Archive for January, 2010

Elizabeth Strout (2008) – Olive Kitteridge

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

First impressions:  Chapter 1.  Pharmacy.

 

Our introduction to Olive Kitteridge is inauspicious.  She comes across as very angry and her maxim seems to be: If you can’t say something nasty, don’t say anything at all.  Her anger is channeled through passive aggressive outbursts that are ostensibly directed against others, but are clearly directed at her husband Henry Kitteridge.  Henry is not deep.  There is not much passion in his everyday life.  We don’t know what Olive is so angry about, but it doesn’t take much to set her off.

 

Eric Berne, the neo-Freudian psychoanalyst, used to say that some people save up their disappointments and dissatisfactions like stamps, and when they have collected enough of them, they feel entitled to explode at the next little annoyance they encounter.  When they explode, their response is far out of proportion to what the actual incident might merit, and the ostensible target of the explosion is generally not the real target..  This is Olive Kitteridge.  In his 1964 book Games People Play, Berne describes the game Olive Kitteridge plays continually.  He calls it “Now I’ve Got You, You Sonofabitch”, in which the player lies in wait for someone—anyone (so it usually turns out to be someone close)—to make a misstep and then pounces viciously, but with smug, self-satisfied, self-proclaimed complete justification and plausible deniability.

 

A perfect example (p.24), even if the situation is a tad implausible: Denise calls the Kitteridge home, distraught that she just ran over her cat. 

 

[Now I’ve Got You, You Sonofabitch]

“Go,” Olive said.  “For God’s sake.  Go over and comfort your girlfriend.”

“Stop it, Olive,” Henry said.  “That’s unnecessary….  Where in God’s name is your compassion?” 

[Now I’ve Got You, You Sonofabitch]

“She wouldn’t have run over any goddamn cat if you hadn’t given it to her.” 

 

The prose reads easily and succeeds in building scenes and characters without a lot of the noisy hammering, sawing, and sanding that some authors can’t seem to do without.  A few deft stroke of the writer’s brush evoke relationships and situations that feel real—we grasp the dynamics of the characters’ interactions without knowing what exactly is behind them.  We fill in the motivations from our own experiences and expectations.  This is the bread and butter of the short story: rather than painstakingly building an ambience from the ground up, the author recruits recognition of cultural landmarks to evoke an automatic understanding of what is going on beneath the surface, so we know if not who these people really are, then how they really are.  Strout does it well.

 

Narrative tense jumps around to good effect.  The chapter starts in the narrative past (“Henry Kitteridge was a pharmacist”), but after the section break on page 11 switches to the present, with the feeling it gives of watching a movie rather than listening to a story (“Autumn now….  Henry runs a comb through his hair”).  Then, back and forth between past and present: mostly past, but occasionally in the present, and eventually, a quick stop-off in the future at the top of page 29

 

“ ‘She’s fine,’ he answers.  Not at the moment, but soon, he will walk over to Olive and put his hand on her arm.”

 

The narration even goes into the present perfect as in the following remarkable passage just before the section break on page 28.

 

“Why do you need everyone married?”  Christopher has said to him angrily, when Henry has asked about his son’s life.  “Why can’t you just leave people alone?”

 

and the author, jumps back to the immediacy of the present, answers Christopher’s rhetorical question:

 

            He doesn’t want people alone.

 

A brilliant, one-sentence explanation of Henry’s character.

 

 

[You have to imagine that this is a footnote:  The use of the present perfect here reminds me of its use in the old Scots ballad poem Sir Patrick Spens (The Child Ballads: 58), and I noticed when I looked it up that it too jumps around from present to past to present perfect and back to the past.  Here are the first four stanzas.

 

               THE king sits in Dumferling toune,
               Drinking the blude-reid wine:
               ‘O whar will I get guid sailor,
               To sail this schip of mine?’
 
               Up and spak an eldern knicht,
               Sat at the kings richt kne:
               ‘Sir Patrick Spence is the best sailor
               That sails upon the se.’
 
               The king has written a braid letter,
               And signd it wi his hand,
               And sent it to Sir Patrick Spence,
               Was walking on the sand.
 
               The first line that Sir Patrick red,
               A loud lauch lauched he;
               The next line that Sir Patrick red,
               The teir blinded his ee.

 

End of would-be footnote.]

 

Further Thoughts:

 

Olive makes me think of the eponymous protagonist of Evan S. Connell’s (1969) novel Mr. Bridge as he would have behaved on amphetamines and out of control.  Olive has at least a walk-on part in every chapter, sometimes a starring role, and sometimes a supporting role (even Olive is supportive sometimes). 

 

Everything is a little off-kilter and nearly every chapter (maybe every chapter) has a kind of ominous, obsessive, telltale-heart horror or overwhelming sadness lurking inches below the surface of the text.  Henry David Thoreau (1854, Walden) observed that “The mass of men [by which, of course he meant pretty much all people] live lives of quiet desperation.  What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.”

 

This is, first and foremost, a book about the walking wounded.  The core themes of the novel are all interrelated:

 

            Emotional abandonment.

            Solace.

            Searching for validation.

            Infidelity.

            Defective communication.

            Dysfunctional families.

            Growing old.

            Insensitivity.

            Insecurity.

            Humiliation.  Fear of humiliation.

            Resentment.  Rejection.

            Anger.  Displaced anger.

            Death: Suicide.  Attempted suicide.

            Murder.  Attempted murder.  Contemplated murder.

            Homicide.  Living death.

            Men are from “If You Can’t Say Something Nice, Say Nothing”

            Women are from “I Want the Truth If It Kills Me”

 

The characterizations are, to me at least, psychologically true.  They capture one of the saddest facts of human existence: it is possible to see that another human being is hurting, to have insight into why and how, to have compassion, to want to soothe the pain and make things better, and to be absolutely unable to establish the real communication that could make that happen.  It is the rare person in this novel who is reachable.  It is rare and precious when individuals in the book talk with one another instead of at one another. 

 

Overall, I enjoyed the book, if one can be said to enjoy such a prolonged insight into the unhappiness of people one comes to care for.  I’ll amend that to say that I’m glad that I read the book.  Still, I found Olive’s epiphany at the end of the last chapter sadly unsatisfying.  It feels abrupt—a short story ending where a novelistic ending was called for.  But then, endings are always problematical, aren’t they?

 

 

On the Hopeful Side

 

Henry, in spite of Olive’s complaints about him, seems like a decent fellow.  We never really know what kind of relationship he has or had with Christopher when Christopher was growing up.

 

Olive seems to have been and continue to be sensitive to and concerned about her former students and about some of the people she meets.  In “Incoming Tide”, her intervention in the form of frank and honest, sharing communication is enough to turn Kevin around from suicidal to hopeful, whence Patty Howe’s fall into the ocean turns him from mere hope to positive action.

 

The Piano Player, Angie Meara, for all that her mother was a whore has a real, human relationship with Walter and becomes willing to confront her life and become an actor rather than a pawn.  Taking steps, however small, in a positive direction is life affirming.

 

In “A Little Burst”, Olive’s emotional pain is understandable in the face of the fact that her son has gotten married to a woman she does not like or understand, a fact that underscores that he is no longer just Olive’s little boy.  It is understandable, but deeply regrettable that she acts out her dismay and unhappiness in petty and reprehensible ways.  Psychologically true, but still disturbing for its plausibility—we feel vaguely uneasy (guilty even?) for sympathizing with her in spite of the inappropriateness of her actions (stealing from Suzanne and Christopher’s bedroom a bra, a shoe, and an earring). 

Louis Auchincloss (2002) – The Rector of Justin

Monday, January 4th, 2010

I have to disclose up front that I have a hard spot in my heart for novels about New England private schools for boys, which is a reflection of my own assessment of the damage they appeared to have done to many of my Harvard classmates.  There seem to be enough novels about New England and British private schools to deem them a subgenre of the novel.  It is a subgenre I visit with trepidation.  Is the author going to regale us with tales of  the character-building properties of the remarkable cruelty the students visit upon one another?  Will I have to sit through yet another adolescent from a (choose one) penurious or luxurious family learning not to reflexively judge his (or her, now that the schools have become co-ed) opposite harshly?

 

That said, I did manage to read all the way through, though it became a bit of a slog at the end.  I kind of enjoyed the first part (Chs. 1-4, pp. 1-58), even though it trots out a lot of the standard new-teacher-must-prove-himself situations.  Brian, the unifying narrator, seems to be someone Auchincloss would be pleased to spend time with.  I found him to be more self-effacingly self-doubting than anyone has, I think, the right to be.  His desperate pleas to God to help him out  would give migraines to the Good Humour man.

 

Brian’s more or less instant idolatrous reaction to Rector Prescott seems at best to portray Brian as one of the walking wounded desperately seeking a father figure.  (I note in passing that Herb Appell has pointed out the frequent appearance of the ‘fathers and sons’ motif in the books we read, but I have to say that it is, after all, one of the Big Ten literary themes–and life themes, as Freud would add.)  I use the term idolatrous advisedly: Does not the author have Brian proclaim (as assertively as he ever gets) in Ch. 3 (p.37), “What I am trying to say is that I may have a call [sic!] to keep a record of the life and personality of Francis Prescott.”  Oh, dear!

 

And while I’m close to the text, I offer in evidence of some of what I have asserted above: Ch. 3, pp. 42-43

Prescott says, “You’ve got to let the boys be animals once in a while….  Social life was more attractive when gentlemen defended their honor with swords and not lawsuits.”

 

Brian challenges him and Prescott backpedals a little, but only a little.  “Well, of course there’s no hazing now.  All the schools have done away with it, and we had to, too.  The snowball fight is the last vestigial remnant of it.  You have just witnessed a rare survival, my friend.”

 

To his credit, Brian’s retort is a literary gem of understatement.  “It did not make me nostalgic.”  Thud!

 

And off Prescott goes on a not so tangential tangent in what narrator Brian characterizes as a “more reasoning tone.”

 

“Perhaps my bias for things English has made me see a moral value in hazing where none existed.  There was a great deal of cruelty in English public schools in the last century, but it went hand in hand with a certain intensity of friendship between boys–almost a passion, you might say–that gave a kind of golden glow to Victorian youth.”

 

I was afraid he was going to wax ecstatic about the pleasures of vigorous application of a disciplinary paddle to the bare bottoms of miscreant boys.  I lucked out.  He didn’t.  But, check out the next paragraph as Brian naively asks, “But, you never discouraged close friendships between boys, did you, sir?”

 

“Did I not?… I was one of the Worst!”

“Why, sir?”

“Because, sir, … I did not think a hundred examples of David and Jonathan were worth one of sodomy.”

 

        I rest my case.

 

In a sentence: I don’t like the prissy, less-sexual-than-thou tone adopted by both the Brian narrator and the Havistock narrator, and for that matter attributed to Himself, the Prescott.  Methinks the author doth protest too much.

 

The story of the Twelve Black Marks (Ch. 2) has a certain charm for all its predictability.  Horace Havistock’s story of how he discouraged Eliza Dean from marrying Prescott has its charm, but I ended up feeling that the author invented her to make a point and when the point was made discarded her without a second thought.  I was miffed.  She, at least seemed alive and not caught up in the portentous navel-gazing of Brian, Havistock, and Prescott (sounds like a law firm, no?)

 

The Totten-Tanager episode (Ch. 10) about who threw the overalls in Mrs. Murphy’s chowder–no, about to whom the bootleg translation belonged, is a sort of mini-mystery complete with bluffs, reversals, and poorly concealed motives.  It seems to work, but it’s a bit too pat.  I knew before the denouement was revealed that Totten had confessed falsely in order to get in good with Tanager the Elder.  Not enough suspects for a one-hour TV drama, though.

 

By this point, the book begins to seem like a TV series.  Interesting guest stars every so often, but somehow it feels contrived.  I can see the gears behind the scenes.

 

Prescott seems not to *be* as compelling as people in the novel *say* he is.   I consider this a major weakness of the work.

 

I couldn’t figure Cordelia caving in first to her father and then to her mother.  It seemed to me that her characterization up to the first cave-in had suggested that she was more than just bluster.  I know parents wield a great deal of power, but it didn’t feel consistent and the author didn’t see a need to account for it.  Maybe I’m naive.

 

Charley is every bit as sappy as narrators Brian and Havistock.  As Brian might write: Dear God, will there ever be an end to it?  As we near the end, Jules Griscam gets to be added to my sappy list, too.

 

I have to look up the precise meaning of the word “sanctimonious” for it is a word that springs to mind in connection with this novel.  Aha.  “Feigning piety or righteousness.”  Not the individual characters, however.  The author is trying to give them real piety or righteousness.  It’s the novel as a whole that sets me on edge that way.

 

For all that Brian (Ch. 23, p. 341) emphatically declares to us that Dr. Prescott’s “genius was for persuading his fellow men [sic!] that life could be exciting and that God wanted them to find it so”,  I never saw that in any of the views of Prescott the novelist provided.  It is the failure to show and not tell.  Admittedly, Brian is shown to be besotted with Prescott, but I don’t think the novelist wanted the reader to discount Brian’s account of Prescott.

 

I end with a number of fairly obvious questions that occur to me at this point.  Is this a portrait of a person who might have been or might be?  Does it communicate something true or valid?  Does it make the reader think?  Does it provide an epiphany–an aha-experience–something that awakens in us a new appreciation of the world as it is?  Is it well drawn?  Do the words suit the subject?  And finally: Is there any character in this book that one would actually want to spend any time with?  Not I, sir.