Scan barcode
daja57's review
5.0
I read this book many years ago and I had remembered very little.
It is set in a sort of commune of Christians who live in a posh country house in the middle of the countryside (Swindon seems to be the nearest town) and support themselves by running a market garden and are 'attached' to a local convent which contains an enclosed and unviewable order of nuns. They are gearing up for the presentation of a new bell to the convent to replace the one that was lost in the middle ages. The discovery of the old bell, whose tolling is said to portend a death, is the turning point in the centre of the novel.
The story is told (in third person, past tense) from the points of view of Dora (described as a "child-wife"; Ch1: echoes of Dora in David Copperfield?), a flighty young woman who is returning to her husband after leaving him, Toby, a sexually innocent eighteen-year-old who is spending his summer holidays helping out at the community prior to going up to university, and Michael, the leader of the community, a closet homosexual. Other major characters include Paul, Dora's bullying and controlling husband, James, the strait-laced number two in the community, gossipy Mrs Mark, and alcoholic Nick, a figure from Michael's past. Nick's twin sister Catherine plays an important part at the end of the plot which I didn't think was fully justified given her shadowy presence earlier. The mostly off-stage Abbess is a sort of cross between a wise-woman and a witch (specifically from Macbeth, at one stage she quotes the line about "when the hurly-burly's done").
The theme of the novel is the disruption that life, specifically sexual urges, can bring to the religious life; it it the age-old battle between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Dora who flip-flops between her husband and a slightly camp but heterosexual journalist is the frame story but the meat of the argument concerns the ins-and-outs of homosexuality.
It was published in 1958 (a year after the Wolfenden report recommended decriminalising homosexuality) and seems extraordinarily dated. There is the use of the phrase "working like a black" (Ch 11). The word 'gay' means happy and care-free. Dora never seriously considers divorce, despite the obvious cruelty of her husband. The music is either jazz or classical. The innocence of eighteen year old Toby is stunning: there may still be eighteen year old male virgins but I can't imagine that anyone nowadays will be so naive about their sexuality. Toby also regrets having been a day pupil at school; it's seen as unusual. The campness of the journalist is because of the way he talks which was probably merely seen as sophisticated in those times; he also knows the Bishop from the Athenaeum.
This datedness shows most in the arguments over homosexuality. Michael was seduced aged fourteen at school and had two "intense" affairs there; subsequently, as a teacher, he is dismissed for his homosexual flirtation with a pupil and the dismissal is covered-up so he can go on to teach elsewhere. Nowadays we wouldn't bat an eye at the homosexuality but there would be shock and horror at what would be regarded as paedophilic child sex abuse. But Murdoch is obviously sincere in trying to 'normalise' homosexual affection despite the condemnation of 'sodomy' by the strait-laced James. But it is clear that homosexuality is regarded as a major perversion, both by Michael, who sees it as a vice or weakness he must suppress, a sin which destroys any chance he has of becoming a priest, something which is incompatible with his religion ("For a creature such as himself the service of God must means a loss of personality ... or the surrender of will in an unquestioning obedience"; Ch 6; "God had created men and women with these tendencies, and made those tendencies to run so deep that they were, in many cases, the very core of the personality. ... God had made him so and he did not think that God had made him a monster."; Ch 16), and by Toby who, following the shocked realisation that Michael fancies him, fears he might be 'like that'. This implied enormity of homosexuality is at odds with any attempt to make it seem like a natural part of life: at the end Michael regrets that Toby has been sent away from the community because it means Toby might make more of what happened than he should: "almost any other way of closing the incident would have been better than this one." (Ch 25)
The weakness of the novel is that the dialogue is rather artificially constructed. It's a bit like listening to the arguments for and against a proposition at a university debating society. This is a novel of ideas and sometimes the ideas intrude. The strength of the novel is the care which Murdoch lavishes on constructing her characters; even the least important have a bit of back-story. These people may seem rather strange - giving up the world for a life of service, subjugating their sexuality to an imported moral code - but they are ordinary (if determinedly upper-middle-class).
It has a good hook The first line is "Dora Greenfield left her husband because she was afraid of him. She decided six months later to return to him for the same reason." The plot is perfectly paced: the first narrative switch, from Dora to Michael, comes around the 25% mark; the bell is found half-way through the novel; the second-half is more action-packed than the first and towards the end the twists come thick and fast.
But how I hate books that use foreign phrases. Is the reader expected to know them? Or is the author showing off?
"une jeune fille un peu folle" = a slightly crazy young girl. Is the English so much less posh? It certainly communicates better to English readers.
"etourderies" = thoughtlessnesses
"fou rire" = crazy laugh
"malgre eux" = despite themselves
"Quarens me, sedisti lassus; Redemisti, Crucem passus; Tantus labor non sit cassus." = Seeking me, you rested, weary; You redeemed [me], having suffered the Cross; do not let such efforts be in vain. It's a quote from the Dies Irae section of the Requiem Mass. Perhaps, in those days, everyone knew their Latin. Nevertheless, even then, a footnote translation might have been in order.
On the other hand I quite enjoyed the fact that Toby repeatedly used his favourite word of the moment (rebarbative) even though I had to look it up. It means unattractive to the point of being objectionable. I don't mind having to look up English words; it seems to me that I ought to know them. But foreignisms? No. (And yes, I know that in my novel Motherdarling Jack who has lived in Paris uses a whole paragraph of untranslated French but I think the reader can guess that he is using a lot of rude words.)
It is set in a sort of commune of Christians who live in a posh country house in the middle of the countryside (Swindon seems to be the nearest town) and support themselves by running a market garden and are 'attached' to a local convent which contains an enclosed and unviewable order of nuns. They are gearing up for the presentation of a new bell to the convent to replace the one that was lost in the middle ages. The discovery of the old bell, whose tolling is said to portend a death, is the turning point in the centre of the novel.
The story is told (in third person, past tense) from the points of view of Dora (described as a "child-wife"; Ch1: echoes of Dora in David Copperfield?), a flighty young woman who is returning to her husband after leaving him, Toby, a sexually innocent eighteen-year-old who is spending his summer holidays helping out at the community prior to going up to university, and Michael, the leader of the community, a closet homosexual. Other major characters include Paul, Dora's bullying and controlling husband, James, the strait-laced number two in the community, gossipy Mrs Mark, and alcoholic Nick, a figure from Michael's past. Nick's twin sister Catherine plays an important part at the end of the plot which I didn't think was fully justified given her shadowy presence earlier. The mostly off-stage Abbess is a sort of cross between a wise-woman and a witch (specifically from Macbeth, at one stage she quotes the line about "when the hurly-burly's done").
The theme of the novel is the disruption that life, specifically sexual urges, can bring to the religious life; it it the age-old battle between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Dora who flip-flops between her husband and a slightly camp but heterosexual journalist is the frame story but the meat of the argument concerns the ins-and-outs of homosexuality.
It was published in 1958 (a year after the Wolfenden report recommended decriminalising homosexuality) and seems extraordinarily dated. There is the use of the phrase "working like a black" (Ch 11). The word 'gay' means happy and care-free. Dora never seriously considers divorce, despite the obvious cruelty of her husband. The music is either jazz or classical. The innocence of eighteen year old Toby is stunning: there may still be eighteen year old male virgins but I can't imagine that anyone nowadays will be so naive about their sexuality. Toby also regrets having been a day pupil at school; it's seen as unusual. The campness of the journalist is because of the way he talks which was probably merely seen as sophisticated in those times; he also knows the Bishop from the Athenaeum.
This datedness shows most in the arguments over homosexuality. Michael was seduced aged fourteen at school and had two "intense" affairs there; subsequently, as a teacher, he is dismissed for his homosexual flirtation with a pupil and the dismissal is covered-up so he can go on to teach elsewhere. Nowadays we wouldn't bat an eye at the homosexuality but there would be shock and horror at what would be regarded as paedophilic child sex abuse. But Murdoch is obviously sincere in trying to 'normalise' homosexual affection despite the condemnation of 'sodomy' by the strait-laced James. But it is clear that homosexuality is regarded as a major perversion, both by Michael, who sees it as a vice or weakness he must suppress, a sin which destroys any chance he has of becoming a priest, something which is incompatible with his religion ("For a creature such as himself the service of God must means a loss of personality ... or the surrender of will in an unquestioning obedience"; Ch 6; "God had created men and women with these tendencies, and made those tendencies to run so deep that they were, in many cases, the very core of the personality. ... God had made him so and he did not think that God had made him a monster."; Ch 16), and by Toby who, following the shocked realisation that Michael fancies him, fears he might be 'like that'. This implied enormity of homosexuality is at odds with any attempt to make it seem like a natural part of life: at the end Michael regrets that Toby has been sent away from the community because it means Toby might make more of what happened than he should: "almost any other way of closing the incident would have been better than this one." (Ch 25)
The weakness of the novel is that the dialogue is rather artificially constructed. It's a bit like listening to the arguments for and against a proposition at a university debating society. This is a novel of ideas and sometimes the ideas intrude. The strength of the novel is the care which Murdoch lavishes on constructing her characters; even the least important have a bit of back-story. These people may seem rather strange - giving up the world for a life of service, subjugating their sexuality to an imported moral code - but they are ordinary (if determinedly upper-middle-class).
It has a good hook The first line is "Dora Greenfield left her husband because she was afraid of him. She decided six months later to return to him for the same reason." The plot is perfectly paced: the first narrative switch, from Dora to Michael, comes around the 25% mark; the bell is found half-way through the novel; the second-half is more action-packed than the first and towards the end the twists come thick and fast.
But how I hate books that use foreign phrases. Is the reader expected to know them? Or is the author showing off?
"une jeune fille un peu folle" = a slightly crazy young girl. Is the English so much less posh? It certainly communicates better to English readers.
"etourderies" = thoughtlessnesses
"fou rire" = crazy laugh
"malgre eux" = despite themselves
"Quarens me, sedisti lassus; Redemisti, Crucem passus; Tantus labor non sit cassus." = Seeking me, you rested, weary; You redeemed [me], having suffered the Cross; do not let such efforts be in vain. It's a quote from the Dies Irae section of the Requiem Mass. Perhaps, in those days, everyone knew their Latin. Nevertheless, even then, a footnote translation might have been in order.
On the other hand I quite enjoyed the fact that Toby repeatedly used his favourite word of the moment (rebarbative) even though I had to look it up. It means unattractive to the point of being objectionable. I don't mind having to look up English words; it seems to me that I ought to know them. But foreignisms? No. (And yes, I know that in my novel Motherdarling Jack who has lived in Paris uses a whole paragraph of untranslated French but I think the reader can guess that he is using a lot of rude words.)
azka_a's review
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
savaging's review
5.0
The A.S. Byatt introduction to this made me think this 1958 publication was a Novel of Ideas. Imagine my surprise to find it's as juicy and hilarious as a season of White Lotus. I GASPED ALOUD many times.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the character of Nick. But every other character was fascinating to me. And sure, there were Ideas too.
I'm still not sure how I feel about the character of Nick.
Spoiler
In a book of complex and nuanced characters, he comes a little too close to being an unmitigated villain.passanteltarek2's review against another edition
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75
r0binflower's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
mysterious
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
vkce23's review against another edition
funny
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jaina8851's review against another edition
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
What an absolutely fascinating read. This is definitely the sort of book that I wish I could read in the context of an English seminar or something, where I could have a discussion led by a professor to dig into everything and provide context about the story. One thing that really stood out to me is that for a story that was written nearly 60 years ago, I found the characters and their struggles surprisingly relatable. Which I suppose in some ways feels like a silly thing to say, since people are people across all time periods, but it felt like a really interesting tension between how much has changed since 1958 and how much could have been written today. I really didn't know anything about this book before getting started with it and I assumed it would mostly focus on Dora, so I was pleasantly surprised when it started branching out into deep POVs with the other main characters of the story. It felt like a precursor to one of my favorite genres of books, "slow moving character studies", until about 70% of the way through where everything all came together very quickly and chaotically. There was one chapter at that point where I swear I heard yakkety sax playing in my head as the comedy (tragedy?) of errors all played out in very rapid succession. The ending left me feeling very reflective. My book club read this a long time before I joined, but I really wish I had been somehow been present for the conversation about it because I just want to TALK to people about what the heck happened in this book.
beq3's review
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
A weirdly uncomfortable read. You are pulled back and forth, liking and disliking the characters, horrified by them, sorry for them, willing them to do better, understanding when they don't. People are really sometimes impenetrable, they don't understand themselves and growth is hard.
Even the landscape is difficult people walk down lanes, and through gates, find doorways in the wall and plunge into the water. The landscape is endlessly described but I could never visualise it clearly. I think now this is probably deliberate as it adds a lot to the unsettling atmosphere of the book and increases your sense of these being people who are in some way lost.
An excellent read, but quite challenging. One of those books that you find yourself puzzling over afterwards.
Even the landscape is difficult people walk down lanes, and through gates, find doorways in the wall and plunge into the water. The landscape is endlessly described but I could never visualise it clearly. I think now this is probably deliberate as it adds a lot to the unsettling atmosphere of the book and increases your sense of these being people who are in some way lost.
An excellent read, but quite challenging. One of those books that you find yourself puzzling over afterwards.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship
carnationlilyrose's review against another edition
dark
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0