Book Review by John Derbyshire |
||||
|
|
|||
| Hugging
the Shore The Bay of Angels Anita Brookner won England’s
prestigious Booker Prize for her fourth novel Hotel du Lac in 1984.
I read that book at the time but, while I thought there was much to
admire in it, did not find it sufficiently to my taste to want to follow
the author’s subsequent development.
I see with some dismay that The Bay of Angels is Ms.
Brookner’s twentieth novel, which means that she has been turning out a
pretty steady novel a year ever since Hotel du Lac.
How time flies! Having now read The Bay of
Angels, and browsed among the novels I missed, I see that Ms. Brookner
has been cultivating a single, small corner of the field of human
experience. Nothing wrong
with that, and it is of course always possible that she will stun us next
year with a bodice-ripper set in old Carthage, or a contemporary tale
about missionaries in the Congo. For
the time being, however, we must take Ms. Brookner as we find her,
chronicling the lives of lonely, passive women pursuing, without much
vigor, desirable but distant and rather difficult men.
Or, as a reviewer of her last novel but one put it, somewhat
unkindly but not altogether inaccurately: “[Y]et another tale of
spinsters doing not very much rather slowly.” The spinster (a fine old word,
which my National Review colleague Florence King is attempting to
revivify) in The Bay of Angels is Zoë
Cunningham, an Englishwoman of modest rentier origins, who has
grown up with her mother in a London flat.
Quite suddenly, as Zoë
reaches college age, the mother marries a man named Simon and goes to live
with him in Nice, from whence comes the book’s title.
Then, while Zoë
is still savoring her independence, Simon dies in a domestic accident.
Zoë’s
mother goes into a permanent state of shock and is institutionalized.
Simon turns out not to have had as much money as he was thought to
have, and there is a superior claim on the house in Nice by a relative
from his previous marriage. Zoë
is attracted, in that tepid, Brooknerish way, to one of the doctors
responsible for her mother’s condition, a blunt-spoken man who lives
with his shrewish sister. I had better make it clear
before proceeding that Ms. Brookner is not for me.
Taoism distinguishes between the quality of yin, whose
manifestations are shade, inwardness, passivity, the Moon, concavity and
the female principle, and yang, which generates all the opposite
things. There is too much yin
here for my enjoyment, and not enough yang. If you like this sort of
thing, though, Anita Brookner does it as well as it can be done. She writes beautifully, with many memorable throw-away lines
to keep one’s interest: “the
slightly ribald atmosphere of a wedding”,
“the despair of one whose life is lacking in several essential
components”, and so on.
She is especially good on cruelty, humiliation and ugliness.
One of the few things I still recall from Hotel du Lac is
that room which was “the color of over-cooked veal”.
Zoë is at one point
confronted with the couple (English, of course) who by — as they loudly
remind her — perfectly legal right have taken over the house in Nice
following Simon’s death. These
creatures of quite breath-taking crassness introduce themselves as Tony
and Tina: Names
from a television game show. Like
most contestants for large prizes they had the insistent smiles that would
assure them victory, and behind the smiles the naked gaze of
acquisitiveness. On the schoolboy principle
that every significant literary creation can be summed up in a single word
(Hamlet — “revenge”, Macbeth — “ambition” and so
on), what word would be appropriate for Ms. Brookner’s œuvre?
The closest I can get is “freedom”.
Like some other female novelists of our time — Iris Murdoch comes
to mind (and yes, I do think this is an exclusively female preoccupation)
— Ms. Brookner’s characters are fascinated, baffled, and quite a bit
frightened by freedom. Not in
the political sense: she is
one of that dwindling but blessed company of novelists whose fictions
leave you with no clue about how they vote, or what they do behind closed
doors. Not even, really, in
the metaphysical sense so fretted over by those heavy-breathing French
novelists of the middle 20th century, who are now so unreadable.
This is a straightforward, quite practical concern with the
management of life. Says Zoë near the end of The Bay of Angels: I
have that terrible freedom of which others are justifiably afraid.
I now recognize its deep seriousness.
I am free to live my life without restraint ...
This is not always a joyous procedure.
I find that I myself can enter
into these kinds of cogitations only with difficulty. It depends on your threshhold of tolerance for yin, I
suppose. |
||||