Bright Young Things discussion

Hangover Square
This topic is about Hangover Square
21 views
Group Reads Archive > October 2013 - Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ally (new)

Ally (goodreadscomuser_allhug) | 1653 comments Mod
Welcome to the October fiction group read of...

Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton Hangover Square by Patrick Hamilton

Enjoy!


message 2: by Nigeyb (last edited Nov 03, 2013 09:37AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nigeyb Here's a few thoughts on Hangover Square - our October 2013 BYT fiction choice.



*This posting contains spoilers*

"Hangover Square" was written and published at the peak of Patrick Hamilton's fame which at the time was considerable. Like all Patrick Hamilton's novels, the story is in part inspired by incidents from Patrick Hamilton's life. Like the protagonist and narrator George Harvey Bone, Hamilton's life was becoming saturated in alcohol; and like Bone he too was obsessed by an unattainable woman, in Hamilton's case she was actress Geraldine Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is the inspiration for Netta, and in a sense this book could be Hamilton's revenge on her given the unflattering portrait ("She was completely, indeed sinisterly devoid of all those qualities which her face and body externally proclaimed her to have - pensiveness, grace, warmth, agility, beauty ... Her thoughts resembled those of a fish..").

Where the book really succeeded for me was in its evocation of London as war looms. The book was written under the shadow of the seemingly unstoppable advance of Germany and Nazism. The novel searches for a human metaphor to express the sickness that Patrick Hamilton perceived in this period. As a Marxist he identified the petty bourgeoisie from which Netta and Peter had sprung as the enemy. Peter, and the stranger who comes down to Brighton with Netta and Peter, are both fascists. The spectre of the forthcoming war, and discussions of fascism, and nods towards contemporary cinema (e.g going to the cinema to see a Tarzan film with Johnny Weismuller and Maureen O'Sullivan on the day Germany invade Poland) all added to the book's magic, the book being full of such wonderful period detail.

I really enjoy good quality London fiction and continue to mine this rich literary seam. I think Hangover Square is right up there with the best London fiction. As the back of my edition accurately states "you can almost smell the gin". By the end of the book I felt I'd been in and out of a succession of smoky, shabby Earls Court boozers with George and his unsavoury companions. Netta, the book's femme fatale, is a wonderful fictional creation - beguiling but also totally self-serving.

The perspectives from various different characters also enriched my reading experience. Even a very minor character such as the young man Bone meets towards the end gives an illuminating and detached perspective of George and his companions.

I think it's also a very moving book. The reader quickly understands that George has to forget Netta and move on. George knows it too and yet he just can't escape her. A true lost soul. I felt almost as happy as George after his successful round of golf in Brighton that gaves him a glimpse of how life could be away from Netta and her boozy coterie.

It ends in the only way it could. All said, I think it's a masterpiece and Patrick Hamilton's finest book.

I really look forward to hearing what my fellow BYT'ers make of Hangover Square.


message 3: by Nigeyb (last edited Sep 30, 2013 05:06AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nigeyb

*Contains more Hangover Square spoilers*

This is an interesting article that focuses on the character of Peter and his fascist politics. Writer Simon Goulding states that Hangover Square can be read as a requiem for the 1930s. The deaths of Bone, Netta and Peter are the necessary apocalypse to conclude a decade in which much was hoped for and little was achieved.

It is the last of Patrick Hamilton’s novels with a wholly pessimistic ending; his remaining novels would attempt to find some positive summation for the lives of those involved in their narrative.

Whilst writing Hangover Square, Patrick Hamilton witnessed the fall of France, the Battle of Britain and the start of the Blitz. It is a novel written during one of the bleakest periods of British history.

There is a streak of dark humour in the novel’s climax, when Bone at last murders Netta and Peter. John Branston, in an article for the Morning Star, noted that: “the drunken double killer who, hell bent on revenge, is not too drunk to be too clever for the man and woman he plans to annihilate” is also killing a pair of Fascists. As he puts an end to the lives of Netta and Peter, the radio is broadcasting Chamberlain’s declaration of war. The juxtaposition invites readers to question whether, in killing these two fascists, Bone is really mad? Is the murder of Peter and Netta justified because of their political inclinations, and the way that they have treated Bone throughout the text? Or is the act of killing in any form morally wrong? Do readers at this point lose sympathy for Bone, or are they too involved in the consciousness of this now tragic figure to be able to disassociate themselves from him?

Writing in 1941, from the perspective of two years of war, Patrick Hamilton wanted readers to assess their own feelings, and to bring reason, as well as empathy, into their responses. They might sympathise with Bone and his individual act, but they might also see him as a selfish figure, killing to satisfy some private instinct when the community would have been well served by the elimination of an ideology that was destroying Europe.

There’s lot more interesting ideas and information in the article. What do you make of it?

Here’s a few more discussion questions inspired by the article:

To what extent do you regard Hangover Square as a thriller?

What do you make of the "click" in George Harvey Bone's head as a literary device?

To what extent did did you believe that Netta was always going to die?  How did you feel about this?

What is the significance of Earls Court as a location for much of the novel (given its lack of any identifying aspects)?

To what extent does the blankness of the Earls Court streets reflect the void of the character’s lives?

Is getting drunk a way of coping with Earls Court?

Or does Earls Court simply attract damaged characters such as Netta, Peter and George?


Nigeyb To what extent do you regard Hangover Square as a thriller?

Hangover Square is a tense read. It is also a crime novel in so far as there's the impending prospect of a crime at the novel's heart. That's what makes the novel tense, that and the way Hamilton made me empathise with George Harvey Bone. Despite being an unemployed drunkard who lives off his savings, and the money of his Aunt, he has known misfortune having lost his sister in an accident, and most of the people who cared about him have disappeared from his life. He's slipping through the cracks, to use a modern phrase.

Hamilton had me feeling very sorry for George and his desperate situation. I suspect most readers root for George. We want him to walk away. We want him to forget about Netta and leave her and Peter to their own fate - which is likely to be pretty hellish anyway. To help promote the idea of salvation in the reader's mind, Hamilton uses Johnnie Littlejohn - George's childhood friend.

Johnnie Littlejohn is a kind man who, like the reader, wants to help George. I'd say Johnnie is also the conscience of the book and the antithesis of Netta. Unlike the fascistic Netta and Peter, Johnnie embodies kindness, hope and decency - and offers an escape route for George. But will George take that escape route? The very real possibility of salvation makes this book even more of a thriller. The possibility of salvation accompanying the sense of impending doom. Which road will George take?

The reader is given glimpses of how life could be for George, for example the simple pleasure of a round of golf in Brighton when George is outside, and away from pubs and alcohol, and his unsavoury companions. Or the party after the theatre visit in Brighton when George mingles with the theatrical great and good, Netta having been cast aside by Eddie who sees straight through her. Another moment when George glimpses an alternative life, one where people accept him for who he is and not what he can provide.

Despite these glimpses of an alternative happy and fulfilled life, George's "dead moods" get progressively more intense (and presumably the "dead moods" are a form schizophrenia). George's plot to murder Netta feel justified given her conduct and treatment of George. This is another way the book is so clever and powerful, Hamilton implicates the reader in George's murderous desires. Netta and Peter deserve what's coming to them. This subverts the thriller genre which normally requires the reader to side with the victim.

So, yes it's a thriller, but a very unusual, nuanced and clever thriller.

What do you think?


message 5: by Val (new) - rated it 5 stars

Val To what extent do you regard Hangover Square as a thriller?
I think Hamilton uses some of the structure of a thriller: a potential murderer as protagonist, dramatic tension wondering when, how and if he will do it, whether he will get away with it, etc. The main focus of the story is on what is going on in George's head, rather than the thriller storyline itself.

What do you make of the "click" in George Harvey Bone's head as a literary device?
It works in the context of the book, although it probably is not an accurate representation of schizophrenia. George thinks and feels differently in his 'dead' periods, although he is in fact more logical, lucid and capable of planning than in his 'normal' periods. He uses 'dead' to describe them, but in some ways he is more alive and more confident, although is emotions are deadened perhaps. It is then he thinks of murder, of others being dead.

To what extent did did you believe that Netta was always going to die? How did you feel about this?
I thought that George might actually kill her quite early, but only thought it inevitable once he failed to break away from her when he had the chance. I felt rather more sorry for George than I did for Netta, she is a most unattractive woman, apart from her looks.

What is the significance of Earls Court as a location for much of the novel (given its lack of any identifying aspects)?
Even in the late '70s, when I lived in London, it was a dreary area, with transient residents, boarded-up, run-down buildings or cheap bedsits, rats, feral cats, dodgy landlords and the like. I could recognise Hamilton's Earls Court.

To what extent does the blankness of the Earls Court streets reflect the void of the character’s lives?
Their lives are dreary and transient, so the location fits. Hamilton is very good at both location and characters, and at matching the two, so I think it would have worked wherever in London he decided to set the book.

Is getting drunk a way of coping with Earls Court?
It is a way of surviving a dreary life, I suppose, but the characters don't really enjoy drinking, the social camaraderie of the pub culture present in Twenty Thousand Streets Under The Sky is missing in Hangover Square.

Or does Earls Court simply attract damaged characters such as Netta, Peter and George?
None of them have much money and what they do have is to buy drink and 'smokes', so it the cheapness of Earls Court which attracts them. They would prefer to live somewhere else, but get stuck in dreary Earls Court, dreary lives and dreary pubs.

(copied from the Patrick Hamilton Appreciation Society discussion.)


Nigeyb Wonderful stuff Val.

Thanks so much for your responses - both here and at TPHAS. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts - which chime with my own. I'll write a more fulsome response next week but for now I just wanted to say "Thanks Val". I'm also very curious to know how you rate it once you've finished it - and, if you can be bothered, how you would compare and contrast it with The Slaves of Solitude?


Nigeyb To what extent do you regard Hangover Square as a thriller?

Val wrote: "I think Hamilton uses some of the structure of a thriller: a potential murderer as protagonist, dramatic tension wondering when, how and if he will do it, whether he will get away with it, etc. The main focus of the story is on what is going on in George's head, rather than the thriller storyline itself."

I think that's a good summary. Do thrillers always have to have evil or bad characters? I'm no expert on the genre. If so, then I think we have to recognise the monstrous characters Patrick Hamilton created in Hangover Square. Even a completely sane person might struggle to suppress their murderous impulses in the company of the dreadful Netta and her Blackshirt consort, particularly after the Brighton debacle George thinks he is going to enjoy a romantic visit however Netta shows up drunk with Peter and the other man they've picked up, "a nasty-looking piece of work short". The get progressively more drunk, Peter affirming his admiration for Chamberlain and Hitler, before Netta sleeps with the unnamed thug within earshot of George's bedroom. The next morning all three have been ejected from the hotel leaving him with the bill.

More thoughts to follow. Thanks again Val. A wonderful set of responses.

Val wrote: "(copied from the Patrick Hamilton Appreciation Society discussion.) "

Yes, there's a Patrick Hamilton Appreciation Society here on GoodReads where any BYT'ers who want to read and discuss the work of Patrick Hamilton are most welcome.

Val wrote: "Hangover Square will be another five stars."

Hurrah.

Val wrote: "I think Hangover Square is the more accomplished book, but I actually enjoyed The Slaves of Solitude more, because of the dark humour. I will get around to reviewing it some time. "

I agree that The Slaves of Solitude is the more enjoyable book. Both are wonderful. I have a slight preference for Hangover Square


message 8: by Nigeyb (last edited Oct 09, 2013 03:42AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nigeyb

What is the significance of Earls Court as a location for much of the novel (given its lack of any identifying aspects)?

Val wrote: "Even in the late '70s, when I lived in London, it was a dreary area, with transient residents, boarded-up, run-down buildings or cheap bedsits, rats, feral cats, dodgy landlords and the like. I could recognise Hamilton's Earls Court."

That's even worse than my own more hazy recollections. I've only been there a few times and not for some time. There really is no reason to visit unless you're going to, say, The Ideal Home Exhibition, or similar. I did once see David Bowie play there - in 1979 or 1980.

Hangover Square is also, of course, subtitled "A Tale of Darkest Earls Court". After mulling over this question, I've concluded that the choice of Earls Court is highly significant - especially given Val's description above.

Why would anyone choose to live there or visit? It's a place to avoid. It's a place to escape from.

That George, Netta and Peter continue to live there signals to the reader the extent to which they have given up on life. They are drained of all ambition, save that of the distraction of the next opening time.

On the few occasions that George escapes from Earls Court, and all its unsavoury ingredients (to the peace of Brighton, or to the West End) he is incapable of staying away. It's as if Earls Court and Netta are a magnet that pulls him back, and then, once back, it's straight back to the familiar drunken haze. That said, Netta seems to dislike her relative poverty and seeks an easy escape route via Eddie Carstairs.

I have also realised that Earls Court has a dreadful association for Patrick Hamilton. It was in Logan Place, off Earls Court Road, in early 1932, that Patrick Hamilton was struck by a car driven by a drunk driver. The accident left Patrick Hamilton severely disfigured, and precipitated his descent into the alcoholism which he would so memorably depict in Hangover Square.

I have also read that he wrote Hangover Square in Earls Court, indeed in the exact spot George Harvey Bone stands and stares at the windows of Netta's rooms.

And Peter, the loathsome fascist, and Netta's beau, also connects both the potential evils of motorcars, and yet another reference to Earls Court.

Peter has a jail record, from Hangover Square:
"I have been in jail twice, to be precise," said Peter, lighting another cigarette, and suddenly employing a large, pompous professorial tone. "On one occasion for socking a certain left-winger a precise and well deserved sock in the middle of his solar plexus, and on the other for a minor spot of homicide with a motor-car…"

So we know Peter is, or was, a member of the British Union of Fascists (aka the BUF - the fascist organisation founded by Sir Oswald Mosley in 1932). The BUF held two major political rallies: one in 1934 at Olympia and the other, in July 1939, at the Earls Court Arena. At the Earls Court event the BUF used spotlights to identify anti-fascists who would be beaten up in the arena, or taken outside and beaten. Peter perfectly fits the model of the British fascist with his acceptance of violence. He is also used by Patrick Hamilton to, in passing, reiterate his concerns about the dangers of motorcars (and perhaps specifically his own accident in Earls Court).

Returning to Earls Court more generally, it is about a ten minute walk from George's Earls Court hotel to Netta's flat. Perhaps the area's relative intimacy is also a factor in Patrick Hamilton choosing to locate the novel in this part of London. The blankness of the Earls Court streets is also reflected in the blankness of the novel's characters. Getting drunk seems to be a way of coping with Earls Court but it may also be that damaged characters are attracted to the area too.

What do you think?


Susan | 774 comments Please excuse my poor typing skills at the moment. I preferred Slaves of Solitude to this. I think I found the characters unlikable and hard to care about. Good evocative sense of place as always.


message 10: by Nigeyb (last edited Oct 10, 2013 01:59AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Nigeyb Susan wrote: "Please excuse my poor typing skills at the moment."

Excused! I hope you're feeling better Susan and recovering well.

Susan wrote: "I preferred Slaves of Solitude to this."

The Slaves of Solitude is definitely an easier book to love. The darkness being leavened by humour, along with some more likeable characters. Talking of which...

Susan wrote: "I think I found the characters unlikable. "

I've noticed a few readers who react the same way. I can understand it too. They are an unsavoury bunch - at least the leads. There are some more sympathetic characters on the periphery of the story.

I notice you rated it 4 stars - so assume you still feel quite positive towards it.

Susan wrote: "Good evocative sense of place as always. "

Absolutely. This is where it really works for me. Both the evocation of the pubs, and the evocation of the immediate pre-war era. I just typed this elsewhere, so I'll do a cheeky copy and paste as it's relevant here too...

The book was written, with war looming, and under the shadow of the seemingly unstoppable advance of Germany and Nazism. For me, this is part of what makes the book so successful (in much the same way as The Slaves of Solitude evokes the World War II years - the war at the Rosamund Tea Rooms mirroring the broader global conflict).

Patrick Hamilton searches for a human metaphor to express the sickness he perceived during this period. As a Marxist he identified the petty bourgeoisie from which Netta and Peter had sprung as the enemy. It's easy for modern readers not to fully understand, at least up until Germany invaded Poland, that some people were openly supportive of the Nazis, and more broadly plenty of people who supported appeasement. Expressing it as "a sickness" is quite apt. It's not necessarily obvious from the early symptoms how serious the sickness will become.


Susan | 774 comments I think even after war was declared most of the British aristocracy were pro German. Not until the blitz, when personally attacked did they realise it was a war they had to fight.

Netta was horrible and George unsympathetic. A feeling of hopelessness pervaded the whole book. The most tragic part, for me, was when he met Netta off the train and she arrived drunk, with two other men! I would have killed her then and there.


Nigeyb Susan wrote: "I think even after war was declared most of the British aristocracy were pro German. Not until the blitz, when personally attacked did they realise it was a war they had to fight."

Yes, this point comes out quite strongly in the first 100 pages of Decca: The Letters of Jessica Mitford.

Jessica, whilst still affectionate towards her mother and family, is clearly very conflicted about Unity and Diana's support of fascism. A couple of points that I hadn't realised: Jessica's mother's support of fascism is what led to her parents splitting up (Lord and Lady Redesdale) (he had woken up to the dangers, she was still supportive), and that Diana and Oswald Moseley were both released from prison during the war. Jessica wrote to Churchill to complain. There was also a massive public outcry about their early release - they were still interned but essentially placed under house arrest for health reasons. Jessica ultimately never forgave Diana's treachery.

As a complete aside, when Jessica was living in America during the war, the FBI had her under investigation because of her family's fascist leanings *and* her own Communist beliefs. Jessica was a member of the American Communist Party during the 40s and 50s. What a brave and courageous woman.

Susan wrote: "Netta was horrible and George unsympathetic. A feeling of hopelessness pervaded the whole book. The most tragic part, for me, was when he met Netta off the train and she arrived drunk, with two other men! I would have killed her then and there. "

That was particularly heartbreaking. George was thwarted and humiliated at virtually every turn.


Nigeyb Returning to some more of Val's excellent responses.....

Is getting drunk a way of coping with Earls Court?

Val wrote: "It is a way of surviving a dreary life, I suppose"

I agree. Indeed I think it's probably a step beyond survival. George Harvey Bone's drinking is a sign of the extent to which he has given up on life. As Val states...

Val wrote: "...the characters don't really enjoy drinking, the social camaraderie of the pub culture present in Twenty Thousand Streets Under The Sky is missing in Hangover Square."

Yes, it is just what they do. It's better than, in George's case, spending all day in his hotel, or for Netta it's an escape from her bedsit.

By the by, here are a couple of photos that I took in May 2012, that show a recreation of Netta's bedsit, after the climactic crime scene by artist, as imagined by Anna Deamer, and to mark the 50th anniversary of Patrick Hamilton's death....




Or does Earls Court simply attract damaged characters such as Netta, Peter and George?

Val wrote: "None of them have much money and what they do have is to buy drink and 'smokes', so it the cheapness of Earls Court which attracts them. They would prefer to live somewhere else, but get stuck in dreary Earls Court, dreary lives and dreary pubs."

As I state above, I am not sure that they would prefer to live somewhere else. That George, Netta and Peter continue to live there signals to the reader the extent to which they have given up on life. They are drained of all ambition, save that of the distraction of the next opening time.

That said, Netta seems to dislike her relative poverty and seeks an easy escape route via Eddie Carstairs, using George as a way of trying to further this ambition.

Changing tack, here's some more photos. This time of George Harvey Bone's Brighton hotel room, as imagined by Anna Deamer, and where George so memorably heard Netta and her companion through the walls...







Nigeyb By the way, in this photo...




...the woman on the front of Film Weekly magazine is actress Geraldine Fitzgerald. Hamilton became obsessed by her - stalked her basically - telephoning and hanging around outside her flat. Her unattainably was mirrored in Bone's relationship with Netta. Geraldine Fitzgerald was the basis for Netta, and in a sense this book could be Hamilton's revenge on her given the unflattering portrait.


message 15: by Jan C (new)

Jan C (woeisme) | 1526 comments Nigeyb wrote: "By the way, in this photo...




...the woman on the front of Film Weekly magazine is actress Geraldine Fitzgerald. Hamilton became obsessed by her - stalked her basically - telephoning and hangin..."


I was about to ask if that wasn't Geraldine Fitzpatrick on the cover.


Nigeyb Jan C wrote: "I was about to ask if that wasn't Geraldine Fitzpatrick on the cover."

Wow, that's impressive Jan. I'm not sure I've ever seen any of her work. What would you recommend?


message 17: by Jan C (new)

Jan C (woeisme) | 1526 comments The ones that come immediately to mind are Dark Victory and Three Strangers. I see by imdb that she was also in Wuthering Heights and Arthur.

I particularly recall an episode of Golden Girls that she was in. She suddenly could no longer take care of herself and wanted the girls' help in suicide. It turns out that she died of complications of Alzheimers.

Dark Victory - she is Bette Davis' friend.

3 Strangers - she is caught up in intrigue with Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre.


Nigeyb Great. Thanks.


message 19: by Amy (new) - rated it 4 stars

Amy | 38 comments Hello, Sorry I am late to the party I see there has been a great discussion.

Just to add a few thoughts: I enjoyed the symbolism through-out the book, such as the 'clicks'. I found this a very effective device and have thought a lot about different interpretations of what this might be. Perhaps not only a separation of the personalities but also the crack of guns as both George and Europe marches towards war? I feel like there was an inevitable ending to both the political situation as well as George's mental health and actions. Unlike 'of human bondage' where I thought Philip should have the sense to be rid of Mildred, I knew that George's ending would probably become tragic. So having said that, I totally think Netta and Peter's ending was justified! What a bunch of inconsiderate bullies!

The contrast at the end with Johnnie, Eddie Carstairs et al being nice and welcoming to Bone and the following fate of Netta and Peter was a reprieve I was certainly glad to read (and yell Huzzah!). Was there maybe more that could be read into this as we consider what was happening globally with the powers of 'good and evil' lining up against each other?

I found this a very nice contrast to the Jean Rhys I've been reading and the crappy lives her women characters lead. Seeing poor Bone tortured and how wretched both sexes can be to each other was a nice portrait to round out the picture, for me. Kind of a 'the shoe is on the other foot' moment.

I just am not sure what to think of the thread Bone runs all across the room after doing in Netta and Peter. Has this been discussed already? I haven't looked into the Patrick Hamilton discussion group yet.

By the way, thanks for posting the pictures Nigey. It really brings it to life seeing it re-created.


Nigeyb Amy wrote: "I see there has been a great discussion. "

Thanks Amy.

Amy wrote: "the 'clicks'…not only a separation of the personalities but also the crack of guns as both George and Europe marches towards war?"

Very interesting interpretation Amy. I'd not considered that.

Amy wrote: "Netta and Peter's ending was justified! What a bunch of inconsiderate bullies!"

Absolutely

Amy wrote: "The contrast at the end with Johnnie, Eddie Carstairs et al being nice and welcoming to Bone and the following fate of Netta and Peter was a reprieve I was certainly glad to read (and yell Huzzah!). Was there maybe more that could be read into this as we consider what was happening globally with the powers of 'good and evil' lining up against each other?"

Maybe. Certainly Hamilton would have perceived Fascism as evil, and therefore anyone who opposed it would have been not evil.

Amy wrote: "I just am not sure what to think of the thread Bone runs all across the room after doing in Netta and Peter. Has this been discussed already? I haven't looked into the Patrick Hamilton discussion group yet."

George is making a net with the thread. Just after he finishes the text reads…

The net, Netta. Netta - the net - all complete and fitting in at last.

The significance of that however I am not quite sure.

Amy wrote: "thanks for posting the pictures Nigey. It really brings it to life seeing it re-created. "

My pleasure. Thank you for your interesting thoughts and ideas.


back to top