But what is the significance of the elephant; I don't understand about the elephant.
At one point, one of the characters says 'That is a metaphor', another responds 'A metaphor? Where did you go to school ?'
And the first speaker answers 'Nogent-le-Rotrou'.
This little dialogue sums up part of my difficulties with this book. Firstly Andrew Miller absolutely crams this novel to the brim with metaphor. Secondly some of the dialogue seems too anachronistic and thirdly , and this is obviously my problem but after all this is my review so you are stuck with my struggles, I could not always fathom whether Miller's characters were being sarcastic, honest, naive ,witty or just plain stupid.
It is set four years before the horrendous bloodletting of the French Revolution and Terror and it covers the work by a young engineer who is given the less than pleasant duty of removing a whole cemetery from the centre of Paris by removing its Church, defunct inmates and living servants and eradicating its looming presence from the locals' memories.
The novel's title then, 'Pure', obviously cries out as metaphor in itself. From the superifial one, the purifying of the ground through removal of bones and the in-filling the holes with quicklime onto the purifying of society through the upcoming revolution which we catch glimpses of shimmering in the near future through daubed slogans and whispered threats. (We sit as gods, well aware of what lies in store for the self satisfied aristocracy of the ancien regime who are soon to be swept away into horror and the agonizingly unimagined end of their lifestyle but, of course none of the characters know any more than their ideals and fleeting imaginings; we alone know the reality ahead).
Or does it refer to the purity of motives or otherwise of those involved in the action, or is it the sexual purity of the old sexton's granddaughter or again the redeeming nature of the 'impure' harlot's love, cleansing and resurrecting hope and trust in the hero or is it again about the pure notes of the organ which creaks and groans in the background throughout the story gradually lessening and growing discordant or again the purity which everyone loses as they come more and more into contact with the vile smell of rotting corpses and a glutted earth. Now you see, that is a lot of links and references to attach to one word but I do not think I have excavated, if you'll pardon the pun, even half of the 'significances' that can be drawn from the story.
Miller purposefully loads image upon image and metaphor upon metaphor but the story seems too lightweight to hold it. The scaffold that his engineer and the miners construct to hold back the onslaught of rotting soil and decomposition as they dig deeper is flimsy and weak and i cannot help but think that their scaffold is a metaphor for his story.
There are some beautifully observed passages of description and some strikingly simple sentences which simply give you clearly the image he wants you to see. This is a magnificent talent and it is lovely when it is encountered.
'Over Paris, the stars are fragments of a glass ball flung at the sky.......The streetlamps are guttering. For their last half-hour they burn a smoky orange and illuminate nothing but themselves'
Of Versailles and its mirrors
'Living here, it must be impossible not to meet yourself a hundred times a day, every corridor a source of vanity and doubt.'
Or again the gradually 'de-built' Church
'Beams of light spread out until seperate shafts become a jagged fringe moving slowly north....By the end of the month light laps at the edge of the nave, streaks the choir, pools by the foot of the altar'
Here to me he ingeniously manages to conjure up the incoming light and yet pairing it with words which, within the context, manages to communicate filth and an oily viscous mess which sullies rather than cleanses. It is simple yet profound, he chooses words and conjures a clear picture. Yet this talent seems to me sometimes, to continue the foulness of the analogy, to be pissed away into the sand. He exhausts his readers with intent or significance and so the book is flowing along powerfully and methodically but then is suddenly stumbling over misplaced sentences or details and the atmosphere or tension is punctured and dissipated.
Maybe it is just me but I struggled with this book which is such a shame because Miller appears to me to be an excellent writer and maybe he wanted to write something towering and momentous but does so half-cocked..
The ending is odd. I was left unsatisfied but not in any sense that it enabled me to imagine what their future was. I did not find myself thinking which of these survived the Terror, which of them indulged in it, how did they fare in the years ahead. I found I did not really care. Is that something lacking in me, or was it a clever construct by Miller that his characters were too caught up in the decay and grossness of the charnel pits to grow on or was it something lacking in his story in and of itself? Maybe there is another metaphor to be going along with.
The back of these books is never a good guide to whether you will like it or not. The publishers used a review by a Holly Kyte of the Sunday Telegraph. She breathlessly gushes and uses words such as near-faultless and brilliance distilled. This novel, according to her ' thrills and expands the mind'.
As she evidently understands it more than I did maybe i should ask her: 'What in the Name of all that's holy was the significance of the bloody elephant !!'