For some reason, four years ago when I originally wrote this review (or one like it), I chose to attach it to The Spire, not Darkness Visible or Pincher Martin or The Inheritors, all equally fine books whose influence on me was no less profound. The review, you see, was really of Golding, not of any single one of his books. It also included an ornery and unfair assessment of British writers in general, prefaced by a genteel insult of British writing by Raymond Chandler and a brief, confused argument as to why Golding was somehow different from the run-of-the-mill of bloated, hubristic Brits. Having jetissoned that useless baggage, I’ll try to focus on what it is that makes Golding great, despite his detractors (most if not all of them angry primarily because he won the Nobel Prize), and despite its having been years since I read more than a page or two of his prose.
As a high school student, I studied Lord of the Flies, then chose to make Golding’s other novels the focus of further study. What appealed to me most, I think, in Golding was his ability to write a kind of perceptual counterpoint – to have his protagonist consciously experience one thing while unconsciously experiencing another, yet to make the reader (or the canny reader) privy to both levels of perception. (The most famous example is probably the child visionary Simon’s witnessing the monster atop the hill in Lord of the Flies, a monster which the reader correctly identifies as a corpse tangled in a parachute. But this dual perception is everywhere in Golding, from the egotist priest Jocelyn’s “angel” astride his back to the shipwrecked sailor Pincher Martin’s entire “island” in the Atlantic.) This technique, I thought, could surely only work so well in prose; it helped me to see how a literal rendering of story (which film, the staple of my childhood, so often is) could lack in dimensions, dimensions which prose, a collaboration between writer and reader, could more fully explore. But if this were all Golding offered, maybe he would justly be maligned. (And the truth is, at times – in Pincher Martin, for example – he writes a kind of detective story, a build-up to the Big Reveal, which limits his scope.) These days, when I think back on Golding, I see a creator of myths, not creation myths but dark destruction myths. A vague word to use, I guess, but suited to his peculiar near-timeless semi-allegorical tales, which so often pit helpless humans (or pre-humans, in The Inheritors) against cosmic-seeming forces which turn out, often as not, to be intrinsic to humankind. And suited, too, to the sense that these tales, in their essential forms (ie: not so much as written but when called up later from memory), are like polished stones, the simplest parables which, maybe, should never have been extended into novels at all. (The novella, I suspect, would be the perfect vehicle for Pincher Martin, and would let that shocking, hellish, stark vision truly shine from its igneous core.)
Golding wrote (so he tells us) each of his early novels in a matter of weeks, after a long internal gestation period, and I think it shows. It’s both their greatest asset and their biggest fault, but it’s part of what makes them so different from the dominant strand (among major literary prizewinners) of intellectual writing. Golding, to me, is a primitive. Whether he knew this himself I don’t know, and his writing gives no clues (it’s far from self-conscious, opting instead for an immersive quality both old-fashioned – in its insistent naturalism – and modern – in its immediacy, like cinema imbibed via all the senses), but it’s part of what makes his novels seem elemental. Golding – and this is a surprise when you consider his novels from afar, since in synopsis they seem so conceptual – is a sensualist. Or maybe not, if a sensualist enjoys the physical. No, Golding does not revel in the physical, but he inhabits it, relentlessly. Lok’s feet grope and grip the ground just as Pincher Martin’s entire body grasps the rock; even Jocelyn the priest is held to earth by the pains in his deteriorating spine; and the kids in the jungle in Lord of the Flies are always and undoubtedly in the jungle. Golding is in many ways a philosophical writer, but his philosophy emerges from the action; the two are inseparable. Of course he’s limited, like all so-called primitives. Critics have noted how one-dimensional his style can seem when he ventures into certain areas (relationships between the sexes, social realism, contemporary settings), and despite his key novels (Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors, Pincher Martin, The Spire – all of them written in quick succession early in his career) being so far-removed from each other in terms of subject matter, there is a sense in which (like Stanley Kubrick) he seems to be mapping out various parts of the same, very Golding-esque universe.
But what do I care if he’s limited? Poe (the master) was limited. Borges, Kafka, Clarice Lispector. If the aim of a writer is mastery in all fields, Golding is a failure. If the aim is to focus, with singleminded intensity, on whatever haunts, fascinates or inspires, he’s a success. In the realm of language, too, he has his moments, when a previously-uncharted (or less-charted) realm of the sayable suddenly presents itself to his vision. (The opening of Pincher Martin is one such moment: “He was struggling in every direction, he was the centre of the writhing and kicking knot of his own body. There was no up or down, no light and no air. He felt his mouth open of itself and the shrieked word burst out.” Rarely have we been so in a protagonist during an action scene, thanks to physical, declarative prose.) Golding, like all great writers, is one of a kind. That he’s able to communicate his vision to the young, I think, is a key part of his talent; there were few experiences so mind-expansive to me as reading these books as a teenager (reading Hermann Hesse was another), and he did much to broaden my conception of what could be said in literature. I recommend The Spire because it caught my young man’s imagination, though I can’t guarantee it would retain its power over me now. The plot (unlike the plots of many – even most – novels) remains with me quite clearly, and the whole of it appears a kind of medieval tapestry when I think back on it, stylised and not quite real-seeming but alive with light. As an adult I read Darkness Visible and though I thought it suffered from stylistic defects (again, particularly in its contemporary realist setting) I felt the pulsing of something true and rarely uncovered in its depths. The other novels listed above are all well worth reading for anyone who saw value in Lord of the Flies, and even the patchy Free Fall and the blander late-period Rites of Passage left meaningful impressions on me. An idiosyncratic master.