Thoughts at p 50 of Ducks, Newburyport
This is one of those books that make me stop in my reading tracks and think about how I read, as in what's going on in my mind as my eyes glide left to right across the page then return left before sliding right again like an old fashioned typewriter, though of course my eyes are not typewriters but type readers, and very experienced ones having focused on billions of typed words in their lifetime. But have they really focused clearly on all the words they've supposedly 'read'? Haven't there been times when they've lost focus, when the words became blurry, and my attention wandered away from the meaning on the page towards things of more import to my own life. Yes, it's true that my attention sometimes skips away from the matter in hand (such as a book I'm reading) and goes rummaging through some backroom of my mind. That can be interesting but it can also be scary because there are things stored away in the back rooms of my mind that aren't pretty, and there are so many of them that if I remove one thing in order to examine it, others tumble after it, and before you can say 'ducks newburyport', a whole string of vaguely connected things have been brought into the light and examined, not deeply, just in a quick assessment sort of way like objects in a bric-a-brac shop that you might pick up for a moment, then put down again. Often, of course, something I'd read just before my mind wandered inspired the particular direction of the the backroom rummage which can sometimes turn out to be pleasant, and even fruitful, but I'd really prefer if my mind didn't wander while I read.
I'm sure you're not wondering what all this has to do with Ducks, Newburyport because I think most readers know already that the book is made up of long strings of vaguely connected thoughts. So, yes, Lucy Ellmann's narrator's vaguely connected thoughts are causing my eyes to lose focus quite frequently, and my attention to wander amongst my own collections of connections...
Thoughts at page 120
My mind seems to be wandering less than it did at the beginning which is an improvement but on the other hand I've become seriously irritated by the narrator's habit of affixing the phrase 'the fact that' before each of her thoughts even though there is rarely any follow-on to 'the fact that' as in 'the fact that she uses that phrase without a follow-on means that I get super irritated', no, her 'the fact that' is just 'the fact that' this, followed by 'the fact that' that, though I did notice one place where she had a follow-on: the fact that even though it’s crudely made, it’s still very recognizably an elephant, a tiny pale green elephant, with a roughly carved trunk and tusks. I have to say I kind of cheered when she did that follow-on, but she mostly uses 'the fact that' as a way of artificially listing her strings of thoughts. Perhaps I'll get used to it..
Thoughts at page 180
Well, I haven't got used to 'the fact that' and I don't believe I ever will. I've also noticed that the narrator uses 'the fact that' when listing thoughts that are naturally connected already and therefore don't need to be artificially connected, as for example: the fact that we suddenly decided to make this whole load of pomanders as Christmas presents for people, the fact that Phoebe was always coming up with ambitious schemes like that, the fact that it took much longer than expected and we got sick to our stomachs from the smell of cloves, the fact that it hurt too, the fact that actually pomanders look better if you don’t completely cover them but we didn’t know that, so we covered every inch with cloves, the fact that we didn’t leave one little spot empty on the whole orange, the fact that the whole orange was brown with cloves, and we really hurt our fingers doing it, pressing all those sharp cloves into the oranges, the fact that we should’ve used thimbles or something, or not done it at all, the fact that I feel a little nauseous just thinking about it...—see what I mean?
But the useful thing about all this is that while I'm being irritated and distracted, I'm asking myself why I'm still reading, just as you may be doing now. The only conclusion I can come to is that I'm a sucker for words, that words laid out on a page hold an irresistible attraction. And it helps that I'm not put off by 1000 page books or by 'stream of consciousness' narratives, or by word lists, whether they are related through sound or through meaning. And Lucy Ellmann definitely likes word lists.
Thoughts at page 250
So I've been reading Ducks, Newburyport on and on, and on and on, until my arm became tired holding it, and I'd gotten far enough into it that the thickness of the book as it lay open on the cushion I'd begun using to prop it up, caused the type in the inner edges of the pages to be almost impossible to read even when I tried to press the pages flat.
At that point, I switched to an ebook version, solving the problem of the weight, and also the problem of the print dropping into the gutter between the pages. But I haven't solved the problem of the constantly recurring 'the fact that' though I try to skip over it as I read. But that's easier said than done. It somehow snags my eye every time no matter what I do.
However my irritation has eased a little due to my growing interest in the story aspect of this book. In the early pages, for example, there's a casual mention of a gun lying on the seat of someone's car. Chekhov has ensured that most readers will prick up their reading ears when a gun is mentioned. Lucy Ellmann's narrator circles the gun theme constantly making frequent references to gun law, open carrying, householders being expected to have guns on the premises, etc, so it soon becomes clear that this book is making the proliferation of guns in the US today, and the deaths that ensue, a central theme. It also becomes clear that the environment is a key issue, plus the problem of noxious substances in water, food and drink causing illness and death.
Mothers and children and the bonds between them is another big focus not only in the brief episodes about a mountain lioness and her cubs that are inserted in gaps between the narrator's much longer sections but also throughout those longer sections as the narrator's thoughts hop from one of her four children to another. Her thoughts often circle back to her own childhood too, and to her much-loved mother who died years before. I noted a passage early in the book where she remembers a lecture she attended: the fact that I remember Declan Kiberd’s talk at Notre Dame, the fact that I do remember, and he said people fetishize the past, in Ireland, the fact that he said the Irish were drunk on remembrance, like Hamlet and the ghost, the fact that I can’t understand people who want to go over and over old times, getting all nostalgic and stuff, the fact that I’m scared of old times, the fact that old times are soggy, saggy cradles of regret…
As I scroll the pages and realise how much the narrator goes over old times herself, and how obsessed she is with her mother and with regrets concerning the past, that quote becomes more interesting. The memory theme is one of the most powerful in the book.
Thoughts at 40%
So I've kept on reading the ebook version, but the trouble with an ebook is that you can't see the pages on the left increasing and the ones on the right decreasing. I found myself checking the 'percentage read' a lot, and feeling dispirited that I was still at 31%, for example, after I'd checked many times. I wondered how I would ever finish this book. I've begun to identify with the narrator, especially when she says things like the fact that February’s the shortest month but somehow it feels the longest…
I've also begun to harbour seriously unpleasant thoughts about innocent things like cinnamon rolls, they are mentioned so often. I understand that the narrator runs a home baking business, and is making rolls and pies all day every day, and that many of the actions she repeats are automatic, allowing her thoughts to roam over her world as she works. What I don't understand is that the author believes that I will be happy to read every one of those 998 pages of thoughts, the seemingly trivial as well as the possibly relevant.
I've been thinking too about other books I've enjoyed where narrators spend a lot of time recounting their thoughts, often while performing daily tasks as in Mrs Dalloway and Ulysses, or simply thinking over the past as in Proust's long saga, but the book I was most reminded of here was Claire Louise Bennett's Pond. Her narrator cooks and cleans while her thoughts circle the serious issues in her life before inevitably becoming mired in the trivia of the everyday just as in Ellmann's narrator's case. Both books, unlike the others I mentioned, contain no dialogue; we are in the narrators' thoughts all the time. But Bennet is beautifully economical with her narrator's stream of consciousness, and each sentence is a dream to read, a perfect reward for spending so much time in one character's head. Lucy Ellmann doesn't really do complete sentences, beautiful or otherwise, except in the mountain lion segments which are a very small percentage of the book. But I have to admit that there is the odd lovely bit here and there in the narrator's segments too, this one for example, again related to memory: the fact that it sometimes feels like my memory has very, very ancient times in it, like the dark ages, stuff from long ago that’s pretty dim, and then come the medieval times that aren’t quite as impenetrable but still pretty blurry, snow flurry, furry, curry in a hurry, and then there’s the Renaissance, which is the more recoverable stuff, and then there’s recent stuff that’s clear and vivid, like Gillian [her seven year old] crying about the meaning of life…
In spite of such interludes my patience with the narrator has been wearing very thin especially because she spends a lot of timing watching episodes of 'Little House on the Prairie' and old movies while she bakes, and her thoughts ramble over the plots, the characters and the actors. In order to avoid all those plot summaries, plus all her dream fragments and thoughts about the jigsaw puzzles she does to relax, not to mention the stuff about the pets her family had over the decades (I really couldn't keep track of those pets, their names, when they died, etc,) I decided to adopt a hopscotch method of reading. I'd search a word—'lion', for example—and read a couple of the search results related to that word. Thanks to that method, I've reached 40%, and now I'm thinking that maybe I can stick with this book after all. And that has made all the difference.
At 50%
The hopscotch approach has began to work against me. Having created what amounts to a scatter of bullet holes in the text by skipping chunks of it, I've begun to worry about what I might have missed: The Road Not Taken
So I stopped skipping and started reading normally again from the 40% point. I've even circled back to search for bits of key text I might have missed, as in references to the words: mommy, gun, duck; and the characters, Ronnie, Stacy and Leo. I found some good bits, and even one of my favourite words hiding in a string of unrelated forgetables : petrichor! I love that word. And tintinnabulum. Great rewards.
Another reward: while I was doing the searching/finding process, I noticed that my attention had stopped wandering and that my mind was taking more and more notice of the interesting patterns in the narrator's strings of thought. Even the cinnamon rolls have become significant in their own way. I am very grateful that my lapses of focus, plus my irritation in the early pages, well, not just the early pages, the first three hundred or so pages, did not stop me reading on—because they might well have, it was touch and go there for a while, up in the air, a leap in the dark, uncharted waters, very muddy waters in fact, and my feet were pretty cold...
Days later
Ok, I went too far with the listing in the previous paragraph, and anyway, I'm guessing you simply want to know if I finished the book. I did.
Then you might want to know if it was worth the weeks I spent reading it. It was.
This is why:
The book is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. At the beginning, you've got a huge pile of pieces: every 'the fact that' phrase being a separate piece. And those separate pieces are not regular shaped. No, they are all oddly shaped and you think it's impossible that you're ever going to be able to put the picture called 'Ducks, Newburyport' together. But then you start to spot pieces that might match up, some of which you'd discarded early on as having no elements in them that could possibly connect to anything else. Slowly the intricate picture starts to come together. When that happens, it's such a reward for persisting. You are in reader heaven from then on, and you conclude that this book makes for a very clever and very worthwhile puzzle. And why wouldn't you keep reading the thousands of 'the fact that' puzzle fragments, because if you weren't reading the pages that contain them, you'd be reading other pages, and the chances are they wouldn't be half as clever or rewarding as Lucy Ellmann's pages. The cleverest part of all is that the main narrative circles its central themes in a way that mirrors the insert story of the mountain lion. Like the lion, the main narrative makes very wide circles in the first third of the book, so wide we don't see the point of them, but as the book progresses, the circles get smaller and tighter, and the connections clearer, until we arrive at the central point of all that spiraling—and boy is it sweet! Talk about cinnamon rolls…
Thanks for reading this great quantity of review words, those of you who didn't bail out early on as well as those who skipped huge chunks but still reached the end. Perhaps reaching the end is a sign that you too might enjoy Ducks, Newburyport