An Anglo-Irish novel of manners with overtures of a buildungsroman and subtle, distilled poetry of place and time. A few of of my classmates remarked how it seemed like something written by Jane Austen- the praise is pretty high, and thematically well taken.
Some famous critic (Edward Said? Lionel Trilling? Somebody help me out here) remarked that the heroes and heroines in Austen's fiction are painstakingly indifferent to the world around them- it's all upper bourgeoise drawing rooms, garden parties, flirtations, and gossip as the world roars off somewhere in the distance, where the pillows and spices come from. Not a bad observation, if a little strident, and it might be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not an especially big believer that the novel must have a Pronounced Historical Vision, like to like and all that, but I don't think it's a detriment to try. Bowen skillfully and richly ensconces hers amid the stories of the somewhat airless, yet floatingly vapid world of the Naylors, Montmercys, soliders, intellectuals, and the women who are beginning to love them.
To be honest, it's a bit slow going, in a way even my very crude understanding of Austen never allows her to be. If we want to get political, let's get political, but I'd rather make a distinction between capital "P" politics (the world of statecraft, legislation, war, geography, public policy, taxation, parliament and democracy; Lincoln, Churchill, Bismarck, Napoleon, The economic Marx, J.M. Keynes, Pericles, Weltanstchung , what-you-will)and lower-case "p" politics (the polis , the demos , the social sphere, culture, art, social discourse, religion, philosophy, language, gender roles, race, class, sexuality, the way citizens sociologically interact with each other within the 'private' sphere, the media; Walter Winchell, the Sophists, The Marx of commodity fetishism and sociology, Freud, De Beauvoir, Zeitgeist , etc). This isn't to say that one doesn't necessarily profoundly influence the other- only a damn fool would suggest otherwise- but to emphasize the marked differentials, the dialectic, and just for the sake of sorting them out categorically.
(By the way, anybody reading this: if you know of any philosopher, social theorist, writer/critic, whoever, who has said or thought something like this, PLEASE DO recommend their work to me. This is all coming from my mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up old brain here- no authority or mastery of concept claimed or implied. I'd love to see if there's some thinker I could relate to on this, and help me flush out my understanding. Just thinking out loud here, about something which fascinates me...Please do suggest a textual relevance, of any kind, if indeed you're seeing one)
I'm sorry, but reading poetry in itself, by itself, doesn't change the direction of the country you live in (would that it could!) unless of course you're maybe a president who is so moved by Whitman or Neruda that you decide to change face on corn imports, labor jurisdiction or gay rights or whatever, or if you've organzied a body of people around the works of a poet or novelist (what would the Keatsitarian or Conradista party look like?)- which, of course, isn't totally crazy a concept if you even glance at the works and lives of (say) Tolstoy, Mishima, perhaps Pound, the Italian Futurists, just for a couple examples.
"Poetry makes nothing happen"- 100% true and 100% false. Bracingly true, in that no poem has stopped a war or built a castle on its own, i.e. done much Political work as such. Deeply false in that no one can deny what 'poetry', taken broadly to account for culture at large, can do when it galvanizes, mourns, informs, or idealizes. It can set the standard for a country or a flock of interested readers (putting aside the pesky imposition the subjective, selfsame, contrarian, persistently critical nudge inherent in everybody's cerebral cortex) and thus push the current of history one way or another, depending on who's got the most...uh, juice, if you know what I mean. (Not to say $, seats in gvt, weaponry, guns, germs, steel- don't feel like being precisely that grim today)
Poetry is all-powerful, but only within the contours of the world it creates. What its power (Emersonian "luster", the "shock of recognition", etc) can do is influence the way people think and live their lives, the values that they hold and the morality, the language they interpret (what is, that is not interpreted?)- their voices. And this spark becomes a glimmer which becomes a network of consciousness which lives as a slow burn in the collective. We are the richer for our culture, always, and in all varieties, precisely because it continues this discourse. Poetry is what is left over when the wars are done. As if they ever are.
Bowen's text belongs to the subgenre of work which keeps the 'Political' at bay, as perhaps an ambience or a stage-setting, or kept deliberately off stage entirely, and lets the 'Political' trickle into the seemingly placid, keeping-up-appearances, going-along-to-get-along, everyday signification politics of the wooden fishbowl drawing room of manners-
These might include- Austen herself (can't wait to get a real hold on her work!), Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier , maybe Ethan Frome , Flaubert's A Sentimental Education , the brilliant film Y Tu Mama Tambien , Chekov's major plays, Henry James....that crackling tension between characters whose interactions may easily appear innocuous or pointless and are actually perhaps more compellingly seen as negotiations within the body politik- 'I can speak this way to you, touch or not touch you, ask you to do this or that', and so on and so forth.
I guess this could be said for pretty much any narrative but I do think that the novel of manners genre might derive the overall power and reward and relevance out of just this kind of literary detective work.
All that blather aside, I've really only half read the thing and I hope to get it finished by next Thursday...against the clock, as all great reading experiences are conducted :\
***
Finished. As usual, I enjoyed the exquisite, excruciating dialogue between thwarted lovers in the denouement. Bowen gets points in my book for canniness when applied to the discreet charm of the petty bourgeoise, amounting an Anglo-Irish schadenfreunde, when we are subtly told that now that very romance is not only a social impossibility but an existential one as well. The final page or so is somewhat over-wrought with elaborate language and imagery, though I gotta say that the cremation of the symbol of stuffy, solipsistic well-heeled provincialism does give a lovely light.