Let me be frank with you, goodreads world, and admit something. I tend not to read romance novels. Ok, that is an understatement. This is the first book I have ever read which I have seen fall into that category of literature. But I think, even outside of that category, I tend not to read novels that dedicate a good deal of time to the development of romantic relations, or, at least, I do not seek them out. For some reason, and perhaps it speaks to my bachelored existence, romance isn’t a relationship that really interests me. I can’t even truly enjoy them in a good movie. I like the world that exists beside the romance, if that makes sense. One day that might change. Hell, even the reading of this book suggests that there is always the chance to try new things and find in them just the right morsel of pleasure.
I came to read this book, or, more specifically, this author, not because of an attraction to the genre or the topic at hand, but because of rumours about the author. You see, a few years ago I was browsing through a book on the history of the Nobel Prize. This book attempted to make sense of what, exactly, that prize rewarded when the Swedish Academy made its choices, and then raised questions about why some authors had been chosen and others hadn’t. France, which I believe to be the most well awarded country in the history of the prize, hasn’t had any of its women awarded. For the author of the book this was quite the astonishment. They then went on to list several who, to their estimation, would have been more than worthy winners: Marguerite Duras, Marguerite Yourcenar, Francoise Sagan, Simone de Beauvoir, Nathalie Sarraulte. Since then I’ve slowly been knocking these authors off of my list of authors to read. I still have to find to courage to read de Beauvoir and Sarraulte, both of whom have reputations grand enough to frighten me off, but the other three have each brought me a good deal of joy, confusion, and pleasure in their moment.
Which brings me to Sagan, who, I was warned by the author of that book about the Nobel, wrote romance novels. Which brings me to this book, which I found in a used bookstore that was closing down. I picked it up, looked suspiciously at the front and read the back, had a passing intrigue, was disappointed that it wasn’t her most well-admired classic, Bonjour Tristesse, but decided to add it to my pile and one day read it. It sat, for a year or two, on my bookshelf, and then for a year in a box in my parents’ basement when I was abroad, and then, for about two weeks, it occupied a space on the floor of my brother’s old bedroom, where I was organizing my collection into two piles, one which I would keep and one which I would get rid of, and, at the end of that organizing, it landed in my pile of books I will be disposing of; but, then, just as I was packaging those books into boxes to be donated to the prison, a small pile of books started develop, books that I don’t really want to keep, I don’t think, but that I do want to read before they leave the house. The pile grew to be about 30 in height, and this is now the pile of books that I am selecting my reading from; it sits at the side of my bed and stares at me while I sleep, each book surely aware of its fate, and perhaps hopeful that it too, like Destroy, She Said (by the aforementioned Marguerite Duras), will find its way back into my pile of books that I am going to keep.
After having finished this book, I can tell you that it won’t. But that isn’t quite it’s fault. Let me talk about the book now.
Every now and then you read something that just makes sense. It understands itself, it limits its ambitions, it is managed, it is all that it could hope to be and nothing less. Like the perfectly filled jar of home-made jam, there is no space for air inside under the lid, and no line of sticky preserve falling in an unsightly glop over the side - all of its contents, its ideas, its sentences fit perfectly into the shape of the thing that the author was creating. I’ve read a few of these sorts of books in my life, and each time I do I come away impressed. Pride and Prejudice comes to mind. Skylark. The Summer Book. Cassandra. Damn near any story by Alice Munro.
I think this book is one of those perfect little creations, in its way. All of it fits in the slim pages and the few words of tight, fluid and, in surprising ways, lyrical writing. Its characters are interesting, something more than what one would expect of the book but never more than what is needed; each one is given all the space to grow that they need and not more. Speaking of the story, it both supports, with the characters, a great many of the tropes that you imagine to be part and parcel with the genre and manages to subvert a great many of them. And it offers a level of sophistication that develops slowly, and reaches a nice ringing, similar to a bell at Christmas in a carol or down the street singing from the church’s midnight mass, tingling the spine with pleasure just before dying back to silence. It is a book trimmed of the unnecessary, of the fat of writing, and reduced to its most basic and important truths.
There isn’t much to the story that I can say without ruining it, so I’ll instead talk about the characters. I liked Paule. She is the central character of the love stories in this book - the one developing with Roger, an old lover, and the other developing with Simon, a new, young man who has entered into Paule’s life unexpectedly and caused his little waves of chaos. She was a complicated and lovely figure. With her sophistication and fine-ness she came out of the pages, felt human for a moment or two, like a figure in an old Hollywood film, a starlet, beautiful and intelligent and trapped in the very things which brought her joy. I liked hearing her voice, her tension, her uncertainty, and resignations. I admired her in a way, though I’m not sure what that way was. Have I felt some of her feelings before? Maybe. No. I don’t think so. Maybe because I’ve seen this one before? Like in a movie somewhere. I can see it, now that I think of it, in black and white, Greta Garbo is Paule, a dashing young man fills of the role of Simon, a young Cary Grant, the two of them in her small apartment in Paris, modestly decorated because she isn’t incredibly wealthy but carefully decorated because of her profession, and then Roger, Fredric March, filling the role of the older lover who, if nothing else, is consistent, and that is worth something, isn’t it, just being consistent is worth something isn’t it? I guess that might be worth something. But perhaps Greta is a bit too dramatic to play this role; is it possible to bring in somebody with the careful statements of the physical gesture, somebody like Audrey Hepburn, but to push her into the 1930s, or can we bring the others into the 1950s and 1960s, and just make it all click, the tension, the sex, the pleasure, the malaise, the decadence, the streets of Paris and the bars where they would dance? Yes, this is a movie I think.
So, then, only three glowing goodreads stars instead of five, despite a wave of admiration sent to it. Why?
Because, for all the good that this novella offers, for all of the ways that it surprised me, for the pleasure it brought me, for the insight it offers, I came away not feeling as though it really offered me anything that hasn’t been offered before in movies with nameless classic movie stars who I cannot name but somehow can picture - that is, right up until that last chapter, which I’m not going to talk about, but serves its purpose, like everything in this book, just perfectly. Ultimately, like those movies I liked this book. Nothing more, nor less; a simple pleasure.
As for Sagan? I wish I could rate her, because I would rate her quite highly. I look forward to reading more of her works, which is to say that I will be buying more romance novels at second hand book store clearance sales so long as her name is on the spine. Aimez-vous Brahms? Oui, mon cheri.