On May 31, 1985:
It is killed.
“It” (1986), Stephen King
From “The Book of Fictional Days”
On May 31, 1985:
It is killed.
“It” (1986), Stephen King
From “The Book of Fictional Days”
The first thing you will want to know about “At Last,” the final volume in Edward St. Aubyn’s five-novel cycle starring Patrick Melrose, is that, yes, you really do have to read the preceding four if you want to appreciate it fully. The second is that if reading about wealthy, conceited, selfish, dissipated, cruel, monstrously awful people is not for you, then, alas, neither are these novels. The third is that the books are brilliant. They are also highly idiosyncratic: Each installment is both a comedy of manners and a wrenching psychological investigation; each oscillates between satire and tragedy, and all are written with flash and brio, ornamented by inspired simile, and spangled with mordant, Wildean wit.
The first four novels have just been published in one paperback volume, beginning with “Never Mind,” a title of apt and dismal pathos. Here we meet Patrick Melrose, five years old and living in a château in Provence with his parents. His alcoholic, drug-befuddled mother, Eleanor, is an American heiress to some part of a dry-cleaning fortune, and it was that attribute that had captivated Patrick’s sadistic English father, David. Trained as a doctor, he abandoned his practice upon marriage — though, we are told, “there had been talk of using some of her money to start a home for alcoholics. In a sense they had succeeded.”
The novel takes place over one terrible day and night, during which — and I must reveal this, as it is pivotal to the entire series — Patrick is raped by his father. While it is happening, the boy manages to disassociate himself from the event, seeing himself perched above the scene, mentally escaping his body. This split — between being there and not being there, between immediacy of experience and fending it off — bedevils Patrick from then on in every area of existence. That breach and his efforts to repair or at least bridge it, through drugs, alcohol, sex and tormented self-examination, make up the cycle’s shattering theme.
As for Patrick’s mother, Eleanor: she is unmindful of everything but pills and booze, charitable causes, and the sure prospect that her husband will humiliate her, publicly if possible, at every opportunity. Absent from home the morning Patrick was attacked and oblivious to it, she later pauses, while writing a check to the Save the Children Fund, to consider Patrick’s subdued demeanor, marveling “at how well her son had turned out. Perhaps people were just born one way or another and the main thing was not to interfere too much.” Patrick’s fear and confusion, Eleanor’s obtuseness and self-involvement, and David’s viciousness and “nimbus of insanity” provide the atmosphere amid which a dinner party is staged. The guests, characters we will meet again in following volumes, introduce us to the first principle of the decadent British upper caste: Nothing is so insufferable as a bore.
In this view, or, rather, under this obsession, a bore is a person who is genuinely tedious — and there are some terrifically funny representatives of that species in these novels — but a bore is also a person who cares about things. The surest defense against being branded a bore is to avoid the appearance of sincerity or compassion and to display a certain outrageousness. As David contemplates his violation of his son at this novel’s conclusion, he reflects, “He must try not to do it again, that really would be tempting fate. David could not help smiling at his own audacity.”
“Bad News,” the second novel, is not exactly a breath of fresh air. Patrick is now 22 and a heroin addict (with a sideline in Quaaludes, amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol). He is in New York, having received news that his father has died there. Eleanor, now divorced from her tormenter and even more devoted to charitable works, is not on the scene. Patrick has to deal with the body’s cremation and, more pressingly, with replenishing his drug supply. He is a mess: needle-scarred and bruised, his psyche a tangle of anxiety, hatred and self-loathing. The pain is excruciating, the comedy ghoulish: Storming down the street carrying his father’s ashes, he realizes that “it was the first time he had been alone with his father for more than ten minutes without being buggered, hit, or insulted.”
“Some Hope” brings us Patrick at 30, his past lying “before him like a corpse waiting to be embalmed.” He lives in London, free of drugs and drink but more than ever engaged in an interior battle with the demons of the past: with his father, and, to an extent, with his mother, who, for all her ceaseless do-gooding, failed to protect her own son. The novel was meant to complete an intended trilogy, and it does end with Patrick finding a certain amount of peace — and some hope. Aside from that, it is enormously funny, the story organized around an elaborate, snob-infested country house party, a scene of social striving and mortification — the guests, among them Princess Margaret, are described with glorious malice.
With “Mother’s Milk,” Patrick Melrose breaks free of the trilogy and emerges as a married man with two children, though — need it be said? — he is back in a state of “agitated despair.” He is drinking again, can’t sleep, and has a slight problem with Tamazepam, “namely that it wasn’t strong enough. The side effects, the memory loss, the dehydration, the hangover, the menace of nightmarish withdrawals, all that worked beautifully. It was just the sleep that was missing.” His troubles are further compounded by the fear that he will pass on his dark and riven consciousness to his children, just as his parents passed on their own sickness of soul. Meanwhile, Eleanor, who, we learn, may not have been entirely ignorant of Patrick’s father’s abuse, is in the process of disinheriting her son. She is handing over her estate in Provence to a New Age charlatan, a smarmy back rubber and would-be shaman who has set up a “Transpersonal Foundation” on the premises.
Profiting from the three-book foundation upon which it is built, “Mother’s Milk” is a triumph, once again both gruesome and funny. There are wonderful comic set pieces, including a dreadful family vacation in New York City. But the grim work of psychological excavation also continues, this time with Eleanor as its chief object, as Patrick considers the machinations by which the weak exercise their grotesque tyranny. But something new has entered the picture: the children, two little boys, bringing with them an element of sweetness and genuine love.
And so we come to “At Last:” Patrick is 45, and his mother has died: With both parents gone, he feels that he has “been waiting all his life for this sense of completeness.” But even as he pats his mother’s coffin “as an owner might pat a winning race horse,” we see that things are not splendid. He has given up drink but is also separated from his wife and children — and he is also still mystified and tormented by the chaos of his psyche.
How, I sense you wondering, can this still be interesting? It really is: Not only because St. Aubyn is so entertaining a writer but because of the increasing philosophical depth he brings to the story. As Patrick delves deeper and deeper into the mystery of memory and identity, we wonder with him if they are, in fact, the same thing. And if so, the urge to escape is, in his case at least, irresistible — if not through drugs and drink, then through irony: “Forget heroin,” he tells a former mistress. “Just try giving up irony, that deep-down need to mean two things at once, to be in two places at once, not to be there for the catastrophe of a fixed meaning.”
And yet Patrick’s unwinding story never really loses this double nature, its devotion to pain and the comedy that only partly holds it at bay. St. Aubyn’s own experiences inform these novels, and his unhappy circumstance no doubt endows Patrick’s with its sense of urgency and anguished intensity. But whatever the author’s actual state of mind has been or is now, its expression in art is a complete success.
Prognostication about the future of the book is everywhere; making predictions about what books will be like tomorrow seems much more profitable (not to mention easier) than creating actual books today. Yet all these prophecies collide with a basic problem: The book, as it currently exists, is hard to improve upon. Cheap, highly portable and free of maddening formatting problems, the printed book has met most readers’ needs pretty well. Sure, in recent years, technology has transformed the distribution of texts — you can order any book online or tote around dozens of e-books in a lightweight reader — but the vast majority of these books remain essentially the same: linear strings of words, with the occasional image.
Still, the dream of interactive books lives on, despite a series of digital disappointments ranging from hypertext fiction to CD-ROMs to experimental Web novels to current ventures in social reading. Previously, I wrote about the inherent tensions between interactivity and narrative in enhanced fiction e-books. Indeed, there’s little evidence that images, videos, sound effects or clickable doohickeys add anything of value in the eyes of most readers of prose fiction. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, the enhanced e-book of Stephen King’s novel “11/22/63″ contained a 13-minute film by King himself, yet only 45,000 readers were willing to shell out the extra $2 to get it, compared to 300,000 who bought the unadorned e-book ($14.99) or the 1 million purchasers of the print edition ($35). King’s publisher expressed doubts that enhanced e-books were worth the extra trouble and expense.
Nonfiction, however, is another matter. While some developers labor in vain to improve upon the immersive storytelling of novelists like King, others are taking factual material that might have once been published between hard covers and turning it into strange and wondrous new creations. The most successfully enhanced e-book is the one you may not even recognize as a book.
The first among these were introductory science apps like “The Elements” (used to showcase the iPad’s potential when the device was first released) and astronomy apps like “Solar System for iPad” and “Solar Walk.” A recent release, “Back in Time,” lets the user turn the hands of a cosmic clock and scroll through a series of images to explore a timeline of the history of the universe. All of these books — for that’s the category they’re given in Apple’s App Store — use touch-responsive 3-D animation and other model-like features to help the reader visualize concepts well outside their everyday experience: vast distances in time or space, the motion of the planets and the relationship between molecular structure and palpable objects. Technically, I know that the earth’s tilted axis as it orbits the sun determines the changing seasons, but “Solar Walk” allows me to see it happen.
The popularity of science apps like “The Elements” no doubt encouraged Apple to move aggressively into digital textbook publishing with its recent upgrade to iBooks. The iBookstore, with its too-broad categories and abysmal metadata, has failed to emerge as a contender among retailers of trade e-books. Apple now seems to be concentrating its energies on the education market. IBooks titles can incorporate an array of visual, audio and video features, which make it possible for publishers to create books like “The Elements” for older students. Sometimes the results add little more than eye candy, sometimes not. The sample book released with the upgrade, “Life on Earth” by E.O. Wilson, sports a lot of beautiful photographs and videos, few of which are particularly informative, but the animations of cell activity do help make the weird-looking structures of the microscopic world comprehensible.
Whole categories of routine instructional books are in the process of being digitally revolutionized. Cookbooks can include demonstration videos for beginners and advanced forms of recipe organization for more practiced cooks. You can better learn to lift hand weights or fix a car or do card tricks from a combination of text and video. There’s not much glamour or art in enhancing such practical titles, but there’s a lot of common sense. The linearity of stories may be fundamental to the pleasure they offer, but in books like these, linearity was always merely arbitrary, imposed by the print book form. Hardly anyone reads them one page at a time, in order, from cover to cover.
Even a work of substantive narrative nonfiction, however, can be genuinely enriched with some basic multimedia add-ons. The enhanced edition of Katherine Boo’s “Behind the Beautiful Forevers” comes with several short videos featuring the Mumbai slum dwellers who serve as the main characters in that remarkable book. These films form a moving version of the photographic inserts traditionally tipped into the center of biographies and histories. You can’t read the book without wanting to know what these people look like. However, since most readers deciding which version to buy haven’t read the book yet, it will be interesting to see how many are willing to spring the extra buck for the edition with the videos.
Boo shot the footage on a Flip camera as part of her research. Once upon a time (say, two years ago), these videos might have been offered for free on the author’s or publisher’s website. But not every nonfiction author just happens to have a lot of documentary images and video on hand, waiting to be repurposed for publication. The great problem with any e-book enhancement is cost. Original artwork, video and animation must be commissioned or the right to use preexisting works obtained. That gets expensive — really expensive. Voice-overs and readings call for the skills of professional actors. The whole kit and caboodle then has to be inserted into the text, which depending on how well-integrated it is, may require the expertise of programmers.
Most authors and book publishers aren’t in the business of producing this sort of thing. Add to that a prevailing attitude among consumers that e-books ought to be cheaper than their print counterparts — no matter what extras they include — and there’s not much incentive for book publishers or authors to take the trouble. As understandable as this reluctance may be from a business perspective, it’s still disappointing. Imagine how much more enlightening, say, a book on popular physics or the military campaigns of Alexander the Great or the current fiscal crisis might be with a few well-considered moving or interactive images.
An example, and one of the few enhanced e-books considered a genuine success, is Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland,” an examination of the popular right-wing response to the counterculture of the 1960s. The enhanced e-book edition includes 27 clips, taken from CBS News archives, illustrating key events in a highly televised period of American history. Each clip is embedded in the page that refers to it. But bear in mind that the book’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, is a division of CBS, which surely made it much easier to obtain the rights to use those clips.
“Nixonland” started with a (celebrated) text, then added video. NBC News recently announced the formation of a digital book publishing division that works in reverse. It will produce titles on current events and personalities with the clips as the springboard, and then incorporate text from published books, NBC staff writers and freelancers. Companies who already know how to make videos, animated graphics and complex websites have the edge when it comes to publishing multimedia e-books. All they have to do is hire some professional writers. Traditional book publishers, on the other hand, have to figure out how to commission several types of visual media despite having little experience in working with anything but text. Besides, writing is cheap, right?
Not so fast. Complaints from app consumers about the weak writing in some otherwise spectacular digital books suggest that corner-cutting in this department is rife. Programmer- or designer-driven works often borrow text from Wikipedia and other public-domain sources, and this does not go unnoticed. One happy exception is the recently published “Skulls by Simon Winchester,” an app by Touch Press, the company responsible for “The Elements” and last year’s groundbreaking T.S. Eliot e-book, “The Waste Land.” The ever-debonair Winchester, bestselling author of “The Professor and the Madman,” not only wrote the text that accompanies the app’s 300 rotatable images of human and animal skulls (as well as artifacts representing the human head) — he also reads it. The result is informative and thoughtful as well as gorgeous and diverting. More, please.
Further reading
There’s a moment in Raymond Carver’s imperishable story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” that might be described as one of unregistered revelation. Two middle-aged couples perch at a kitchen table consuming an anesthetizing amount of gin while trying to converse about the fundamentals of love. Mel McGinnis, a cardiologist and the table’s chief discourser, for whom “gin” is literally a middle name, offers a heuristic anecdote: He once administered to an elderly husband and wife, married for eons, who were almost snuffed out in a heinous car wreck. Supine in the same hospital room as his wife, the old man despairs not because of his own injuries but because he can’t see his wife through the eye holes in his full-body cast. “Can you imagine?” Mel asks. “I’m telling you, the man’s heart was breaking because he couldn’t turn his goddamn head and see his goddamn wife.”
Carver’s story is less a narrative than Mel’s monologue, his inebriated apologia on amore, and one that perhaps would have been better served by the title “How We Talk When We Talk About Love,” since the how is Carver’s real concern: in circles, platitudes and tautologies, and always without certainty or complete comprehension, drunk or otherwise. Mel concludes his anecdote by asking, “Do you see what I’m saying?” But of course none of the four does see, least of all Mel himself. In true Carverian fashion, all present have had multiple marriages and all kneel at the altar of alcohol. The god of the bottle, like covetous and insecure Yahweh himself, requires one’s complete fealty: Eros becomes another casualty of consumption. The revelation that Mel unknowingly offers — true love matures by paradox, by simultaneously vanquishing and uplifting the self — passes unregistered.
In the title story of Nathan Englander’s charismatic new collection, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank,” revelations abound. Two Jewish couples — one secular and American, the other Hasidic and Israeli — spend a Sunday afternoon in the former’s Florida home downing vodka and sparring over Jewishness. The Israeli husband, Mark, is a convincing example of exactly what we find obnoxious and, worse, outright yawnful about religious zealotry: Chauvinism and moral superiority wedded to a fondness for bullshit and the very pressing need to spread it. The narrator oscillates between acceptance of and contempt for this oaken blowhard, though alcohol and marijuana help ease the afternoon.
But the marijuana, palliative in one regard, is also cause for the narrator’s unheralded discovery: His wife, Deb, has filched the weed from their teenage son’s bedroom. The narrator is unnerved to learn that his boy has a drug habit and, more menacing, that his wife has kept that fact from him: “It feels to me a lot like betrayal,” he muses. “Like my wife’s old secret” — she and the Israeli wife, Lauren, smoked copious pot as teenagers — “and my son’s new secret are wound up together and that I’ve somehow been wronged.” One senses that this awkward unmasking, this destruction of trust, will deliver a lightning bolt to an otherwise cloudless marriage.
The story’s second unheralded revelation belongs to Lauren. In a spacious pantry with the post-pot munchies, the four play an Anne Frank game devised by the Shoah-obsessed Deb: Should another Holocaust occur, which of their Gentile friends would protect them? Short on Christian comrades to hypothesize about, they turn to each other, and when Mark pretends to be a Gentile asked to safeguard his wife, Lauren realizes, in a tense and exposing moment, that he would not do it, despite his paltry assertions to the contrary.
Englander’s clever version of Carver’s famous story sacrifices precisely that element that makes the Carver so effective — the affirmation that epiphanic awakenings are rare, that people don’t improve because they are adverse to revelations that might challenge their fought-for complacency and force them to confront the inadequacies they’ve spent a lifetime hiding from — and yet the sacrifice yields its own potency. The narrator and Lauren will never behold anything in their homes quite the same way again. Carver’s story occurs on a quotidian day in denuded lives, Englander’s on an uncommon day in lives nearly whole. All eight will wake up the next morning hung over, but only two will wake up changed.
Englander must be one of the most charming, most likable storytellers in America. From his first collection, the wildly successful “For the Relief of Unbearable Urges,” to his novel, “The Ministry of Special Cases,” to this current collection, he crafts expert fiction with a close to saintly absence of self-congratulation and, more important, with a Cervantean facility for navigating the narrow strait between hilarity and heart wreck. In her magisterial study of Holocaust literature, “A Thousand Darknesses,” Ruth Franklin rightly contends that Englander’s story “The Tumblers,” from his debut collection, “is the most brilliant treatment of the Holocaust in contemporary American fiction.” It achieves this brilliance partly by way of a comedic absurdity that would feel at ease in Ionesco or Beckett — not the well-worn route for Holocaust literature.
In the final story of “Anne Frank,” “Free Fruit for Young Widows,” Englander revisits the Holocaust, this time without the absurdist hand. A Jerusalem fruit vendor tells his son the life story of a certain patron, Professor Tendler, a survivor of the Shoah and former soldier who served with the fruit vendor in the 1956 Suez War with Egypt. Tendler was a savage killer in the years following the liberation of the camps and in the requisite wars he fought for Israel. He had survived the camp by burrowing into “a mountain of putrid, naked corpses, a hill of men,” helped by fellow prisoners who colluded in his concealment and brought him “the crumbs of their crumbs to keep him going” until the Americans arrived. Upon returning home, Tendler slaughtered an entire family, including an infant, who had taken up residence in his house. The fruit vendor’s son is befuddled by how this individual could have turned so monstrous when his father, also a survivor, emerged with his morality intact. “He walks, he breathes,” the fruit vendor tells him, “and he was very close to making it out of Europe alive. But they killed him…. They killed what was left of him in the end.” The story is both a deeply unsettling and oddly touching meditation on the enigma of evil, and — in Kant’s famous metaphor — on the crooked timber of humanity from which no straight thing can ever be made.
No offering in “Anne Frank” fails to accomplish the objective of eminent storytelling: an aptitude for entertainment and instruction affixed to a faultless aesthetic sensibility. “Peep Show” unfurls as if in a Freudian nightmare. “Sister Hills” includes an elegant sparsity and faintly fabulist bent reminiscent of the great Israeli novelist Aharon Appelfeld. A twist on the classic bully tale “How We Avenged the Blums” extols the deliciousness of retribution while mining the dysphoria that deems it necessary. The most searing, sinister story in the collection, “Camp Sundown,” should be the envy of suspense writers everywhere: At an idyllic summer camp, a pair of survivors becomes convinced that a fellow camper was a Nazi guard during the Holocaust. Josh, the young camp director, grows slowly incensed: “Doley Falk, a Nazi. An old Nazi hiding in the Berkshires under the guise of a blue-toed low-sodium bridge-playing Jew. It is madness.” And by plot’s end that madness will morph into horror, as madness will do given half a chance.
If Englander has a shortcoming as a storyteller it’s his apparent inability to imagine a human predicament that is not insistently Jewish. The least pernicious effect of this can be the ennui involved in asking one to traipse over the same landscape again and again, while the most pernicious can be akin to proselytizing. Despite his frequent critiques and satirizing of the Orthodox, Englander writes as if he’s still one of them. One shouldn’t wish to be tagged a Jewish writer any more than one should wish to be tagged a female writer or an atheist writer, and yet Englander screams for that nomenclature.
He himself hints at an awareness of this potential snag. In “Everything I Know About My Family on My Mother’s Side,” the girlfriend tells the narrator, a writer named Nathan, “What you do is tell the stories you have, as best you can.” And when Nathan suggests that his stories might be too recognizable, too rote, the girlfriend changes her mind: “You find better stories than that.” In Englander’s case, though, better is not the problem — other is the problem.
Perhaps Bellow is an unjust contrast for any living fiction writer to be set against, but consider how his journeys of mind are never restricted by a single religio-cultural passport; consider his steadfast resistance to being cubicled. Updike’s immortality has been assured in part by an intrepid willingness to go almost anywhere as witness (how many novelists who happen to be secular Protestants would risk the anomie, the chutzpah, to birth Henry Bech, occluded Jewish writer with an inclination to homicide?). Carver, on the other hand, will always be just shy of greatness because his imagination was tranquilized by his circumstances. No one better understands a heaven-less working class ambushed by the fallacy of the American Dream, but Carver simply has no other subject. “Write what you know” sits among the worst advice ever uttered.
Which is not to suggest that Englander has an equally tranquilized imagination. All three of his books indeed contain stretches of superb imaginative and fabulist strength. Englander has had a Borgesian streak in him from the start and more in common with Bruno Schulz than many have been willing to propose. But the incessant likening of him to Jewish writer par excellence, I. B. Singer, is mainly on target. If Englander intends to join the immortals he’ll have to obviate over-trodden territory and widen his range.
For now — no American storyteller writes more beautifully about Jewish identity, and “What We Talk About when We Talk About Anne Frank” is an indelible confirmation of Englander’s observant integrity, one more attestation to the promise of his greatness.
This novel, the fourth that Daniel Handler, better known for the novels he wrote under the name Lemony Snicket, which rival those written by a woman named Rowling in copies sold, has written under his own name, is arguably his first explicitly targeted toward older teens. Though the first two Handler novels featured high school and college-age protagonists, their subject matter (homicide and incest) made them more the province of literary adults.
The subject of “Why We Broke Up” — the unlikely romance between a “jocky” boy and a girl he insists, despite her protests, on calling “arty” — would sit comfortably next to any classic John Hughes movie. But the execution is a master class in the things books do best: It’s loaded with sly, beautifully produced illustrations by Maira Kalman and Handler’s exquisitely wrought sentences, brimming with charm and surprise, whether describing invented plots to classic films, clothes coming off a dry-cleaning rack, or the gorgeous banality, beauty and terror of high school life.
The novel begins at the end: 16-year-old Min — “call me La Desperada” — is making a pilgrimage in a borrowed truck to dump off a cardboard box containing the “prizes and the debris of this relationship, like the glitter in the gutter when the parade has passed.” The intended recipient is her ex-boyfriend, Ed, the co-captain of the basketball team, whom she met when he waltzed into her friend’s Bitter Sixteen party — featuring dandelion green pesto and an inedible 89 percent cacao cake in the shape of a black heart — looking exactly opposite its theme, “strong and showered” and “enormous as a shout.”
Ed is “like some movie everyone sees growing up”: “the jocky hero, handsome in the student newspaper and star of a million strands of gossip,” who always “has a girl on him in the hall, like they came free with a backpack.” She likes jazz, he likes mainstream rock “as bold and dull as a giant potato”; she wants to be a film director, he wants to be “winner of state finals.”
At first, she can’t believe a boy like him would be interested in a girl like her and struggles to put together “the print and the negative, the boyfriend and the celebrity shadow.” But he is utterly smitten; to him, she is “different,” like a “spicy food” from “Whatever-stan.” Though we know from the beginning — heck, from the title — to expect a bad end, Handler unfolds the odd-couple love story in a way that resists, rather than reinforces, clichés — of boys and girls; jocks and freaks — while evoking the universal adolescent experience of falling in, then right back out of, love.
Authors Jack Murnighan and Maura Kelly.
Dear Maura and Jack,
I’ll keep this as short as I can, because the situation is quite simple really. After many years of keeping in touch across long distances (from occasional emails and phone calls to sleeping together if we happened to be in the same city), I finally live in the same city as a man I have been infatuated with, in love with and everything in between. Now that I’m here, he has become evasive, flaky and sometimes a flat-out jerk. I’m accustomed to being pursued and wooed and made a priority. Now I am bending over backward to try to see someone who changes plans, doesn’t make an effort to make time for me and doesn’t put any effort into our plans when we do get together. I have never been treated worse in my life. I have never been treated like this by a man — and yet I keep going back for more. I hate the way it makes me feel, but for some reason I can’t stop.
Hit me with the canon. I need it.
Maura writes:
Dear Girl Doesn’t Get Boy:
Jane Austen and I feel your pain. In “Sense and Sensibility,” her character Marianne Dashwood has a very similar experience. She and a charming young guy named Willoughby are thick as thieves, as my grandmother might say; he seems to be just as besotted by her as she is by him. But then he moves away unexpectedly, to London. When she shows up there, for an unannounced visit, he gives her the cold shoulder so hard that all of us readers shiver, and pull the couch blankets up around our necks. He is — like your man — evasive, flaky and flat-out jerky. Marianne later figures out why Willoughby is blowing her off: He’s gotten engaged to another (much wealthier) woman.
But my guess is that your guy isn’t a player as much as a commitment-phobe. He was perfectly into you when he didn’t have to take the relationship seriously; now that he does, he can’t be counted on for anything. Commitment-phobes abound in literature, and run the gamut from unremitting scalawags, like Lucas Burch in Faulkner’s “Light in August,” to people so obsessed with ambition that they just can’t be seriously involved in relationships, like the main man in “The Aeneid,” to more deeply conflicted characters, like Esther Greenwood in “The Bell Jar,” who fears getting too close to anyone will only set her up for a great emotional disturbance, like the one she experienced when her father died in her childhood.
I don’t know why your guy is acting like he is — whether it’s because he’s a plain old scalawag, someone who’s scared of loss, or because, like Aeneas, he believes he’s destined for great things. But one thing is for sure: He’s not treating you right. Trying to change him is likely to be a losing battle. (Just ask Pip Pirrip, of “Great Expectations,” who spent the better part of a lifetime trying to get the girl he loved to pay attention to him.) But you can change yourself. Detach yourself from this ball of confusion. Get out there and see what your new city has to offer.
– – — – — – — – — – — – — – –
Dear Jack and Maura,
I am absolutely, head over heels in love with my man of two years. I think about him constantly, and we each dream of the future and have joked once or twice about what our wedding would be like. That is not the problem. This is a fairy-tale love and we are perfect for each other. Except … There’s a time limit of three years. He’s enlisted in the U.S. military and will be reassigned (likely far away) in one year. Great, I could marry him and move with him, you say? Everyone says that to me, but no. I’m a single parent and can’t see myself moving out of state — I don’t want to take my child away from his father. So I go on and enjoy each day that I have him, knowing that as this charges ahead my heart will eventually break — harder than if I ended it today. I go on, and I love him more and more every day because it’s better to have love and lost than never to have loved, right?
Jack writes:
It’s a sad fact that there are great loves that aren’t destined to last, but, for my money, I’d much rather love hard and lose than not love at all. And, yes, he’s going to be reassigned, but who knows what will come of things after that. If you can keep your connection strong, he might be able to arrange to come back to you in time.
To me, the beauty and wonder of real romance is worth a lot of risk and sacrifice — and even a lot of heartache. If you were to walk away now, you’d always wonder what you might have had, and, over time, that could end up more frustrating than taking it all the way and seeing what happens. I say go for it!
As for books to read, I’d go for the subtle love story of “The Odyssey.” Odysseus is forced to leave his beloved wife, Penelope, to go and attack Troy with a slew of Greek ships, and it takes him 20 years to get home (granted, a few too many of those are spent in the caresses of Circe, but forget about that part …). When he finally does get home, his love for Penelope is as strong as ever — and my, what quick work he makes of all the other guys trying to get her hand. It’s an excellent parable of the endurance of real love.
Page 1 of 968 in Books