James Wood on A.S. Byatt in the London Review of Books.
It is hard enough, though not for the Booker judges, to like the historical novel nowadays, but harder still when that novel’s conception of characterisation seems itself antiquarian, as if Woolf and Proust and Chekhov, not to mention Muriel Spark and Penelope Fitzgerald, had never existed. Byatt’s formidable research commands respect, but it is hard fully to respect a novel in which Rodin, Oscar Wilde, Emma Goldman and Marie Stopes have walk-on parts, or that delivers itself of lines like: ‘All sorts of institutions were coming to life. The Tate Gallery opened on Millbank in 1896,’ or ‘The rich acquired motor cars and telephones, chauffeurs and switchboard operators. The poor were a menacing phantom, to be helped charitably, or exterminated expeditiously.’ Such moments, abundant here, necessarily have the air of what Kierkegaard called ‘playing the game of marvelling at world history’. Again and again, Byatt makes explicit and overdetermined what might have been more lightly suggested. The loss of childish innocence is the great subject of her novel, but does that mean that everyone in the book has to have some relation to fairy tales or children’s stories – write them, or study them, or present dramatic performances of them, or put representations of them on pots? The Wellwoods’ Kentish house is named Todefright; August Steyning’s Nutcracker Cottage ‘was not named out of English whimsy so much as for Hoffmann’s sinister tale of the Nutcracker and the Mouse King’. Byatt burns both ends of her thematic candle at once, for clearer illumination.
And yet other Brits have been producing some fantastic, innovative historical novels. I'm thinking in particular of Duncan Sprott's amazing novels about the Ptolemies. Well worth a look.
Posted by: Niall | October 01, 2009 at 04:19 PM
I don't Byatt.
Posted by: Jerry Sticker | October 02, 2009 at 06:39 AM
@jerry haha. hard to take byatt seriously after seeing so many copies of possession at half price books.
Posted by: Andrew Ross | October 02, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Andrew -
Are you saying that sales performance = literary worth? In that case you must think Dan Brown is the best writer in history.
Posted by: Niall | October 03, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Coupled with the Richard Powers review, this seems like a return to the more overtly critical New Republic Wood, doesn't it? Or is this merely a coincidence?
Posted by: Drew | October 04, 2009 at 08:47 PM
I like this book a lot. It's not really a historic novel, more like a bildungsroman. With lots of details. You are allowed to skip.
Posted by: kilmyoung sung | October 06, 2009 at 04:46 AM