21st Century Literature discussion

The second time María meets Javier they are in Madrid's Natural History Museum, where dead animals preserved in the attitudes of life stare out of their cases. Why is this unusual setting relevant to Javier's view that the grieving Luisa is holding on to "the image of Miguel," but that she will eventually assign him "a place in time, both him and his character frozen for ever"? Do you agree with Javier that "the only people who do not fail or let us down are those who are snatched from us"?

Javier -- Maria, but Javier, by extension -- tends to talk in absolutes: this how life is, this is always how things are. I'm not sure he (or she) believes that things are as black and white as that, but by doing so he paints a true picture of how we see things when we reflect in the way that the narrative does... we see a pattern and we see how it draws a handful, a dozen, a hundred individual examples together, makes a pattern where there was none, and we extrapolate that pattern. We say 'this holds true always' when in fact that insight in subject to all the nuance and subtlety and contradiction of life, and in fact it often holds true, or holds true only when there is not some counterbalancing factor, or some exceptional circumstance. We do this, and that makes it fine that Marias does this, because he is only showing us how we ourselves think, how in that moment the pattern, the resonance, is everything, and to hedge, to say, except this and apart from that, would destroy the power of the insight, of the pattern. And besides, the sweeping statement sounds so much grander, so much wiser.

This in mind, I don't agree, on reflection, that the only people who do not fail or let us down are those who are snatched from us. But I agree that it can seem that way, and I agree that it is a striking observation and one that makes us think, and one which, if we are encapsulated in it in a moment because we see a true example of it and it puts us in mind of a dozen other experiences that mirror it, then it is the kind of observation that seems definitely true, will always be true, is universal.

And to be fair, strength is lent to that perception because true exceptions are rare, but it depends on whether we mean that they ultimately let us down or fail, as an assessment of their entire effect on us, or whether we mean that they fail on an occasion, let us down in a moment. The latter, we can of course forgive without it meaning the former.

I enjoyed the second part because of the way that the tension mounts very slowly -- we are in a very different part of the story -- we are entirely inside his flat, almost, and inside their relationship, but echoes from the first part come to disturb us, and she gradually realises things that clue us in to the idea that, perhaps, his innocent friendship and support for the widow is not what it seems, and his friendship for the dead man neither.

A part I particularly loved was the idea of a chain of lovers, each waiting in the wings (p125):

'with a little bad luck and a few more lovers of the kind who allow themselves to be loved and neither reject nor reciprocate that love, the chain could have gone on for ever. A series of people lined up like dominoes, all waiting for the surrender of one entirely oblivious woman, to find out who would fall next to them.'

This, on the back of the ideas that 'we cannot pretend to be the first or the favourite, we are merely what is available...' on p122, are fascinating... 'we manage to believe in these chance fallings in love, and many think they can see the hand of destiny in what is really nothing more than a village raffle at the fag-end of summer...'

One night, some time after she and Javier have become lovers, María says, "I found myself wishing or, rather, fantasizing about the possibility that Luisa might die and thus leave the field open for me with Díaz-Varela, since she was doing nothing to occupy that field herself. I, for example, could launch an offensive against Luisa behind her back, one so oblique that she wouldn't be aware of it because she wouldn't even know that an enemy was stalking her."

The novel implies that all human beings are capable of fantasizing about the deaths of people who stand in their way. Is this true? Is it easy to understand or identify with these thoughts?

I don't find it easy to understand or sympathize with these thoughts. Fantasizing about someone else's death, just because they "stand in your way" strikes me as an appalling idea. I found it particularly strange for Maria to fantasize about Luisa's death, when Maria has had nothing but kind thoughts for Maria before that.

I don't get it either. But she's now a woman in love! Or do I mean obsessed and infatuated? I think like her less and less... Mind, being in love has been likened to a state of madness.

Once María becomes sexually involved with Javier, she is drawn more deeply into the intrigue surrounding Miguel's death. What does she find so appealing/provocative about Javier? She purports to know there can be no future in their relationship.

Sophia wrote: "One night, some time after she and Javier have become lovers, María says, "I found myself wishing or, rather, fantasizing about the possibility that Luisa might die and thus leave the field open fo..." Marías is quite aware of the human condition. I could and do relate with those uncomfortable thoughts like getting someone out of the way, fantasizing about a person's death to get what we want. We all think uncomfortable or even horrific thoughts, even if it's rare that we do, and Javier Marías is aware of this.
The psychological and philosophical narratives running through this book are spot on. Most of this book so far exists in Maria's mind or through dialogue. Marías uses action sparingly, and I think he's pulling it off so far.

For me, it rang true that people can end up wishing someone they love/d would die. It's repugnant, and perhaps not true for everyone but it has certainly been true in my own life. I was shocked when it happened & shocked to read my personal pain presented in so matter of fact a way in this book. But someone to whom you are so deeply connected that you cannot see a way of freeing yourself from can become at the same time a source of such tremendous pain that the wish that they disappear can become alluring. This thought serves the function, I think, of delaying a painful action, maybe what seems like an impossible action, and has nothing to do with taking any action. As I said, its purpose is to delay taking any action.

I find Marias amazing in his ability to look at our less attractive feelings/desires although perhaps not so good at considering our better ones.

Sophia wrote: "I don't get it either. But she's now a woman in love! Or do I mean obsessed and infatuated? I think like her less and less... Mind, being in love has been likened to a state of madness.

Once M..."

I'm not sure why she's so attracted to Javier. It seems Maria gets easily drawn to certain people. Is there enough background information about her to really know why she would be prone to infatuations? She works for a book publisher, and if I remember correctly, isn't loving her job. Likely she has an emptiness that she needs to fill by others and through others. She is very cerebral, as is this novel, thinking of every possibility and outcome, imagining what others are thinking and/or planning. Her mind is working nonstop to make sense of the world she's immersed in or wants to be immersed in.

Possibly she is attracted to Javier because of his intelligence, and his willingness to carry on intellectual conversations. For a bright, well-read woman, those qualities may be rare among the available pool of unattached men.

Ellie wrote: "I find Marias amazing in his ability to look at our less attractive feelings/desires although perhaps not so good at considering our better ones."

Absolutely. His insights into human nature are profound.

Do you think María is attracted to Javier because she likes enigmatic men? It strikes me that the men she meets during the course of her work are hardly that!

Do you think Marías introduced other characters (the men she works with) as mere red herrings? In which case they struck me as thinly-drawn caricatures.