Isn't there some institution somewhere that can hold journalists responsible for their book reviews? On the cover of Morvern Callar I read that it is “dazzling,” “brilliantly original,” “vivid” and “stunning” and that it “defines the 90s.” The author is described as “one of the most talented, original and interesting voices around.” Really? Really?
If this book defines the 90s then the 90s are characterised by mindless sex, mindless alcoholism and mindnumbingly stupid people doing mindnumbingly stupid things. They were therefore, based on the evidence of other novels in the same vein, no different from the 60s, 70s or 80s. Now, during the 90s I was the same age as the eponymous character of this book, and let me tell you, I recognised nothing in it. Not a thing. My nineties were defined by pizza parlours, cinemas, protest marches and university lectures. The changes in Europe after the end of the Cold War were widely felt and the influx of refuges from former Yugoslavia presented a challenge to society. My friends and I were interested in postmodernism, interfaith dialogue, feminist linguistics, liberation theology, multiculturalism, cognitive psychology, the fair trade movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the future of socialism etc etc. There was the second Gulf War and the row over university reform. There was a lot going on in our lives, but not once did we wax our bikini lines or paint our toenails. Morvern's life is dominated by beauty routines and binge drinking. This is called by the reviewers a “voice with […] many angles.” It just goes to show that something as comprehensive and complex as a decade in history cannot be “defined” by a single viewpoint, especially not one as provincial and intellectually limited as Morvern's.
The characters in the book are, without exception, dull and one-dimensional. But of course someone had to call Morvern “impossible to forget.” Let me tell you, the only reason I would not forget her is because she bored me so much. Vivid? Tiresome, more like. The plot would fit into fifty pages, and the rest is filled up with long, rambling, tedious descriptions of trivial details. Now, I appreciate good description and good detail but the operative term here is “trivial.” Life is full of trivial stuff, the order in which we put on our clothes or the way we clean out teeth, but why would I want to read about this in a novel? Giving us one description of Morvern doing her pedicure is enough to establish the pertinent character traits; we do not need to hear this again, and again, and again. I skipped whole paragraphs of this rubbish.
The character voice is so contrived it annoyed me pretty much on every page. Usually, highschool drop-out Morvern cannot string a correct sentence together and uses “disappointedness” instead of “disappointment” and “silentness” instead of silence.” But every now and then she goes all lyrical, meticulously puts in those commas she normally doesn’t bother with, and uses complex syntax and words like “luminous,” “pivoted” or “insinuate.” She even speaks of genuflecting and of the Eucharist, and it's not because she's a Catholic (she doesn't know how to genuflect.) Yes, this uneducated ignorama casually identifies saxifrage, mimosas and pomegranate trees in passing, while at the same time all foreign nations to her are simple “a country.” What's going on here? I think the author forgets from time to time what persona he has taken on and becomes all middle-class. For example: Morvern has no problems saying “arse” but all of a sudden she is too refined for “boobs” and instead speaks of her “bosoms,” plural. Innocent little words like “the,” “to,” “as” or “of” are randomly used sometimes and omitted at other times, and similarly without rhyme or reason contractions are sometimes written with apostrophes and sometimes without (there's/theres).
Morvern always refers to McCaig's Tower as the “circular folly.” Who talks like that? She also makes repeated reference to the “Central Belt,” a term I have never heard used outside the traffic news and weather forecast. She says she takes a train to the Central Belt. Again, who talks like that? Anyone I've ever met would say they were taking a train to Glasgow. Likewise, I've never met anyone who refers to their cigarettes by their brand names all the time. The normal thing to say is “I lit a cigarette” or “I lit a fag.” What does Morvern say? “I used the goldish lighter on a Silk Cut.” And not just once, twice, thrice, no, dozens of time we are plagued with this tedious and unnatural statement. All just so that towards the end we can hear that she is now using a new lighter for a, presumably, more expensive brand of cigarette. Oh, the profound symbolism of it!
I'm not even going to start on the plot holes and the implausibility of the whole thing. The best way to characterise this book is, “Two days reading wasted.” Curse you, newspaper book reviewers!