A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA LITTER A R IA 36, 1994
A dam Sumera
M U R IE L S P A R K ’S T W O E A R L IE S T N O V E L S
M uriel S park cam e to w riting novels after having established herself as a critic and a poet. Especially the latter should be stressed here. H er first effort a t fiction, The Seraph and the Z am besi, which w on “T he O bserver” c o m p etitio n in 1951, rem ained the only one fo r several years. In an interview , she explained her reluctance: “ I had resisted the novel because I th o u g h t it was a lazy way o f w riting poetry. F o r me, poetry was literature T hen the publisher A lan M aclean o f M acm illan, w ho was looking for new w riters, suggested to her w riting a novel. In the end, she agreed and w rote The Comforters. H ow ever, she b ro ug ht m uch o f her distrust against the novel w riting into the texture o f this book: “ [...] before I could even w rite the novel, I had to w rite a novel a b o u t som ebody w riting the novel, to see if it was aesthetically valid, and if I could d o it and live w ith m yself - w riting such a low thing as a novel” 2.
A t the tim e o f its publication in 1957 The C om forters was a n interesting a tte m p t to refresh the tradition al w ay o f w riting a novel. T here are tw o m ain plots in this book. O ne deals w ith the activities o f L ouisa Jep p, the venerable seventy-eight-year old g ran dm oth er w ho is the head o f a gang sm uggling d iam ond s from a bro ad , and the efforts o f her grandson , L aurence M an d ers, to disclose her secrets. T his could alm ost form a them e fo r one o f G ra h am G reene’s “ en tertain m e nts” . H ow ever, the story is full o f intricate an d entan gled connections betw een the characters. M rs H ogg, w ho used to be L aurence’s nursery-governess, tu rn s u p as the person in charge o f St P hilum ena’s, the convent where L aurence’s fiancée, C aroline R ose, has gone to; w hat is m ore, she is the wife o f M ervyn H o g arth , one o f L ouisa
1 I. G i l l h a m , Keeping it short, “The Listener”, 24 September 1970, p. 412. 2 Ibid.
J e p p ’s accom plices. M ervyn’s bigam ous wife, E leanor, is the m istress o f the B aron, the sm ugglers’ L o nd on connection. She is also the business partn er o f L aurence’s uncle, E rnest. Evelyn W augh states th at “ It is all rath er ab surd and, I presum e, is m ea n t to be a b su rd ” 3.
M uch m ore im p o rtan t seems to be the other plot, dealing with C a ro -line R ose and her aw areness o f being w ritten into a novel. A fter com ing back from St P hilum ena’s, where she tried in vain to find som e rest, C aroline is lying on the divan in her room and suddenly she hears the sound o f a typew riter and a voice o r ra th er several voices - “ a recitative, a chanting in unison” 4 - com m enting on her ow n thoughts. It docs n o t tak e m uch o bservation on the p a rt o f the reader to see th a t w h at the voices say is one o f the sentences of n arra tio n from th e previous p a r a -graph.
She tries to find the source o f the voices, m oving all pieces o f furn itu re in her ro om , bu t w ithout any result. C oncerned ab o u t her sanity, C aroline goes to see F a th e r Jerom e, a Benedictine who has been her religious in stru ctor fo r a long time. W hen talking with him, she happens to find the solution:
‘But the typewriter and the voices - it is as if a writer on another plane of existence was writing a story about us.’ As soon as she had said these words, Caroline knew that she had hit on the truth (63).
A t th a t stage, the re ader m u st become concerned w hether the tradition al conventions o f fiction are being preserved in this novel. H ow ever, after ju st a few pages M uriel S park decides th a t this hint m ight n o t be enough and proceeds w ith the following statem ent:
A t this point in the narrative, it m ight be as well to state that the characters in this novel are fictitious, and do not refer to any living persons w hatsoever (69).
Sentences suggesting the fictional n atu re of w hat is presented to the read er are scattered th ro u g ho u t the narrative. W hen C aroline has to stay in hospital after her accident and thus does n o t take p a rt in the action, the n a rr a to r rem arks: “ It is n o t so easy to dispense w ith C arolin e R ose” (137). T h e description o f L aurence’s visit to C aro line’s flat in order to collect som e b ooks for her is introduced by the follow ing sentence: “ A few weeks later the c harac ter called L aurence M an ders was snooping arou nd in C aroline R ose’s flat” (202). Even m ore revealing is the passage in which C aroline com m ents on a fragm ent o f the n arratio n, an d the n a rra to r com m ents on h er com m ent:
3 E. W a u g h , Something Fresh, ‘T h e Spectator” , 22 February 1957, p. 256.
4 M. S p a r k , The Comforters, Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth 1963, p. 43. Subsequent references to this book will be made in the text.
[...] 'As God m ade m e,' she m ay have thought in justification, and in her newfound release. ‘Bad taste’, Caroline commented. ‘Revolting taste.’ She had, in fact, ‘picked up ’ a good deal o f the preceding passage, all about M rs Hogg and the breasts.
‘Bad taste’ - typical comm ent of C aroline Rose. W asn’t it she in the first place who had noticed with revulsion the transparent blouse of M rs Hogg, th at time at St Philum ena’s? It was Caroline herself who introduced into the story the question of Mrs Hogg’s bosom (139).
M rs H ogg herself is a peculiar creation. W hen she is not needed in the narrativ e she vanishes:
[...] as soon as M rs H ogg stepped into he room she disappeared, she simply disappeared. She had no private life whatsoever. G od knows where she went in her privacy (156).
T his happens m ost strikingly when H elena and the B aron tak e h er for a picnic in H e le na’s car. She sits in the back and soon falls asleep. H elena an d W illi can hear her snoring. T hen she stops snoring. A nd w hen H elena tu rn s back looking for m atches she can no t see her. She tells the B aron ab o u t it, they tu rn aro u nd and M rs H ogg suddenly app ears before their eyes as if after a black -out at the cinem a. Sim ilar to th a t is her ap earance at C aroline’s:
One morning C aroline had an unexpected caller. She had opened the d oo r of her flat unguardedly, expecting the parcel post. F o r a second Caroline got the impression th at nobody was there, but then immediately she saw the w om an standing heavily in the doorw ay and recognized the indecent smile of M rs H ogg just as she had last seen it at St Philum ena’s (181).
H e r nam e itself “ underm ines the tendency o f realistic fiction to assign ap paren tly ‘a rb itra ry ’ non-descriptive nam es to ch aracte rs” 5. T he figurative m eanin g o f the w ord „ h o g ” is explained by a d ictionary as “ greedy, dirty, selfish p erso n” 6. A nd this, together w ith her fleshiness, also im plied by M rs H o g g ’s nam e, characterizes her perfectly. T he m ethod o f using telling nam es will rea pp ea r in M uriel S park ’s novels several times, m ost no tab ly in The P rime o f M iss Jean Brodie.
C aroline is w orking on a bo ok entitled Form in the M odern N ovel and, significantly, has troub les with the c hap ter on realism . W hen she realizes th a t she is being w ritten into a novel she tries to use her skills o f a literary critic to analyze her own and L aurence’s situation:
‘From my point o f view it’s clear th at you are getting these ideas into your head through the influence o f a novelist who is contriving some phoney plot. I can see clearly tha t your mind is w orking under the pressure o f someone else’s necessity, and under the suggestive pow er of some irresponsible writer you are allowing yourself to become an am ateur sleuth in a cheap mystery piece.’
5 P. W a u g h , M etafiction, M ethuen, L ondon-N ew Y ork 1985, p. 55.
6 A. S. H o r n b y , O xford Advanced Learner's Dictionary o f Current English, Oxford U niversity Press, O xford 1977.
‘H ow do you know the plot is phoney?’ he said, which was rather sweet of him. ‘I haven’t been studying novels for three years without knowing some of the technical tricks. In this case it seems to me there’s an attem pt being m ade to organize our lives into a convenient slick plo t’ (103-104).
She uses her professional know ledge to look at the events a ro u nd them and th eir sequence as if they were elem ents o f a plot. W hen m o st o f the problem s o f the people she know s have found their solutions she is able to predict th a t “ the b o o k ” is nearing the end.
A fter all this experience she finishes her boo k on the novel and decides to w rite a novel herself. It is to be ab o ut “ characters in a novel” (202); from th e notes L aurence finds in her flat it turns out th a t she is w riting a novel ab o u t all the characters app earing in The Comforters. L aurence is now aw are o f being a cha racte r in her book and he w rites a letter protesting against it:
I will tell you w hat I think o f your notes: (1) Y ou misrepresent all of us.
(2) O bviously you are the martyr-figure. ‘M artyrdom by misunderstanding.’ But actually you yourself understand nobody, for instance the Baron, my father, myself, we are m artyred by your misunderstanding.
(3) I love you. I think you are hopelessly selfish.
(4) I dislike being a character in your novel. H ow is it all going to end? (203).
H ow ever, he c an n ot help it: in the end, he destroys the letter before sending it to C aroline and scatters the small pieces o f it into the wind but “ he did n o t then foresee his later w onder, with a curious rejoicing, how the letter h ad got into the b o o k ” (204).
W h en Edw in suggests to C aroline: “ M ak e it a straight old-fashioned story, no m o de rn m ystifications. End with the death o f the villain and the m arriag e o f the heroine,” she answers, “ Yes, it w ould end th a t w ay” (202). A s it is exactly the w ay in which The Com forters ends - w ith M rs H og g’s d ea th and L ouisa Jep p ’s m arriage - it can be assum ed th a t she is going to w rite a b o ok very sim ilar to The C om forters o r - althou gh this would be rath er inconsistent w ith some fragm ents o f the text7 - The C omforters itself.
Still, there is m ore to it th an just a play with realism and fiction. C aroline is opposed to being involved in the m ysterious w riter’s plot for religious reasons:
‘I refuse to have my thoughts and actions controlled by some unknow n, possibly sinister being. I intend to subject him to reason. I happen to be a C hristian’ (105).
A nd she continues:
‘I won’t be involved in this fictional plot if I can help it. In fact, I’d like to spoil it. If I had my way I ’d hold up the action of the novel. I t ’s a d u ty ’ (105).
7 Cf. e.g. the fragm ent quoted above in which the narrator is definitely outside Caroline’s mind (’’She had, in fact, ‘picked up’ a good deal of the preceding passage [...]”).
C arolin e holds a p osition th a t will be M uriel S p ark ’s ow n in m any o f her novels. N o m a n is allow ed to usurp the right o f G o d and to m an ipu late lives o f o th e r people (we should n o t be misled by the fact th a t C aro line is ju s t a ch arac ter in a boo k - for her, her own life is real8.
T h is m o tif is also developed in the person o f M rs H ogg. She is m orally guilty o f trying to influence o th er peop le’s lives by bullying them and by blackm ail. H e r d eath in the m u dd y w aters o f the river can be tre ate d as a sym bolic act o f justice.
R eligion is a n im p o rtan t them e in this, as in several o th e r o f M rs S p a rk ’s books. T h e religious ch a racter o f The C om forters is already revealed in its title. It is an allusion to the B ook o f Jo b, the p a rt o f the Bible th a t seems to be o f great im p ortance to M uriel S park and w hich w as to form the basis o f one o f her latest novels, The O nly Problem. In the B ook o f Jo b, J o b ’s com fo rters’ attem p ts to com fort him arc in vain because they c an n o t u nd erstand him; closed in their solipsistic w orld, they are n o t able to see his problem s from his po int o f view. Sim ilarly, C arolin e has to face h er trial alone. T h e B aron supposes th at she is m ad; L aurence w an ts to record the voices using a tap e-recorder. T hey ca nn o t accept the possibility w hich she expresses: “T his sound m ight have a n o th er sort o f existence and still be real” (64). It is only on h er own th a t she m anag es to cope w ith her problem and to solve it succesfully9.
T h e a ttitu d e to C atholicism tak en by M rs S p ark ’s C atho lic characters, however, is not, as one would expect in the writings o f a convert, unequivocally positive. F o r C aroline, w ho seems to be closest to th e a u th o r ’s p o in t o f view in this respect, it is an ordeal:
Caroline thought, ‘The demands o f the C hristian religion are exorbitant, they are outrageous. C hristians who d o n ’t realize that from the start are not faithful. They are dishonest; their teachers are talking in their sleep. “ Love one another [...] brethren, beloved [...] your brother, neighbours, love, love, love” - do they know w hat they are saying?’ (39).
Still, she is convinced th a t there is n o alternative to her faith: “ E rnest alw ays agreed w ith C aroline th at the T rue C hu rch was awful, th ou g h u nfo rtu na tely , one co u ldn ’t deny,, tru e ” (81). T his “ u nc om fortab le allegiance to th e R o m an C ath olic fa ith ” 10 goes together w ith critical and often ironical
* A fter the accident, her leg has caused Caroline a lot of pain, and it is when the B aron visits her in hospital that she tells him: “this physical pain convinces me th a t I’m not wholly a fictional character. I have independent life” (160).
9 O ne is also reminded of other com forters, those of Silas M am er’s, w ho, full o f good intentions as they were, could not grasp his situation and thus were not able really to help him. Cf. G . E l i o t , Silas Marner, Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth 1984, pp. 130-140.
10 R. W h i t t a k e r , The Faith and Fiction o f M uriel Spark, M acm illan, London-B asingstoke 1982, p. 27.
attitu d e to the fellow C atholics, as in the case o f the convert m et by C aroline at St P h ilu m ena’s:
‘The wonderful thing about being a Catholic is th at it makes life so easy. Everything easy for salvation and you can have a happy life. All the little things that the Protestants hate, like the statues and the medals, they all help us to have a happy life.’ He finished there, as if he had filled up the required page of his school exercise book, and need state no more; he lay back in his chair, wiped his glasses, crossed his legs (40).
It should also be rem em bered th at M rs H ogg, the black character o f the novel, is a C atholic. C aroline calls her “ a frightful advertisem ent fo r the C h u rc h ” (71).
U nexpected, to o, is the a u th o r ’s attitu de tow ards the m iraculous healing o f H o g a rth ’s crippled son. In order to cover up the actual aim o f th eir sm uggling trips, fath er and son, “ no t religious at all” (174), pretend every tim e th at they are pilgrims going to some shrine o f the Virgin M ary. In case they are w atched, they really visit the places, although w ithout any religious purpose. A nd then, ironically, after a visit to an A lpine shrine, A ndrew recovers from his invalidity. In the way it is presented it looks like a m iracle by accident - o r perhaps by m ista k e“ .
A s it is the case with m ost first novels, The Com forters does n o t yet fully display its a u th o r’s talent. H ow ever, although often in an im m ature form , it contain s m any elem ents th a t will reapp ear in her later novels.
H er ear for dialogue and her interest in reproducing little idiosyncrasies o f speech are show n in w hat the B aron says:
‘I am interested, for instance, in relig-ion, poetr-ay, psycholog-ay, theosoph-ay, the occult, and of course demonolog-ay and diabolism, but I participate in none of them, practise no ne’ (157).
T here are a few instances o f the S parkian tone, light h u m o u r resulting from a ju xtap o sition o f the n arratio n and the dialogue:
W hen he was small she used to tell Laurence ‘D on ’t ju st answer “Yes” ; say “Yes, certainly” , th at’s how Queen M ary always answers.’
‘H ow d o you know that, G randm other?’ ‘A person told me.’
‘Are you sure the person w as telling the truth?’ ‘Oh yes, certainly’ (41).
A lready in this book we can see th a t she is fond o f paradoxes: “I t was a hum iliating thought, which in turn was good for the soul” (198). There is also an exam ple of using the technique w hich she was to exploit fully in The Ballad o f P eckham R ye. Some tim e after their accident L aurence asks C aroline:
11 T he healing removes the pretext for the H ogarths’ travels abroad. Thus it could also be seen as a paradoxical way o f thw arting their criminal plans.
‘H ow is your book going?’ m eaning her work on the structure of the m odern novel. ‘I think it is nearing the end,’ she answered.
He was surprised, for only a few days since she had announced th at the work was slow in progress (167).
H ere M rs S park uses a flashback to describe an o the r thing th at had surprised him ab o u t C aro line - her changing her m ind twice a b o u t their jo u rn e y to L ausanne. A fter this in terrup tion w hich takes th ree pages she com es back to the dialogue she has broken off. She does it in a way ch aracte ristic o f her style o f w riting:
‘H ow is your book going?’ and she, her mind brooding elsewhere, answered, ‘1 think it is nearing the end.’
‘Really? You were saying only the other day that you still had a lot to write’ (170).
T he liking for repetition, but repetition with slight variations, and the freedom w ith w hich she treats her narrativ e, breakin g o ff and resum ing its th read s, were to becom e d o m in an t features o f her w riting, especially in its earlier phase.
C arolin e R ose has m any auto biog raphical features, as do several other characte rs in M uriel S p a rk ’s later w orks, m ost no tab ly in L oitering with Intent. A con vert to C atholicism , a critic and a w riter w ho has spent som e tim e in A frica, she goes th ro u g h a m ental crisis as M rs S park herself did n o t long before w riting this book. Some scenes, e.g. th a t o f m ilk and biscuits being offered to C arolin e in the convent by F a th e r Jerom e every tim e she visits him , seem to have been draw n directly from M rs S p ark ’s p erson al experience12.
H ow ever, altho ugh it is n o t difficult to find in The C om forters elem ents tak en from M rs S p a rk ’s ow n life, one should be careful no t to exaggerate the a utob iog ra ph ic al ch a racter o f the book. It has been stressed several tim es in the novel th a t the persons appearing in the story exert an influence on th e n a rra tiv e 13. T his is the to pic Evelyn W augh com m ents up o n in his review o f The C om forters, draw ing p rob ably also from his ow n experience:
Every novelist, good or bad, m ust know the odd stages o f intim acy and independence in which he deals with his ‘creations’ [...]. Sometimes he is in control, forcing his characters into situation convenient for his theme. Sometimes the characters assume responsibility and he finds him self following them anxious and bewildered m any paces behind14.
A lth o ug h in The Com forters C aroline seems to have a t least som e free will and by her beh aviour m anages to change the plo t created by the “ a u th o r ” , it
12 Cf. D . S t a n f o r d , M uriel Spark, C entaur Press Ltd., Fontwell 1963.
13 Besides the examples already quoted, the following seems rath er im portant. It is a comment on the relation between C aroline and the novel: “O f her constant influence on its course she rem ained unaw are [...]” (181).
w ould be m isleading to extend this and apply it to the relation o f M rs S park to her characters. She expressly denies it:
[...] I do n ’t understand abou t writers who tell you that the characters take over, develop a will o f their own. I know the whole time th at I ’m making them up and I have to go on m aking up w hat they do [...]'s
The C om forters has n o t been an easy book for critics. A n exam ple can be Evelyn W augh, w ho trea ted it as a case-history o f insanity and produced a psychological exp lanation o f the m ysterious voices:
[...] the narrato r, herself an im portant character in the story, goes off her head. The area o f her mind which is composing the novel becomes separated from the area which is participating in it, so th at, hallucinated, she believes that she is observant of, observed by, and in some degree under the control of, an unknow n second person. In fact she is in the relation to herself o f a fictitious character to a story-teller"'.
I t is an interesting in terp retatio n, b u t it disregards the hints a t the fictitious ch a rac te r o f all events presented in the novel. L ittle w o nder th a t, having gone so fa r in his creative reading o f th e novel, he had to adm it: “ I c a n ’t think [...] w hy it is callcd The C o m forters'"1.
T h e general reaction o f critics to the b oo k was positive. The C om forters w as described as “ a funny, intricate exercise in plot th a t owes som ething to the m asterly an d m alevolent m echanism s o f W ilkie C ollins” 18. It was said to be “ an extrem ely sophisticated piece o f m etaphysical w ritin g” 19 displaying “ a degree o f polish n o t custom arily found in an initial effo rt” 20. O nly th e “ T im es L iterary S upplem ent” criticized it as an “ already heady brew ” perplexingly m ixed w ith a “ strong dose o f R om an C ath olicism ” 21.
M uriel S p ark ’s second novel, Robinson, describes three m o n th s in the lives o f three survivors o f a n aeroplan e crash and the resident o f an A tlantic island w ho lives there w ith a sm all boy, his ad op ted child. O n th e su r-face, it seems to be a p arody o f tw o literary genres o f long established trad ition .
T he title o f th e novel, w hich is the nam e o f one o f the characters, and th e fact th a t he leads a solitary life on an island, bring to m ind an im m ediate association w ith D aniel D efo e’s Robinson Cruose and o th er book s w ritten in im itatio n o f it. T his im pression is strengthened by o th e r elements: the
15 M . H o l l a n d , The Prime o f M uriel Spark, “The Observer M agazine” , 17 October 1965, p. 10.
16 P. W a u g h , op. cit., p. 256. 17 Ibid.
" W . B a l l i c t t , M oses in the Old Brit'n, “The New Y orker” , 18 January 1958, p. 93. 19 F . H o p e , Joking in earnest, “T he O bserver” , 28 April 1963, p. 26.
20 M . L e v i n , Spritely Tale, “S aturday Review”, 31 A ugust 1957, p. 26. 21 ’T im es Literary Supplem ent” , 22 February 1957, p. 109.
sm all boy, M iguel, can be seen as a v ariatio n o f M an F rida y; fo r m o st p a rt o f her stay o n the island, J an u a ry M arlow , one o f the survivors who is also the n a rra to r , keeps a jo u rn al in w hich she notes all im p o rta n t events tak ing place aro u n d her; there is a m ap o f the island enclosed w ith the text o f the novel which helps to follow the adv entu res described in the boo k; R ob inson and Jim m ie save som e things from the wrecked plan e as D efoe’s ch arac te r did from th e w recked ship. O ne could even go so far as to m e ntio n th a t R ob in so n keeps a go at which supplies him and M iguel, and afte rw ard s also the survivors, with m ilk.
H o w ever, R o b in so n is n o t a castaw ay; he h as him self cho sen the life o n th e island: he prefers being alone to living in a society and his m o tto is N unquam m inus solus quam cum solus. H e does n o t have to rely o n th e th ing s he has saved from the w reck; he h as a large store o f tinned food renew ed every year by th e po m eg ran ate m en. A l-th o u g h l-the soil is fertile, he does n o t grow any o f his food. T he only p lan t he chose to cultivate was m u stard - b ut even this he did only “ for the effect” 22. T h ere is a pla ntation o f pom egranates, bu t R obin son d oes n o t pick th e fru it him self, he leaves it to th e m en w ho com e especially fo r this p u rp o s e every year in A u g ust. T h u s he resem bles his n am esake from D e fo e’s novel only seem ingly; in fa ct, he is ju s t the o ppo site o f him.
A no the r genre th a t is p arodied in Robinson is th e detective story. A fter R o b in so n ’s m ysterious disap pe aran ce the reader is presented w ith a scene th a t suggests a fight o r even a m urder:
Tom Wells came to meet us. He held out tow ards us a heavy corduroy jacket o f a faded taw ny colour, which I recognized as one of R obinson’s which he would sometimes wear when the w eather turned cold, or he went out of doors at night [...].
We w ent dow n to the m ustard field, and there, even before Miguel ran to point out the spot where the coat had been found, I saw the dark trampled patches am ong the glaring yellow plants. There was blood on the ground, still slightly sticky. W hen we came to look closer, there seemed to be the m arks o f blood all round about. There was also a complete pathw ay o f trodden-dow n plants splattered with blood, leading out o f the field from the spot where the coat had been found. Following this newly-beaten track, tow ards the mountain path, we found a green silk neck square which was Jimm ie’s property. This was also soaked in blood, not yet dry [...].
Tom Wells said, ‘T here’s something fishy ab out all this. Someone w ounded had been dragged through the field, you realize’ (101-102).
T h ere are m o re b lood-stained articles form ing a trail leading to the volcano called the F urn ace. Q uite close to it are R o b in so n ’s clothes and underclothes, also covered w ith blood.
22 M . S p a r k , Robinson, Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth 1964, p. 32. Subsequent references to this book will be m ade in the text.
T he atm osphere o f suspense is created. All evidence seems to suggest th a t R ob inson has been killed and th at there is nobo dy else on the island w ho could have d on e it but the three survivors. T h us Ja n u a ry suspects alternately T om Wells and Jim m ie W aterford. Wells w ants the whole affair to be covered up and suggests th at Ja n ua ry and Jim m ie should sign a statem ent th a t R o b in so n ’s d ea th was due to an accident. W hen Jan u a ry declines to do it he does no t hesitate to th rea ten her with a gun. H ow ever, in the end R obin son turns up and explains th a t he has fabricated all the traces for the survivors to believe him dead and has gone to live alo ne in a p a rt o f th e island w hich can be reached only from the sea and w hich thu s has no t been searched by Jan ua ry , Jim m ie and T om . In this way, all th e suspense is deflated.
Som e critics have pointed out an o th er sim ilarity - to W illiam G oldin g ’s L o rd o f the Flies21. F ind ing them selves on a desert island, the characters have to face continually their fellow survivors. T heir behaviour is kept un d er con tro l by R obinson; how ever, w hen he, fed up with incessant petty conflicts, w ithdraw s, feigning his ow n de ath , the two o th e r m en show fully their characters: T om W ells his inclination to blackm ail and violence, Jim m ie W aterfo rd his tendency to com prom ise.
Still, there are elem ents in the novel w hich can justify a m ore com plex reading o f this book. T h e island is shaped like a m an and its various p a rts are called like p arts o f hu m an body. T here is th e N o rth Leg and the W est Leg, th e N o rth A rm and the S outh A rm , and the H ead lands. T he novel sta rts w ith a n am biguous sentence:
If you ask me how I rem ember the island, w hat it was like to be stranded there by misadventure for nearly three m onths, I w ould answer th at it was a time and landscape o f the mind if I did not have the visible signs to summon its m ateriality: my journal, the cat, the new spaper cuttings, the curiosity o f my friends: and my sisters - how they always look at me, I think, as one returned from the dead (7).
T h e ph rase “ landscape o f the m in d ” m ay be u nderstoo d as describing im aginary events. It m ay, how ever, also im ply th at the w hole novel is to be tre ated as a psychological allegory dealing w ith the w orking o f J a n u a r y ’s m ind. In the ending o f the boo k this p hrase reappears:
In a sense I had already come to think o f the island as a place o f the mind [...]. It is now, indeed, an apocryphal island. It may be a trick of the mind to sink one’s p ast fear and exasperation in the waters o f memory: it may be a truth of the mind (174-175).
T h e last sentence is connected w ith the fact th a t after the re tu rn o f the survivors the island begins to sink and is supposed to d isap pea r com pletely in a sho rt tim e.
T h u s, the events o n the island can be interpreted as acting ou t J a n u a ry ’s inn er problem s, the F urn ac e and the tunnels an d her attra ctio n to them as an expression o f the d ark forces o f her subconsciousness, her return hom e as settling h er in ner conflicts.
T he psychological reading, sup ported by m any critics24, is pushed to extrem es by C arol B. O h m an n 25. In this in terp retatio n, the plane crash is seen as an expression o f the split o f J a n u a ry ’s personality. T h e characters ap p earin g in th e novel are ju st various sides o f her personality. T h e stern R o bin so n is h er superego, the w eak Jim m ie her ego, the sensual W ells her id. R o b in so n ’s disap pearan ce is th u s the dea th o f the superego, w hich rsults in a dan ge rou s a ttem p t a t dom inatio n by the id. W hen R o bin so n retu rns, the o rd e r is restored.
O h m ann finds su pp o rt for this F reu d ian reading in an in terp re ta tio n o f the ch a ra cte r’s nam es. R o b in so n ’s first nam e, M iles, in its original L atin m eaning - soldier - suggests his sternness, austerity, disposition to com m and. “W ells” hints at the sources o f hidden or unconscious energy. T he juxtaposition o f “ w a ter” and “ fo rd ” in Jim m ie W a te rfo rd ’s nam e suggests com prom ise; this is reinforced by his pattern o f speech, a m ixtu re o f archaism s and slang, w hich he has acquired “ first from a Swiss uncle, using S hakespeare and som e seventeenth-century poets as textbooks, and F o w ler’s M odern English Usage as a guide, and secondly from con tac t with Allied forces d u rin g the w a r” (25). Jan u a ry M arlo w ’s nam e is also m eaningful. T he nam e J a n u a ry com es from the god Jan us, w ho showed tw o faces. A nd “ M arlo w ” “ carries C o n ra dian associations th a t also suggest the possibility o f a self d iv ided” 26.
T he book can also be read as a religious allegory, the three m en functioning as “ possible varieties o f religious experience” 27. W ells, w ith his m agic charm s, represents a prim itive response to reality. R obinso n, a form er stu d en t for the p riestho od w ho left the C hu rch “ on acco unt o f w hat he considered its superstitious c h arac te r” (77) and later w rote a b o o k entitled The D angers o f M arian Doctrine, is W ells’s opposite. Remaining a C atholic, he is strictly against any m aterial sym bol o f faith. Jim m ie W aterford stands for the m iddle way, being a conventional C hristian. Ja n u a ry w avers in her a ttitu d e to them , especially to W ells and R obinson, w ho represent tw o extrem e view points. H er attra ction-repulsion attitud e to them is further developed by the fact th a t they resemble her tw o brothers-in-law, whom she dislikes: Wells has som e features o f C urly L onsdale, and R obinson is in som e respects sim ilar to Ian Brodie.
24 Cf. ibid., p. 39-40.
25 С. B. O h m a n n , Muriel S p ark’s Robinson, “ Critique” 1965, Vol. 5, p. 70-84 24 Ibid., p. 71.
27 K . M a l k o f f , Muriel Spark, Colum bia Essays on M odern W riters, N o. 36, Colum bia U niversity Press, New Y ork-L ondon 1968, p. 13.
M any contem porary British writers are glad to talk ab o u t the “m essage” o f their fiction, ab o u t w hat H enry Jam es called “ the figure in the ca rp ct” . Som e o f them , as for exam ple D avid Lodge or M alcolm B radbury, go so fa r as to try to be their ow n critics, supplying afterw ords in which they give com m ent on, and even a kind o f analysis of, their ow n novels28. M rs S park, however, does n o t belong to them . A lthough she has given quite a num ber o f interviews, she has tended rath er to stick to m ore general statem ents, no t going into details o f her p articular w orks. T hus, a critic o f her fiction has to rely in his analysis m ostly on the text o f her novels and sh ort stories, no t having m uch help in the form o f her personal com m ents. In this situation, all analyses should be ra the r cautious.
T ak en separately, bo th the F reu d ian reading and the in terpre ta tio n o f Robinson as a religious allegory seem to be too schem atic and do no t accou nt for all the elem ents o f the novel. H ints at allegory are undoubtedly present in the texture o f the boo k but they m ust be treated very carefully.
T he analysis o f the novel is m ade still m ore difficult by the existence o f some elem ents th at are stressed by the a u th o r but do n o t form any coherent pattern . O ne o f them is the use of the n um ber three: before the crash, Ja nu a ry was to write a book ab o u t islands “in a series which included book s a bo ut threes o f everything. T hree rivers, three lakes, and threes of m o u ntains, courtesans, battles, poets, old country houses. 1 was supposed to be doing T hree islands. T w o o f m y chosen islands I already knew well: Z anzibar and T iree. I had tho ug ht one o f the Azores w ould com plete an attra ctiv e trio. Som eone else, now, has w ritten the book on T hree Islands. I believe som eone has added to the series T hree M en in M y L ife” (75). T h e last one could be w ritten by January: durin g her stay on the island she has to deal with three m en. T here are three survivors and three tunnels on the island. T he m eaning o f it is obsolete29.
A no th er “ loose end” is th e fact th at all four ch arac ters’ nam es are at the sam e tim e geographical nam es. T his leads to m isunderstandings:
‘W here am I?’ ‘R obinson’, he said. 'W here?'
‘Robinson.’
He was short and square, with a brown face and greyish curly hair. ‘Robinson,’ he repeated. ‘In the N orth A tlantic Ocean. H ow do you feel’? ‘W ho are you?’
28 Cf. e.g. D . L o d g e , Out o f the Shelter, Penguin Books, H arm ondsw orth 1985; id ., Ginger, Y ou ’re Barmy, Penguin Books, Harm ondsw orth 1982; M . B r a d b u r y , Eating People Is Wrong, Arena, London 1985.
29 A connection with the H oly Trinity, an obvious association w ith the number three, seems out o f place here.
‘Robinson,’ he said. ‘How do you feel?’ ‘ W h o ? ’
‘Robinson’ (10).
T h e sam e happens when R obinson starts asking January:
‘W hat is your name?’ he said. ‘January M arlow .’
T h in k ,’ he said. T ry to think.’ T h in k o f what?’
‘Y our nam e.’
‘January Marlow ,’ I said, and placed the mug of soup on the floor beside me. He lifted the mug and replaced it in my right hand.
‘Sip it, and meanwhile think. You have told me the month and place of your birth. W hat is your name?’ (11-12).
Jim m ie’s nam e is m istaken, too:
Robinson said: ‘Y ou must have heard it from W aterford.’ ‘I ’ve never been to W aterford’ (20).
T here is no reference to W ells’s nam e but the connection is obvious. T he reason for this choice o f nam es is n ot clear. As a jok e, it is rathe r cheap. H ow ever, it is difficult to fit it into the pattern o f a m ore com plex reading o f the book.
T he novel has som e truly funny passages. T he h um our results m ostly from Jim m ie’s peculiar way o f speaking, as in this example:
‘I did see this chappie at the airport,’ said Jimmie, ‘and in the m om ent 1 behold him I perceive he is no t a superior type of bugger. I say to myself, Lo! this one is not a gentleman’ (28).
Sometimes the contem porary colloquialism s are m issing and the fun is created just by the out-of-place choice o f w ords, bookish or archaic:
‘mayhaps they now shall cease to write,’ said Jimmie, ‘when they hear o f your bad luck which has befallen’ (56).
O ften he is unconsciously pom pous:
‘Should you desire to possess some o f the volumes around us, please to make a choice [...]. Please to retain those which you fancy’ (125).
H is im perfect know ledge o f English is also the source o f a play on words:
T h a t’s sweet o f you, honey,’ said Wells.
‘Is not to call Miss January honey,’ said Jimmie, ‘as if she was a trum pet, and any - ’ ‘Y ou mean strum pet,’ I said (62).
A n oth er device exploited by M uriel Spark is the eighteenth-century typography, w ith the sim ilarity betw een letters s and f. W hen Ja n u ary tries to read one o f R ob in so n’s novels, she cann ot recognize the s’s properly:
N ow the agonies which affected the mind of Sophia rather augmented than impaired her beauty; for her tears added brightnefs to her eyes, and her breafts rofc higher with her fighs. Indeed, n o one hath feen beauty in its highest luftre, who hath never feen it in diftrefs [...]. (152).
T h ere is also an instance o f m o re ab stract hum ou r. A fte r J a n u a ry ’s re turn hom e, her sister Ju lia says to her: “ ‘W c would have had a lot o f business tro ub le w ith yo u r affairs. I ’ve had a lot o f trou ble w ith Agnes. It was foolish o f you to die intestate. Y o u ’d better m ak e a will in case it h ap pen s a g a in ’ ” (169).
T h e w hole b o o k is n arrated as a rem iniscence o f Jan u a ry , w ho relates the events chronologically. T h ere are several flashbacks, presenting her sisters and brothers-in-law . T he re is also one p a rticu lar flashback concerning th e life on the island. It describes J an u ary and Jim m ie’s expedition over th e m o un ta in . T h e m etho d used here closely resem bles th a t em ployed in The C om forters and discussed above. A gain the flashback is bord ered by tw o sim ilar, only slightly varied passages:
‘Keep up your jo urn al,’ he said. ‘It will take your mind off Jimm ie.’ ‘I d o n ’t see th at I w ant to keep my mind off Jimmie,’ I said.
O f course, working over this conversation later, in my fury, I regretted not having replied, ‘Y ou are insolent’, or something like that (64).
It was the afternoon of the next day that I crossed the m ountain with Robinson to procure mineral water for the goat. Jimmie had w anted to accom pany us but R obinson had found an emergency to prevent him: dampness in the storehouse. All the packages had to be moved, and the piping behind one of the walls replaced.
‘K eep up your jo urnal; it will keep your mind off Jimmie.’ T o w hich, o f course, 1 should have replied, ‘Y ou are insolent.’
A nd while I answered, ‘I d o n ’t see th at I w ant to keep my mind off Jimmie’, I was w ondering how best, during the weeks remaining to me on the island, to preserve some freedom from R obinson’s interference in the m atter of Jimm ie, while retaining his protection from Wells (72).
A n o th er interesting exam ple o f using th e technique o f repetition is startin g tw o passages w ith the sam e phrase: “ ‘L et’s get ou t o f this’ ” . F irst tim e the sentence is spoken by Jan u a ry to Jim m ie when they s ta r t on the excursion m en tion ed above, second tim e she says it to her son Brian before they go to F rance for a couple o f days. Both times she tries to escape from the attem pts at directing h er life - by R ob inso n and Ia n B rodie, respectively - and bo th tim es she fails. T he use o f th e sam e phrase to in trodu ce those passages creates still a n o th e r link betw een R o b in so n and Brodie.
L ike C aroline R ose in The C omforters, Ja n u a ry M arlo w has som e features in com m o n w ith M uriel S park. Like her, she is a “ poet, critic and general artic u lato r o f id eas” (23). She is also a con vert to C atholicism . H ow ever, this tim e M rs S park n o t only uses the auto bio g rap h ic al m aterial to help h erself in creating the character, b u t includes som e jok es in w hich
th e fun results from allusions to her private life. T hu s “ M uriel the M arvel w ith her X -ray eyes” (61), m entioned in an advertisem ent in T om W ells’s m agazin e “ Y o u r F u tu re ” , is no d o u b t M rs S park herself; “ B rother D e re k ” from th e next ad is presum ably D erek S tanford, with w hom she has co llab orated for some time. P eter K em p goes so fa r as to suggest th a t the title itself is a private joke, M rs S park having a son nam ed R o b in 30.
Robinson was M uriel S p ark’s first, and for a long tim e the only novel n arra ted in the first person (until L oitering with Intent). T his m etho d o f n arratio n did n o t seem to w ork. H arold W. Schneider sees the reason for this failure in the fact th at Ja n u a ry “ is no t m erely the on loo ker - she is at the center o f the action. W e are therefore diverted from o u r concern for the m o ral disintegration o f the characters to concern for the h eroin e” 31. U nlike in m ost of her o th er novels, the setting o f Robinson is ab stract - a desert island in the A tlantic. T here is only a small g roup o f ch arac ters, w hich is M rs S pa rk ’s favourite, but th eir choice is a rb itra ry and rath er forced, w hereas in o ther novels it ususally results from som e com m on features shared by the personae32. Its insistence o n allegorical elem ents is also unique in M rs S p a rk ’s w orks. Still, there is one sentence in Robinson th a t foreshadow s one o f M uriel S p ark ’s later w orks. W hen Ja n u a ry observes M iguel playing on th e beach and the boy suddenly disap pears, she reflects: “ F o r a m o m ent I th o u g h t perhaps they had never existed, th a t R obinson an d his household were a dead w o m an’s dream , th at I was indeed dead as m y family believed and the new spapers had by now re po rted ” (36). T h e idea o f the w hole story being a dead w om an’s - o r ra th e r a dead cou ple’s - dream was to be the starting point for The H othouse by the E ast River.
Institute o f English Studies U niversity of Łódź
Adam Sumera
D W IE W CZES N E P O W IEŚ C I M U R IEL SPARK
A rtykuł omaw ia powieści The Comforters i Robinson, zajmując się zarów no ich treścią, jak i aspektam i formalnym i. D użo uwagi pośw ięcono m otyw om katolickim . W analizie
uwzględniono również odniesienia d o późniejszych utw orów Muriel Spark. 30 P. K e m p , M uriel Spark, Elek, London 1974, p. 37.
31 H. W. S c h n e i d e r , A Writer in Her Prime: The Fiction o f Muriel Spark, “ Critique” 1962, Vol. 5, p. 38.
