Just Read: The Deception of Livvy Higgs (2013) - Donna Morrisey
Why write a negative review? To deprecate another’s work in order to promote one’s own? To shame or criticize another author? I hope these are not the aims. I agree with one of my heroes, a man of wit and depth of humane feeling, Roger Ebert, who frequently wrote “bad reviews:” the purpose of a bad review isn’t to dwell on what is “bad,” but actually draw attention to what is good - it identifies pitfalls whilst illuminating ideals. And though I personally believe that what we’re discussing here are cultural products, textual artifacts separate from their producers, with merits and flaws, I myself find criticism exceedingly difficult to take. My apologies in advance.
I didn’t like “The Deception of Livvy Higgs.” When the film Babel was released in 2006 it was provocatively described by some as “suffering porn.” I take issue with works that exist to both exploit and decry suffering. On one hand they exist to generate sympathy for their much abused characters. On the other they gather strength of interest and “compel” their readers by salacious accounts of misdeeds, guiltily consumed by the reading public, a sort of literary “if it bleeds it leads” ethos, only in this case dragging us through the usual litany of “family secrets,” some variety of abuse, perhaps an addiction… I don’t mean to be flippant: these are very real elements of too many real people’s lives. But do novels like this do much at all to ease our collective suffering, or to suggest alternate paths forward? This type of novel, I believe, has become something of a genre unto itself: a genre treasured by middle-class, comfortable “literary enthusiasts” who can imbibe a little suffering at arms length, and sigh over it at their leisure. I’ve never enjoyed this sort of read; “The Shipping News,” “Snow Falling on Cedars,” “White Oleander:” you know the type. And I just can’t help myself: many of these seem more likely than not to have a large “O” emblazoned on their cover.
Is there something wrong with the depiction of suffering in literature? Of course not: suffering lies at the heart of great literature. But there is a difference between high Tragedy (with a capital “T”), and the leaden “seamy coming-of-age story” set in Saskatoon, Kitsilano, Winnipeg (insert folksy Canadian locale here) that has become a Canadian staple. There exists a progression, I believe, in great literature that is lacking here. First, we acknowledge that life includes suffering. Second, we acknowledge that there are such things as Truth and Beauty. Third, we examine paths that lead from the suffering toward the aforementioned Beauty and Truth. Here, instead, we are dragged through the sordid, both the everyday and the extraordinary meanness, often drawn out for dramatic value, and provided at the work’s conclusion with a trite “I suppose it all worked out right in the end” statement of some sort. Why is Turgenev’s “Spring Torrents” a great work and this not, though they treat similar subject matter, namely entrapment and deception? Why is Duddy Kravitz at least a good work, and this not?
“Livvy Higgs” tells the story, through a series of flashbacks, of the life of the titular “heroine.” The elderly Higgs, because this is Canada and we need to demonstrate that we are familiar with Canadian literature, has been compared, poorly, and mostly by book jacket blurb providers, with “The Stone Angel’s” Hagar Shipley. The elderly Livvy, however, exists only as a more or less unnecessary frame for the predictably tortuous tale of bad fathers, woebegone mothers, cunning extended relations and shocking misdeeds. I have no complaints with Morrisey’s admittedly lucid and occasionally lyric (but oddly not lovely) prose. Her characters, however, seem to exist only to add new patina of shabbiness to an already shabby story. For a “strong woman” character, Livvy Higgs fails - she is constantly misled and in need of some variety of rescue, and seems to arrive at some sort of amorphous redemptive aphorism only at the novel’s end which may or may not be the end of her life. The novel’s structure is a little confusing: we are introduced to a cranky shadow of a woman, living in the ruins of a life lived apparently without much in the way of any joy or warmth, other than Livvy’s multiple cats (“crazy cat lady - ho, ho!”), yet by novel’s end we are expected to believe that her moderately horrific life has somehow produced a sainted wisdom and strength that has made her the pillar of warmth that she clearly wasn’t on page one. The novel concludes in a great gout of exposition that just doesn’t end - there is not one dark secret here, but a multitude that seems to take in even British treatment of Irish convicts - somehow relevant 3 generations before Livvy’s tale of woe. Instead of a shocking exposé we are forced through a tedious history lesson that does little to clarify Livvy’s situation, as oblivious to it as she’s been. If you are planning to read the novel, stop here; if not, I include Livvy’s great realization (or generalization, as the case may be), occurring on no less than the second to last page of the novel (there has been a lot of deception to squeeze in, apparently):
“A thought comes to me, it comes strong and hard, that evil is swallowed by repentance, that only the sin of it carries on, and sin is little more than a smoky thought, clearing itself with the breath of prayer.”
What?! Newfoundland gothic, indeed.
Again, the intention of my review isn’t to be mean spirited, but to decry a direction in literature that I believe best-seller tables and Canadian housekeeping magazine summer reading lists need to abandon. They won’t. This novel reads like a long dark Thanksgiving conversation that everyone wishes they hadn’t had. I won’t even set in on the mysandry. A critic recently quipped “Why does this film hate women?” This novel serves as it’s own long argument for why it hates men.
When I finished the text, I asked myself an exasperated “why?” and began furiously scribbling notes. What was the point? Those who don’t think they understand suffering will sit on their muskoka chairs, sip sommelier-recommended wine and read this shabby tale while their husbands and sons linger on Bay Street, and then discuss the book fervently: “wasn’t it horrible, those days?” And we’ll legitimize our experience by talking about the “lovely prose,” and the “bearing witness,” and be left with one more sad story, as though we don’t have any of our own, or don’t live in a world of turmoil enough. Those days are these days, and have ever been the days of men and women who live in a world of inequity, loss and injustice. But alternatives exist! I’ve little interest in disingenuously chewing the bones. The music of the spheres sounds high and bright somewhere far above the plane that this text can’t even seem to imagine.
Final Grade: D
Next up: “How to Live, or a life of Montaigne in one question and twenty attempts at an answer” (2010) - Sarah Bakewell