This is another one of those books: I’m not sure whether I’m judging myself or the book.
This is humorous fiction. The characters are more or less ordinary people living in a small town in Louisiana. Almost all reflect the community’s lack of intellectual, educational and financial opportunity. At the beginning, Mr. Pickens is an assistant manager of what seems to be a cheap “department store” called Sonny Boy. Two of the prominent female characters are Burma, in her late thirties, and Toinette, much younger; both work there. The book opens with the arrival of Mr. Pickens’ half brother, F.X., who has just been released from prison after serving time for a small cocaine sale. These and other characters struggle with their yearnings, mostly for love (and maybe for meaning) within the confines of Tula Springs. They do absurd things and things that turn out absurdly. And they yearn to get beyond their failings.
Critics have given Wilcox’ work enormous praise and Modern Baptists seems to be his most highly regarded novel. According to the cover squibs, it is a comedic novel and Wilcox is a comic genius. Anne Tyler, no less, says she “laughed so hard” she kept forgetting to mark passages for use in her review.
I liked this book a lot; maybe it comes closer to 4 stars for me than 3. I finished it last night and already it is growing on me. While I read it, I smiled a lot, at least inwardly, and I got two soft outward chuckles out of it, perhaps as much as anything at the concept of modern Baptists who would allow you progressively more vice as you got older– Mr. Pickens’ version of the church he considers founding. But I didn’t have Anne Tyler’s reaction (and who am I not to?). Nor was I enormously amused at the other fictional humor book I’ve listed on Goodreads (de Vries).
So is it me, lacking appropriate physical responses to humor (no hard laughing), or is it the book?
As soon as I ask myself that question, I instantly want to defend the book: I liked it. I’ve been trying lately to find the kind of analysis of humor that my academic background (not in literature) leads me to seek – a long article or short book that carefully analyzes and illustrates types of humor in fiction, with abundant examples and a clear explanation why it works as it does. Almost despairing, I’m reading humorous fiction, meaning that I’m looking for humor. Therefore, it’s my fault, not the book’s, that I failed to laugh so hard I lost my place in the book.
That leads me to ask myself this morning what I laugh at, and I surprise myself by what first comes to mind: Michael Keaton’s wonderful performance as Dogberry in Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing. And not just Keaton, but Shakespeare’s lines themselves. The second thing that came to mind was Falstaff. Whoa. Am I stuck in this kind of rollicking 17th century humor?
I’m thinking that humor in fiction (and I don’t mean wit or witty language or the subtler delights of irony) is often based on how the author treats flaws of the characters. It is surely easier to laugh when a pretentious character is exposed, especially when, as with Dogberry, he exposes his own pretentiousness. (Dogberry, a man with shaky grasp of words and their meanings, is trying nevertheless to impress with his high language. He manages to say seemingly contradictory things like “thou villain, thou art full of piety,”– a line that reveals Dogberry’s ignorance and maybe also take a swipe at those who are full of piety but in fact also villainous, so we might even have layers of laughter.)
But Wilcox characters, though maybe familiar, are not stereotypes, and their flaws are mostly of a different order than those of Falstaff and Dogberry. Their flaws derive mostly from their confinement and their painful, unsatisfied yearnings, yearnings we are allowed to see and experience. That’s true even with the preachy, controlling Donna Lee. No doubt even Dogberry has his yearings, but we are not allowed to see those acted out. To be sure, Wilcox treats his characters’ failings lighttheartedly, humorously; neither their flaws nor their actions are grand enough for an easy tragedy. And they are indeed absurd and funny at times. But we also see their very real feelings, especially in the main characters here.
A teacher I respect enormously once warned that the author must not be patronizing (nor invite the reader to be). Yet, much of the humor (apart from clever or witty language) is based on character flaws, treated lightly. How is the author to avoid being a put-down artist if, after all, he is making fun of his characters? Perhaps by proportioning the humorous jibe to the targeted flaw? By making the character evil as well as flawed, so that the put-down is deserved? By giving the character a redeeming grace on some surprising matter, so they are not merely inadequate but have other dimensions, too? Wilcox, it seems to me, solved the problem by giving his characters human misery and yearning, treated lightly, to be sure, but very real. As one blub-quoted reviewer said, Wilcox had enough kindness toward his characters to make us care.
Maybe Wilcox' humane feelings for his characters damped my laughter. I guess if your funny characters are suffering, no matter how ridiculous their pains appear from the point of view of readers with relatively advantaged lives, the book must finely balance their suffering and their absurd actions. Even that won’t guarantee all readers will laugh out loud, because some readers will surely react to the characters’ pain and desire so much that outright laughter is hard to reach; compassionate smiles at characters' ridiculous actions are about all such readers can manage. Other readers, maybe more balanced, can, in Lyndon Johnson’s elegant phrase, fart and chew gum at the same time – feel for the characters and laugh at them, too. So I’m still not sure if my failure to achieve Anne Tyler laughter is me or the book.
One thing I am sure of: less than half a day from finishing it, it is growing on me and I love this book.