Archive for the ‘Psychological Novel’ Category

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). 

Andrea Barrett (2007) – The Air We Breathe

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

Overall: Not the best, but definitely one of the better works I’ve read recently.  Detailed notes below.

 

Interesting device: omniscient (?) first person plural “we” narrator.

 

Page 94: Sudden change of tone.  It’s difficult for me to articulate what changes, but I feel it quite strongly.  The change is introduced by a somewhat anomalous Eudora saying, “You know what I feel….  I tell you everything.” to Naomi.  Naomi’s reply feels trite and hackneyed: “No one really does, do they?”  How many times have we heard or read that line or its sentiment in books, plays, movies, or just plain real life?  Give me a break!

 

But the author segues from this dime-store (how many still remember what a dime-store was?) truism into two paragraphs that prove the point, not to Eudora, but to the reader.  Suddenly the reader comes face-to-face with Naomi’s dark side, which has not previously manifested itself in the narrative.

 

Things keep moving.  In the next chapter (Ch. 7), Leo receives a mystery love note and the game is afoot.  Then Ephraim is visited by Felix, “the younger brother of Rosa’s brother-in-law,” who leaves with Ephraim a box containing mysterious, likely explosive, objects; and Miles receives a letter from Lawrence (p. 106) that in two paragraphs particularize the horror of World War I trench warfare and the toll it took on the minds, the psyches, the humanity of those immersed and enmired in it.  The reader’s blood freezes upon reading those twelve lines.

 

In Chapter 8, irony: Dr. Petrie tells “us” about the effects of the German phosgene gas attacks on the lungs of those unfortunate enough to breathe it.  This is especially horrifying in a book about people infected with tuberculosis.  Miles declares himself to Naomi and (inexplicably, to me anyway) recounts to Dr. Petrie his conversation with her.

 

On p. 122, a wonderful turn of a phrase: “the rattled quartet”

 

Pp. 122-4: An interesting and erudite disquisition on the repeated failures of idealistic sects to establish long-lived utopian (sic — because I don’t think More’s Utopia describes a place anyone could tolerate for long) communities in the United States.

 

P. 125:  Naomi, for her part, has indignantly reported to Eudora Miles’ declaration of his feelings.

 

At the bottom of p. 125, the sentence beginning “But meanwhile” and continuing on the following page is truly remarkable in that it contains two almost totally unrelated thoughts and yet captures precisely the experience of listening to one thing and thinking about another.

 

P. 127:  First two sentences.  Wonderful foreshadowing: brings the future into the narrative present.  “Later, we’d all know what the drawing meant…”

 

P. 132:  Of Naomi: “How was a person to keep straight what she truly remembered, and what she remembered inventing?”

 

When, on p. 164, we learn that the pencils in the box left to Leo by Ephraim are incendiary devices, I am reminded (unfavorably) of the shopworn dramatic convention that it there is a pistol on the table in act one, somebody will have used it by the end of act two.  So, I’m now saying to myself, oh, I hope the author is more imaginative than that, but I’m fearing that she isn’t, and I read on with a sense that I’m going to be disappointed.

 

The plot thickens and bubbles.  I keep reading, but I’m losing interest until…

 

Movie Night (p.195 ff.)  The infatuations of Miles for Naomi, Naomi for Leo, and Leo for Eudora are rather Shakespearean.  They take possession of the person as an obsession, driving them relentlessly and irrationally.  It’s like the action of the love potions in “Midsummer Night’s Dream.”  The one ensorceled dotes on the object of his or her love against all reason, invoking hope as justification.

 

P. 204: Naomi rushes out of the movie room and Eudora, after a moment, follows her.  I love the snide omniscient tone of the narrative: “In the corridor Eudora turned right — she should have turned left…”

 

P. 204: The author ups the ante again.  The pistol that was on the table in act one is fired.  Is this a phosgene gas attack?  I am totally disoriented.

 

P. 221: More irony: No, it was burning film, which yields suffocating carbon monoxide plus nitrous compounds which become nitric acid when they combine with moisture in the lungs.  So now we know why the author told us about phosgene.  Nice tie-in.

 

Pp. 239 – 262: Booooo!  Hiss!  Miles’ behavior and the accusations against Leo are all totally predictable, including the willingness of the narrative chorus to assume the worst.

 

Pp. 262-265:  Leo’s reminiscences do not further the narrative.  A useless flashback, I say.

 

Pp. 266-end: The author’s inspiration returns to carry the reader to a satisfying denouement. 

 

And the narrative chorus finally finds its penitent rest.

 

 

Additional thoughts:

 

When I discovered the genealogical chart in the back of the book, I was puzzled.  I certainly didn’t need a genealogical chart to follow this story.  What’s more, most of the people on the chart were people I never heard of, and I certainly didn’t feel any need to know about them.  Of course I figured out pretty quickly that the chart was a clue that the author had written other books in which various subsets of these characters featured.  In truth, I don’t care.  In fact, I’m a bit annoyed to have an author (or the author’s publisher) tell me that this book’s story won’t stand on its own.  I think it does just fine, thank you very much. 

 

In retrospect, the almost total disappearance of Naomi from the narrative once the author has managed to get her to accidentally set off the incendiary pencil is quite unsatisfactory.  I suppose the author had to get rid of her in order to sustain the mystery about exactly what happened for a few chapters and to give readers the opportunity to think the worst of her.  I’m not sure that an exigencies-of-the-plot defense is acceptable in the court of great literature.  I don’t think The Air We Breathe is on the level of The Red and the Black, but the latter also succumbs at the end to an exigencies-of-the-plot difficulty. 

 

Interesting parallelism: I was perfectly willing to believe that Naomi had set the fire on purpose (possibly not knowing quite how devastating it would be), and to the extent that that is how most readers felt at that point in the narrative, we the readers have jumped to the same conclusion vis-à-vis Naomi that “we” the narrative chorus jump to vis-à-vis Leo.

 

Still, Naomi’s demotion from full-blown character to plot device is rather a smack in the face, and the few dribs and drabs of information about Naomi after the fire really don’t do anything to change the feeling.  I try to make a case for the idea that “we” (the narrative chorus) however omniscient it may be about things in the environs of Tamarack Lake, is limited in its knowledge to that neighborhood alone.  I don’t convince myself.