Lawrence Durrell
The Black Book
The Black Book is the novel that gained Lawrence Durrell notice in the literary world. T. S. Eliot called it "the first piece of work by a new English writer to give me any hope for the future of prose fiction." Henry Miller worked to get a private edition printed in Paris when Durrell had difficulty finding a publisher.
I find some interesting parallels between The Black Book and the Alexandria Quartet (AQ). It's almost as if this was a first attempt which gave him the experience to produce the much larger work, four novels in the Alexandria Quartet, instead of one.
Both novels are 1st person narratives, and the narrators of both are now on islands in the Mediterranean, writing of their experiences of the past year or two. While the narrator in the AQ writes of his experiences in Alexandria just before WWII, the narrator of The Black Book tells the reader in the past year he has spent in a tired, rundown hotel in London. Both narrators struggle as they are in the process of learning their craft.
We don't find out the narrator's name in the AQ until the second novel, Balthazar. And then, it's only his last name, Darley. However we do get a clue in the first novel when Darley is told that he's referred to as Lineaments of Gratified Desire. These are his initials, which coincidentally happen to be the same as the author's: Lawrence George Durrell. The narrator in The Black Book jokingly refers to himself several times as Lawrence Lucifer.
Those are not the only parallels. As in the AQ, various forms of love or lust are portrayed in The Black Book, although limited in comparison to the AQ. Another is that at least one other writer is featured prominently in both works. Journals and diaries also play an important role in both works. One last commonality is the broken narrative structure in both works wherein the time line is fractured. Characters are brought into the narrative, and we learn that they are dead or have left before we find out anything about them, including their relationship to the narrator. It is only later that we learn their significance
Of course, differences exist. Aside from the size of the two works, one major difference is tone. The AQ seems to be, to me anyway, a celebration of Alexandria, with all its marvelous characters, its romantic and tragic tales, and its history. On the other hand, The Black Book is a bitter, biting satire on England between the two world wars. The narrator refers to "the English death" frequently when speaking of the England of the 1930's. In the AQ, the golden, if sometimes harsh, light of the sun is an important characteristic of the natural world, while England is usually portrayed as dark, gloomy, and rainy.
I had first read The Black Book only after reading The Alexandria Quartet, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge it on its own merits. How much of my interest in the work is the result of having read it after The Alexandria Quartet and, therefore, seeing the relationship of this work to the larger work is debatable. I just don't know. What my feelings toward this work would be if I had read it first is difficult to say right now.
it's rather intriguing, how attractive the complexities are to you, Fred... most readers, myself included, unfortunately, are repelled by the initial confusion instilled by "fractured" and jumbled time lines and character allusions... but i can see how a logician or a mathematician might find such a text fascinating... it stretches the meaning of "reading", which i believe is a good thing; i think i peeked at the first page of "The Black Book" once; maybe it's time to venture a bit further... tx for the interesting post...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle--I see them as a puzzle, almost a challenge. One of my favorites of this type of tale is Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily." I remember the double surprise ending very well. The first surprise was obvious once it was revealed, but I wasn't certain about the second, so I went back and checked it out.
DeleteThen I got the idea of seeing if I could reconstruct the story in chronological order and discovered that Faulkner had provided sufficient evidence to do exactly that.
After reordering it into chronological order, I discovered that it was a slightly different story. The first surprise wasn't really a surprise, for it was more of a confirmation based on the hints Faulkner had provided. However the second one was a surprise.
A great short story.
OK Fred. Now you have to tell me what the two surprises were. I've read A Rose for Emily a few times and the shock of what she did is obviously a surprise. What else is there?
Deletethat's amazing... who would have thought; not me, certainly... i'll look for it...
Delete-POSSIBLE SPOILER
DeleteMudpuddle--if you are planning on reading "A Rose for Emily," I would suggest not reading this message.
Sharon--The first of course relates to the death of the Yankee: she poisoned him and, instead of burying him, left him in the bed. The second relates to the hair found on the pillow.
R.T.--exactly. I thought he was wise to have left town immediately. They would have found some reason to punish him--possibly even blame him for the Yankee's death.
DeleteAh, yes. (Mudpuddle don't read this) That was horrific. It was bad enough that she kept his body around but that she slept with the corpse? YEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!!
DeleteMy son had to write a paper on this for college. He pointed out things I had not thought of such as the fact that she belonged to an old Aristocratic family and therefore was not allowed to marry beneath herself.
She really wasn't allowed any friends since she belonged to an older world that had died off with the Civil War and everyone else had moved on. No wonder she went over the edge.
Sharon--yes, Homer wasn't going to get away this time. This scene from the story always reminded of a cover from a Gothic romance.
Delete"We had long thought of them as a tableau, Miss Emily a slender figure in white in the background, her father a spraddled silhouette in the foreground, his back to her and clutching a horsewhip, the two of them framed by the back-flung front door."
All it needs is a tree off to the left and the moon overhead.
R.T.--I'm not so sure, now that the old Aristocratic South has become a myth. Myths are hard to kill off.
DeleteGood point, R.T.
DeleteAnd who is the narrator? They are never named are they? He or she represents the new South the town as eyewitness. Which, ironically, is now also a South that does not exist anymore.
It is a tragedy, Emily's father hanging on to a decayed identity. I can see parallels with that and Emily holding on to a corpse.
On a positive note. Josh and I spent a weekend in Natchez Mississippi in an Antebellum house that, although had been converted into a B and B, was still occupied by the owner.
The lady was in her eighties and the house had been in her family since the 1840s. She had some delightful stories to tell and there was nothing of decay about her, just good stories and an interesting history.
R.T.--the narrator takes the place of the chorus in a Greek tragedy, or at least that's how I see it. The plural as you mentioned gives me that idea.
DeleteR.T.--no problem as I introduced Faulkner with my comment about a Rose for Emily. There are questionable narrators in a number of Faulkner's stories, but he always gives us clues, such as conflicting narratives.
DeleteIn this case, I don't see any clues that would suggest a narrator who deceives us. Of course, the narrator is a naive narrator who doesn't understand the significance of what is reported, but I see no example of the narrator deliberately deceiving us.
I don't like the traditional lit/crit label of unreliable narrator because it covers both the deliberately deceiving narrator who lies and what I call the naive narrator who tells us what is seen, but misinterprets the significance, such as Chaucer's narrator in _Canterbury Tales_ or Henry James' child narrator in _What Maisie Knew_.
Well, I'm not mathematically inclined at all and maybe I'd be just as confused at Mudpuddle when reading the book, but your description of it makes it very interesting. The idea that he is remember people who are now gone out of his life appeals to me because I enjoy writing out my memories and that naturally includes many people who, even if alive, no longer participate in my every day reality.
ReplyDeleteAlso, being a big Eliot fan, anything he recommends would encourage me to read it.
Sharon--that element of recalling the past and perhaps reordering it or recasting the characters and events is predominant in a number of Durrell's writings, including the Alexandria Quartet and the Avignon Quintet, and now The Black Book. Since I've embarked on reading or rereading everything I can find Durrell I will be interested in seeing if this theme appears in other works by him.
DeleteIt didn't seem to have played an important role in either _Judith_ or _The Dark Labyrinth_.
I find that comparing various works of the same author to be fascinating. Like yourself I feel that having read previous works by an author influence my feelings about subsequent works that I read. For me, I have found this to be particularly true of both Phillip Roth and Hermann Hesse.
ReplyDeleteI have not read anything by Durrell. But your commentary makes me want to read him.
Brian Joseph--Brian Joseph--I haven't read that much by Roth, but I do know what you mean when you talk about Hesse. The _The Glass Bead Game_ or _Magister Ludi_ seems almost a repudiation of some of his earlier works. But that ending is so equivocal, that one can only wonder.
DeleteDurrell is one of my favorite authors, as you may have already guessed.
reading the above comments brings back an old observation i had some years ago... at the time i was traveling quite a bit and meeting lots of different people... i noticed that almost without exception, they were friendly and apparently free from prejudices, politics, or other social neuroses... which led me to wonder whether the conception we have of social behaviors, southern, western, down under, the characteristics that are supposed to be common to certain groups according to geographical location, might be the result of stories heard over media and by word of mouth from others... that people are mostly the same, regardless of religion, race, wealth, or other commonly accepted holisms; so views that express groups as racist, conservative, liberal, Christian, Buddhist, etc., are probably wrong and that people are just people, subscribing to states of mind that they've been raised with and that they almost all are just trying to get along and are mostly accepting of others differences without any outstanding feelings about what they should think or be... tell me i'm nuts, i probably am, but that's just been my experience...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle--listening to the speeches of politicians and their supporters suggests exactly the opposite. I'm not surprised at what you found. How many of them did you actually engage in discussions of topics that would bring out their views.
Delete"that people are just people, subscribing to states of mind that they've been raised with"
Isn't that a contradiction of your point? Racism is still racism, etc. regardless of whether it's "reasoned out" or a habitual attitude stemming from childhood experiences.
How and when and where they got their beliefs does not change the fact that they possess those beliefs and that they act and speak and vote in accordance with them.
you're most likely correct; i guess i tend to judge from impressions without giving it enough thought... too old to change now, tho... i'll just have to limp along, like most of those people i was talking about...
DeleteMudpuddle--most of us are just limping along. Some of us do a lot of arm-waving which gives the illusion of greater speed.
Deletethinking more about my above comment, i was actually referring to meeting people: when talking to a stranger, one doesn't normally immediately plunge into politics, race, or religion... most, or all, of the interchanges i remember had to do with more mundane topics; weather, geography, the drilling industry, expediting materiel, etc. mostly people are fairly polite, at least they used to be...
ReplyDeleteMudpuddle--things probably haven't changed that much. Civility and politeness for strangers are still the same, I hope, for most people. I remember hearing that the three topics one should always avoid in bars are sports, politics, and religion. It's probably good advice outside of bars also when talking to strangers, or so it seems today anyway.
DeleteI read the AQ long ago. I am tempted to read more of his work soon, especially given Eliot's remarks.
ReplyDeleteMel u--as you may have noticed, I'm now in the process of reading everything by Durrell that I can find, that includes his fiction and his travel narratives.
Delete