Well I can cheerfully admit that this book scared me silly when I first read it – aged about 15, I’d imagine. What DID I make of it then? The death of God and the rise of the avenging angels, all that quivering violence, all those secrets, all that fog pressing around the house … It’s still an unnerving experience, but I’ve read it at least three times before this time, and could remember most of the story and – more importantly – the atmosphere. I don’t think I changed my opinion on any of the characters for this one, though. Maybe they’re set out to be more black and white (literally, I suppose) with less room for ambivalence.
Iris Murdoch – “The Time of the Angels”
(27 February 2018)
It’s a short book but it’s festooned with post-it tags, so I hope I’m able to get my thoughts into some sort of order.
First of all, I’m disappointed to say that I don’t THINK we have any women in white dresses running off into the night, do we, although Muriel flees at one point but is not pursued. That’s the first time for a long time and I hope that theme comes back, because I have been enjoying spotting it.
The book is full of horrible foreshadowings which you will probably only notice on a re-reading: most notably on p.2 where Marcus brushes against Pattie, touching her neck and sweeping her with his cassock. The fog has a good go at being its own character, and there’s quite a lot of what I remember as being the Pathetic Fallacy (OK, I’ll admit it, I had to look that up, but I remembered there was such a thing, at least), where the weather reflects the happenings and emotions in the book. It also gives us some sublimely beautiful scenes, most notably when Eugene takes Pattie to the river in the snow.
The massive theme of this book is of course the loss of religion in society and the vacuum into which nothing has actually come rushing in. Norah talks about this and the “modern young” where “it’s as if her sheer energy has taken her straight over the edge of morality” (p. 13) and Muriel and Leo talk about going beyond morality; this then gives weight to Carel’s ravings about the death of God and the time of the angels: are they really ravings if everyone’s talking about this in their own way? Poor old Norah is rather satirised, her “brisk sensibleness of an old Fabian radical” (p. 14).
So many echoes in this one. In my head, I’d built up the bits of The Book to come all the way through it, but actually we only have one chunk of Marcus’ writing and one of Carel’s. Of course someone writing a book is a constant theme that we’ve had in many of the novels. But going back to echoes, I was interested to see Norah and Anthea as almost the same character, doubled (in fact, I have a feeling I thought they WERE the same person in my memory of this book), both trying to do good. Both of them are remarkably unchanged and cheerful by the end, which might be saying something against Marcus and Carel’s hatred of do-gooders. Pattie has lost a younger brother, like Carel and Marcus have, and Eugene his sister. Marcus falls through two doors holding chrysanthemums.
As well as the doublings and echoes, we have the usual hair – Elizabeth’s flat metallic strands, Muriel’s boyish crop and Leo’s animal fur. Leo has some Japanese prints but I don’t think they imply that he’s a saint or an enchanter or have any significance. Maybe the fact that they’re only stuck onto the wall takes their power away. He associates looking at girls through screens with Japan, so maybe using the country for nefarious reasons takes that away, too.
Who is the enchanter in the book? Fairly obviously Carel, with Leo trying to do a mini-enchanter act but actually just being one of those annoying prancing boys who are another stock character. Elizabeth is a “magical child” who certainly engenders obsession in her father and her uncle, but is too passive to be an enchanter, and is more enchanted. We see him in relation to Pattie: “Carel was her whole destiny” (p. 152) and in fact we see both enchanter and saint defined by poor Pattie. They are “the white figure against the dark one” (p. 177).
Who’s the saint? I’m saying Eugene. Although Pattie is passive, she’s in thrall to Carel and doesn’t really do any good for anyone, actively or passively. She lies “inert like a chrysalis” (p. 28) but can’t find a “normal” way out of her situation, only fleeing violently for another continent when her hand is forced. And she WANTS to be a saint, which surely must be the way not to go about being one. Eugene is a classic saint, isn’t he?
Eugene did not suffer much from anxiety. He had spent too long sitting at the bottom of the world and hoping for nothing to suffer from any precarious play of tempting aspirations and glimpses. No object lay just beyond his grasp since he had long ago ceased grasping. (p. 42)
and when Pattie thinks of him “Some plainness about him, some absolute simplicity attracted her” (p. 96) and later, “He was a man without shadows … and offered her a life of innocence” (p. 152).
Talking of this simplicity, Carel does define goodness in the book, stating that it’s impossible and unimaginable. But Norah and Marcus don’t think it is, and elsewhere Murdoch shows us goodness, I think, here and elsewhere. Carel’s imagining that it can’t exist is perhaps his downfall. As Norah says, “Ordinary morality goes on and always will go on whatever the philosophers and theologians have to say” (p. 193). In fact, the Afterword by Richard Holloway sort of echoes this:
We have to remember that it was written by a philosopher and philosophers tend to think too much – it’s what they are paid for, after all. Most people negotiate the intricacies of conduct without too much agonizing about how to treat their neighbours, even if they think God is dead.” (p. 242)
There’s not much humour in this one, I have to say, although Marcus’ and Norah’s tea parties manage to get in some satire of the bishop and comments about the price of jam vs chutney. There’s a lot of perceptive stuff about women’s characters, whether that’s Pattie lacking someone to lick her into shape or Norah needing somewhere to direct her energy: although they’re not hugely positive characters, they are rounded. Marcus’ pomposity about his book is nicely pricked: “Let his critics assign him to a tradition and a school. He would speak simply, with the sole authority of his own voice” (p. 67) (I’m uncomfortably reminded of my own adherence to Reception Theory here!). There’s also a moment of farce for Marcus, too, when he falls in the coal hole, although the scene is quickly jerked into almost horror.
In echoes of other books, I was curiously reminded when Muriel is regarding the last moments of Carel of the scene in The Philosopher’s Pupil where Rozanov lies dead/not dead in the thermal baths. Eugene with his rusty moustaches reminds me a bit of Finn in “Under the Net” and also prefigures Fivey in “The Nice and the Good” perhaps (and Carel’s comment about life being some dusty feathers in a cupboard reminds me of a scene in that novel, too). Elizabeth and her court are reminiscent of the willing captive in “The Unicorn” – who is keeping whom in the house? Norah’s lost Fabian ideals remind us of “The Book and the Brotherhood” characters trying to find their old ways in a new world. Pattie’s childhood might remind us of Hilary’s abandoned life in “A Word Child”. Our Russian emigres remind us of those in “The Italian Girl”, even with their lies about their origin story. Marcus’ thought about Carel being mad comes at him “obscure and disturbing as a large unpleasant looking object rising through deep water” (p. 87) – did that remind anyone else of the monster in “The Sea, The Sea”? Marcus seems to have a weakness for boys, although not so explicit, like Michael in “The Bell” – has Leo actually got some scandal over him or does he just exploit his emotions? Marcus has a cold at one point, and annoys Norah by sneezing – shades of Palmer in “A Severed Head”, or have I gone too far? Another too-far one is probably Eugene’s handcart taking his precious pot plant to their next home: was IM thinking of that when she gave Tallis his handcart in “A Fairly Honourable Defeat”?
So, a complex book and a lot of intertextuality with IM’s other novels, perhaps. I agree with Richard Holloway’s practical assessment at the end of his Afterword:
Carel Fisher might have reached less dramatic conclusions about life if he hadn’t lived mainly inside his own head. He should have got out more. But then, if he had, we wouldn’t have had this strange novel to trouble our sleep. (p. 242)
and I hope I’ve done this book justice, even though I never found a good order in which to put my thoughts on it.
Please either place your review in the comments, discuss mine or others’, or post a link to your review if you’ve posted it on your own blog, Goodreads, etc. I’d love to know how you’ve got on with this book and if you read it having read others of Murdoch’s novels or this was a reread, I’d love to hear your specific thoughts on those aspects, as well as if it’s your first one!
If you’re catching up or looking at the project as a whole, do take a look at the project page, where I list all the blog posts so far.
notsomoderngirl
Aug 15, 2018 @ 20:34:33
This sounds like an interesting book, great review, I enjoyed reading your thoughts
LikeLike
BuriedInPrint
Aug 16, 2018 @ 01:08:03
I’m hoping to start this over the weekend, but I’m finding my progress on various reading projects slowing, but not stalling, with the intense humidity of this summer. It’s in the stack!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 16, 2018 @ 07:06:54
You’ve got plenty of time! Don’t read the review though, there are spoilers, I’ve realised, but I can’t do all that and not have them, unfortunately. Hope you enjoy the book!
LikeLike
Maria Peacock
Aug 16, 2018 @ 19:47:28
Thank you, Liz, for all your thoughts and observations. There is so much in this book, even without all the resonances you found to other novels , I also find it hard to put my thoughts on the work as a whole in any logical form. So here are my impressions on some aspects of it.
I can quite understand why the teenage Liz was scared. It contains some terrifying ideas. I found it compelling but bleak. To me it seems as if IM wrote it while she was getting depressed by reading Heidegger. In creating Carel it is as if she is experimenting with the idea what a man becomes when he destroys the notion of a God, and the angels – powerful spirits are set free and ‘ are . terrible’. Whereas one of Murdoch’s great beliefs is that love is the realisation that another being exists, this is inverted in Carel saying he can only acknowledge the existence of others by inflicting pain. He is a priest who does not believe in God living in the condemned rectory of a church which has been bombed and has no parish duties, yet he still regards himself as a priest and wears a cassock. He is studying Heidegger and there is no hope or belief in positive things like truth. When Pattie, cleaning Carel’s room, reads a passage of Heidegger she finds they are incomprehensible but ‘like the distant boom of some big catastrophe’. The house is damp and inhospitable and wrapped in fog, so it does not relate to the world outside. Carel refuses to see anyone or have contact and we soon realise he is in a dominant abusive relationship with Pattie the black servant which binds her to him and prevents her from being free to live a happy life. His daughter Muriel finds out that he is having sex with his ward who we later find out was his daughter by an adulterous affair with his brother’s wife which led to his brother’s suicide.
Elizabeth is a very disturbing presence in the story – she has had some mysterious illness which has affected her spine and she has to wear a mysterious corset. Being of the generation I am, when reading this I keep being reminded of Bob Dylan’s song of 1965 ‘Desolation Row’ in which there is a verse about Ophelia who ‘wears an iron vest’, and to whom ‘death is quite romantic’ and ‘Her sin is her lifelessness’ and ‘She spends her time peeking/Into Desolation Row’. (To digress on this point, I used to wonder if this was, in turn a reference to a Russian film of ‘Hamlet’ of 1964 in which Ophelia wore an iron contraption like prison bars). The Dylan image fit so well with Elizabeth’s frequent moods of switching off and deadness although her incarceration and the sexual abuse would probably account for that. I agree with Liz and Richard Holloway that perhaps they should all have got out more, and Elizabeth should have had some good physiotherapy.
Muriel is the outlet from this claustrophobic unit into the world – she is cast as an outsider by Carel who wants her to find a job. She is reluctant to leave the unit and is committed to Elizabeth. She is not a particularly likeable character – quite spiteful to Pattie and selfish but this and her breakdown are hardly surprising. Her decision to let Carel succeed in his suicide is shocking and bold but you do feel it was the right thing to do.
I too enjoy the scenes with Norah – the description of her wonderful cakes and food and warm fires are light relief and the antithesis of the grim Rectory with its scratch meals and she is the voice of the sensible, brisk, good woman, who tries to put all the philosophy stuff in its place.
I was a bit perplexed about the role of Muriel – she seemed like a comedy parody of a church social worker, but she seems to be a crucial part of the plot? I have read it as she seems to have been the girl that all three brothers were in love with. She was the cause of all the problems between the brothers when Julian left his wife and ran away with her and in jealousy Carel seduced and made the wife pregnant which caused Julian to commit suicide. She then breezes up on the Carel’s doorstep with a mission to do a psychiatric report on Carel for the bishop. I did think she should have declared an interest before accepting the role, but Anthea reassured us that the bishop thought the previous connection would help! It is interesting to speculate what would happen if she had gained access to Carel. Marcus realising, he is in love with her, and Pattie going off to work in a refugee camp in Africa makes a strangely neat ending for such an impossibly messy story, and we are all brought down to earth as Marcus has the last word – ‘it was all confoundedly odd’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Liz Dexter
Aug 17, 2018 @ 05:42:15
Thank you so much for your detailed thoughts. Although I claim to subscribe to Death of the Author and Reception Theory, it’s good to think about the Heidegger stuff and also consider the role of the pretty horrible Elias Canetti in building Carel. I’m glad you feel that Norah acts as a balancing device giving a sensible view on things: otherwise it would be just too bleak, wouldn’t it. I didn’t really go into Muriel that much but she is an odd character, isn’t she – not nice enough to be an attractive heroine of the book, but then when do we find those?
LikeLike
heavenali
Aug 16, 2018 @ 20:36:19
Excellent stuff, this does sound very good, and I can’t think why I remember it so little. I suppose it’s a good few years since I read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 17, 2018 @ 05:42:35
It’s been a few years, yes. I wonder if you’ll revisit any IM ever!
LikeLike
heavenali
Aug 17, 2018 @ 07:23:49
Who knows, perhaps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle Austin
Aug 20, 2018 @ 08:57:34
I think I just find it fascinating because it’s so twisted. And a radical departure in many ways from what she was writing before and carried on to write afterwards. I would like to know what inspired this one, I think it has obvious Gothic resonances as in The Unicorn, the underground train and the kind of dark almost cave like setting make for obvious comparisons with a kind of hell or underworld. So Carel of course is sort of out of the world and able to do as he likes.
I don’t think it’s dissimilar in many ways from the kinds of news stories we’ve heard in recent years, people being brainwashed and kept captive by really psychologically disturbed people. The delicacy of that dynamic, the abusive elements, the kinds of “love” that are present there and the belief in the need to stay. Even Marcus seems desperate to get in, showing Carel is not only disturbing but extremely magnetic. Everybody else seems in a state of desperation, in need of answers, or in need of love. Not unlike Ludens in Message to the Planet or George with Rosanov in The Philosopher’s Pupil, they believe this man has something for them which in actuality they don’t have at all and they’re dangerous people in their ways. I think there’s something true to life there, those kind of twisted relationships come into being all the time out of pure despair and desperation. For some reason I’m also thinking there’s an element of Stockholm syndrome there. I suppose I see it mostly that Carel kind of abducts people from the world.
Pattie I feel sorry for in many ways, she’s just used really for her body, and, maybe this is less to do with Murdoch and more to do with how people tend to view women, but there are elements of body shaming there. As there are in a lot of books, Priscilla in The Black Prince I think gets some horrible descriptions that are kind of dually to do with her being sexual and also pointing out all the flaws and repugnant elements of her body. In a way it highlights those very real double standards in life.
Hope that makes sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 20, 2018 @ 09:18:51
Thank you for those excellent points, as always, Michelle. And it does make sense. I think women are often shamed in the books, I can think of lots of smeary makeup and dirty skin and artificiality which seem very heavily looked down on. Mind you manky old Otto with his horrible eating in Italian Girl …
LikeLike
Michelle Austin
Aug 20, 2018 @ 10:29:34
I never knew really what to make of Elizabeth, perhaps because she’s so passive it’s hard to see much of her. Muriel I remember not liking I think because she’s so barbed and kind of frighteningly screwed up in her own right. But considering it’s so short it’s actually very complex. I kind of wish it had been longer if only to get more of the characters’ psyches, but in a way I think it’s one of her best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 20, 2018 @ 10:31:29
Elizabeth’s a bit like Hannah Crean, in that she’s whatever people project upon her, I think. Muriel could have been normal and practical but has been twisted by the situation, but she’s only young, so maybe she has time …
LikeLike
Maria Peacock
Aug 20, 2018 @ 17:02:48
That is a really good point, Michelle,comparing the imprisoning of Elizabeth by Carel to the recent spate of stories, both fact and fiction, of (usually) young women being kept captive for years. Elizabeth is physically captive in the house but also in her body. The language and the imagery makes her something other than human – we see her through Muriel’s eyes as ‘her cousin X-rayed, hollowed out, a skeletal maiden of steel with a metal head’ – it is like a science fiction image. Also Carel and Muriel also repeatedly refer to her as a ‘treasure’ and the disturbing thing is how Elizabeth colludes and Muriel find she is complicit.It is as if she is a sacrificial victim and the image of her being carried out of the house by Muriel t the end reminds me of religious art or the final scene in King Lear.
I find Muriel complex and interesting, and in many ways is quite down to earth. . I did find myself at the end wishing her well and hoping she would find a way to free herself,but suspect she is tied to Elizabeth for ever.I hope she does have time.
Yes,Liz, I see Elizabeth is like Hannah Crean but without the lovers and the nice frocks.
Pattie was imprisoned in a different way – she gets some physical freedom but is emotionally completely bound to Carel – the scene where he has a talk and hears Pattie’s ‘catechism’ and mixes his perverted sexual predations with religion is so horribly creepy and more so in the light of recent revelations of sexual abuse in the Christian churches.
On a lighter note, Murdoch is quite ruthless in her descriptions of women and she is not impressed by artifice and she seems much more tolerant of the scruffy men!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 20, 2018 @ 18:41:57
Yes to all that. I don’t remember so many stories about captives in houses in the 1980s when I first read this, but it is eerily prescient. Or sexual abuse in the Church.
LikeLike
Michelle Austin
Aug 21, 2018 @ 06:30:34
I think that thing about “collusion” is a tricky one, it’s a very particular set of circumstances that they have there and a lot of mitigating factors, I think, go around each character and their apparent agreement with or submission to Carel. I mean I can see that it appears to be collusive but that term is easy to apply from our point of view, as it always is in any case of abuse when you look at it from an outside perspective, but they of course don’t have a wider perspective of the world and, I think, are very caught up.
I’ve seen the comments that they all just need to get out more, I mean that’s a simplified way of putting it, but yes I definitely think they’d see their situation very differently if they lived more in the real world and had more people to talk to. The power and oppression there stems from the fact that they don’t. Elizabeth is probably the worst in that case because she hasn’t been out of her bedroom in however long. I agree that’s eerie, it would disturb most people.
Muriel, yes, I sort of want to say she takes after her father a little bit, but there’s a nature/nurture debate to be had there – does she have traits of his or has she been made the way she is by her upbringing? More generally when it comes to those kind of debates I come down on the nurture side because I find it unfair to “blame” elements of personality on genetics, or to tar someone with a brush if you will. But then I’m not sure . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle Austin
Aug 21, 2018 @ 06:38:09
Also yes I would like to hope she has time as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 21, 2018 @ 07:26:05
I was a bit shocked to find the comment about how Carel should go out more in the introduction to be honest! But there you go …
LikeLike
Peter Rivenberg
Aug 20, 2018 @ 20:23:32
Liz, Maria, and Michelle, you have provided some great and thoughtful comments. When I first read the novel many years ago I was disappointed because it had been marketed as a Gothic novel and compared to The Unicorn, which at the time was my favorite; although I could see the Gothic elements and similarities with The Unicorn, this novel had an altogether different and darker feel, and it made me uncomfortable in a way that The Unicorn did not. I wasn’t sure why it had that effect, but I had no interest in reading it again. I’m so glad I did. This time around I found it extraordinary and terrifying, and as I was reading it I tried to figure out why it felt so different to me on that first reading.
For me the terror (and power) of the book comes from the literal darkness in the book, which felt this time like a reflection of Carel’s conception of the Good as empty and meaningless, or what Maria referred to as “no hope or belief in positive things like truth.” The pervasive fog and darkness are oppressive; breaking for only a couple of chapters of sunlight, they create a claustrophobic atmosphere and mirror Carel’s interiority, his inability to get out of his own head. Carel tells Marcus that Elizabeth “lived in her mind,” but the same could be said of him. And to some extent the fogged-in rectory may be an image of that enclosed mind.
I think Murdoch heightens the claustrophobia and the sense of interiority by carefully setting up her chapters in a series of scenes where one person is thinking or two people are talking. Only incidentally are there ever more than two people in a scene together. The limited communal interactions heighten the intimacy but also emphasize the fact that all sense of a spiritual community or a common good has fallen away in this rectory. Compare this to The Unicorn, where there are a number of communal scenes, sometimes rather tense, because that novel deals with a group united, at least for a time, by a common purpose – the protection, veneration, and imprisonment of Hannah.
The residents of the rectory don’t really know what their roles are in the imprisonment of Elizabeth. As a “sleeping princess,” she seems more passive than Hannah. Except for one line near the end when Marcus glimpses her inert form from a distance, we only see her, as Liz has mentioned, through Muriel’s eyes, and then only in parts of four chapters (4, 10, 16 and 18). She is constantly referenced but she almost seems to disappear, unlike Hannah, who has scenes with many characters and ultimately has the agency to run away when she has the chance. Elizabeth is barely characterized, and almost always appears with a jigsaw puzzle and cigar, two images onto which it is possible to project any amount of symbolism; and, of course, the disturbing corset that has been mentioned. Talk about claustrophobic!
That corset too reflects the suffocating structure of the novel. This is a book that does not seem to offer even a momentary vision, like Effingham’s, of transcendence through the disappearance of the self. In this novel, the shrinking of the self, as might be seen in Elizabeth, is more likely to lead to inertia and submission.
I agree they all need to get out more! I found some temporary relief in Norah’s golden cake crumbs and greengage jam by the fire and probably reveled in those comforting details more than I was meant to. They may be small protection against the darkness, but they grounded me in some other reality, one that was not quite so murky.
I still prefer The Unicorn, but my admiration for this novel has grown immensely and I feel I have more insight into my original reaction. I wanted it to be another Unicorn, but it turned out to be a stranger and more demonic creature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle Austin
Aug 21, 2018 @ 06:48:48
I think your right about the suffocation element, and that’s a really good point about the cigar as well, it’s an odd image, fairy tale princess smoking manly cigar, I mean yes there are obvious symbolisms there but just the image itself seems quite disconcerting to me. Personally I find this one more fascinating than The Unicorn, so perhaps I go in more for the demonic than the gothic, interesting bit of self discovery there!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Liz Dexter
Aug 21, 2018 @ 07:29:16
I’m so glad that you got so much out of your reluctant re-read, it really gives me a lift to know what this project is doing for people’s interest in IM and seeing how we all react differently to re-reads is something that will never cease to fascinate me. I’ve actually got more quiet in my reaction to this one from the first reading, but I remember being terrified but also feeling very sophisticated reading this one as it was shocking yet literary (probably the most extreme thing I’d read up to then was Virginia Andrews’ “Flowers in the Attic” – another weird family but not as literary!). I love your reading of the corset, cigar and jigsaw. I was completing a jigsaw myself this week – of the London A-Z map – but managed to refrain from cigars while I did so!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michelle Austin
Aug 22, 2018 @ 07:19:06
Have you read The Cement Garden by Ian McEwan? I was thinking the other day that probably is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read to parallel this. As I remember that also is a very short novel that delivers very difficult and shocking subject matter. But then I think Ian McEwan’s work generally is like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Aug 22, 2018 @ 07:40:05
Too shocking for me, I’m afraid!
LikeLike
Peter Rivenberg
Aug 24, 2018 @ 11:13:31
I have not read it, but now I may have to. Sometime when I am feeling well fortified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maria Peacock
Aug 22, 2018 @ 21:08:09
I find Peter’s observation that there are rarely conversations between more than two characters very interesting. I had not noticed this but see now how it adds this adds to the feeling of human isolation in the Rectory,, It is also a symptom of Carel’s autocratic power. All the household relate to him rather than each other. Even Muriel’s care of Elizabeth is under the direction of Carel. rather with him. They do not eat together and when Carel communicates with Muriel he ‘interviews’ her.
There is so much to think about in this novel. In a way Murdoch has created a dystopia in Carel’s regime, but in the disturbing scene where Muriel decides not to save him from suicide by calling an ambulance the reader knows she has to that to break his spell and the physical demolition of the Rectory complete this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michelle Austin
Aug 23, 2018 @ 06:25:40
It’s quite hard to imagine them having family dinners though, sitting round a table. That scene could have been even more disturbing I think.
LikeLike
Liz Dexter
Aug 23, 2018 @ 16:04:39
I’d not noticed that, either, in at least three, possibly four reads. And yes, Michelle, indeed!
LikeLike
“The Time of the Angels” roundup and “The Nice and the Good” preview #IMReadalong @IrisMurdoch | Adventures in reading, running and working from home
Sep 01, 2018 @ 05:47:07
Jo
Sep 02, 2018 @ 17:43:25
Sorry Liz, late again. I want to write reviews so I’ll remember my thoughts about a book but I dislike writing them, probably why I will never be a blogger! Such a great discussion as always and there were lots of points that I hadn’t noticed and that made me think; the two person conversations, the symbolism and mystery of Elizabeth and the idea of the house as a kind of hell. I can well empathize with your teenage terror as Carel really is a creepy character; whereas The Unicorn was a kind of fairy tale inspired Gothic, this felt darker.
My goodreads review is below and I hope to be a bit more prompt for the next book which I’m very much looking forward to.
Jo
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2499673214
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Sep 04, 2018 @ 07:18:53
That’s a wonderful review, thank you, and I’m sorry it found its way into the spam folder through no action of my own! I love how the discussion has added to your reading, too, which is what it’s all about. I think you’ll enjoy “The Nice and the Good” and am off to pop your link on the round-up post for this one now.
LikeLike
Book review – Iris Murdoch – “The Nice and the Good” #IMReadalong @IrisMurdoch | Adventures in reading, running and working from home
Sep 27, 2018 @ 07:06:19
Paul Lamb
Nov 06, 2018 @ 16:43:17
There are some curious parallels with this novel in the novel Darke by Rick Gekoski. Nearly the entire first third of that novel is filled with echoes of Angels. I don’t know if Gekoski read Iris Murdoch or not (I got the impression he would have), and his novel ends much more hopefully.
LikeLike
Liz Dexter
Nov 07, 2018 @ 06:16:41
Oh, that’s really interesting. I wonder if anyone has asked him! Thank you for sharing that.
LikeLike
John P. Houghton
Dec 29, 2018 @ 11:07:26
My favourite of Murdoch’s novels (so far). It has all the quintessential ingredients for her best writing. A closed, almost claustrophobic setting that is both familiar – an old London church, down by the river – and strange at the same time – mysterious, blacked out, impenetrable to outsiders. A small cast of characters who again are both mundane and almost mythic. Secrets that are partially revealed, even to the reader.
There were so many points when I paused to re-read a paragraph or sentence just to enjoy Murdoch’s writing again. The unborn Pattie a “pinpoint of possibilities inside Miss O’Driscoll’s belly”. Carel’s sweet affection creating “the hollow golden universe all ringing with joy”. Pattie’s daydreams hovering “like faintly illuminated strip cartoons at the back of her mind”. After the heavy plodding of ‘The Red and The Green’ this is sprinting, startling prose.
As I type, it occurs to me that the examples above all relate to Pattie. She seems to be the human touch-point in the book. Unlike Carel, who is too corrupted to be relatable, or Marcus, who can only understand people in the abstract.
The figure of Carel and the isolation of the church made me think of ‘The Time of the Angels’ as a dark version of ‘The Tempest’; an ageing, rather erratic, father and his daughter, being forced into contact with an outside world. There is almost a ‘brave new world’ moment when Muriel plans to introduce Leo and Elizabeth.
The other work that this novel reminded me of was ‘The Waste Land’. The Thames, as well as fog, feature heavily in Eliot’s poem, which is also ‘set’ in a devastated and spiritually landscape.
What a relief to find Murdoch back and better than ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Dec 30, 2018 @ 13:22:25
A lovely reading, thank you, and glad you felt she was “back” after The Red and the Green (I think that one only really works when you know all her oeuvre well and her usual characters, then you can at least pick those out of the oddness). I like your comparison with a sort of dark Tempest and the links to The Waste Land.
LikeLike
Sjoerd van der Weide
Sep 02, 2019 @ 13:01:27
Why is Anthea seen weeping in the last part
? Is it only because of Carels death (for she had loved him once), or is there more to it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liz Dexter
Sep 02, 2019 @ 13:38:57
Thank you for your question. I think Carel’s death and the general failure of her attempts to sort things out, maybe. But mainly that.
LikeLike
simon hanson
Jul 27, 2021 @ 18:05:52
I enjoyed this , I read it in two days ,and there were not many characters.
I disliked patronising Muriel, she spitefully destroys Patties life for no reason, although inadvertantly freeing her from remorse. Pattie gives her another bad truth in return. Perhaps Pattie is the fallen angel we get after having killed god. Badly brought up, looking for God, being rejected but doing good in the end. None of the characters understands any of the others.
I also don’t understand amoral Leo who seems to lie all the time, preying on the gullable. He rejects his father , perhaps that’s a metaphor for the rejection of God in the novel. He seems to be the only one in a substantially better position at the end.
LikeLike
Liz Dexter
Jul 28, 2021 @ 06:34:07
Thank you for your insights! I love the one about Leo and his father – very possible and an interesting one. Do any IM characters ever understand any of the others?
LikeLike