So there I was, reading in bed, tears running down my face when a 46-year-old BBC manager twists a little ring out of a gold band from around a champagne bottle and a red currant and puts it on the finger of one of his subordinate employees, a teenage girl of 17. Was I crying over the looming disaster this was probably going to be? No, because in ways few books manage to convey, this was a love story. Not a Humbert Humbert criminal "love" story, but a real love story. I think I was crying because it was beautiful. And because I was...being manipulated? See page 96; I just reread it and got a lump. I don't lump easily!
So let me persist. Penelope Fitzgerald is one of the few novelists I can read without twisting myself into little knots of protest, sometimes disgust, always dissatisfaction. Ian McEwen, J. M. Coetzee, Anita Bookner and John Banville, and certainly Philip Roth, John Gardner (the "Grendel" guy) and Saul Bellow...books so often peopled by non-people. In general, I just don't care for this genre much anymore.
Part of the problem is me, probably. I have never been able to take adulthood seriously. A lot of Americans are like this, so we are told again and again, a basic inability to grow up, to stop grinning all the time. I'm like this - childish, not childlike, let me be clear! The grim business of life, attended to grimly without any joy or humor, life as a goal-oriented thing while we all whistle our way past the graveyard. Without joy, humor or even irony, why bother? Sure, when it is a matter of life and death - rescuing the drowning, brain surgery, winning the fight against the Nazis - I get that, I do. And it is not a matter of something like, say, running a business or a school or a library, does not have serious aspects - these places are important, they require a certain degree of seriousness for sure. But so much of the time, in my variegated experience of these places, I see adults hithering and thithering with furrowed brows attending to things that are not, despite the organizational context, serious at all. Much of it seems to consist of making sure that busyness is being conveyed, usually for the benefit of managers, who almost always got to be managers because their humorless, grim sense of purpose trumps...irony, playfulness, or anything resembling childlike (but not childish - managerial temper tantrums - and I've seen a few - are about as childish as you can get this side of age three). For instance, the Ian McEwen novels I have read completely succumb to this view - the characters are all the same, basically, like those Fisher-Price wooden people with round cylindrical bodies that slot into chairs, cars, boats, toilets, wherever the author needs to move them; the surface colors and an occasional hat are the only difference: Surgeon! Policeman! Grandma! Knife-wielding robber! Alcoholic poet! And they all get shuffled around the board game called LIFE. Ugh.
What does this have to do with Penelope Fitzgerald (PF from here on out) and me sobbing in bed over a champagne band-red currant ring placed on the finger of a far too young girl by a far too old man? I am not sure. But it might have something to do with the way PF manages to be ironic, even skeptical, perhaps even, eventually, hopeless, about her characters. Their absurdity is acknowledged, but so is their...seriousness? Dignity? Love? Capacity to be convincingly adult?
But "absurdity" is a tricky concept. Taken full on, absurdity leads us to Beckett and Godot and "I can't go on, I'll go" on and Sartre and Camus and the Shoulder to the Boulder of Sisyphus. Nothing wrong with that stuff - it is probably even true, truer than PF and her hopeless falling in love scenarios. And yet I resist - Camus and "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" struck me as profound when I was 22 or whatever. Now it strikes me as...something only a man could write. There's more to it than that. And most people don't commit suicide. Most people do go on; they even have babies! How they do this is PF's business as a novelist.
***
So let me quote some things, in the hopes of making some PF converts. Let's get the World Historical things out of the way first; Human Voices takes place in London during the German Blitz, in the main headquarters of the BBC ("The Corporation" as it is referred to, mostly). Fitzgerald always sort of drops you in the deep end at the beginning of her novels; she is not an easy read, but for excellent reasons, I think (more on that elsewhere). Dropped into a busy, hectic, often chaotic and sometimes hilariously inefficient organization staffed by the middle aged and the very young, everybody else off fighting. The bureaucracy is vast and complicated, hemmed in by often ludicrous protocol, a touchy hierarchy system made at the molecular level (to some extent because of the English class system), wartime shortages and the usual human vanity, self-interest and, usually when you least expect it, big-heartedness, intelligence and courage. And yes, PF actually worked at the BBC during World War II, so the details are presumably spot-on and it is the details that PF is so good at employing to set scenes without the clumsy scene-setting so often afflicting novels (especially ones set in the historical past).
It isn't until page 17 you get the BBC's mission statement (awful phrase, but if all corporate/institutional mission statements were written like this, what a wonderful world it would be). Starting off this excerpt are the two principle male characters, BBC management, Jeffrey Haggard and his subordinate Sam Moore:
"'Sam, I went to a meeting to-day."
'What about?'
'It was about the use of recordings in news bulletins.'
'Why wasn't I asked?'
But Sam was never asked to meetings.
'We had two Directors and three Ministries - War, Information, Supply. They'd called it, quite genuinely I think, in the interests of truth.'
The word made its mark. Broadcasting House was in fact dedicated to the strangest project of the war, or of any war, that is, telling the truth. Without prompting, the BBC had decided that truth was more important than consolation, and, in the long run, would be more effective. And yet there was no guarantee of this. Truth ensures trust, but not victory, or even happiness. But the BBC had clung tenaciously to its first notion, droning quietly on, at intervals from dawn to midnight, telling, as far as possible, exactly what happened. An idea so unfamiliar was bound to upset many of the other authorities, but they had got used to it little by little, and the listeners had always expected it.
'The object of the meeting was to cut down the number of recordings in news transmissions - in the interests of truth, as they said. The direct human voice must be used whenever we can manage it - if not, the public must be clearly told what they've been listening to - the programme must be announced as recorded, that is, Not Quite Fresh.'" (p. 17)
In this era of fake news, isn't this just - stirring - or something? It stirred me plenty - "the direct human voice." A recorded church bell is not the same as one being directly broadcast, not as true. Not Quite Fresh! (PF's capitalization). Who bothers with such distinctions nowadays? As much as I dislike Greatest Generation cant and cheap hagiography, I think I am prepared to let this bit about the BBC ascend to the pantheon. Maybe all institutions are not, as I think Pascal says somewhere, evil.
Here is another passage that impressed me. French General Pinard has come over from the battlefields of Falling France to broadcast to the British people; he's a hero of the last war (sort of like General Petain, who became a Nazi collaborator; in a way, Pinard might be an alternate universe Petain). Moments before his broadcast, this:
"'He won't wear headphones,' the Talks Producer told Jeff. 'It seems he doesn't like them. He prefers to go ahead on a hand cue.'
'I don't think we should grudge him anything.'
The canteen's brandy, Martell 2 Star, left over from Christmas, was brought out. The General raised his hand in a gesture of mile, but emphatic, refusal. That meant that no-one could have any - a disappointment to everybody except Talks, whose allocation for the month had already run out. The brandy would now do for the Minister of Coastal Defence, due later that evening. But these considerations faded as the General's presence was felt. He waited in immaculate dignity. Behind him lay France's broken armies." (p. 29)
This is just masterful - it is even a pleasure to type it out. Note the fussy wartime allocation concerns and thwarted desires (rationed brandy, Martell 2 Star no less), the simmering hope in the General's "presence" and "immaculate dignity" and then, at the very end, the absolute seriousness of the on-going calamity of "France's broken armies." Pinard's broadcast is not what everybody expected; but I will not spoil that here, but it seems France's generals were broken too.
These moments are about as close to a direct wartime "statement" PF allows herself. In the following passage - a passage I love so much it hurts - the war is again addressed, ironically, yet somehow touchingly. Annie is a BBC employee who is lodging with Vi Simmons, a co-worker, and the Simmons family, mom, dad and a bunch of little boys constantly running around machinegunning guests or each other or being sailors afloat after being torpedoed in the cabbage beds (the military ardor of little boys far too young to fight is not belabored; but the fact they appear is another one of PF's methods to show the permanence, the inescapability, of our human folly):
"Annie settled in easily with the Simmons. She gave no feeling of upset, rather of solidity and peace. Vi loved her mother, but was too much like her not to get irritated after fifteen minutes. She lent a hand whenever she was at home, but in her own way. To Annie, who had been reared by her widowed father, and brought to her present excellent state of health entirely on fish and chips and tins, there was a charm in helping Mrs. Simmons around the garden and kitchen. It was unpatriotic now not to sort the rubbish into pigfood, henfood, tinfoil (out of which, it seemed, battleships could be partly made), paper, cardboard and rags. At the same time Mr Simmons worked late at the shop, sorting the coupons from the customers' ration books. The Nation defended itself by counting large numbers of small things into separate containers. But beyond this there wee the old repetitive tasks of the seasons, the parts which, in the end, seem greater than the whole. Annie sat on the back doorstep and shelled peas with Mrs Simmons. She had never done it before." (p. 78).
Okay, it's not perfect - the second sentence seems to leading, too direct; Annie comes across this way via the descriptions and bits of dialogue, so such captioning is not required. But the rest of it is...dare I say sublime? Why is it that after the lovely "pigfood, henfood, tinfoil (out of which, it seemed, battleships could be partly made)..." the last sentence ("She had never done it before.") tears me up so? Even if I am just a victim of sentimentality, how can anybody not admire the skill here, the so important one-word-after-another aspect of PF's writing? What novel is it you like better? I want to ask all ye Goodreads one-and-two-star PF reviewers out there.
***
Some reviewers complain that it is difficult to keep people straight; the same character will interchangeably be referred to by his title (sometimes abbreviated, sometimes not), his surname or his given name, depending on who is talking to him. Yes, this does present an obstacle and makes it harder to read overall. But for the attentive reader, the affect this has on the whole novel is important and necessary; PF is able to shift locations and relationships without a bunch of nasty scene-setting and prop-moving that afflict the typical novel. And it also makes the reader more of a participant, rather than...a person reading a novel. Her ability to achieve this full emersion reading experience without resorting to anything obvious is just brilliant, I say.
I am a sloppy fast reader of novels. Partially because I am a sloppy reader, but also because most novels don't deserve much care in reading. Human Voices does deserve such care, and I found myself again and again, uncharacteristically, slowing down, even re-reading full passages. It is well worth the effort.
***
Just to get it out of the way: I don't care for the ending. The phone call from the Greek restaurant seems too out-of-character for the characters, even if newly-smitten. The deus-ex-machina of German ordnance too much like Evelyn Waugh's dreadful Sword of Honour trilogy.
But the book is filled with other endings, other departures that work far better than the actual ending. One of the main characters, Vi Simmons (the one whose mother is shelling peas with Annie) drifts off halfway through and turns out not to be a main character at all. Here she goes:
"Vi wrote to say that her wedding day was fixed, she was going up to Liverpool some time in September to marry Chris and to be his till the end of Life's Story. She wished she'd been able to invite them all, but they'd have a reunion after the war when the lights went up again, they must all swear to make a note of it, August the 30th by the Edith Cavell statue off Trafalgar Square, the side marked Fidelity. The letter did not sound quite like the Vi they had known, and made her seem farther away." (p. 103)
If you love the book as much as I do, Vi's remoteness here is heartbreaking. Not death or disaster, but another end of things, presented without fuss or drama and all the more sad for it. World War II or high school, isn't this the way we all drift? Everybody leaves; the war can't last forever (or high school for those of us lucky enough to have missed the Blitz). Important people move far away all the time, even in peacetime. How to convey this without sentimentality, without over-doing it? That passage does it.
So who was the hero? The Blitz-crossed lovers? The grave manager with the ruined face? Spoiler alert: the more I think about it, the more I am convinced the "hero" is one of the most unappealing characters, a dull, annoying, weepy (but pretty) young woman without a thought in her head except for her boyfriend. She gets pregnant (not by the boyfriend) and gives birth, partially, in the BBC auditorium (which has been converted to a dormitory for the employees, so many who have been bombed out of their homes). She's unpleasant, probably not outright stupid, but utterly devoid of any interests outside of her own and yet she might just represent...life. The Germans are dropping bombs, the beaches are being prepared for invasion, the airwaves are crackling with wartime disasters and last-ditch instructions, but this unpleasant woman is the one doing the only real task for humanity. There is a similar character in PF's first novel "The Golden Child." In both novels, said character is only in a few pages here and there, hardly "main character" by any such crude metric. And yet in a way not even The Battle of Britain can do, this character and birth itself may be the real center of the whole catastrophe. For all the last ditch heroics and brave broadcasts, confronted with this most primordial of human events, the dithering and grasping for inessentials of the male characters (who is responsible for cleaning the cot on which the birthing began?) is hilarious.
Babies? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe all the characters in her books are heroes; most of them have aspects of being villains too. Maybe somebody should write a Ph.D. dissertation on it. Maybe I have a Penelope Fitzgerald problem. Maybe she is engaged in a kind of gross sentimentality that is disguised cleverly with irony and "warmth" designed to fool immature readers like me. J. D. Salinger's Glass family comes to mind; but even if I am being fooled, I still admire (and respect) the skill. In a much cruder way, Sherlock Holmes and "Lord of the Rings" do the same thing. I've shed so many of my literary favorites (Holmes, LOTR), but I just can't get over Penelope Fitzgerald, thank God.