Her grandfather turned up without warning. I didn’t know him at first. It was thirty years, more, since we’d last met. He wasn’t sure either. Then I said, yes, when he spoke my name. He had a small, round canvas bag, leather reinforced and with a fold-over flap. It looked vaguely familiar. He handed it to me. Inside was my father’s old hundred foot Chesterman Constantia reel tape measure. It had vanished shortly after we moved in. Some bugger’s walked off with it, I’d said. One of the builders, I expect. The leather was scuffed, but the lettering was clear, and the stitched seam still showed pale, if not quite white. I pulled out a length of tape. It was frayed a little. You could see it had been used, but looked after too. I wound it back, slipped it into the case. Why now? My son, he said, runs the company now. His eldest just joined full time. I was going to pass it on, to mark the occasion. But he said I’m not giving your stolen goods to Sam. He’d known for years. Worked it out for himself. Didn’t know where from, of course. He fell silent. The tape felt solid, heavy, a real craftsman’s piece of kit. It’s the best I’ve ever had. It was my dad’s. He looked away. I remembered my dad. It would never have got used here, I said, not properly. I held it out. Tell your son that if it was good enough for my dad, it’s good enough for his boy. Girl, he corrected. If he doesn’t believe you, I’ll tell him myself. He took it back, held out a hand. We shook. Thank you, he said.
That’s her on the roof now; with the pony tail and the claw hammer. >END
POSTFACE Here is a little paragraph I wrote by way of pitching this very short story to an editor a while back: I've been scouring my files. I think you'd like this story (below). It's a flash fiction - a man recalls an injury done, a confession made, a reflection and forgiveness; reconnection and renewal, which he draws attention to at the end. I imagine him (and hope a reader would too) talking in the now of that last sentence to someone who had maybe posed a question.... The Measurements (of the title) are those of the participants, judged by their actions and their reasonings, and by themselves as well as us, and by extension of us as we reflect on ours! (as I'm sure you will realise).
Here is the editor’s reply: If you could add in what you have written at the top to make it a bit more comprehensible for the reader, we could use it.
What interests me is whether or not the story has already ‘told’ those elements I intended it to, or whether, as the editor suggests, they need to be ‘added’. I don’t doubt that there are disparities between what is intended by a writer, and what understood by a reader. It’s what makes the game worth playing on both sides of the line. Here we have an issue, not so much of ‘show don’t tell’ – a concept I rail against frequently – as of ‘tell don’t explain’ – which is my go-to alternative. The question is, have I told all that I intended to tell. I’ve listed it all in that initial pitch:
a man recalls an injury done, a confession made, a reflection and forgiveness; reconnection and renewal, to which he draws attention at the end.
There are seven elements to the list. If I have told them all, then we should be able to find them all in the words They are, when all is said, all there is: 1. Some bugger’s walked off with it, I’d said. One of the builders, I expect. 2. But he said I’m not giving your stolen goods to Sam. 3. I remembered my dad. It would never have got used here, I said, not properly. 4. I held it out. Tell your son that if it was good enough for my dad, it’s good enough for his boy. 5. He took it back, held out a hand. We shook. 6. That’s her on the roof now; with the pony tail and the claw hammer. 7. on the roof now The first three short sentences place the remembered event well back in the past.
‘Her grandfather turned up without warning. I didn’t know him at first. It was thirty years, more, since we’d last met.’
The last sentence places the telling of the story in that ‘now’, with the ‘her’ on the roof indicating the reconciliation that the incident has triggered. It’s as if the first-person narrator is commenting to a bystander, perhaps a neighbour on the fact and the backstory to it. The fact that the narrator has not seen the bearer of the tape for ‘thirty years, more’, and the fact of the granddaughter being ‘on the roof now’ signals the reconciliation, the reconnection and renewal. Are these elements of the story so hidden in and by the story that they would not be communicated to a reader? I don’t think so. But we can all be mistaken in each other at any moment. As a curious aside, if I’m right that the story has done its job, and in the lines picked out and quoted, then it has done so in about 15% of the words used, which is worth considering in its own right. What, if that is the case, are the other 85% doing? More pointed perhaps, is that if a story can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, so to can be the events, words – spoken and reported – and actions of real life. What percentage, I wonder, do we ‘get’ of those we see and hear around us?
Here's another not quite so short story, which I think touches on that theme:
Cries for Help
It’s a classic cry for help. It was Gary’s first case meeting and the Probation Officer was holding forth on the pilfered crisps: obviously ours. Taken from the kitchen store. Six bags of them, still in their larger trade pack. Not for sale to the public like that. We kept them as treats, for the residents. A cry for help, he said again, adding, and no crime. And Gary, the newest member of staff, put his oar in straight away. Surely that’s not for us to decide. An intellectual, you see. Education degree. Brought in to ginger us up. Besides, graduates were ten a penny back then, what with the economy in the state it was. Academically higher than the P.O., but as the newest Assistant Warden, lowest of the low in the team. The P.O. smiled indulgently. I mean, Gary went on, shouldn’t it be the Courts? Theory is always so neat: real life not so. It’s hardly the way a home would behave, is it? The P.O. raised an eyebrow. Taking their kids to court? Of course, they weren’t our kids. Weren’t kids, technically. They had to be over eighteen to be placed with us. They could vote. They were grown-ups, allegedly, and ranged up to sixty-five in age. We weren’t really a home; even a dysfunctional one. We were one last chance before prison, or one last attempt after it, repeatedly. Like the week before. Gary’s first sleep-over shift. Not on his own, of course. One of the residents came into the office. Friday night. Anything left over after yesterday’s rent already spent in the city’s pubs. You’d better come! Taz and The Wanker are having a go! And they were. In the dining room. Chairs overturned. Cutlery and plates on the floor. Taz swinging a tomato sauce bottle. Leave it to me, Rosie said. Four foot ten. Petite. I said to Gary, they won’t go for her. The language will stop too, in front of a lady. And it did. She stepped in between them. Reached up for the sauce bottle and took it. Made them shake hands and make up. Minor bruising. Each as bad as the other. Fuck! Gary said. College boy, you see. Believed in equality. I’ll phone the police, he said. He would have too. In breach of their Probation Orders. Well, one of them at least. Attacker. Other would be self-defence. Police wouldn’t have wanted to know. Common Assault. ABH at the worst, if the bruising came out. No harm done. Save the paperwork. Save Court time. Taxpayers’ money. Keep it out of the local press. Gary couldn’t believe it. Not the way to teach anybody anything: well, anything worthwhile. Don’t want them to fall at the first hurdle, we explained. So, what? Wait for a bigger one? Gary said. Well, yes, we all thought. And a month or two later, another Friday night, but this time out on the street. Taz at it again. This time the bottle was heavier. A Wainrights Bitter, I think. Not with the one they called The Wanker either. Just some passer-by. Wrong place. Wrong time. The man had slumped against the wall of a Hotel. Taz knew he’d won. He held out a hand to shake and make up. But the guy wasn’t having any of it. He didn’t realise he was in a sort of game, a sport. He didn’t see it that way at all. He turned to the doorman who’d stepped towards them, slurred the words, call the police. So Taz hit him again. Gary never said, I told you so, but we all knew he had.
I met him a decade or so later. Gary? He remembered me. I was retired by then. What a coincidence. Taz had come out that week. Not like that. On licence. Didn’t last twenty-four hours. Amazed. Stunned at how things had changed. Doors that you could open and shut without anybody else’s say so. The traffic. The clothes. The speed of things. All that technology. The way people talked. Wicked. Sick. Nobody was shaking hands and making up either. By dawn of the next day he was back in the cells. Safer there, where he knew the ropes. Made all the local papers, of course. How is the old place, Gary asked. There was an edge to his voice. Just the same, I told him. I told him about Fred too. Fred had been another Assistant Warden. Stole a pack of sausages. Three pounds ninety-five worth. Hid them in his overnight bag. Caught red-handed. They let him resign. No need to make a fuss; drag him through the courts. Lost his pension, of course, but kept it out of the local papers. Took his own life a short time later. I don’t want to read any more bad news, the C.P.O. said. I want people to forget this place exists.
Translated by Somdatta Mandal, this is a great turn of the century (1900) account, drawn later from diary notes made at the time (1890). Written originally in what the translator calls ‘conversational Bengali’, this modern (Indian) English version captures the sense that he is chatting with rather than reporting to the reader.
I was won over to the story, and to its teller, within the first dozen pages, and struck by how like ‘us’ – and I’m an English European – he seems. There are similarities, I suspect, in his ‘Western’ Colonial education and my post-Colonial English one. Shared history, and, as an English speaker, which he seems to have been, a shared language, brings us together (as well as differentiating us!). My father was in India from 1941 to ’45, along with several thousand other working-class Englishmen (and Brits), who wouldn’t have chosen to go of their own accord, and whose lives – even without the trauma of combat – were changed forever. A bed, in our house, was always a charpoy, tea was char, and I was a chota wallah! Though I’ve conversed with fewer people from the sub-continent than I have lived years – I live deep in rural England – I could sense in the phrasing of this expanded journal the rhythms and cadences of the voices I have heard on TV and Radio, and perhaps, as well as I could with anybody from a century and more ago, could sense the character of the speaker, or rather writer, I was reading.
His descriptions of the landscape through which he passes and the people who dwell within it, and of those he meets upon the road, seems as clear today as they must have been to him when he sat down to make his diary notes at the end of each day. You can enjoy it for the scenery. You can enjoy it for the sidelight thrown on religious and philosophical beliefs and arguments. I enjoyed mostly for the company of this warmly human travelling companion. The book reads as freshly as if it were imagined as it was being written, which, though in the original it was, in a translation made a century and quarter later, must be seen as quite remarkable.
The cover illustration, by Abhiroop Dutta, is also pretty good. Published by Speaking Tiger Press, 2025.
Unless I missed something, which is entirely possible, perhaps even probable, Vermiglio is set towards the end of World War Two….or should that be World War One? I was quite sure about the former as I watched this sombre Italian movie, but as I reflected upon it after the event, I was not so sure. Sometimes it can be a surprise how close to us the past is; sometimes a surprise how far away the recent.
What I was and am sure about is that it doesn’t really matter which war is fizzing away in the background. The issues it deals with would be as .relevant to today were it set at any time from the Renaissance onwards, and precious little of the visuals, less of the dialogue would need to be changed. For this is a story of repression, suppression, and depression within a rural family, living in a rural community in the mountains. It doesn’t really matter, as far as I could see, which mountains they were, or even, dare I say, that it is an Italian family. The issues they are dealing with, of honour, loyalty, paternity, marriage, motherhood, and, centrally, childhood, must resonate with all cultures over all time.
There’s something mean-spirited about this family, yet at the same time it cares for itself and its people. The film is a slow burn story, and I don’t think I was the only one in the audience at Caldbeck Area Film Society who felt, right from the beginning, that it was going to end badly. In fact, it’s subtly redemptive, though not in a revolutionary, liberating way. It’s more to do with endurance and resilience than with changing anything, not least the way these villagers live, under the weight of their social and personal expectations and beliefs.
The scenery, through winter and into summer, is magnificent. The establishing shots, of mountain and forest, and faces, make it worth watching. In one short, full-frame portrait, the transformation of a character is in that face, and the moment tells its own story.
That war, by the way, whichever it is, or was, intrudes only obliquely, and perhaps not surprisingly reminds me of the Bates’ essays on wartime Kent that I blogged about a few weeks ago.
It’s an incredibly slow film in some ways, yet the story is developing. It’s not a whizz bang movie. How could it be? It’s about how people think and feel about each other, about themselves and about God. It’s a claustrophobic one too, despite those wide sweeps of the mountainside. There are more scenes in the bedroom, where the children of the large family discuss what is happening around them than. you might expect to see in the average porn movie (if there is such a thing).
Chatting afterwards it was apparent that audience opinions were divided. The slow development of the story frustrated some; others not so. I found it absorbing, though I was aware of how little seemed to be going on. Slow stories demand attention, but risk distraction. They require enough to ponder in each slow pan, montage and shot to hold our attention until the next one: and they demand an audience prepared and able to make that sort of commitment, to pay that attention, to care; to imagine, perhaps what it must be like to be there, dressed like that, felling and thinking as those characters do.
One small sequence near the beginning gives a clue to the way the story will be told, in a prolonged, unhurried close-up shot under the arm of the mother as she ladles hot milk into a variety of mugs held out, one by one, by her children, each child’s cupped hands and a sliver of body profile seen, each slightly larger than the one before, until the whole family has been fed. By the end of that sequence you’ll know, I suspect, whether you’re going to enjoy it, or count the hours until you can get away!
On BBC Radio 4 this morning, a brief piece about the impact of AI.
Specifically it cursorily examined a piece of AI produced ‘music’ – sequenced instrumental sounds, I suppose, to be exact – used as a background to a documentary about sharks. It compared this to a piece of music created by a musician used in the same context.
Curiously, what it didn’t comment on was the issue of music being used to reinforce, more or less subliminally – non-verbal sounds play directly on the emotions – the messages intended by the documentary producers.
Soundtracks do this in feature films and adverts as well. It could be argued that it reveals a lack of faith in what we are being told, and, in the case of TV and movie, what we are being shown. It could be that what we are being told or shown is so questionable that it needs the largely unrecognised underwriting of the message if we are to be convinced into agreement, compliance, or action.
Just a thought.
The music, by the way, was judged to have won over the ‘music’.
And for the writer, buts and ands need equal care. The former implies a qualifier, an alternative assertion: it can undermine what has gone before, separating rather than connecting the two phrases, clauses or even sentences that fall to either side.
The latter introduces an addition, an emphasis, a supporting assertion.
Sometimes the difference can be quite subtle, nuanced, fine; but it might not be trivial. I’ve often found that I’ve used the wrong one, and that what I really meant to say was something quite different. Get them mixed up and you can give the wrong impression, or, what might be worse, fail to give the impression you were aiming for.
We have to look at an example and one from an unpublished short story of mine might do the job, or put another way, but one might.
‘She stood away from his car, implying that he should get in and leave, but as she did so she added, “but you can always park in the lane if you come back…’
What difference might it make should we switch those two ‘buts’ for two ‘ands’? Or, for that matter, switch either one of them. The first part of the sentence is in the voice of the narrator, the second in that of the character. So, we’re being told what the story is, and (or is that but?) what might be going on in the character’s mind.
‘… he should get in and leave, and as she did so she added….’
‘… she added, and you can park in the lane’
It’s a nit-picking point, but one, I suspect, worth making. Both the ‘buts’ imply, if not a change of heart, then at least a dichotomy of feelings, a relenting perhaps; a second thought. Changing the first one leads to a line that sets us up with the assumption that there is no such doubt, which rather makes the second part, ‘butted’ or ‘anded’, a rather clumsy and unexpected reversal. I think it jars.
If we were to change the second one only would it still jar? Perhaps not:
‘She stood away from his car, implying that he should get in and leave, but as she did so she added, “ and you can always park in the lane if you come back…’
In the actual story the sentence goes on to conclude ‘to take pictures of the birds’, which is, in fact, the title of the story (I blogged it on BHDandMe’s blog 12th October, 2025, btw).
I’ve wondered about deleting that last element. With the ‘and’ preceding, it sounds more like an invitation, and assumption that it will happen. Does it change the feel of that ending as well? Does it make that more of an ironic statement? Certainly because of its position at the ending of the story, it carries a lot of weight. It has to be right. Here’s one of those places where Tobias Wolff would perhaps have advised me to make a change, however long since the original writing, but, or and, H.E.Bates, would have told me to leave it well alone, and learn from the error, if it is one.
Much of the meaning in sentences is not about the dictionary meanings of the words, but of the way in which they are delivered. Really. (!/?). And, or but, the words we choose hint, if nothing more, at what that delivery should be. And and but, I think, will give discreet, but definingly different hints.
[I lived on the edge of the Solway marshland for a short time, and still visit to walk the solitary gravel tongue of Grune Point. It’s a Marmite place which you either love or loathe, or so it seems from other people’s reactions that I’ve witnessed. It’s a place I’ve placed stories in – for its starkness and seeming simplicity, I guess. Lena, published here a few weeks ago, is one of them. And so is this. A story so old that it actually uses speech marks – something I abandoned more than a decade ago (to the irritation and mystification of readers and editors alike.]
Pictures of the Birds
Taft adjusted the ring on the telephoto lens and brought the ungainly seabird into sharp focus. The light was bad and colour had faded from the grass. Only the great body of the bird showed, its long neck a vertical in the landscape of horizontals. He knew the light was too poor for colour, for fine detail, but he would force the negative in the darkroom and produce a sparse indistinct image that would capture the awkwardness of this seabird caught on a spit of land, its wings raised crookedly for balance as it hopped across a gulley. Taft was building a reputation for these sparse, gaunt images of wild birds. They were the sort of photographs that made up exhibitions in art galleries, not the clear cut, full colour illustrations of ornithological textbooks. They revealed less of the birds than of the photographer. This photograph, the common cormorant, Phalacrocorax carbo, would be one of a set to accompany a collection of poems. It was an Arts Council commission and would keep him for a few weeks, longer if the book sold well.
Taft became aware of a blur moving in the blurred background, another vertical, spoiling the lines of his subject. He fired off a couple of savers and re-focussed the lens behind the bird, back beyond an arm of grey tidal waters. There was a figure on the far bank of the inlet, a girl emerged from a fold of ground or out of one of the deep grooved channels. She stood looking across at him in the cold grey light; he would be indistinct to her, motionless behind the fence at the side of the cottage, merging into a rising background of hedges and trees. He saw her with a photographer’s eye, a figure in a landscape, fractionally moved the camera to frame her, realised now that the bird was a blur that spoiled the left foreground. He brought the focus back, making both images indistinct yet recognisable and shot off two more, then followed the bird as it moved left out of shot. Re-focussing he found the silhouette again and caught the cormorant as it plunged over a grass horizon into the sea. He did not see it again, and sweeping the far shore found that the girl too had gone.
Taft could not photograph people, save at these inhuman distances; told himself that it was a matter of technique not suiting him. Portraits he had tried never pleased him, never recaptured the feeling of the presence of the subject, or rather captured too well his lack of feeling for that presence. He knew that he tried too hard, interfered too much, moulding, posing the sitter, complicating the composition with elaborate lighting sets. He was happier at this long range, unseen, unknown , out of contact with the subject; able to manipulate only speed and aperture, juggle for composition with angle and perspective. In this way he could believe himself to be the impartial observer that he believed he ought to be, discounting his manipulations and distortions of the negative in the darkroom. He had done weddings on occasion to bring in some money, secretly guilty that it was sharp focus and clean prints, and the subject itself, that he was selling; that it was something he ‘got away with’ rather than achieved. He was not cynical enough to avoid being embarrassed by what he knew were mediocre sets.
The bird pictures though he knew were good. A couple had sold to avant-garde magazines. A local exhibition of thirty prints had trebled in size and toured half a dozen Arts Centres in the region. There was the chance of a London venue in the New Year, and the book of poems, due out for Christmas, was something of a breakthrough. He had read the poems cautiously at first. Poetry was not one of his interests. He was surprised to find that the verses did not rhyme, more importantly, that they were not of birds, nor of landscapes. It was a collection of love poems, half a hundred of them. He read them again, often beaten by the convoluted language, remembering little, but slowly images formed in his mind, a feel of their mood, sometimes sad, sometimes despairing even, often intense and powerful, creating a sense of force, strength of will. He began to see motifs running through the verses, references to empty abandoned places, to emotions wild as nature, and he began to see the birds as metaphors for possibilities to be realised. He saw images of winged flight, freedom, survival and destruction, of vulnerability, of people out of love as birds out of air; the cormorant slow, clumsy, almost ugly out of its element.
Taft thought of the blurred figure of the girl across the alternating lines of mudflats, tidal pastures and arms of the sea. He could bring up those lines, make the distances around her, the space, the emptiness, reverberate with echoes of the poetry, her presence ambiguous but undeniable. He clipped on the lens cap and twisted the camera from its tripod, packing away the paraphernalia of his vision into its case. He walked back across the tight curls of turf past the cottage and into the lane that ran back up off the beach. The girl was already there, he knew her by her stance as she waited by his car, half uncertain. He sensed that she would speak because he held the camera case and tripod. He had noted often that people feel photographers are safe to be approached, even people who would vehemently resist having their pictures taken, or would shy away from the lens.
“Hello, is this your car?”
“I’ve just taken your picture.” What a stupid thing to say, he thought, cutting across her question. “It was you across the estuary a few minutes ago?”
She nodded.
“I came back across the shallows.” She indicated her boots, wet and caked with mud almost to the knees. Her jeans above them were wet. “It’s safe enough if you know the way and the tide’s running right.”
“I was trying to get a cormorant when you came into shot, so I just fired off a couple on the off chance.”
“I hope I didn’t spoil your picture.”
“Oh no, I got you in silhouette against the sky.”
“Of the cormorant.”
“Oh I see, no, I got that too.” They both smiled and Taft realised there was a tension draining out of him.
“You’ll have to send me a copy.”
“Of the cormorant?”
“Of me silly.” She laughed and they both wondered if he had been teasing her.
“Give me your address then and I’ll send you some prints.” She glanced behind him at the cottage.
“It’s here,” she said. “I live on the marsh.”
He moved past her to the car, realising he had stopped as if she was guarding the lane, and began to load his gear into the hatchback.
“Are you an artist?”
“Good heavens no, what makes you think that?”
“The cottage,” he said. “It’s an artist’s cottage: the views.” They looked across the flat, open landscape, almost a complete circle around them, muted colours under a wide grey sky.
“Yes,” she said, “an artist’s cottage.” An image flashed through his mind of her face soft against the hard, rough wall of the cottage and his imagination brought the textured stone into pinpoint focus. He would need to change nothing, even the fall of her hair. He realised he was staring and wished that the camera was round his neck and with a smaller lens on. He closed the hatchback. “I’ve not been in long,” she said. “Are you a regular visitor to the marsh?”
“No, this is the first time.” He told her briefly about the collection, remembered the black shape of a kestrel disproportionately large through the collapsed perspective of the telephoto lens against a shrunken mountain, substituted her silhouette filling the frame from the left, recalled then the line of a poem that the bird had failed to evoke: “proud wings beating the sky behind your eyes”.
“Would you let me take some more photographs of you? He winced at the crude blundering question blurted out on an impulse, saw a chain of shots as she recoiled from its ambiguities.
“I don’t think so.” She stood away from his car, implying that he should get in and leave, but as she did so she added, “but you can always park in the lane if you come back to take some more pictures of the birds.”
[Curious, that some writers seem to knock out the same book with variations, time and time again. When I was a student, half a century ago, a tutor who was a bit of a D.H.Lawrence fan laid that at his door.
I found Tom Wolff’s books – I only read Bonfire of the Vanities and Back to Blood – shared the quality of being very hard to get into…but worth the struggle. In fact it was only because I’d discovered that in the first that I clung on when reading the last!
George Moore, on the other hand, seemed to write anew each time, as if he were quite a different person from title to title. One critic at least considered that to be the reason for his relative obscurity after his death. We need to be a recognisable brand, apparently, to be thought to have written anything worthwhile…. Unless we’re going to be thought of as a one trick pony. Stevie Smith, maybe?
Dickens is always Dickens. Joyce is recognisably Joyce, even as he morphs from Dubliners to Finnegan’s Wake. Tolkien is Tolkien, and we can safely ignore those times when he isn’t, perhaps.
A.E.Coppard seems to go off piste in the later collections, his most often referenced works (even by me) tending to fall early in the trajectory. H.E.Bates writes differently, even when he’s in the same countryside, in the short stories compared to the bucolic Darlings, and to the wartime descriptions of Kent. Flying Officer X seems different again.
Kipling, apparently, had trouble identifying his own works when, late in his life, collections were being compiled. I can relate to that, having had to read to the end of forgotten stories of my own before the penny dropped!
But what prompted this little speculation was seeing an unused piece I’d written about Eleanor Catton’s Birnam Wood. The Luminaries is a favourite of mine, a novel that I read during a trip to New Zealand, then bought and read again on my return. I’ve only done that so quickly once before, with Vasily Grossman’s Stalingrad.
But Birnam Wood, for all it’s similarities with Catton’s Luminaries as far as technique goes, led to a review that I have been reluctant to publish. Lord Bragg of Wigton, many years ago, asserted I think, that he saw no good reason to showcase, if that’s the word, that which he didn’t rate! Just because something hasn’t cut through your hide it doesn’t mean it isn’t sharp, and won’t bring the tears to someone else’s eyes! And, on re-reading I find the review isn’t as negative as I thought…. So here it is]:
I’ve been reading Birnam Wood, by Eleanor Catton, courtesy of fellow writer, Jenny Purchase (search for Transit Lounge, her collection of short stories).
There’s a context to this, which is that I read Catton’s The Luminaries (twice, in relatively quick succession, and I’ll read it again, simply because it’s such a good place to be in). The fact that I didn’t love being in the world of Birnam Wood has coloured my reading.
None of its characters seem admirable or even likeable – even at the arguably redemptive finale. At forty or so pages from the end my reading was extinguished as the light (set on a timer because we were poised to go on a trip) went out. I couldn’t be bothered to over-ride it and read on. It can wait ‘til we get back, I thought, and it did.
By then I’d come to the conclusion that a King Lear ending – all the bodies on a trolley – would suit as well as a Macbeth one.
Yet the book is clearly the work of a ‘master’ (in the gender non-specific sense). It has many of the same techniques as The Luminaries – those interesting, but possibly irrelevant psychological profiles, for example; though here I was irritated more than intrigued by them. There’s a mass of detail too: about the internet and the mobile phone systems – I don’t have a smart phone so take it on trust ; about drone technology – nope! Don’t have one; about the gardening (I wish my crops did as universally well!). There’s a lot of half (possibly three-quarters) arsed politics; arguments being rehearsed, endorsed, demolished, held up, at least, for scrutiny: nothing wrong with that, though it’s not strictly story. But it does reveal character!
The plot is both elaborate and simple, a tight knit web of interlocking motives that drives it forward to a conclusion foreshadowed but not telegraphed until quite close to its denouement. It’s a well written book. I can’t fault it. But I missed the human warmth, the intrigue, the magic, of The Luminaries. The technology seemed to outweigh motive, and the motives seemed short-sighted and banal. Lack of those ‘romantic’ elements, of a sort of innocence I think, left me a little disengaged. I enjoyed it as a piece of cleverly designed and executed writing rather than as a story. Perhaps, because I loved The Luminaries so much I was bound to be disappointed by this one. But I was never disappointed enough to think of not reading to the end, and certainly nowhere near enough to stop me from recommending it as a really good read!
[this began in my journal but touches on the process of winding up this blog, albeit obliquely!]
Kowalski’s Page, here on BHDandMe’s Blog, has recently been recorded as the ‘most popular page’. That has been down to visitors from the Indian sub-continent, so far as I can judge. I’d like to think it’s because they share my sense of humour, as it was when I was writing Kowalski, but my guess is that they’re blundering on to the page whilst looking for something else. So it goes, as Mr Vonnegut said.
The fact is, I couldn’t write Kowalski today. I couldn’t even imagine him: not, at least, as the man I once imagined. Kowalski met the world as he found it, and responded to it, described it and its people, the way he saw it and them. His view and his expression of it was unfiltered by polity – politeness and politic. He told it the way he thought it was.
That view, today, would have to be curated: filtered through the screen of public acceptability.
People today, it seems to me, do not want to be reported as they appear to others. They want to be seen as they choose to see themselves. They want to hold the Selfie Camera, even when it is someone else’s. We live in the Hall of Mirrors that we have built around ourselves. Kowalski would not be allowed to look within, or even at the outside; nor to speak of what he saw had he done so. We have (tried at least) to blind ourselves to the view that others have of us. Kowalski, today, would be a blinded man, and a silenced one. I can no longer imagine what he might have to say. That’s what we got!