The world as we know it is flooded, drowned, and very very
soggy. In Kirsty Logan’s debut novel, she gives us a future (presumably) where
dry land is in short supply and those who live on it (landlockers) have the
upper hand in social status.
That’s unless you’re a dampling, with the sea in your veins,
fish stew on your breath, and webbed toes. The Gracekeepers partly follows the
Circus Excalibur, a small crew of performers who float nomadically across the
ocean, exchanging performances for food. They’re all face paint, hair dye and
glitter, a gender-bending troupe constantly reinventing itself in each
performance.
We learn about a number of characters in this fanciful world.
There’s North, the young woman who dances with a bear in a dangerous
pirouette of death and rebirth for the punters. Red Gold (Jarrow), the Circus
Ringmaster and owner who is blind to some harsh truths. Avalon, his bitchy wife
who wants to rise through the social ranks. And Callanish, a mysterious
gracekeeper who spends her time administering rites for the dead by starving small birds in cages over the sea.
Logan’s prose is tightly controlled, dreamy and magical. To
call this a dystopia doesn’t seem right somehow, instead The Gracekeepers
brings to mind the magic realism of Angela Carter. But there’s not really much more
beyond the descriptive language. The characters seem underwritten, with a multitude of gaps left unexplored (I’m still not really sure what happened between Callanish
and her mother). Perhaps this is deliberate and I’m not saying we have to know
everything, but the effect kept me oddly distanced and unengaged with the
story. Threads are woven loosely and then abandoned. This effect is exacerbated
by the structure; early on alternating third person chapters from North and
Callanish’s perspective are established, before suddenly a hotchpotch of other
views butt in, often for only one chapter. It’s disorientating.
There are some arresting passages of prose however. A scene
where North dives deep into the ocean and finds a drowned city, for example, or
her relationship with the bear. Logan seems indebted to Shakespearean themes,
motifs and theatre too—her clowns are surely incarnations of the Shakespearean
fool, inciting rebellion against the upper classes while simultaneously acting
as scapegoat for society’s ills. The acrobats are male/female, brother/sister,
husband/wife, and they seem to swap between all these roles, bringing to mind
the gender play of Twelfth Night. The term ‘damplings’ perhaps suggests the
‘groundings’ of early modern theatre audiences. And of course, you can’t help
but think Exit, pursued by a bear…
But these motifs all seem a little bit forced and a little bit too self-aware,
while the clowns’ potential is never fully realised. They just kind of slope
around in the background, leaving glitter and eyeliner over the bedsheets. The ending, when it comes, feels rushed and certainly not as
apocalyptic as it promised to be, although Logan does a good job of creating
pathos (you’ll guess what happens).
The Gracekeepers is an odd little fairytale which is
definitely worth reading, but just don’t expect a huge amount of depth. Like
any good circus performance, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
David Mitchell’s second novel, number9dream has all the typical hallmarks of its writer.
Interconnected stories—check. Historical pastiche—check. Blurred lines between
fantasy and reality—check.
We follow teenaged Eiji Miyake in his search for his father
in Tokyo, in a journey which veers wildly from one writing style to another. So
we might be thrown into Eiji’s delusional fantasies involving him storming a
building with guns to steal his father’s file, or into a violent encounter with
the Yakuza, which Mitchell still manages to execute with characteristic
drollness. Every chapter is a new puzzle to solve. You’re disorientated as
you’re chucked into some new and bizarre slant and have to work out what the
hell’s going on—and on the whole, it works.
Tokyo is a vivid consumerist bubble, a Blade Runner-ish city
(at one point Eiji watches Blade Runner in the video shop he lives above and
works in) layered with colours and sights and smells. A twenty-four hour city
which exists in stark contrast to the backwardly beautiful Hicksville in which
Eiji grew up.
Eiji is a likeable character too, as he embarks on his
Bildungsroman journey of origins and identity. He spends a lot of time lying in
his capsule above the video shop, looking after the stray feline Cat and waging
war on the pesky Cockroach. He even finds the girl of his dreams (entranced by
the back of her lovely neck) in between dodging Yakuza factions, trying not to
get blown up and hunting for his father. Is it all in Eiji’s head? Is some of
it? Who knows?
Where number9dream
falters is perhaps in the execution of its ambition. While Cloud Atlas and The
Bone Clocks gelled together, number9dream
is sometimes just a bit too sprawling and disconnected. Some of the segments
don’t work as well as the others—particularly one section where Eiji goes into
hiding. He discovers an author’s manuscript about a chicken and a writing goat
and suddenly we’re in the murky waters of metafiction. And I think we’d all
agree, this is where we do not wish to be. Another section follows the doomed pilot
of one of the manned suicide torpedoes (Kaitens) during WW2. It should be
fascinating, and while the pilot’s journals pertinently talk about his family back
in Nagasaki during the summer of 1944, the section still doesn’t quite ignite
our interest.
Still, it’s an engrossing read and the ending is suitably
Mitchell-esque in its apocalyptic doom and gloom. A flawed but vivid novel.
From
the moment an impeccably dressed Gillian Anderson teeters across the stage as
Blanche, designer luggage in tow and giant sunglasses covering most of her
face, you know you’re in safe hands. If anything, she looks even more out of
place than Vivien Leigh in Elia Kazan’s 1951 film rendition.
Benedict
Andrews’ A Streetcar Named Desire still channels the sultry heat of New Orleans,
where the French Quarter is home to a riotous cacophony of folk. However, this
new stage version at the Young Vic uses modern trappings. Eunice (Clare Burt)
is pure American white trash in frayed denim mini-skirt, leggings and open toed
cork mules. It’s a laidback world where people drink late and rise late, and
Stella (Vanessa Kirby) slips into it easily, ditching the airs of Belle Reve
for midriff baring halter tops and skin-tight jeans. But it’s a risky world
too. What looks like an old bruise on Stella’s back hints at her husband’s
violence (or it’s simply a bruise. As Freud didn’t say, sometimes a banana is
just a banana).
Anderson
brings out the contradictions in Blanche—the moth-like destructibility but also
an inner hardness. I like this Blanche – and I don’t like her. She’s catty,
harsh, but also needy. She deals in fantasies but also understands the world
better than her sister. Blanche’s attempts to cling to her old life and money,
by wearing her armour of designer labels, barely disguise her fragility – shaky
ankles that look like they might snap at any moment and neurotic nervousness as
she explores the cramped apartment, looking for liquor. Anderson is funny too—she
cranks up the humour of Blanche’s snobbish tendencies.
Ben
Foster as Stanley is a slow-burner. At first I worried he didn’t have the
presence (alas – Marlon Brando has forever set the bar ridiculously high) but soon
you start to see his menace. Quiet, explosive, quiet, explosive, and there are
some great touches in his mounting viciousness towards Blanche. At one point he
offers her the phone as she waits, teetering on the brink of insanity for a
call from Mitch, before pulling it back from her. A total psych.
The weak
link for me is Stella. Vanessa Kirby plays Stella as a girly, floaty young
thing, caught in a permanent post-coital glow. Well, that’s okay, but her
accent kept slipping out of the American south and into something distinctly British
(and possibly northern) in the showing we saw.
The staging
turns us all into voyeurs. As anyone familiar with Streetcar knows, the action
only takes place in Stanley and Stella’s tiny apartment. Kazan famously played out the
growing claustrophobia, and literal and metaphorical entrapment of Blanche by
moving the walls of the set in closer and closer throughout the scenes.
The design
here is similarly effective. The whole stage is a raised rectangle with the
“rooms” of the apartment, however no walls. We can see through each room and
the action going on in different parts simultaneously. The stage also rotates
continuously – sometimes changing direction, mirroring Blanche’s tumultuous state
of mind. The effect is fascinating. You see everything from different angles—sometimes
your view is obscured, sometimes you’re forced to focus on Stanley in the
living space while Stella and Blanche are talking in the bathroom at the other
end. You’re an outsider looking in or a rubbernecker on the sidelines, watching
the car wreck play out. It reminds us there are no simple answers with this play.
Benedict
Andrews’ take on Tennessee Williams is captivating. It’s edgy, stifling, and simultaneously
modern and retro (we get blasts of P J Harvey and Chris Isaak). Anderson is
definitely the glue holding it all together though. She’s absolutely mesmerising, right up to the tragic mess she becomes, complete with red lipstick all over her face and then finally the broken, lost woman who has always depended on the kindness of strangers. Watch it if you can—it’s being shown in a live stream in UK cinemas.
Danny
Torrance, the kid in Stephen King’s The Shining, is all grown up. And, perhaps,
not surprisingly, he’s a bit screwed in the head. And who could blame him?
Hearing voices, seeing dead people, getting throttled by a fishy dead woman, being
chased by hedge animals, having to wear those flares (sorry – onto the movie) –
poor Danny’s had a rough ride. That’s not even taking his alcoholic,
wife-beating, murderous father into account.
Initially
it looks like the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree. Danny—now Dan—has
become everything he hated. A drifter addicted to booze and fights, he stumbles
from one car wreck to the next, until he ends up stalling for a while in Frazier,
New Hampshire – a sleepy small town where he discovers the Twelve Step
Programme.
Add in
a young girl, Abra who also “shines” with psychic powers, like Dan’s, and a bevy
of vampiric “RV people” who spend their preternaturally long life shuffling
across America in a convoy of motorhomes and feeding off kids who shine, and
you can see where this novel is heading.
Doctor
Sleep is typical fare in many ways. King has always been gifted at grabbing you
straight away with detailed characterisation combined with increasingly spooky
hints of nastiness to come. It’s generally later that things tend to fall apart
(Cell anyone? 22.11.63?). And Doctor Sleep does grab you. That’s probably
because King is cruising in his comfort zone. Anyone who’s read On Writing will
know about his battles with addiction. Apparently at his worst the guy couldn't even remember writing Cujo, and would just wake in the morning to discover
pages and pages he’d produced the night before. So Dan reads, well, very
authentic. He’s engaging, you’re invested and there’s even a kind of horrific
primal adult scene (no, not one of those)
that you know is going to come back and bite him on the behind. Dan’s the "Doctor Sleep" of the title by the way, so called as his shining gives him the
knack for ushering old folk in the hospice over the final threshold and into
the great unknown.
These
sections are well crafted by King, with just the right amount of sentimentality
to make them moving rather than cheesy. And then there’s the True Knot--that
herd of RV folk. They’re kinda creepy and certainly a bit odd. To keep young,
strong and beautiful they must murder young children with the shining in the
most horrific ways imaginable and then feed off their “steam”. Their leader is
a nubile and alluring woman called Rose, with a freaky single long tooth (that
as far as I can work out only appears when she’s feeding. Yummy). The True Knot
meander to NYC in all readiness for 9/11 and hang out in Sinatra Park, feeding
off the steam. Bleurgh.
I've got to be honest—I was worried when I first bought this book. And let’s face
it, Doctor Sleep is a dreadful title (yes I know it refers to Dan, but it’s
still abysmal. It sounds like something from the deliberately cheesy House of a
1000 Corpses). But I was pleasantly surprised (well, a little bit). It’s
certainly not classic King, but it’s a reasonable length, has solid
characterisation, is pacey, has some evocative passages and does tie everything
up.
Okay,
this ending might be a bit too neat, too tidy and too convenient – with no real
sense of danger or urgency. A bit like it’s going through the motions. There’s
some unconvincing later scenes with Abra’s parents and it all seems a bit like
King is trying to race to the end, while some aspects of the plot that you’re just
sure will develop into something, amount to nada. And I'm not sure how much you’d get out of it
if you hadn't read or seen The Shining.
But on
the whole, Doctor Sleep was a generally enjoyable read, even without being one
of his greats. IT WAS OKAY. OKAY?
Kazuo Ishiguro returns to what interests him most in his
Booker Shortlisted When We Were Orphans: the duplicity of memory, social mores
and the fusion of Asian and English culture.
It’s 1930s England and Christopher Banks is in the process
of becoming a famed detective. Suddenly
he finds himself on all the best guest lists and talked about on the social
scene – ironic really as Banks seems an awkward, terribly English type,
horrified by public displays of affection and he’d certainly never make a scene.
But then a scene is made and it’s all due to the magnetic
and ballsy high society (well sort of) Sarah.
She wants Banks to add her as his ‘plus one’ to a charity dinner, he
doesn't want to (even though he clearly fancies her) as he’s already said he’s
going alone (did I say he’s terribly
English?).
I can sympathise with Banks.
I mean, these kind of social quandaries often plague me. What to do when you see someone you sort of
know when you’re walking through town?
Do you make eye contact?
Nod? Pretend you didn't see
them? Duck into a shop? Cross the road to avoid the whole sorry
dilemma and hope they didn't notice you?
If Banks is reminding you of another Ishiguro character,
then I'm not surprised. Come on, he’s
clearly Stevens. Good ol’ Stevens, our
awfully repressed butler from Remains of the Day, who just couldn't articulate
what he really wanted. It’s hard to read
When We Were Orphans and not hear Steven’s voice channelled through the first
person narrative.
Anyway back to this Sarah.
She seems kind of interesting. I
wonder what role she’ll play in Banks’ story?
The answer is not much. She’s
what we might call a red herring (and there’s a lot of those in this book). Instead we’re drawn further and further into
Banks’ crazy, hallucinatory inner life and his decidedly unique way of looking
at the world.
Banks’ parents mysteriously disappeared when he was a boy living
in Old Shanghai – possibly kidnapped.
His father worked for Morganrook and Byatt doing something ‘official but
a bit dodgy to do with opium’ while his mother was a very vocal campaigner
against the opium trade – often at odds with those around her (you can see
where this might be going). As you’d
expect, this childhood event has cast a shadow over Banks, and it’s not long
before he returns to Shanghai to try and solve the old case.
One of the issues I have with When We Were Orphans is I feel
a bit duped. What starts out as a Sherlock
Holmes-esque detective story, interspersed with Banks’ memories of his parents
and Japanese friend Akira in Shanghai, soon morphs into something else
completely.
The latter sections of the novel are pretty much
unbelievable. Ridiculous plotting and
contrived coincidences abound as Banks does his detective thing in
Shanghai. He returns to his childhood
home and the family living there invite him for dinner and then say they’ll
move out once he rescues his parents (they went missing 25 years ago) so they
can all move back in together happily.
Er…yeah. Do you want to break it
to him or shall I?
Banks also heads
right into the front line of the Sino-Japanese War, darting among the troops
and locals, getting soldiers and police to drop their weapons and escort him
about, even bumping into his childhood friend Akira. As you do.
I was fully expecting some kind of deus ex machina ending – you know,
like the ones in Star Trek when we find out the alien who’s been tormenting the
Enterprise and is about to kill its crew is just a kid and now daddy alien has
ticked him off and sent him home without tea.
However I can’t believe that Ishiguro suddenly decided to go all airport
fiction on us. It seems that Banks is
simply a lot more unreliable than I originally thought.
Looking back there were early signs of course. Two old school acquaintances remember Banks
as a loner weirdo, something he strenuously denies and attempts to dispute by providing
some detailed ‘un-loserish’ memories.
Perhaps the biggest clue comes with the games he played as a kid with
Akira, endlessly re-enacting the rescue of his parents and a welcoming home
ceremony in their honour. It’s hard not
to see this motif appearing in his adult life on his return to Shanghai, and
the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure what I can actually trust
about the earlier sections. I mean, why
exactly don’t we see him solving any of his famous cases? Instead, we always seem to meet him after
he’s solved another one.
I know Ishiguro enjoys writing about memory – and how
there’s a gap between what happened and what you remember happened. But for me, When We Were Orphans is hard to
pin down – I'm not really sure what its purpose is, apart from exposing the
duplicity of memory, fantasy and unreliable narration. There was nothing to hold me to this text, no
real sense of character and the plot is far too smart for its own good. When We Were Orphans is all about the clever
and subtle manipulation of genre and reader, but it’ll leave you feeling cold.
If
you could live your life again, would you? If you could magically go back,
would you change all the crappy things, all the things which ended up a bit,
well, pear-shaped? Where would you even start? With that dodgy perm? That fish
course? A spouse? Or perhaps you’d go big – really big. Why not change the
course of history? Why not assassinate Hitler?
Kate
Atkinson’s latest novel plays with these ideas. Its heroine, Ursula Todd, is
born in 1910 to middle class parents and into a world on the cusp of change.
However Ursula is stuck in some sort of Groundhog Day scenario, doomed (or
gifted?) to repeat events again and again in slightly (or enormously) different
permutations. So our first Ursula dies at birth, strangled by the umbilical
cord. The second Ursula survives a bit longer, until the Grim Reaper once again
steps in. And again. And again.
If
this all sounds a bit like season 5 ofLostmake no mistake,Life after Lifeis primarily a family saga. This is
comfortable ground for Atkinson, it’s what she does best; 1995’sBehind the Scenes at the Museumfollows its protagonist Ruby
Lennox, as well as the four generations of women behind her andLife after Lifehas a similar feel. The minutia of
everyday life jostles against the novel’s expansiveness and we’re reminded of
the duplicity of time.
Atkinson’s
structure will keep you flicking the pages back and forth continually to check
and double check. But once you get into the rhythm the stop/start narrative
feels more natural. There’s still a lot of piecing together for the reader
though – you might sayLife
after Lifeis a puzzle to be
solved. How will Ursula get it right?
And
herein lies one of the problems. There doesn't really seem to be any
point to Ursula’s varying lives. When her mother sends her to see a
shrink, the doctor suggests she’s being reincarnated. But each
Ursula doesn't necessarily improve things – in fact often one aspect
will be made better but another is then sacrificed and worsened. And of
course we have to mention Hitler. I'm honestly not plot spoiling to
mention this – the very first chapter has Ursula attempting (or
succeeding?) in assassinating the Fuhrer, but if this is one of the
incarnations of Ursula or a flash forward to a later one is unclear (she points
the gun at him, his guards point their guns at her, then ‘darkness falls’ – the
code in the novel for her death/rebirth). The ending of the novel is very
ambiguous too, and whilst this isn't something I’d normally
complain about, in this case I was left feeling, well, unsatisfied.
It’s
clever structurally – there’s no doubt about that. But Atkinson throws us a red
herring. The first half of the novel has a clear rhythm and alternating
timeline which goes something like this:
1.Ursula lives her life then
dies (we move through the years)
2.We return to the day she was
born and find out a little bit more about the events of this day
(we move through the hours of this particular day in 1910)
1.Ursula lives her life a bit
further then dies
2.We return to the day she was
born…
Understandably
I thought we were moving towards some big reveal about the family, some dark
secret of Sylvie’s we’d learn on that day in 1910 (I was sure she’d been
dallying with the farm boy George) but in the second half Atkinson simply
abandons this structure, instead focussing on Ursula’s numerous lives, which
were all starting to merge into one bleak and depressing blur of death and
misery.
This
really is a novel of two halves. For me, the first half was fantastic. Atkinson
tells the story through a variety of characters (not just Ursula) so we learn
about her parents, Sylvie and Hugh, and the family dynamic. It’s absolutely
evocative in its depiction of a pre-Lapsarian England teetering on the brink of
the First World War. The Todds live (aptly) in Fox Corner, a Forsterian country
house where the children play outside during long hot summers and the family
sip lemonade together on the lawn. Atkinson perfectly encapsulates the moment
and it’s all the more poignant because of our knowledge. We know the future –
we know 1914 is just around the corner and that Hitler will rise to absolute
power in 1933. Fox Corner is the safe hideaway before the 20thcentury picks up speed, an idyllic
space now lost forever. But even this sanctuary is threatened. A paedophile
lurks just outside the boundaries, preying on the local children.
Later
the other characters slip out of view and it’s all about Ursula, which I think
is a shame as Sylvie interested me – there was so much more to learn. And then
there’s the grim scenes of war torn London during the Blitz. These really are
horrific. This hellish dystopia makes Fox Corner a distant rose-tinted memory
and I don’t think Ursula ever really recovers from it.
Perhaps
Ursula’s conversations with her shrink give us the biggest clue about how to
understand Life after Life. She suggests life is a palimpsest – a series of
overlays, a document erased and written over, erased and written over. In this
case Ursula’s eventual idea to kill Hitler isn't the best idea
or even the culmination of a series of lives and learning, it’s simply
another idea, one of many. And after each life path variation there’ll be
another. There’s no real closure at the end ofLife after Life, no definitive
Ursula and no absolute truth. Ursula’s role seems to be just to bear witness to
events and history. Atkinson’s novel is intriguing, moving and somewhat flawed,
but it’ll keep you hooked right up to its ambiguous ending.
I wasn't expecting to like Dark Places. I'm not a huge fan
of the crime genre. However Gillian Flynn’s 2009 novel surprised me.
Dark Places follows the story of Libby Day, survivor of a 1985
massacre in Kinnakee which claimed the lives of her sisters and mother - and it’s
her brother, Ben, who’s in prison for the murders. In fact Libby’s testimony
helped put him there. Libby’s grown into a fairly unpleasant and selfish adult,
wasting the past 24 years hiding away in a house in suburbia and living off monetary
gifts from beneficiaries. That is until the money runs out. Unwilling to go out
and work, Libby agrees to appear as “special guest” at The Kill Club for payment (it's a kind of ghoulish group into discussing, role-playing and attempting to solve famous murders).
Of course fundamentally Dark Places is a mystery story; we
know that Libby’s family is murdered, we just don’t know exactly how. As soon as Libby
joins in with The Kill Club she learns that most of them think Ben is innocent.
Flynn’s structure works well here as we alternate between Libby’s first person
sections ‘today’ and the actual day of the massacre. These latter sections are
all in third person and follow different characters’ impressions of the day, from mother Patty to Ben himself. We get a real sense of dread as the 1985
sections move through that fateful day and events spiral out of control.
I was very much reminded of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote.
Based on the real-life murder of the Clutter family in rural Kansas, when we
start reading Capote’s novel we already know the bloody end result. We just don’t
know the precise sequence of events that night. The novel’s first section The
Last to See Them Alive alternates between parts charting the Clutter family’s
last day (all the while we’re looking for clues) and those showing Dick and
Perry’s journey across the states to the isolated farm where they’ll ‘blast
hair’ all over the walls. But who actually killed the family? Perry? Dick? Both
of them? It’s not until the end that we finally get Perry’s confession, and
even then I guess we’ll never know if it’s the truth.
Flynn plays around with these questions about truth and
ambiguity throughout Dark Places. Due to alternating viewpoints we often get
different takes on the same event. Patty believes her son enjoys the blokey repartee
with his father, but we later learn he feels bullied and emasculated by it. One
of Flynn’s real strengths is characterisation, and Ben is a wholly believable
portrait of an awkward teenager in the mid-eighties. For example Flynn notes
how his jeans are just slightly too short in the leg, which his “friend” Trey teases him for. Ben’s obsessed with death and thrash metal: the perfect
scapegoat for a series of gruesome, apparently satanic murders? However we also
discover some dodgy things about Ben; Flynn isn't going to make it easy for us,
and she keeps us guessing right up to the end.
Some of the details near the end perhaps test the limits of
credibility just that bit too much. But Dark Places is still an engrossing
read, especially in its depiction of rural poverty in eighties America. In fact
the sections I found the most appealing were those set in the past, on the day
of the murder. Flynn’s novel is fast paced, evocative and moreish: definitely
worth a read.
For her third novel, Lauren Beukes abandons not only the
urban fantasy sci-fi of her first offerings, but also her usual South African
setting to tell the story of a time-travelling murderer who stalks and kills
his victims throughout Chicago’s twentieth century history.
At the start of the novel Harper Curtis, a violent immoral
drifter in Depression era Chicago, stumbles upon the House (we know it’s
important as it has a capital). It’s a
building with a strange secret – it allows you to travel from the late ‘20s to
the early ‘90s. Harper also discovers a
room filled with girls’ names (his shining girls) and trophies (tennis ball,
Janis Joplin tape, contraceptive pill packet) from each victim. It’s like a map which he follows, hunting
each girl through time, killing her in an unpleasant way (guts flying) and
swapping one of her personal belongings for the trophy from another girl.
So when he murders Jinsuk in 1993 he leaves a
pair of stage wings from another victim and takes Jinsuk’s baseball card. He then leaves the baseball card on the body
of Zora in 1943 and takes her goodluck letter “z”. And so on.
Of course this leaves loads of anachronistic items across time, a trail
of clues that no one can solve… until Kirby that is.
Kirby is one of
Harper’s victims assaulted in 1989.
However she survives. Fastforward
to the early ‘90s when she’s doing work experience at a Chicago paper and teams
up with reporter Dan to try and track down her would be killer. It’s these two story lines we follow in The
Shining Girls, told either from the two main protagonists Harper and Kirby, or
other characters in the scene (Dan, a homeless lad, Harper’s victims etc).
It’s actually a fairly straightforward structure,
but initially it’s daunting and complex due to the constant and seemingly
illogical shifts in time. This is actually
something I found really appealing; I always enjoy narrative puzzles and went
to work on this one, flicking back through what I’d read and finding clues, creating
a chart of time-lines, events and victims (of course it all works). It’s an angle that gives the typical ‘serial
killer stalking women’ thriller a new twist.
But make no mistake – this is a page turner. It’s a pacey thriller with quick shifts in
focus and speedy chapters, which is crying out for a big screen adaptation (I
can already see it: Se7en meets The Time Traveler’s Wife). And it works.
Beukes has a tight hold on what she’s doing and most of the
characterisation is detailed; oddly it’s only the serial killer who seems not
as well drawn. Perhaps this is a
deliberate tactic? We find ourselves
empathising totally with his victims – even when their deaths are narrated from
Harper’s perspective.
After all, Harper is just vile. He’s the kind of guy who hacks the legs off a
baby chick just to see what happens and watches while his brother gets crushed
by a truck. He time travels to wank over
future and past crime scenes and even goes through a phase of visiting his
victims when they’re younger and chatting to them, just, you know, to creep
them out and give him bigger kicks. Poor
Catherine for example. He finds her as a
kid, steals her hairclip, tells her he’s going to murder her later in life then
scuttles back to the House. When he
decides to come for her (bringing back the hairclip he stole) she’s spent so
many years freaking out about her sinister harbinger that she’s a drug addled
mess begging him for death. Harper is
one sick bastard.
So when the demises are narrated from one of the shining
girls’ POVs it’s almost unbearable. There’s
nowhere to hide, no escape. In a
peculiar kind of foreshadowing we know they never had a chance and never will –
unless of course Kirby can make a difference.
We spend a lot of time with Kirby and she’s characterised in a layered
way. Damaged by Harper both mentally and
physically, yet out of place and awkward before he ever attacked her. Her mother is a lax hippy parent who dates
widely and smokes weed. I’m sure I read
somewhere that Beukes is a big fan of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas, and Kirby’s
segments did remind me of the Luisa Rey story (about a female journalist in
‘70s California investigating corruption, nuclear power plants and murder,
written in a thriller style). Like
Luisa, Kirby is trying to find the truth at all costs. She’s an outsider, marked not only by her
horrific scars but by her punk hair and Fugazi t-shirts.
Shakespeare’s early tragedy Titus Andronicus has always had
a bad rap. Featuring (in no particular order) murder, rape, mutilation,
dismemberment, filicide and cannibalism, some critics refused to believe it was
even
penned by the bard, while it’s rarely performed among the hundreds of
Hamlets and Othellos (although it’s certainly increasing in popularity with
modern audiences).
In fact, Titus probably has more in common with Kyd’s The
Spanish Tragedy as well as later dark and twisted Jacobean revenge dramas like
Middleton’s The Revenger’s Tragedy or Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi.
Shakespeare’s audiences, used to the influence of bloody Senecan drama, loved
it.
The story follows Titus, an ageing general of Rome who’s
spent years and years dedicating himself to the Empire and fighting the goths.
In fact, he’s already lost twenty (yes, twenty) sons in the war. At the start
of the play he returns to a Rome that’s in political uncertainty as two
brothers campaign to become Emperor. But he doesn’t return alone; Tamora, the
captured queen of the goths, and her sons are in tow. Titus promptly sacrifices
one despite Tamora’s pleas for mercy.
And this is where the trouble starts. You see Titus is a
stickler for rules. He’s the kind of guy who calls a spade a spade and he
believes in the chain of command. So not only does he turn down the chance to
rule Rome himself, he refuses to support the younger and more appropriate
brother. Instead he puts Saturninus on the Emperor’s throne (big mistake).
Before you know it, the Emperor’s freed Tamora and married her…and boy does she
want revenge on Titus.
Many of the difficulties in the play come from the
excessive, almost cartoon-like violence as well as the sometimes jarring
combination of horrific action and beautiful language. When Tamora’s sons,
Chiron and Demetrius, rape Titus’ daughter Lavinia they hack off her hands then
cut out her tongue so she can’t speak or write their names. Her uncle’s lament
turns her into some delicate woodland creature or plant, ‘hewed […] Of her two
branches’ while her disfigured mouth releases ‘a crimson river of warm blood /
Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind.’ Michael Fentiman’s 2013
production for the RSC at the Swan deals with the extreme nature of the play
with an assured and deft use of black humour.
Not that Lavinia’s assault is handled lightly – I’m pretty
sure such treatment would lose any audience immediately. The complete horror of
her ordeal is heightened by the early bloodless stabbings in Act One, so when
she finally opens her mouth the sight of all that red stuff spouting out onto
her soiled white dress is all the more shocking. Chiron and Demetrius’ cruelty
is intensified as they've hacked off her long blonde tresses and tied it round
her stumps. Rose Reynolds plays the part with sensitivity and an increasing
resilience; she delivers a judgemental 100 yard stare that penetrates the dark
depths of any soul. There’s even a bit of awkward humour as she tries to eat a
boiled egg with no hands in a kind of Hulk-Smash! moment.
But uncomfortable scenes aside, where this production really
excels is in its biting, witty and deeply dark tone. In the ‘70s literary
critic Nicholas Brooke pointed out how Jacobean and Caroline tragedy provoked
“horrid laughter” in contemporary audiences – something that modern
performances deliberately tend to minimise. Heaven forbid we laugh in Act Five
of Macbeth or Lear.
Fentiman’s production however gives us the go-ahead to laugh
all we want. There’s heads and hands flying about all over the place, severed
limbs used as comic props, Titus dressed up as a kind of mad Nippy in a Lyons
tea shop, and a finale that’s a triumph of orchestration. Tamora’s (Katy
Stephens) expression when she realises she’s been feasting on her sons
(murdered by Titus and baked in a pie) is priceless. The stage erupts into
chaos – a jaw-dropping melee of mass murder and violence by unusual and comic
means: Titus is stabbed with a table leg, one of the Emperor’s wenches rogers a
dinner guest up the arse with a cake cutter, a corkscrew is rammed into a neck
and I noticed one character gleefully brandishing someone else’s tongue on the
end of a fork.
Stage blood becomes more and more prominent as the play
progresses, and I'm pleased to report that I got spattered when Titus cut Chiron’s
throat (front row seats = very interactive). The audience go with it – there’s laughter and chuckles and
guffaws. And a few gasps; Aaron’s murder of the nurse is particularly
inventive. Not content with just stabbing the poor woman (who emits an almighty
shriek) he rolls her over and sticks the knife…well let’s just say if you’ve
seen Se7en you’ll know what I mean. On the night I went one woman in the
audience lost all constraint at this point and bellowed out, “OH MY GOD!” in
the loudest voice you could imagine. Of course we all laughed. I bet the actors
high-fived each other backstage.
Both Stephen Boxer as Titus and John Hopkins as Saturninus
are excellent, bringing a great deal of humour to their performances. Katy
Stephens is mesmerising as Tamora: fierce, sexy, manipulative and with a great
rock queen wardrobe. The sons Chiron and Demetrius (Jonny Weldon and Perry
Millward) come as an identical pair of idiotic (but dangerous) buffoons riding
BMXs. Aaron, the devious Moor, is physically a commanding presence, but he
didn’t quite pull it off; I wanted him to be a bit more wickedly evil. After
all, this is the guy who’s done a ‘thousand dreadful things’ (murder, rape,
arson, cattle mutilation, corpse defilement…just the usual really).
The
set-design and costumes show an eclectic mix of historical periods and
cultures; there’s Nazi-esque iconography, modern riot police, Moorish temples,
Muslim veils and the influence of classical Rome. Violent acts aren't just
specific to one particular time, and a play that was hugely popular with
contemporary early modern audiences still speaks to us today (this production
opened in the same week as the shocking Woolwich slaying).
Titus Andronicus is an absolute triumph: disturbing, funny and relevant. It never descends too far into farce though, and the last moments are chilling. Aaron, buried up to his neck in the earth, is powerless to prevent the young boy Lucius (Titus’ grandchild) from picking up his baby…and then the cake cutter. The boy looks at both speculatively before the lights go out. It’s a bleak comment on how violence breeds violence, and it’s hard not to think of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. It’s a bloody (literally) brilliant production. Oh and by the way, the stage blood did come out in the wash.
A lovely first edition hardback copy of The Bone Season by Samantha Shannon was recently wedged through my letterbox for review. I really enjoyed this one - shameless escapism but with added literary allusions. Perfect! You can read my thoughts on it here.
When Lee’s wounded by a gunshot to his stomach, Wild ends up
using his medical skills to save him temporarily – although he can’t take the
bullet out – so they begin a journey together towards another doctor friend of
Wild’s in a safe place in the country.
All the while Josef is edging ever closer to the pair, intent on getting
back the cash (a paltry sum we’re told time and time again. Lee is risking his life on nothing really).
Let’s get the Cormac McCarthy comparisons out the way first
(because there will be). The Low Road
does have flavours of both The Road in its dystopian bleak journey and No Country for Old Men in its depiction of a collection of interlinked characters
travelling towards each other for an inevitable Western-style show-down. But that’s no bad
thing. Womersley’s book shares a similar
fatalistic tone, aided by his dense evocative prose. This style is a selling point, and works in agreeable
juxtaposition to the highly plotted thriller-ish narrative. Like The Road, there’s also a sense of
dislocation and timelessness – this could be any place, any time. Instead it’s more a story about mankind’s
capacity for violence and self-destruction which could happen equally in
Australia, America, Europe or beyond.
Womersley jumps between all three characters’ perspectives –
although Josef’s view only features in a few chapters. That’s a shame really because I wanted to
know more about Josef – especially in the light of some of the decisions he
makes towards the end of the novel. Wild
and Lee are more developed, but again there’s still a distance. Their dark horrible secrets are hinted at but
held back till the final section – and you might look at Lee in particular in
quite a different light once it’s revealed.
His section also features three present tense chapters focussing on his
secret (an event during his prison sentence) that clearly shaped the man he’s become.
The Low Road is one of those rarities – a fusion of the literary
with a pacey filmic plot. On the whole
it works (although occasionally I felt it was one metaphor too much). But be warned – it’s a dark, bleak and ultimately
nihilistic world view with no hope of redemption.
Waiting for Sunrise (2012) tells the story of Lysander Rief,
a vaguely famous stage actor, who travels to Vienna in search of a cure for his
(ahem) embarrassing problem of a lurve-related nature. It’s 1913 and he’s interested in trying out
this new-fangled “talking cure” everyone’s on about so he finds a psychoanalyst
in the Freudian tradition. Soon enough,
Lysander’s noting down his dreams, lying on a couch, talking about his mother
and recounting a cringe-worthy primal scene when he was found doing something
best left as a solitary pursuit by his mother (again with the mother – what else
did you expect?).
It’s in his analyst’s waiting room that he meets Hettie
Bull, a clearly neurotic unstable (but sexy) sort, and Lysander immediately
embarks on an ill-conceived fling with her.
I quite enjoyed this section of the novel. The beginnings of the affair are suitably
intriguing, and we even get a brief cameo from the man of the moment,
Freud. However Waiting for Sunrise soon morphs
into a different kind of book and I found I was reading some sort of thriller. Lysander is pretty much blackmailed into
joining the war effort as a spy. I'm not
really sure what qualifies him as a spy.
But I guess he’s an actor – we get a lot of explanation about how good
he is at assuming a disguise by smearing Vaseline all over his upper lip (makes
you look like a snot-dribbling crazy apparently). Some stuff goes on the Front Line, there’s a
set of interchangeable upper class army toffs and everyone acts a bit
suspicious. Lysander is trying to find
code-name Andromeda – an informant who’s sending top secret info to the German
side. He follows clues here, there and
everywhere…leading back eventually to (you guessed it) his mother. Is this some kind of joke on Boyd’s part?
At one stage I thought Waiting for Sunrise was going to turn
into something else again. Lysander
becomes hooked to chloral hydrate, prescribed for his insomnia, and we’re told
it can result in fantasies and delusions.
Perhaps his spying career is all in his head? His analyst is a big fan of something called
Parallelism – the idea that you can work through the bad troubling stuff from
you past by creating an alternative reality where things worked out differently
(a bit like Atonement I guess). But no,
nothing really evolves much further here, despite some promising signs. Boyd jumps between telling Lysander’s story
in the third person and the first (part of his Autobiographical Investigations
or a journal that his psychoanalyst instructed him to keep) and I really
thought that perhaps we’d see some gap between events and narrations. Instead, there doesn't seem to be any point
to the shift in narrative modes and I found the jump very jarring and pointless.
There are certainly some merits to Waiting for Sunrise. Boyd’s creation of pre-war Vienna is
evocative and anyone interested in psychoanalysis will enjoy the Freudian
nods. And whilst it’s plot driven, like
a thriller should be, I had enough interest in Lysander and his philandering
ways to turn the page. But again some
characters felt underdeveloped. I was
waiting for some craziness with Hettie (the latter part of the novel felt like it was building up to some sort of confrontation with her), but she just sort of slips from view. It feels like Boyd never really got going and
the narrative relies on too many densely plotted strands once the setting moves
to London.
I can see this becoming some sort of ITV hour long series
and I think it would work for TV. But
Waiting for Sunrise sadly hasn't persuaded me to try out any other of Boyd’s
literary thrillers.
A work
colleague lent me this book because he said it reminded him of my life. I opened it and read the first few
pages on a cold, wintry Sunday in February.
I read, ‘It was a cold Sunday in early February’…intriguing… I continued: ‘I’d spent most of [the day]
curled up in bed in the damp and disintegrating terraced cottage.’ I looked at the walls of my damp and
disintegrating house. Curiouser and
curiouser.
OurTragic Universe is a storyless story told by our narrator, Meg. Meg is a writer who’s been trying to finish
her literary first novel for years but spends most of her time obsessing over
her dog, eating tangerines, knitting socks and bumbling around the Dartmouth
area. She seems to be in Devon due to
some self-imposed exile from Brighton and lives in this mouldy leaking house
(the rent was cheap) with her miserable boyfriend Christopher (who spends a lot
of his time moaning and lying on the sofa being pathetic).
But
then into Meg’s life comes… well not a lot really. She’s interested in narrative theory and
loves discussing different ideas of stories with her various friends and acquaintances. So we get all the big names and ideas here:
Propp, Jung, Campbell, Chekhov. She’s
sick of writing formulaic genre fiction (she’s a ghostwriter for a series of YA
novels) and wants her literary opus to be a work of ground-breaking post-modern
genius. At one stage she considers
turning her almost unintelligible notes for her ever-changing novel into the
actual novel itself and calling it NOTEBOOK. She duly deletes most of her
gazillionth draft and finds her word-count at 43.
Scarlett
Thomas mirrors and explores a lot of these ideas through her plot and structure
– not that there is much of a plot to speak of, more a series of random events. Although are they random? Meg tries a bit of cosmic ordering and can’t
quite work out whether some things that happen are as a result. Who knows?
You certainly won’t. There’s also
the Beast. The Beast is roaming
Dartmoor, howling at night and snuffling under doors. Meg's dog goes to investigate and snuffles under the door too (as I was reading this my cat went to investigate some strange noise coming from under the front door). Now just as you think you've got a more
conventional plot device…well, let’s just say don’t expect Hound of the
Baskervilles.
This
is an ideas book. You've really got it
all: reincarnation, cosmic ordering, narrative, cultural norms, parapsychology,
Tarot, archetypes, animal psychology, Zen, magic… But often a lot of this
knowledge is delivered to us through a long conversation and info-dump from characters just hanging round Devon, not doing a lot. This
would be my main criticism of Thomas’ book.
However when the narrator is interesting, the ideas good and the writing
wonderfully witty and insightful, you probably won’t mind.
But
did I get any insights into my own life?
Did fiction continue to mirror reality?
Well let’s look at the evidence.
Lives
in a mouldy, disintegrating house (check)
Leak
in ceiling (check)
Persistent
cough due to damp (sort of check. Only while
I was still sleeping in the room with no ceiling)
Thinking
of moving (check)
Co-dependency
with her dog (check – well, cat)
Loves
having pretentious conversations about narrative and stories with friends
(check)
Tarot
(check)
Cosmic
ordering (check – I thought it had worked too! But then it didn't)
Believes
in magic (check – Sort of. When Derren Brown hypnotised the nation it rather embarrassingly
worked on me)
Trying
to write literary “opus” (yawn, check)
Favourite
poem is Convergence of the Twain (check)
Mum is
obsessed with scanning all her old photos (God yes)
The
Beast (check – if we can count the foxes living in the garden)
Yes
Meg is clearly me. It’s official. The whole experience reminded me a bit of that story – you know
the one – where this girl is putting together a jigsaw puzzle. As she adds the pieces she realises the
picture on the puzzle is her own room, and there she is, sat at a table doing a
puzzle. How strange. But what’s that at the window? Only a few pieces left. Is it…is it…some slavering axe murderer
waiting to pounce? Wait a minute, what’s
that sound….?