sequel to King Solomon’s Mines and the second novel in a series of adventures for the eponymous hero (although chronologically it is the last in the series). It sees our hero reunited with Captain Good and Sir Henry Curtis, his original travelling companions in adventure in KSM. The novel opens on the shockingly downbeat note above – Quatermain’s son Harry has just died of smallpox, contracted in a hospital where he was working as a doctor. Quatermain is understandably devastated and decides to abandon the sedentary life of a country gentleman and return to where his heart lies, Africa, in search of one last great adventure. Good and Sir Henry decide on the spot to join him, and no sooner said than done, the gang is back together again, on their way to lands unknown.

I’ve used this illustration because it was the edition I read, but there are no camels mentioned in the text so far as I can recall!

One of the many conventions of the adventure novel of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (and still seen in films today) was that however large the continent being explored, the adventurers always almost immediately bump into someone they know. Here Quatermain and party meet Zulu chief Umslopogaas on their arrival in Africa and persuade him and his small group of soldiers to join them. Umslopogaas is an interesting portrait, the very definition of the ‘noble warrior’ trope that recurs throughout this genre. Although he is defined by racist ideas about the savagery of African tribesmen, it is not an unsympathetic portrait – in fact Umslopogaas is a hero and role model, loyal to Quatermain and fearless in battle.

Thus assembled the explorers set out from the coast of east Africa into the unknown. They have heard of a lost race of white- or light-skinned people who they decide to track down. Again Rider Haggard is relying safely on another trope of the genre, the ‘lost race’ story where explorers journey into isolated, uncharted territory and discover an undiscovered or hidden civilisation. The rumours of the lost race are always borne by someone who escapes from the lost world and survives an exhausting journey, only to expire almost as soon as his story is told. Thus:

“I was sitting on the veranda, when a poor, miserable, starved-looking man came limping up and squatted down before me. I asked him where he came from and what he wanted, and thereon he plunged into a long rambling narrative about how he belonged to a tribe far in the north, and how his tribe was destroyed by another tribe, and he with a few other survivors driven still further north past a lake named Laga. Thence, it appears, he made his way to another lake that lay up in the mountains, ‘a lake without a bottom’ he called it, and here his wife and brother died of an infectious sickness—probably smallpox—whereon the people drove him out of their villages into the wilderness, where he wandered miserably over mountains for ten days, after which he got into dense thorn forest, and was one day found there by some white men who were hunting, and who took him to a place where all the people were white and lived in stone houses…. he seems, according to his account, to have gone through sufferings and hardships innumerable, and to have lived for weeks on roots and berries, and such things as he could catch and kill. But somehow he did live, and at last by slow degrees made his way south and reached this place.”

As soon as his story is told his end is nigh:

“I told him to return on the morrow, bidding one of my headmen look after him for the night. The headman took him away, but the poor man had the itch so badly that the headman’s wife would not have him in the hut for fear of catching it, so he was given a blanket and told to sleep outside. As it happened, we had a lion hanging about here just then, and most unhappily he winded this unfortunate wanderer, and, springing on him, bit his head almost off without the people in the hut knowing anything about it, and there was an end of him and his story about the white people”.

But first they have to travel through Maasai territory. Following a violent quarrel with their bearers, the group find that are being tracked by a Maasai war party intent on punishing them. They seek sanctuary at the home of a Scottish missionary, Mr. Mackenzie, who has established a very civilised home in the deep jungle. As well as building a heavily fortified and extensive mission house, Mackenzie has tamed the jungle and established a small oasis of ‘civilisation’. It is described as being like a Garden of Eden, full of plants imported from the UK:

“We been walking up the slope of the hill, the lower portion of which was fenced off, sometimes with quince fences and sometimes with rough stone walls, into Kaffir gardens, just now full of crops of mealies, pumpkins, potatoes, etc. In the corners of these gardens were groups of neat mushroom-shaped huts, occupied by Mr Mackenzie’s mission natives, whose women and children came pouring out to meet us as we walked. Through the centre of the gardens ran the roadway up which we were walking. It was bordered on each side by a line of orange trees, which, although they had only been planted ten years, had in the lovely climate of the uplands below Mt Kenia, the base of which is about 5,000 feet above the coastline level, already grown to imposing proportions, and were positively laden with golden fruit…. What a garden it was! I have always loved a good garden, and I could have thrown up my hands for joy when I saw Mr Mackenzie’s. First there were rows upon rows of standard European fruit-trees, all grafted; for on top of this hill the climate was so temperate that nearly all the English vegetables, trees, and flowers flourished luxuriantly, even including several varieties of the apple, which, generally, runs to wood in a warm climate and obstinately refuses to fruit. Then there were strawberries and tomatoes (such tomatoes!), and melons and cucumbers, and, indeed, every sort of vegetable and fruit…. I do not think I ever saw such roses, gardenias, or camellias”.

The not-so-subtle message here is that Imperialism can tame and bring order to the wildest of environments. This little England is threatened when Mr. Mackenzie’s daughter is kidnapped by the Maasai war party who demand the life of one of the Britons as ransom. Instead they counterattack, and using their rifles and guns are able to defeat the much larger group, slaughtering every one of them and feeding them to the crocodiles. That’s the sentence for threatening a white woman. Mackenzie’s cook, Alphonse, a cowardly French cook, joins the party at this point, and for the rest of the novel fulfils a straightforward comedic role of the ‘funny foreigner’.

Following this short break they push on into the interior. Another trope is quickly upon them. The race of white-skinned people they are searching for live in an area of Africa isolated by mountains and other impenetrable geographical features, as is almost always the case. Compare for example the Lost World which is cut off from the outside world by virtue of being on a volcanic plateau, Shangri-La in a hidden Himalayan valley or Herland on another of those isolated and unscalable plateaus that litter the African landscape.

The party accidentally find their way into this region by canoeing along an underground river, through which they find the lost world of Zu-Vendis. Zu-Vendis is ruled by two queens, sisters Nyleptha and Sorais. While this society is an absolute monarchy, the peace is kept by a precarious alliance between the powerful priesthood and another group of wealthy feudal lords. The novel reaches its climax when both sisters fall in love with Curtis, and his choice of one over the other triggers a bloody civil war.

Allan Quatermain is a guilty pleasure, an unashamed adventure novel. If at times it seems a bit ‘by the numbers’ with a lot of predictable elements, this in part is because the author originally established many of the tropes he uses. I am sure that other, earlier authors wrote about lost tribes, noble savages and so on, but Rider Haggard is the founding father of the genre. He is unapologetically imperialist – or at least Quatermain is. He boasts about the vast amount of elephants he has shot without a hint of regret or remorse. To the Englishmen in this novel black lives, with a few exceptions, are disposable. All of the Wakwafi soldiers who sign on to join the party with Umslopogaas are killed off during the journey, but none are named nor mourned and their deaths are passed over casually. Even the portrait of Alphonse, intended as comical, is at this distance racist. So this is a period piece that has not aged well and I have no doubt I would never have read it if it wasn’t part of a second-hand bookshop bargain haul. But at the same time I don’t regret doing so either. In part this is because books of this genre were part of the standard reading material (of boys in particular) when I was growing up, and nostalgia is a powerful force, but also gaining a better understanding of how the world was seen by many Europeans in the late nineteenth century is a useful means to appreciate the nature of imperialism. It’s still escapism of course – while Quatermain and friends were exploring a fictional Africa of maybe a hundred years earlier, the reality of imperialism was being exposed in novels such as Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. The contrast is stark.

Allan Quatermain by H Ryder Haggard, 1897

Book review

To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, 1927

“Yes, of course, if it’s fine tomorrow,” said Mrs. Ramsay. “But you’ll have to be up with the lark,” she added.”

The narrative style of To the Lighthouse is usually described as ‘stream of consciousness’. While there is no strict definition of this term, it struck me while reading the novel that this term is not quite right. Stream of consciousness, as demonstrated by Molly Bloom at the end of Ulysses for example, is a direct representation of the thoughts of the character in the first person. (“Yes, I said yes, I will, yes” etc). Whereas To the Lighthouse has an omniscient narrator who sits on the shoulders of Woolf’s characters and transcribes their thoughts in the third person. Normally this transcription is unfiltered and may as well be in the first person, but very occasionally the narrator interprets or passes comment on the character’s thoughts and feelings. The representation of consciousness is one of the most striking features of this novel – thoughts are chaotic, easily interrupted or distracted, and sometimes include intrusive or unwelcome. But the narrator is always there, inserting a slight distance between the character and the narrative. Take for example the opening paragraph of chapter 12. The narrator is watching Mrs Ramsay and her husband, and describes what they do as well as what they think:

“She folded the green shawl about her shoulders. She took his arm. His beauty was so great, she said, beginning to speak of Kennedy the gardener, at once he was so awfully handsome, that she couldn’t dismiss him. There was a ladder against the greenhouse, and little lumps of putty stuck about, for they were beginning to mend the greenhouse. Yes, but as she strolled along with her husband, she felt that that particular source of worry had been placed. She had it on the tip of her tongue to say, as they strolled, “It’ll cost fifty pounds,” but instead, for her heart failed her about money, she talked about Jasper shooting birds, and he said, at once, soothing her instantly, that it was natural in a boy, and he trusted he would find better ways of amusing himself before long. Her husband was so sensible, so just. And so she said, “Yes; all children go through stages,” and began considering the dahlias in the big bed, and wondering what about next year’s flowers, and had he heard the children’s nickname for Charles Tansley, she asked. The atheist, they called him, the little atheist. “

It is Mrs Ramsay who thinks her husband is sensible and just, not the narrator, but the slim distance between the two perspectives is important. Crucially it allows the point of view to flit between characters, so within a few lines of this paragraph the narrative is assumed by Mr Ramsay, a much more introspective, internally focussed point of view. What the narrator does not do is step away from the characters’ thoughts and provide any exposition. We are thrown into the middle of the Ramsay family holiday without being told who the family members are, who are their guests and servants, their occupations, or indeed anything to provide us with context. Who are these people? Slowly, through the narration and the conversation the reader is able to piece together an overview of the setting. The Ramsays are a large middle-class family on holiday in the Isle of Skye in Scotland. As well as their eight children they have several house-guests and a number of domestic servants. The house is on the coast and overlooks a bay where a large lighthouse is situated. Some of the children want to take a boat-trip out to the lighthouse the following day, but it is a long and rough journey and cannot happen unless the weather is fine, which it usually isn’t. Mr. Ramsay—a professor of philosophy—harshly tells the children the trip will be impossible.

In the first, longest section of the novel, the Ramsays are hosting a diverse group of intellectuals and artists at their holiday home. The narrative focuses on a single day during which Mrs Ramsay match-makes between her guests, reads her youngest son, James, a story, flatters the ego of her grumpy husband, and floats around the house noticing things. In the evening a grand dinner is served (more on which below) and the day ends with Mr and Mrs Ramsay reading alongside one another but failing to connect or communicate. The sketch is predominantly autobiographical – Mrs Ramsay is thinly-disguised a portrait of Woolf’s mother who died when Woolf was only 11, and was obviously deeply missed. To the Lighthouse is in many ways Woolf’s way of exorcising her grief at the loss of her mother.

The second, much shorter section of the novel, “Time Passes” was described by Woolf as a corridor between the The Window, set before the first World War, and The Lighthouse, the third section of the novel set some ten years later. The holiday home is viewed through the eyes of the domestic servant employed by the family to act as a caretaker for the house, and when they eventually decide to come back to renovate and clean it. Time Passes is a quite literal description of what happens. In the intervening decade Mrs Ramsay and two of her children die, and the house deteriorates badly in apparent sympathy with the family:

For now had come that moment, that hesitation when dawn trembles and night pauses, when if a feather alight in the scale it will be weighed down. One feather, and the house, sinking, falling, would have turned and pitched downwards to the depths of darkness. In the ruined room, picnickers would have lit their kettles; lovers sought shelter there, lying on the bare boards; and the shepherd stored his dinner on the bricks, and the tramp slept with his coat round him to ward off the cold. Then the roof would have fallen; briars and hemlocks would have blotted out path, step and window; would have grown, unequally but lustily over the mound, until some trespasser, losing his way, could have told only by a red-hot poker among the nettles, or a scrap of china in the hemlock, that here once some one had lived; there had been a house.

Here the abandoned home symbolises the state of the nation, damaged to the point of destruction by World War I. In casual, almost brutal parenthesis, the deaths of Mrs Ramsay and two of her children are announced. Alongside so much death in the Great War, in which almost no town, village or family was untouched, these announcements act as reminders of the everyday losses that the country suffered.

[A shell exploded. Twenty or thirty young men were blown up in France, among them Andrew Ramsay, whose death, mercifully, was instantaneous.]

In the final section of the novel, some of the surviving family members and a few former guests return to the reopened summer home. A grieving Mr Ramsay insists that the family must finally complete the long-delayed boat trip to the lighthouse and forces his now-teenage children, James and Cam, to join him. The teenagers deeply resent their father’s tyrannical, mourning behaviour and form a silent pact of resistance against him. The trip to the lighthouse is both an attempt to recover the lost pre-War days which in hindsight seemed so peaceful and to reconnect with his children, who as moody teenagers no longer respect their mourning father. Much of this section of the novel is told from the perspective of Lily Briscoe, one of the original house guests, a painter who sets up her easel in the exact spot she did a decade earlier. Remembering her earlier visit she also mourns for Mrs Ramsay. The novel ends as the fishing boat reaches the lighthouse and they disembark. The lighthouse is a multi-faceted symbol that works in a number of ways during the course of the novel, but here for me represents death or the end of life’s journey.

I wanted to take a closer look at some of the minor characters in To the Lighthouse, more specifically the domestic servants. The cook, Muriel, is first mentioned in chapter 10. Mrs Ramsay is wondering whether some of her house guests have returned from their walk, so she asks one of her children (Cam) to “ask Mildred if Andrew, Miss Doyle, and Mr. Rayley have come back?” She wonders “What message would Cam give the cook?” which tells us, indirectly that Muriel is not a family member or guest but a member of staff, and specifically the cook. Cam returns to tell her “that there was an old woman in the kitchen with very red cheeks, drinking soup out of a basin” whose message is that “”No, they haven’t, and I’ve told Ellen to clear away tea.” Ellen is another servant who is part of the support team that the household relies on but takes for granted. Chapter 10 ends with Mrs Ramsay finishing her reading of a story to James, and “In a moment he would ask her, “Are we going to the Lighthouse?” And she would have to say, “No: not tomorrow; your father says not.” Happily, Mildred came in to fetch them, and the bustle distracted them. But he kept looking back over his shoulder as Mildred carried him out, and she was certain that he was thinking, we are not going to the Lighthouse tomorrow; and she thought, he will remember that all his life.” James is six at this point, a bit old for being carried out by an old woman I would have thought, but this does suggest that Mildred is not just a cook but has child-caring responsibilities as well.

Mildred is next referred to during dinner preparations, where the main dish, a boeuf en daube, is described as “Mildred’s masterpiece”. When this dish is finally served (and there is strong suggestion that the cook has exaggerated its complexity to Mrs Ramsay – it is just a slow cooked stew) Mrs Ramsay accepts her guests praise for the dish without acknowledging Mildred’s hard work:

“an exquisite scent of olives and oil and juice rose from the great brown dish as Marthe (another anonymous servant), with a little flourish, took the cover off. The cook had spent three days over that dish. And she must take great care, Mrs. Ramsay thought, diving into the soft mass, to choose a specially tender piece for William Bankes. And she peered into the dish, with its shiny walls and its confusion of savoury brown and yellow meats and its bay leaves and its wine, and thought, This will celebrate the occasion–a curious sense rising in her, at once freakish and tender, of celebrating a festival, as if two emotions were called up in her, one profound–for what could be more serious than the love of man for woman, what more commanding, more impressive, bearing in its bosom the seeds of death; at the same time these lovers, these people entering into illusion glittering eyed, must be danced round with mockery, decorated with garlands.

“It is a triumph,” said Mr. Bankes, laying his knife down for a moment. He had eaten attentively. It was rich; it was tender. It was perfectly cooked. How did she manage these things in the depths of the country? he asked her. She was a wonderful woman. All his love, all his reverence, had returned; and she knew it. “It is a French recipe of my grandmother’s,” said Mrs. Ramsay, speaking with a ring of great pleasure in her voice.“

Later, after dinner, Mrs Ramsay wanders ethereally away from her guests to go and check on the children.

“She turned the handle, firmly, lest it should squeak, and went in, pursing her lips slightly, as if to remind herself that she must not speak aloud. But directly she came in she saw, with annoyance, that the precaution was not needed. The children were not asleep. It was most annoying. Mildred should be more careful. There was James wide awake and Cam sitting bolt upright, and Mildred out of bed in her bare feet, and it was almost eleven and they were all talking. What was the matter? It was that horrid skull again. She had told Mildred to move it, but Mildred, of course, had forgotten, and now there was Cam wide awake, and James wide awake quarreling when they ought to have been asleep hours ago. What had possessed Edward to send them this horrid skull? She had been so foolish as to let them nail it up there. It was nailed fast, Mildred said, and Cam couldn’t go to sleep with it in the room, and James screamed if she touched it.”

Cam is the youngest Ramsay daughter, at seven only a year older than her brother James. In this home (at least) they share a bedroom. Mrs Ramsay is annoyed with Mildred “out of bed and in her bare feet” because the children are not asleep. So as well as being the family cook, we can infer that Mildred is directly responsible for putting the children to bed. I doubt she sleeps in the same room as them, so the fact she is ‘out of bed’ suggests she has heard the children arguing and has got up to try and calm them down, when Mrs Ramsay walks in and blames her for the children’s misbehaviour and arguing. This reveals a contemptuous attitude towards a senior member of staff, which is compounded by the comment that Mildred “of course” had forgotten to move the skull. The ‘of course’ suggests Mrs Ramsay expects to be disappointed by her servants, as if Mildred hasn’t been busy cooking a stew for three days! Later in this paragraph Mildred explains that the skull is nailed fast, making it clear that she had not forgotten about it all, just that she was unable to move it. Of course, no apology is even considered. Servants are there to do as they are told.

The domestic female staff of the Ramsay household are ignored, neglected, taken for granted, disrespected, and under-valued. So what we have to try and work out is whether this is a subtly drawn portrait by Woolf of entitled middle-class people treating their servants – their employees – with a lack of respect, or whether this is a reflection of the way Woolf herself took her family servants for granted. It is a difficult call to make – we have to read the text closely to work out who the servants are (as opposed to the eight children and the various house guests) and Mrs Ramsay’s inner monologue doesn’t really help us. But there is another portrait of a servant in the novel that throws light on this issue. In Time Passes, we are introduced to Mrs McNab. Although she is the family’s housekeeper, she does not merit a mention in The Window. The portrait of her in Time Passes is largely unsympathetic. She walks with a lurch, rolling like a ship at sea. The narrator doesn’t explain why she walks this way, but it could have been caused by rickets, a common condition for working people at the time (particularly Hebridean people with limit access to some foodstuffs) caused by a calcium deficiency. What Woolf’s narrator is noticing is that old servants walk in a ‘funny’ way without considering why. She also ‘leers’ instead of looking directly at things, which we are told is because she is ‘witless’. And as working class people often do (when written by middle-class authors) she sings to herself:

“As she lurched (for she rolled like a ship at sea) and leered (for her eyes fell on nothing directly, but with a sidelong glance that deprecated the scorn and anger of the world–she was witless, she knew it), as she clutched the banisters and hauled herself upstairs and rolled from room to room, she sang.,,, a sound issued from her lips–something that had been gay twenty years before on the stage perhaps, had been hummed and danced to, but now, coming from the toothless, bonneted, care-taking woman, was robbed of meaning, was like the voice of witlessness, humour, persistency itself, trodden down but springing up again, so that as she lurched, dusting, wiping, she seemed to say how it was one long sorrow and trouble, how it was getting up and going to bed again, and bringing things out and putting them away again.”

Not satisfied with patronising and caricaturing this hard-working housekeeper, Woolf continue to denigrate her. She is “bowed down … with weariness…. creaking and groaning on her knees”. Her “sidelong leer which slipped and turned aside even from her own face, and her own sorrows, stood and gaped in the glass, aimlessly smiling”. The narrator attempts to capture Mrs McNab’s thoughts, but for once the attempt falls flat:

“Visions of joy there must have been at the wash-tub, say with her children (yet two had been base-born and one had deserted her), at the public-house, drinking; turning over scraps in her drawers. Some cleavage of the dark there must have been, some channel in the depths of obscurity through which light enough issued to twist her face grinning in the glass and make her, turning to her job again, mumble out the old music hall song….Mrs. McNab continued to drink and gossip as before.”

Even the washer-woman, the narrator speculates, must have some fond memories of her children, even though two of them were illegitimate. A kind interpretation would be that Woolf is here acknowledging that even working class woman, condemned to a life of drudgery and child-bearing, have an internal life, hopes and dreams – but I am not convinced, and that final dismissive summary – “Mrs McNab continued to drink and gossip as before” – makes me wonder whether Woolf really thought of her servants as authentic, valuable human beings. There is evidence to suggest her relationships with her own servants were troubled – see Alison Light’s account in Mrs Woolf and the Servants for example.

I appreciate this aspect of the novel is simply one part and should not be given overdue emphasis. It certainly didn’t spoil the novel for me. But equally I did not want to ignore it, when the more obvious aspects of the novel – the Modernist exploration of consciousness, the complex narrative point of view, and the abundant use of symbolism – have been so thoroughly explored elsewhere. To be fair to Woolf she does not ignore her servant characters completely, as was often the case in earlier novels (see this post for more on the invisibility of servants in nineteenth century novels), they are given names and thoughts, but they are marginalised and disrespected, which is not much better.

To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, 1927

Book review

The Turn of the Screw was initially published as a serial in an American weekly magazine from January to April 1898. In many ways it is a simple, old-fashioned ghost story. Stories featuring the supernatural and ghosts in particular were immensely popular in the nineteenth century. They were a way of helping people cope with the grief arising from high mortality rates (especially infant mortality) and sudden deaths from what are today simple, curable conditions. In other words ghost stories offered a way to process grief. The dead aren’t gone, they are just in another place. (Hence also the creepy Victorian tradition of taking photographs with the dead posed as if they were alive). It was also the case that the advance of science in the nineteenth century challenged traditional religious belief and ghost stories provided a way of reconciling the two apparently contradictory ideas. Science can’t, they say, explain everything. Supernatural tales satisfied the need to prove the soul survived after death, and that we are not just animals, even if we are descended from them. Add to all that the explosion of periodical presses and mass-produced magazines in this period which fuelled demand for short, thrilling stories. These stories were particularly popular at Christmas time, and of course Dickens had both tapped into and amplified this association with A Christmas Carol and others.

James follows this tradition by setting the framing narrative of his story on Christmas Eve (which is otherwise irrelevant to the rest of the story). His unnamed narrator and friends gather around a fire. One of them reads a manuscript telling the story of a governess hired by a man who has recently been appointed the guardian of his young niece and nephew following the deaths of their parents. He lives in London but has a country house in Essex where the children live.

The governess assumes the narration from this point. She tells of her interview with the children’s guardian in which he explains he wants no involvement in their care. Arriving at his grand country house in Essex she meets Flora, the beautiful and well-mannered young girl for whom she will be responsible, and Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper. There are a number of other unnamed servants who remain peripheral figures. She quickly learns that Miles, Flora’s brother, has just been expelled from his residential school and will be returning home shortly. The reasons for his expulsion remain mysteriously sinister. Both children are apparently delightful and well-behaved, and the governess cannot imagine what Miles could have done to lead to his expulsion.

For a short period everything seems normal, and the governess establishes a simple domestic routine revolving around the care and tutoring of the children. But one evening while out for a walk, she sees a strange man looking out from one of the house’s towers. (A house with towers? Well yes, in traditional ghost stories all houses follow a gothic architectural template which contribute to the creepy atmosphere). This causes her to wonder:

“Was there a “secret” at Bly—a mystery of Udolpho or an insane, an unmentionable relative kept in unsuspected confinement?”

These references are carefully chosen. The Mysteries of Udolpho is widely considered the Ur-text of the gothic genre, and serves to manage the reader’s expectations of the story they are reading. Charlotte Bronte’s 1847 Jane Eyre built on this tradition by cementing the insane relative in the attic trope into gothic fiction. The important element of the latter story is that the apparently supernatural events of the novel are eventually shown to have a naturalistic explanation. In Northanger Abbey published eighty years earlier Jane Austen had already effectively parodied the conventions of this genre, pointing out that a young woman’s heightened expectations of mysterious events in a strange setting could be self-fulfilling. So our expectations are that there will be a normal explanation for the stranger in the tower, and anything else creepy that the governess experiences. Or will there?

The strange man reappears to the governess one afternoon, staring at her through a window. She tells Mrs. Grose about this man, describing him in detail. Mrs. Grose identifies him as Peter Quint, a servant on the estate who died recently. (Some critics interpret the ghosts in The Turn of the Screw as figments of the governesses imagination. Of course that’s a perfectly valid interpretation, but James leads the reader away from that explanation at this point in the story by having the governess able to identify the man very accurately. Can he be imaginary if she can describe him so clearly. If the reader wants to they can imagine a scenario in which someone else has previously told her about Quint, but there is no textual evidence for this.)

It is not long before a second ghost appears. While walking by the estate’s lake with Flora, the governess sees a woman dressed in black. Back at the house she describes this woman to Mrs. Grose who tells her it had to be Miss Jessel, the children’s previous governess who died in mysterious circumstances. It is then also revealed that Quint and Miss Jessel were involved in a relationship that scandalised the staff of the house. They were also very close with the children. Further encounters with the ghosts leads the governess to be convinced that there is a relationship of some kind between them and the children, but the nature of that relationship is never clear.

The governess does not know what to do. Speaking to the children’s guardian has been forbidden. They do not appear to be in any immediate danger, but she never lets them out of her sight. A final encounter with the ghost of Miss Jessel, which Flora and Mrs Grose both claim to be unable to see (fuelling the idea that the ghosts are figments of the governesses imagination) leads to Flora becoming very distressed. Finally Flora is sent away from the house, accompanied by Mrs Grose to London to seek shelter with her guardian, leaving the governess and Miles alone with the ghosts. The governess sees Quint and she grabs Miles, apparently to protect him. In the novel’s closing sentence he dies in her arms and the text stops suddenly with this revelation. The unexplained death of Miles is lazy writing of the worst variety as far as I am concerned, simply a way to end the story rather than acting as any kind of effective resolution.

Is this a successful ghost story? Is it spooky, disturbing? James’s technique to build the atmosphere is simple – everything is left implied, ambiguous and opaque. Almost all sentences in which the supernatural events of the story are discussed trail off unfinished. Ideas are hinted at but the reader is left to fill in the gaps. As ghost stories go this is highly effective. James uses the innocence of the children as a powerful symbol of the potential of evil, even in the young. The ambiguity of the social place of the governess, not a servant but not a member of the family, occupying that undefined space in between the two, is used as a further source of narrative tension, complicated by the fact that the governess in this story is effectively the acting head of the house. It is revealed that Miss Jessel and Peter Quint were romantically involved and their relationship scandalised the household:

“And he so dreadfully below,” said Mrs. Grose. I felt that I doubtless needn’t press too hard, in such company, on the place of a servant in the scale; but there was nothing to prevent an acceptance of my companion’s own measure of my predecessor’s abasement.“

James sometimes – too often – uses the technique of ambiguity and implication to leave the reader having to follow the narrative thread. At times this makes the story difficult to follow. I wrote about this feature of his writing in my review of The Golden Bowl which I found to be extremely difficult to read. James’s sentence structures were often so ridiculously complex that they lost, to me, all meaning. I was reassured by some commenters that this was a feature of James’s writing towards the end of his career and his earlier work was more accessible. However The Turn of the Screw was published only six years before The Golden Bowl, so I should have been prepared. Despite this, some sentences from this novella left me completely at a loss:

It took of course more than that particular passage to place us together in presence of what we had now to live with as we could—my dreadful liability to impressions of the order so vividly exemplified, and my companion’s knowledge, henceforth—a knowledge half consternation and half compassion—of that liability.

I think what James is saying here that now that the narrator and Mrs Grose both knew that the house was haunted, they had to live with it. It’s not just that this sentence is totally unclear, it is also ugly. I have no problem with writing that makes the reader pause, reread, and reconsider, but this doesn’t do that – it just confuses and irritates.)

It’s not just long rambling sentences that are the only issue here – James can make even shorter sentences totally confusing.

The good thing, after all, was that we should surely see no more of him. This was not so good a thing, I admit, as not to leave me to judge that what, essentially, made nothing else much signify was simply my charming work.

Or how about?

Nothing was more natural than that these things should be the other things that they absolutely were not.

I have said all I want to say on this feature of James’s writing in the post linked to above, so I am not going to labour the point, but at the same time I couldn’t ignore it.

The bottom line is this – if you enjoy ghost stories you will love The Turn of the Screw. It is an extremely effective example of the genre. If you don’t appreciate this type of thing, and find it childish, you won’t be converted and it will leave you cold and perhaps even slightly irritated.

The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, 1898

Book review

Memento Mori, by Muriel Spark, 1959

In an interview in 1960, Muriel Spark gave this account of the origins of Memento Mori:

“It happened that a number of old people I had known as a child in Edinburgh were dying from one cause or another, and on my visits to Edinburgh I sometimes accompanied my mother to see them in hospital. When I saw them I was impressed by the power and persistence of the human spirit. They were paralysed or crippled in body, yet were still exerting characteristic influences on those around them and in the world outside.”

Author’s stories about the origins of their novels always have to be taken with a pinch of salt, but if this account is correct then it suggests that Spark approached her story and her characters with empathy and compassion. Older people, in this account, are impressive and even dignified, they are “exerting characteristic influences on those around them” – which is rather an ambiguous turn of phrase don’t you think? Spark went on to say “I saw a tragic side to this situation and a comic side as well”.

I think anyone who has spent time with people coming to the end of their lives can appreciate that the tragedy of death can on occasion be illuminated by moments of black or even absurd comedy, which relieves the sadness of the situation. But dying people are still people and I am not sure that Spark delivers on her intention of illustrating the complexity of this situation in her portraits of her characters, many of whom are rather awful. To be fair the smaller number of younger characters are all pretty appalling as well!

The plot of Memento Mori revolves around a group of older (aging, but not dying, other than in the sense that we are all dying sooner or later) metropolitan people: brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, and friends and lovers. The extensive cast includes at its core Dame Lettie Colston, her brother Godfrey, retired head of a brewing company, his wife Charmian, a successful novelist, and Charmian’s former maid, Jean Taylor. Apart from Mrs Taylor, these are upper-middle class people who can afford maids and housekeepers. Mrs Taylor is bedridden and lives in a nursing home, the ‘Maud Long Medical Ward’, with eleven other “grannies”. Grannies is the slightly disparaging title given to the patients by the staff, not all of who are happy with the description:

“Miss or Mrs Reewes-Duncan threatened for a whole week to report anyone who called her Granny Duncan. She threatened to cut them out of her will and to write to her MP. The nurses provided writing paper and a pencil at her urgent request.”

Calling someone by a title they don’t choose or like is disrespectful and a mild form of bullying. The ‘grannies’ exercise the little autonomy they have in their lives by threatening to change their wills whenever anyone crosses them, even though most of them have little or nothing to bequeath. Life in the ward is reduced to the bare essentials, a dull routine of meals and conversation, most of which revolves around discontent with the nursing staff or the daily horoscopes read out for them all by Granny Valvona. These characters act as a form of chorus to the rest of the events of the novel. Outside the ward, former lovers and old friends call in for tea and something stronger and little happens to disturb their calm and pleasant existence – until the day Lettie starts to receive anonymous phone calls with the message “Remember you must die.” Instead of taking this reminder as an encouragement to live life to the full while you can, Lettie finds it menacing and upsetting. Other members of the group start to receive similar calls and respond in the same way. The police are baffled and begin to suspect that no such calls are being made. Is this a shared delusion or just a childish prank? A retired policeman is hired to investigate, but makes no progress and falls under suspicion himself. Eventually a new normal emerges in which the calls are mostly accepted as part of the routine of life, and any menace they contained is thus neutralised.

Most readers will have anticipated that one of the peripheral characters – and there are plenty of possible suspects – would at some point be exposed as the mystery caller, but this never happens. The caller is never identified nor caught. It is suggested that there might be a supernatural or psychological explanation for the calls, but this is not followed up. I felt rather short changed by this lack of a resolution. If you build your novel round a mystery then surely you need to have an outcome in which the mystery is explained? I appreciate that is very old-fashioned of me. I know Godot never arrives, that the world is not neat and tidy and mysteries remain unsolved. But this is not an existential novel on the unknowingness of the universe, it is a domestic comedy in which the anonymous calls are a central part of the plot. Imagine reading a version of The Hound of the Baskervilles, at the end of which Holmes and Watson wander off shrugging their shoulders saying, “Yeah, it might have been a dog, who knows”.

Other subsidiary plot lines are less frustrating and in some respects compensate for this decision. Lisa Brooke, a friend of the group, dies early in the novel, leaving a substantial estate to be argued over by her husband, her siblings and her housekeeper, Mrs Pettigrew. Mrs Pettigrew is the novel’s villain, blackmailing the people she looks after, nosing her way into their secrets and forcing them to change their will or risk exposure.

Writing in the Guardian in 2010, David Lodge agreed with Martin Stannard’s conclusion in his 2009 biography of Spark that Memento Mori “remains one of the great novels of the 1950s,” I can’t agree. I admire Spark as a writer but this is one of the least interesting of her novels that I have read. It patronises and looks down on the elderly and treats them as disposable objects rather than well-rounded characters. Instead of giving a voice to the elderly, rarely centred in fiction, it objectifies them. I kept being reminded of Kingsley Amis’s The Old Devils, which has many of the same flaws but at least invests the elderly characters with some passion and lust for life. It is not a coincidence that Amis was a lot closer in age to his characters than Spark was, and could therefore portray them with more empathy. To illustrate this point consider the following exchange between Godfrey, his wife Charmain and his sister Lettie. Bear in mind that Charmian has suffered a stroke, possibly several, and is struggling with cognitive decline, made all the worse by the fact that she was once a successful author:

“Would you like me to read you the obituaries, dear?” Godfrey said . . .

“Well, I should like the war news,” Charmian said.

“The war has been over since nineteen forty-five,” Dame Lettie said. “If indeed it is the last war you are referring to. Perhaps, however, you mean the First World War? The Crimean perhaps . . .?”

Is this funny, in a ‘you have to laugh’ way, or is it mocking someone with memory loss? Arguably Charmian has the last laugh – her books are reissued, she is ‘rediscovered’ and becomes popular, and recovers much of her cognition. Spark ends her novel with a quick summary of what happens to all her characters after the events of the novel, and unsurprisingly (almost) all of them die one way or another. Memento Mori indeed.

Memento Mori, by Muriel Spark, 1959

Book review

After Me Comes the Flood, by Sarah Perry, 2014

After Me Comes the Flood was Sarah Perry’s promising first novel, published two years before her breakthrough work, The Essex Serpent. After Me tells a deceptively simple story: five weeks into a heatwave, the novel’s central character, John Cole, shuts his customer-less London bookshop and sets out to visit his brother on the Norfolk coast. When his car breaks down somewhere in Norfolk, he leaves his car and wanders into a wood where he stumbles upon a large house. Knocking with the intent of asking for help, he is welcomed by the members of the household – strangely it seems he is expected and is welcomed by name. They mystery is quickly explained – this is a group of friends who previously lived together in a mental health clinic nearby and who now look after one another. A new group member with a very similar name to John’s was due to arrive, although has been delayed and John is mistaken for him. He sustains the idea that he is the other John Cole, although there is every indication that the household would have welcomed him if he explained the misunderstanding.

There is a mysterious gothic quality to John’s stay at this house. The residents are introduced slowly, telling how they came to live in this unusual sanctuary. Hester is in her sixties and is the matriarch of the house. John consistently describes her as ugly, saying she appears “poorly assembled, as though she had been put together from left over pieces” (which is a bit mean!). Eve is a pianist; Elijah a former preacher who has lost his faith; Claire and Alex, brother and sister, are childish and childlike (John initially mistakes Claire for a young girl) and finally there’s Walker, an accountant who met the others at the hospital but who was not a patient there. Near the house is a reservoir and Alex is frightened that the bank holding it in place might at some point burst, and that the house will be swept away in the ensuing biblical flood. This threat looms over the rest of the novel increasing the sense of menace.

It would be fair to say that After Me is definitely an atmospheric and character-driven novel, but at the same time not very much happens. The events of the novel, such as they are, are spread over one week, with each chapter representing a day. John gets to know the residents, and slowly gets comfortable with his deceit, reminding himself daily to either tell them the truth or leave, but never quite getting round to doing either. One day the household takes a trip to the coast and Alex briefly goes missing with a young boy he had befriended while playing innocently on the beach. The suspicion cast on him by the boy’s mother throws a shadow over the day and upsets Alex more than the others realise. This is probably the nearest the novel comes to anything that could be described as incident.

Perry’s subsequent novels rest heavily on supernatural themes. Here such things are hinted at but there are naturalistic explanations for all the strangeness John initially encounters. There is also an under-developed theme running through the novel relating to the short Anglo-Saxon poem Wulf and Eadwacer which is never really resolved. We find out who has been sending the poison-pen letters to Alex which have caused him so much distress, but the reasons for the obscure classic illusion remain unclear.

I do have a issue with the novel’s ending. The threatening reservoir looms over the novel like the sword of Damocles and it would have been a shock had it not played a central role in the novel’s resolution. It is hard to resist the impression that having assembled her characters, drawn all the lines between them, and placed them in a moderately interesting setting, Perry was at a loss as to what to do with them all next. The novel’s ending felt far too convenient and obvious, a simple way to bring matters to a close.

I am conscious that I haven’t found anything interesting to say about After Me, which I am disappointed about. But I can’t help wondering whether the problem is mine as a reviewer or the author’s as a novelist. This is after all a novel in which not much happens, the characters are not really engaging and where the ending is very predictable. The prose is perfectly adequate, but I don’t think I can recall a single line or phrase that jumped out and asked to be remembered. If I appeal to the jury of the internet to decide where the problem lies I think it is revealing that on Goodreads this novel has an average reader score of 2.78, by far the lowest score for any of her subsequent novels, and has twice as many one-star reviews as five-star.. Many of those one-stars will have been by disappointed readers of The Essex Serpent looking for more of the same, which is of course a bit unfair. If you have read After Me and found more in it than I managed to find, I would love to hear from you in comments. What am I missing?

After Me Comes the Flood, by Sarah Perry, 2014

Book review

A Life of Sorts, by Graham Greene, 1971

This autobiography focuses on Greene’s early life, the years up to the point he married, by which point he had published his three novels. The memoir ends in 1932 when he achieved his first major success as a novelist with Stamboul Train. Most of A Life of Sorts focusses on his in some ways idyllic Edwardian childhood, growing up the son of a headmaster and one of six children in leafy Berkhamstead. This was a life of considerable privilege – at one point Greene reels off a list of servants (although his family were perceived as the poor relations compared to another clan of Greene’s living at the nearby hall). They even had an orchid house! This start in life gave Greene a privileged education, psychotherapy in Harley Street when he threatened to run away from school, private tutors and entrance to Oxford without any of the nonsense about qualifications or suitability (he twice failed to win a scholarship but ‘we still lived in a world of influential friends,’ and the history tutor at Balliol who admitted him was ‘an old pupil and disciple of my father’s’).

At times the narrative is reduced to a simple list of Greene’s likes and dislikes: his childhood hobbies, the qualities most admired in men, favourite pastimes and favourite holiday resorts are all described in detail, without telling us much about the author other than he seemed to have lived an life of luxury. His enormous family are sketched with vivid pen-portraits of the principal characters and Greene takes the opportunity to name-drop the many distinguished and famous people that were a part of or acquainted with his extended family. Like many Edwardians of the upper-middle class Greene could trace his family money back to the Caribbean sugar plantations, which were run on slave labour for centuries. His paternal great-grandfather, Benjamin Greene, was a prominent West India merchant who owned extensive plantations in the Caribbean and held hundreds of enslaved people. He passionately opposed the abolition of slavery in the 1830s and later received substantial government compensation when it was outlawed. Greene never acknowledges the source of this blood money.

Boarding school, even though it was in the same village as his family home, was a dreadful and traumatising experience for Greene. He writes of the indignities and filth of this deeply unhappy period in his life which haunted him into adulthood. The psychological distress is vivid to him forty years later and an obvious trigger for several clumsy suicide attempts. His life of advantage continued after university (where he describes being drunk from morning to night – great training for his chosen career in journalism). A job as a subeditor on the Times falls into his lap with minimum effort. His novels are published without the years of rejection faced by many writers, although Greene is dismissive of the literary merit of his early work.

As well as descriptions of Greene’s childhood, this account contains some ‘teasers’ – glimpses of his future career in espionage. There are some significant omissions from this account as well. His wife is mentioned in passing of the “by this time I had decided to get married” variety. Equally his conversion to Catholicism, which was to play such a significant part in his adult life, is presented almost as administrative decision rather than anything to do with his faith: “I cannot be bothered to remember—I accept. With the approach of death I care less and less about religious truth. One hasn’t long to wait for revelation or darkness.” Despite this Greene still manages to mention a conversation about the supposedly heretical nature of his books with a very tolerant Pope.

I wouldn’t call it a matter of policy, but generally I tend to avoid reading autobiographies. They rarely give a fair portrait of the author, who inevitably presents a partial or distorted view of their life, not necessarily in an attempt to deceive (although that definitely happens) but because they don’t have the necessary distance or perspective. Biographies often give a very different account of the events recorded in autobiographies. To give one obvious example, in this first volume of Greene’s memoirs, his experience of playing Russian roulette features prominently. Greene describes these attempts in detail, suggesting they derived from an attempt to relieve his existential boredom with life: “I remember an extraordinary sense of jubilation, as if carnival lights had been switched on in a dark drab street. My heart knocked in its cage, and life contained an infinite number of possibilities.” But his most recent biographer, Richard Greene (apparently no relation) concluded that “There is no evidence, apart from Graham’s word, that he ever tried to kill himself by playing Russian roulette…it was merely part of Graham’s self-created daredevil myth. His brother, with whom he shared a bedroom, said the revolver had no bullets. Most likely, Graham played the potentially fatal game with blanks or empty chambers.” In other words Greene invented these events, probably as part of the self-mythologising that we all do to a greater or lesser extent. I am sure he genuinely believed that these things happened – his accounts suggests no doubt or ambiguity when it comes to this part of his childhood, although other memories are qualified or even in some cases directly contradicted when he quotes, in footnotes, the clearer memories of others. But it seems equally certain that his memories of these incidents were wrong. Their inclusion in this memoir gives us an insight into how Greene perceived himself – even in his sixties he still nursed his self-image as a wounded survivor.

A Life of Sorts, by Graham Greene, 1971

Book review

Essays by George Orwell

My deep dive into Orwell continues with the Penguin Modern Classics collection of his essays, edited by Bernard Crick, one of Orwell’s earlier biographers.

In the extremely unlikely event that someone asked me to edit a collection of the great man’s essays, the first task I would set myself would be to understand what is an essay? Which of the many articles Orwell wrote would qualify for inclusion, and which would be excluded? There is a simple textbook definition of the term ‘essay’, ‘a short piece of writing on a particular subject’ but that isn’t particularly helpful – a letter of complaint to the council would fit that bill. He published different collections during his lifetime, and since then they have been republished in multiple different formats. Some collections of Orwell’s essays have over 240 items (for example the Everyman’s Library Contemporary Classics edition – to get to this high a number they must have included the weekly columns that Orwell wrote for Tribune from 1943 to 1947). This Penguin Modern Classics edition has 41 essays, which tallies with the count in Orwell’s bibliography on Wikipedia.

The next thing I would do is try to decide how to group the essays? Would I present them chronologically? That would have the benefit of showing Orwell’s progression as a writer, although some of the essays were published long after they were written, such as his account of his days at his prep school, St Cyprians, Such, Such Were the Joys, which was considered so libellous that publication had to wait until the 1950’s when everyone mentioned was safely dead. I think I would instead group the essays thematically. Memoirs such as A Hanging, Shooting an Elephant, Marrakesh, Bookshop Memories and so on would form one category. Another would be literary analysis – Dickens, Kipling, Cervantes, etc. A third would be popular culture including Boy’s Weeklies and The Art of Donald McGill – and finally a politics section.

When Orwell initially wrote these essays they were published in a wide variety of magazines including: Tribune (which is still in print) where he was literary editor after he left the BBC, Horizon, a magazine edited by his old schoolfriend Cyril Connolly, the Evening Standard, for years the principal London evening paper, as well as a number of more obscure and short-lived publications, such as Polemic, which only managed eight issues and Gangrel which only ran to four, but published his seminal essay “Why I Write”. It is fairly obvious from this wide spread of magazines and papers that Orwell wasn’t enormously fussy (or couldn’t afford to be fussy) about where his work was published – although of course he would have had red lines in terms of pro-Communist and pro-fascist publications.

The reason why I have made this point at such length is that I have no idea why this collection was printed in this particular order. It’s not chronological, thematic, alphabetical, or any other structure or design that I can discern. Perhaps I am missing something but the random nature of the collection, if intentional, did not work at all. The changes in tone from whimsical to academically serious were often jarring. The editing of the text did not help either because the date of publication of each essay was only included as an endnote. The date of publication matters – something written in 1942 about what the world might look like after the end of the war lands completely differently from the same topic written in 1946. But you have to check the end of the essay to find this out, even though it is information needed up front. Crick’s introduction to the selection is also really rather strange. At times it seems that he doesn’t particularly like Orwell’s work. At one point he comes close to calling Orwell dishonest, claiming “One can tell lies or spin stories in monosyllables and simple sentences.” and later “Orwell himself seemed to believe that it is more difficult to lie in monosyllables than in polysyllables, but like many people he confused meaning with truth”. This is leading up to his suggestion that A Hanging and Shooting an Elephant are stories rather than essays, and therefore do not belong in this collection. Which begs the simple question, if Crick did not think these are essays, why include them?

Which is all a pity, because the essays themselves are (of course) outstanding. I have some personal favourites. The Burma essays, A Hanging (1931) and Shooting an Elephant (1936), are comparatively early but exceptional, very concise masterpieces that speak to the human condition and the impact of imperialism. In many ways they would be more impressive if they were entirely fictional. The Art of Donald McGill introduced me to the idea that popular culture (in this case, comedic holiday postcards) can be looked at seriously and tell us something about society. His essay Boys’ Weeklies had the same impact (criminally, this edition does not include the response to Orwell’s theory that the author of the Greyfriars stories must be a collective identity, which explained why the stories themselves were so heavily stylised; Frank Richards’ reply to Orwell can be found here, and it is a serious oversight that it was not included in this collection.) Orwell the man always shines through in his work but never more so when he is writing about the simple but very English pleasures of life such as what makes a great pub, how to make a cup of tea (neither of which are included in this collection) or his thoughts on the common toad. And of course Orwell’s political insight and perspective are a guide to both the politics of the period but more importantly provide us with tools to navigate our own troubled times.

This isn’t a book to be read from beginning to end straight through (although you could) but rather it is to be dipped into and referred back to as occasion demands.

Essays, by George Orwell

Book review

George Orwell, A Life in Letters, edited by Peter Davison, 2010

A Life in Letters is a fascinating collection that took me an inordinately long time to read, simply because of the multiple ‘side quests’ it sent me on. A great example of this is Orwell’s exchange with Anne Popham (pages 293, 307 & 321). Anne was Orwell’s downstairs neighbour in Canonbury Square, and one of the many young women that Orwell propositioned after his wife’s death. (“I wonder if you were angry or surprised when I sort of made advances to you that night before you went away“) According to Anne there was nothing ‘sort of’ about it. In an interview in the Guardian on her 100th birthday she recalled the incident as follows:

“In his flat there was a table, the baby, and its nurse. We had strong Indian tea, with brown bread and treacle. After tea, he told the nurse to take the baby away, and then he said, ‘Come and sit on the bed’. So I went and sat on the bed in the corner, and he came and sat beside me.” She laughs in disbelief at the memory. “In no time at all, his arms were round me, and he was kissing me. I was shocked. I said, ‘What are you up to ?’ and I pushed him away. Later on, I decided this must be how Old Etonians got on with girls, as if no one could resist them. He said, ‘I’m sorry’ and asked about my work, and I said, ‘I’m governing Germany’.”

Anne had an extraordinary life (the interview in the Guardian linked above is a good start) of which the encounter with Orwell played a minor part, but it does tell us a lot about his state of mind following the death of his wife the previous year. It is in this exchange (Orwell’s letter 18th April 1946) in which he makes the claim that “What I am really asking you is whether you would like to be the widow of a literary man?” One can never be completely certain of the extent to which this is being said seriously or is simply a ‘line’, but I am reasonably sure that Orwell himself would not have been able to answer that honestly either – he knew his health was poor and he was looking for a mother for Richard, his adopted son, but at the same time he was making plans for the future and did not have a terminal diagnosis. As a sexually frustrated bachelor in his early forties he would hardly be the first man to chance his arm with a young women with a tragic sob story, on the basis that sooner or later he might be lucky. It is in this same letter that Orwell claims that he did not suffer from jealousy: “I don’t much care who sleeps with whom. It seems to me what matters is being faithful in an emotional and intellectual sense. I was sometimes unfaithful to Eileen and I also treated her very badly, and I think she treated me badly too at times.”

This collection would make a superb companion text to any biography of Orwell. It can be read on its own of course, but combining it with a biography would work really well, with Orwell’s own words accompanying narrative about the events of his life. It would reveal his tendency to downplay things in a very British stiff-upper-lip way, such as his health problems, his distress at the death of his wife (“I don’t know whether you will have heard from anyone else the very bad news. Eileen is dead” opens a letter to Lydia Jackson, one of Eileen’s close friends, dated 1 April 1945, Eileen having died two days earlier. This isn’t Orwell being uncaring or brutal, it is him trying to cope with his grief and carry on doing the right thing.) and his pride in the success of his later books.

Another thing that shines out of the pages of this collection is Orwell’s entirely unsentimental love of the countryside. Very few personal letters go by without lines on the progress of his garden, how many pounds of potatoes have been harvested, how many eggs the hens have laid, and so on. This was more than a hobby, it was a part of his life and he clearly found the loss of gardening when he was laid up in various hospitals and sanitoriums (or away in Spain or Morocco) highly frustrating. It does make me think that the short period he was on Jura, enjoying living off the land, was one of the happiest of his life, even though it was tinged with sadness as he was having to make this home without Eileen, who seemed to have shared his dream of escape to the Hebrides.

Over half of the letters in this collection date from 1945 or later, that is to say the last five full years of his life (he died in January 1950). In part this must be a reflection of the fact that by 1945 Orwell was increasingly well known, so recipients of his letters were much more likely to have kept them. He may have also kept copies himself, certainly of business letters. I don’t have access to the 20-volume Complete Orwell that Davison edited, so I can’t be sure, but this edition doesn’t contain any letters from Orwell’s five years in Burma, which suggests either that he didn’t send any, which is profoundly unlikely, that none of the letters from that time have been found, (quite possible) or that none of them have anything particularly interesting to say. Whatever the reason it does mean that this aspect of his life is unrecorded in this collection, which is a gap. If I am being pedantic I would also say that this collection contained just a few too many letters from Orwell to his literary agent arranging details of publication, distribution, translation and so on – this aspect of his life as an author could have been illustrated just as clearly with fewer examples. But the scholarship of this collection is formidable, with detailed and clear footnotes to every letter, an extensive set of biographical notes of the main recipients of Orwell’s letters, every typo that was Orwell’s not the editor’s marked clearly and of course a detailed index. Even though I have read all the biographies of Orwell I still learnt a lot about his life and work from this collection. Just to offer one example, I previously thought of Jura as a remote and wild place, which it was, but assumed it was madness to decamp there with Orwell’s health so precarious and it being so hard to reach. But he only summered there, spending winters in the Canonbury Square flat in London that he retained the tenancy of (often letting others stay there) and the island had a mild climate. It also seems they ate better there than on the still rationed mainland, with access to fish, lobsters and crabs from the sea, rabbits and venison from the land, eggs and meat from the chickens they kept, and vegetables from the garden. It was also easier to keep warm on Jura compared to London, because there was plenty of natural fuel – peat and wood – available, compared to the capital where everything was scarce and rationed. It does seem rather idyllic and it is not surprising they had so many visitors, at one stage having to set up a tent in the garden to accommodate the overflow.

Davison enriches this collection enormously by interspersing letters from Orwell with those from others such as his childhood sweetheart Jacintha Buddicom. Most revealing are those from Eileen to her friend Norah. These letters are full of impish humour and provocation and were the basis of the 2023 book Wifedom. The author of Wifedom took everything Eileen says in these letters as gospel, when it is plain as anything that she is invariably joking, usually by way of comic exaggeration. Letters between Eileen and Orwell are few and far between. Obviously that is because husband and wife tend not need to write to another. Eileen’s last unsent letter to her husband (29/3/45) is heartbreakingly sad. She was a much more interesting and lively correspondent than Orwell, and the fact that her letters are often interrupted and written over several days, if not longer (instead of throwing away a mislaid draft she would resume writing with an apology for the delay) adds to their charm. The exercise of compiling a complete edition of Orwell’s letters is one that may never end – very recently more letters were discovered by relatives of his correspondents. Last year Darcy Moore, a great Orwell scholar, discovered another lost letter from 1942. I doubt it will be the last.

Sadly the editor of this collection, Peter Davison, who was also the editor of the twenty volume complete Orwell, died in 2022 – I do hope that the Orwell Society or his literary agents appoint someone to continue Davison’s work. The Society has introduced a Peter Davison award for Orwell scholarship, which I suppose goes some way towards this aim. While mentioning the Orwell Society I should also recommend this excellent review of the Collected Letters on their site.

The final year of Orwell’s life was spent a sanatorium and then a hospital where he seemed to have received little by way of actual medical treatment, spending the time just resting, surrounded by growing piles of books. Resting for Orwell still meant undertaking a lot of correspondence, as well as a little journalism and book reviewing. He obviously knew he was very seriously ill but at the same time held out hope for a recovery that might give him a few more years. He had lots of visitors, many of them members literary aristocracy and was clearly much loved – many people expressed concern for his health and the need to ‘do something’ to save him. Forty-six is a ridiculously early age to die, especially for a writer who in Animal Farm and 1984 had fully discovered their own voice. These two novels alone have sold over forty-one million copies. This achievement is not the end of the story. Earlier this month I was watching the television show Countdown. Someone used the word “unperson” without reference to Orwell even though he coined the word in 1984. This to me just emphasises (albeit in a very minor, incidental way), the extent to which Orwell’s thoughts and ideas have permeated Western culture and language; they are just now part of the way we think rather than something that needs to be referenced or explained. Sales of 1984 spike every time world events seem particularly Orwellian such as when Trump’s press spokesperson coined the phrase ‘alternative facts‘. That more than anything else was his contribution.

George Orwell, A Life in Letters, edited by Peter Davison, 2010

Book review

Guilty by Definition, by Susie Dent, 2024

If you had to guess what a novel by tv’s lexicographer Susie Dent would be about I think most people would assume that it would be a) in the cosy crime genre, b) feature a main character who is a lexicographer, or a related profession, and c) involve word puzzles and clues that lead to the resolution of the mystery. And the author obviously hates to disappoint her audience, because that is exactly what she has produced. I was expecting the novel to be a lazy, genre-driven cash-in on the author’s public persona (of which there are many out there at the moment) but I am delighted to say it was so much better than that. There are still some predictable elements, of course, including the loving descriptions of academic Oxford, the word puzzles, and the short chapters that keep the pages turning. But these are more than compensated for by the high quality writing and the well constructed plot.

Set in Oxford and featuring a team of lexicographers working for the Clarendon English Dictionary, the setting and structure of Guilty by Definition also provides the author with plenty of opportunities to weave into the text anecdotes about the origins of words and phrases, keeping the fans of Countdown and Dictionary Corner satisfied. These word-related anecdotes are sometimes rather obviously shoe-horned into the narrative (often something about a word or phrase will just occur to the narrator and have to be explained) but I think Dent just about keeps on the right side of this not being irritating or distracting.

The plot follows Martha Thornhill, senior editor of the Clarendon English Dictionary. She and her team seems to have gloriously relaxed jobs tracing the origins of words and phrases. Also working for the CED but not part of Martha’s team is Jonathan Overton, a Shakespeare expert who has published widely on the bard’s coinages and who is a minor media celebrity. One day they receive a letter from an anonymous correspondent who signs themself ‘Chorus’. This letter contains a word puzzle, which when solves leads to the answer 2010, which is the year that Martha’s sister, Charlie, went missing. Thus begins a reopening of the investigation into Charlie’s disappearance. This moves along at a fair pace, with new developments and discoveries about Charlie’s past every few pages. Further letters and puzzles from Chorus move the action along every time the investigation begins to lose focus. It is revealed that Charlie was on the trail of a literary discovery, which as well as being hugely valuable would rewrite much of what we know about Shakespeare’s invention of new words. In lexicography terms this could be up there with the Rosetta Stone or the double helix structure of DNA.

Guilty by Definition is well plotted and well written. The final reveal of what happened to Charlie and what she had discovered hits exactly the right balance between not being too obvious but at the same time not too obscure. I was able to work out ‘whodunnit’ fairly early on, the list of possible suspects being quite small, but this didn’t spoilt the read for me in any way. The novel has lots of independent women characters who are not defined by their appearance or sexuality and who are not traditional stereotypes, which was a refreshing change from much genre fiction. The three main lexicographers, Safi, Martha and Alex form a strong team that would translate very well onto the television screen (with Oxford as a photogenic background) and I would be astonished if they do not reappear in further word-based mystery sequels. I look forward to them.

Guilty by Definition, by Susie Dent, 2024

Book review

The Orwell Tour, by Oliver Lewis, 2023

I must admit I am a little jealous of Oliver Lewis. I have pointed out in previous reviews of Orwell biographies that he was relentlessly nomadic, never living in the same place for more than a handful of years. I’ve also been to several of the places he lived – Marrakesh, Southwold, Paris, London, and nearby Wallington in Hertfordshire – but with the exception of the last location I have never made the effort to seek out the blue plaques recording where Orwell lived, however briefly. (Wallington is an exception to that rule, because apart from the Stores, Orwell’s house there, and the prototypes of Manor Farm, there is very little in the village at all). Lewis had the inspired idea of visiting as many of Orwell’s homes as possible, with the thought that they might individually or collectively tell us something about the man, his background, influences and experiences. I wish I had had the same idea.

Knowing where to draw the line in terms of the places Orwell ‘lived’ is not always straightforward. For example, did he ever live in Stockton-on-Tees? We know his wife Eileen’s family owned a house there and she and Richard (their adopted son) decamped there after they were bombed out of their London flat. But did Orwell visit or stay for any length of time? There are so far as I am aware no letters from him to anyone carrying this address. D J Taylor, author of one of the best biographies of Orwell, (Orwell, the New Life) says (page 432)

“The first of the V1 flying bombs, known as ‘doodlebugs’, had been launched across the channel on 13 June, a week after the Normandy landings. On 28 June one of them fell on Mortimer Crescent; no one was hurt, but the house was uninhabitable and would remain so for some time. Orwell and Eileen’s whereabouts for the next few months are far from certain. One temporary landlady may have been Inez Holden, at her new flat in George Street, Marylebone, although a note in Inez’s diary records their going to stay with the Dakins in Bristol. If so, this could only have been a short-term arrangement as Orwell was needed three days a week at Tribune. Eileen and Richard certainly spent some time at Greystone, the O’Shaughnessy family home twenty-five miles south of Newcastle, and there were short visits to Wallington…but the likelihood is that Orwell himself joined the vast floating population of displaced wartime Londoners with no fixed abode, moving on from one spare room or camp bed to another as the opportunity arose”.

I have quoted this at length to illustrate the point that the question of where Orwell ‘lived’ is often far from straightforward and until such times as letters from or to Orwell, or any other evidence emerges, will remain unclear. There is a similar issue with Orwell’s residence at the Stores in Wallington. He held the lease to this cottage from 1936 to 1947, but the plaque on the wall states he lived there from 1936 to 1940. Even during that period he spent six months in Spain, as recorded in Homage to Catalonia, six far less interesting months in a sanatorium in Kent and a further six months recuperating in Marrakesh. After 1940 he lived in various addresses in London and in 1946 he moved to Jura. The Stores were (from what I can tell) sub-let at various points, but the record also indicates he and Eileen, occasionally joined by friends, would spend some weekends at Wallington during the war. Does this mean he lived there then? (If so, the plaque would be far more complicated!) Probably not, but again the point is that the question of where this ultra-nomad lived at any one time is not straightforward, and eventually requires us to make judgment calls about these issues.

There are a few omissions from what is otherwise a comprehensive review of the many places Orwell lived. He attended Wellington College for a single term before going to Eton. St Cyprian’s School in Eastbourne, East Sussex where Orwell went to prep school for five years as a boarder, is mentioned but not visited, possibly because the building in which it was housed has since burned down, so there would be little to see. Having said that these were key formative years for Orwell, recorded in his essay Such, Such Were the Joys (which is a grimly ironic quote from Blake). Freys College, where he taught for a term in 1933, is also mentioned but not visited. Orwell seems to have spent quite a lot of time at his wife’s brother’s family home in Greenwich, which might have been worth visiting, and was certainly close enough. Any attempt to visit every location ever associated with Orwell is probably futile, but these all seemed easy enough locations to tick off and may have been worthwhile additions to this account.

There are a few errors here as well which are less forgivable. The chapter on the Blair’s early years back in the UK after India is entitled Henley-on-Thames, Berkshire, whereas Henley-on-Thames is in Oxfordshire, as the text makes clear. The error is important because it makes more sense of Orwell’s decision to be buried in Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire – otherwise he had no particular association with this County, rather than it being the place of his early childhood. The description of Southwold as being “a small port clinging to the extremity of the East Anglian coastline” is technically correct, but misleading. Southwold is predominantly a Suffolk seaside town, pier and all, and the fact that as with all ports and seaside towns it is on the coast means the description of it ‘clinging’ to the coastline (rather than sloping gently down to the sea) is redundant.

I don’t think there is any doubt that we can learn more about an author by visiting the places where they lived. Orwell’s lack of interest in home comforts is summed-up vividly by the dilapidated cottage in Wallington, even if over the years it has been vastly improved, not least by the addition of a thatched roof and indoor plumbing and heating. Manor Farm just a short walk away conjures up images of the revolutionary animals of Animal Farm. I am sure the conditions in Burma could tell us a lot about Orwell’s time in the military police there. The wildness of Jura doesn’t seem to have changed a great deal since his time there in the 1940’s – anyone seeking out that remoteness and isolation must have wanted to escape something and will have paid little regard once again to the lack of home comforts.

Lewis makes some small but fascinating discoveries in the course of his journey: gravestones from the Limouzin family, Orwell’s mother’s side of the family, are found in a half-abandoned church in Burma; his measurements can still be seen in his tailor’s records in Southwold from when he ordered a suit almost 100 years ago; his name is still to be found in the visitors book in his neighbour’s house on Jura. Orwell left footprints everywhere, but at the same time he is elusive – famously, there is no known recording of his voice, which is extraordinary given that he worked in broadcasting for two years in the the 1940’s – and there are many small mysteries about his life which researchers are diligently chipping away at.

Lewis makes it clear in his introduction that this is not another biography, of which there are plenty, but it is not simply a travelogue either. It is a different way of looking at a remarkable life, and therefore a valuable contribution to the growing scholarship about the great man.

The Orwell Tour, by Oliver Lewis, 2023

	The Reading Bug on Every Man for Himself, by Bery…
	Rach on Every Man for Himself, by Bery…
	The Reading Bug on Flesh by David Szalay 2025
	Rach on Flesh by David Szalay 2025
	Rach on Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammet…

	The Reading Bug on Every Man for Himself, by Bery…
	Rach on Every Man for Himself, by Bery…
	The Reading Bug on Flesh by David Szalay 2025
	Rach on Flesh by David Szalay 2025
	Rach on Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammet…

The Reading Bug

A blog about reading, books, and language.

Tag Archives: Books

Allan Quatermain by H Ryder Haggard, 1897

To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, 1927

To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf, 1927

The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, 1898

Memento Mori, by Muriel Spark, 1959

After Me Comes the Flood, by Sarah Perry, 2014

A Life of Sorts, by Graham Greene, 1971

Essays, by George Orwell

George Orwell, A Life in Letters, edited by Peter Davison, 2010

Guilty by Definition, by Susie Dent, 2024

The Orwell Tour, by Oliver Lewis, 2023