Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Monday, 23 February 2009
The Cleft by Doris Lessing
Plot
A Roman senator delves into archives of ancient documents based on earlier oral records passed down through Memories to piece together the strands of history. In contrast to the story of the upstart Christian rebel sect (said to be the histories produced by men), the tale he recounts, suppressed for generations and centuries, is one of man being born of woman. In distant mists of prehistory a society of Clefts, an ancient community of women living in caves near The Cleft, a rock outcrop, pass their days in a state of stupor, lying half in the sea and looking dreamily into the distance. Once a year one of the girls is thrown down The Cleft from the Killing Rock in sacrifice, joining the skeletons and powdered bones of all the girls who were sacrificed in years previously. Impregnated by the moon or the sea, they give birth periodically with only girls or Clefts born.
And then... one day a Monster is born with protrusions and lumps between its legs. Like all other abnormal babies, this is left out on the Killing Rock to die. However, more Monsters keep being born and either keep being put out on the Killing Rock or kept and mutilated. Over time, some escape to a nearby valley and eagles appear to bear off babies left on the Killing Rock to the valley where they are nursed by deer.
Two separate communities start to exist - that of Clefts and Monsters, or rather, men and women. One day a girl goes over the rock outface and sees the community of men. Curious, she goes down to join them and is immediately gang raped until she dies. She is followed a while later by another, but this time, the men are cautious and she mates with one, returning pregnant and giving birth to a child unlike all the others as it is part Cleft, part Monster.
The novel goes on to tell the story of the Clefts coming to know of the existence of the community of Monsters and their subsequent fraternisation, ending many generations later with men and women coming to live together, interspersed with commentary and observations by the Roman senator of his life, family and Rome.
Thoughts
I was very keen to read this book - as a big fan of Doris Lessing, I was interested in knowing what she had to say about men, women and gender. However, although the story is beguiling enough and keeps you turning the pages (at 260 pages, it's a quick read), I'm not quite sure what she wants to say about gender. She seems to be saying that male-female difference is innate - the women are inherently lazy, placid, dreamy, elemental and seem to care only for the safety of their children and having more babies whereas the men are adventurous daredevils who wish to explore beyond the confines of their shores, seem not to even think of the safety of children or the continuation of the human race and not understand what the women are making a fuss about, caring more for their games than discussions of safety. I'm not sure whether this is more insulting to men or to women.
The book doesn't really deal with characters and only names a few of the people involved - Astre and Maire, the two women who first go over to and are impregnated by the men and then Maronna and Horsa, the later leaders of the women and men respectively.
The women go over to the valley and return pregnant to the caves, apart from a few who prefer to be with the men and kill their babies in order to do so. Both boys and girls are brought up by the women until the age of 7 when the boys 'escape' the crowded shore full of crying babies to join the men in the trees. Please note that although there are women living in the forest with the men, there are no men living in the caves with the women and the place where the men live is considered to be exciting and fun in contrast to the stifling nature of the women's caves and shore. Women seem only concerned with filling their wombs and making sure the boys don't die (little girls are not mentioned at all at this stage) and don't seem to do anything but scold the men, sit around, have babies and catch fish. Men care only for skipping stones on the stream, swimming in the dangerous river and jumping across rocks - oh, and hunting for food and having sex once in a while.
Maronna and Horsa seem to personify gender difference. Horsa doesn't seem to consider that the expedition that he is planning to undertake with the men would deprive the woman of fertilisation and seems to think that a few young boys dead is worthwhile in order to enjoy adventure. Maronna accuses him of not caring about the safety of the young boys who keep wanting to imitate the men in their dangerous games and pursuits and keeps wailing that 'You don't care about us!' Even when Horsa is crippled during the expedition to see if they're living on an island, the few women who have come along (with whom the men get cross if they dare to fall pregnant) seem to sit around and wait for one of the other men to take the lead. The men can't find their way back and around the place. The women know the way but are scared of the animals and want the men to lead them back. Why they don't just say 'It's that way, don't be such an idiot!' I have no idea. The men all fear what Maronna will say when she finds out that some of the boy children have died and realise that they miss the nagging and scolding of the women.
The book ends with them all moving to a better shore with caves than the one before that the women had a silly attachment to because they had always lived there, Maronna, filled with tenderness, forgiving Horsa and they both coming to a realisation that 'we're very different but need each other.'
For Heaven's sake - this book was published in 2007 but feels like it was published in the 1950s and written by someone who is convinced of the strict separation of the sexes and roles of women as nagging wives and mothers and men as unavailable disinterested adventurers. Doris Lessing, I know you disdain to be claimed as a 'feminist writer' but I didn't think you were a reactionary 'women's only concern is pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing' and 'boys will be boys, bless them' chauvinist. Her main observation seems to be that women are stable and nurturing whereas men lack the ability to rise beyond being the weaker creation, somehow mentally defective.
The book is engaging enough although it drags in the final third with Maronna and Horsa. The characterisation is non existent - characters, such as they exist, are symbols, not people. The plot is meandering and filled with suppositions. The Roman senator doesn't engage deeply enough to redeem the book - you never know what he actually thinks of it all.
Lessing herself said that her readers will hate this book. I wonder whether this book was meant to be more tongue in cheek than I'm taking it to be? Interesting notion but nevertheless, this is far from her best work.
A Roman senator delves into archives of ancient documents based on earlier oral records passed down through Memories to piece together the strands of history. In contrast to the story of the upstart Christian rebel sect (said to be the histories produced by men), the tale he recounts, suppressed for generations and centuries, is one of man being born of woman. In distant mists of prehistory a society of Clefts, an ancient community of women living in caves near The Cleft, a rock outcrop, pass their days in a state of stupor, lying half in the sea and looking dreamily into the distance. Once a year one of the girls is thrown down The Cleft from the Killing Rock in sacrifice, joining the skeletons and powdered bones of all the girls who were sacrificed in years previously. Impregnated by the moon or the sea, they give birth periodically with only girls or Clefts born.
And then... one day a Monster is born with protrusions and lumps between its legs. Like all other abnormal babies, this is left out on the Killing Rock to die. However, more Monsters keep being born and either keep being put out on the Killing Rock or kept and mutilated. Over time, some escape to a nearby valley and eagles appear to bear off babies left on the Killing Rock to the valley where they are nursed by deer.
Two separate communities start to exist - that of Clefts and Monsters, or rather, men and women. One day a girl goes over the rock outface and sees the community of men. Curious, she goes down to join them and is immediately gang raped until she dies. She is followed a while later by another, but this time, the men are cautious and she mates with one, returning pregnant and giving birth to a child unlike all the others as it is part Cleft, part Monster.
The novel goes on to tell the story of the Clefts coming to know of the existence of the community of Monsters and their subsequent fraternisation, ending many generations later with men and women coming to live together, interspersed with commentary and observations by the Roman senator of his life, family and Rome.
Thoughts
I was very keen to read this book - as a big fan of Doris Lessing, I was interested in knowing what she had to say about men, women and gender. However, although the story is beguiling enough and keeps you turning the pages (at 260 pages, it's a quick read), I'm not quite sure what she wants to say about gender. She seems to be saying that male-female difference is innate - the women are inherently lazy, placid, dreamy, elemental and seem to care only for the safety of their children and having more babies whereas the men are adventurous daredevils who wish to explore beyond the confines of their shores, seem not to even think of the safety of children or the continuation of the human race and not understand what the women are making a fuss about, caring more for their games than discussions of safety. I'm not sure whether this is more insulting to men or to women.
The book doesn't really deal with characters and only names a few of the people involved - Astre and Maire, the two women who first go over to and are impregnated by the men and then Maronna and Horsa, the later leaders of the women and men respectively.
The women go over to the valley and return pregnant to the caves, apart from a few who prefer to be with the men and kill their babies in order to do so. Both boys and girls are brought up by the women until the age of 7 when the boys 'escape' the crowded shore full of crying babies to join the men in the trees. Please note that although there are women living in the forest with the men, there are no men living in the caves with the women and the place where the men live is considered to be exciting and fun in contrast to the stifling nature of the women's caves and shore. Women seem only concerned with filling their wombs and making sure the boys don't die (little girls are not mentioned at all at this stage) and don't seem to do anything but scold the men, sit around, have babies and catch fish. Men care only for skipping stones on the stream, swimming in the dangerous river and jumping across rocks - oh, and hunting for food and having sex once in a while.
Maronna and Horsa seem to personify gender difference. Horsa doesn't seem to consider that the expedition that he is planning to undertake with the men would deprive the woman of fertilisation and seems to think that a few young boys dead is worthwhile in order to enjoy adventure. Maronna accuses him of not caring about the safety of the young boys who keep wanting to imitate the men in their dangerous games and pursuits and keeps wailing that 'You don't care about us!' Even when Horsa is crippled during the expedition to see if they're living on an island, the few women who have come along (with whom the men get cross if they dare to fall pregnant) seem to sit around and wait for one of the other men to take the lead. The men can't find their way back and around the place. The women know the way but are scared of the animals and want the men to lead them back. Why they don't just say 'It's that way, don't be such an idiot!' I have no idea. The men all fear what Maronna will say when she finds out that some of the boy children have died and realise that they miss the nagging and scolding of the women.
The book ends with them all moving to a better shore with caves than the one before that the women had a silly attachment to because they had always lived there, Maronna, filled with tenderness, forgiving Horsa and they both coming to a realisation that 'we're very different but need each other.'
For Heaven's sake - this book was published in 2007 but feels like it was published in the 1950s and written by someone who is convinced of the strict separation of the sexes and roles of women as nagging wives and mothers and men as unavailable disinterested adventurers. Doris Lessing, I know you disdain to be claimed as a 'feminist writer' but I didn't think you were a reactionary 'women's only concern is pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing' and 'boys will be boys, bless them' chauvinist. Her main observation seems to be that women are stable and nurturing whereas men lack the ability to rise beyond being the weaker creation, somehow mentally defective.
The book is engaging enough although it drags in the final third with Maronna and Horsa. The characterisation is non existent - characters, such as they exist, are symbols, not people. The plot is meandering and filled with suppositions. The Roman senator doesn't engage deeply enough to redeem the book - you never know what he actually thinks of it all.
Lessing herself said that her readers will hate this book. I wonder whether this book was meant to be more tongue in cheek than I'm taking it to be? Interesting notion but nevertheless, this is far from her best work.
Dissolution by CJ Samson
Plot
During negotiations for dissolution in 1537, one of Thomas Cromwell's commissioners, sent to the monastery of Scarnsea is found beheaded, a black cockerel sacrificed at the altar of the church and the relic of the Hand of the Penitent Thief crucified along with Christ missing. Matthew Shardlake, a lawyer and long term supporter of religious reform is sent to Scarnsea along with his assistant Mark. Shardlake's investigation leads him to question his once zealous conviction for Reform as well as his belief and trust in Cromwell and leads him into increasing danger as the number of people killed begins to mount up.
Thoughts
I can't make any judgements on the historical accuracy of this novel as my only previous knowledge of the dissolution of the monasteries lies in the realm of primary school history and memorisation of dates. It does seem wonderfully detailed, bringing to life the smells and sounds of Tudor England as well as its treachery, shifting alliances and absolute power of and complete dependence on the whims of the King.
The spiritual decay and the genuine belief of the monks is well depicted - the monks have literally grown fat on their supposed life of abstention, give the bare minimum to the poor and harass female servants but also sincerely believe in the power of prayer and the importance of the continuation of a tradition that stretches back centuries. The comparison between the monks and the court is telling as is the realisation at the end of the novel that what is to come afterwards was in no way different to what went on before. The centuries old monasteries are destroyed, the beauty of the buildings gone, relics burned and all gold and silver melted regardless of their aesthetic beauty, religious significance or age and lands granted to local loyal landowners whose take up the abbot's lifestyle and standard of living.
Beliefs of the times are well drawn. Shardlake, the hunchback, finds affinity with Brother Guy, the Moor, on their shared tendency to draw strange looks and taunts from children, although at one point he does bitterly say that at least Brother Guy has a land where he is the norm. What surprised me was the tolerance shown towards 'fraternisation' between the fraternity within Scarnsea, giving the King and Cromwell easy leverage and forcing the monks to suppress their homosexual inclinations and leading them to tortured negotiations with themselves to refrain from the 'sins' of both action and thought. You can see the hardline stance of the Catholic Church in the pronouncements of Brothers Mortimus and Edwig but I find it remarkable that prior to threats to close down the monasteries based on 'sins' of homosexuality, a blind eye was turned to such behaviour.
Resistance to reality, dawning disillusionment with the Reform project and realisation of Shardlake that Cromwell was capable of fabricating evidence of Anne Boleyn's adultery based on confessions gained under duress of torture and the torture used to force monks to foreswear monasticism is nicely drawn although Shardlake seems a bit naive to believe otherwise.
Although at times the book did drag just a little, I loved the level of historic detail. You see the dissolution from the point of view of the monks, the reformers and the court. I would have liked to have a little more of what the ordinary people of the land thought of it all - you do get a little of this through the characters of Alice (the only woman servant) and Mark but this is based on their personal reaction to what happens to them. However, as Samson says in his historical note after the story ends, it's difficult, if not impossible, to know what England thought as people would have kept quiet out of fear and knowledge of what happens to dissenters and free thinkers.
I enjoyed Dissolution and have a feeling that the following books in the Shardlake series will be better. I look forward to reading the rest!
During negotiations for dissolution in 1537, one of Thomas Cromwell's commissioners, sent to the monastery of Scarnsea is found beheaded, a black cockerel sacrificed at the altar of the church and the relic of the Hand of the Penitent Thief crucified along with Christ missing. Matthew Shardlake, a lawyer and long term supporter of religious reform is sent to Scarnsea along with his assistant Mark. Shardlake's investigation leads him to question his once zealous conviction for Reform as well as his belief and trust in Cromwell and leads him into increasing danger as the number of people killed begins to mount up.
Thoughts
I can't make any judgements on the historical accuracy of this novel as my only previous knowledge of the dissolution of the monasteries lies in the realm of primary school history and memorisation of dates. It does seem wonderfully detailed, bringing to life the smells and sounds of Tudor England as well as its treachery, shifting alliances and absolute power of and complete dependence on the whims of the King.
The spiritual decay and the genuine belief of the monks is well depicted - the monks have literally grown fat on their supposed life of abstention, give the bare minimum to the poor and harass female servants but also sincerely believe in the power of prayer and the importance of the continuation of a tradition that stretches back centuries. The comparison between the monks and the court is telling as is the realisation at the end of the novel that what is to come afterwards was in no way different to what went on before. The centuries old monasteries are destroyed, the beauty of the buildings gone, relics burned and all gold and silver melted regardless of their aesthetic beauty, religious significance or age and lands granted to local loyal landowners whose take up the abbot's lifestyle and standard of living.
Beliefs of the times are well drawn. Shardlake, the hunchback, finds affinity with Brother Guy, the Moor, on their shared tendency to draw strange looks and taunts from children, although at one point he does bitterly say that at least Brother Guy has a land where he is the norm. What surprised me was the tolerance shown towards 'fraternisation' between the fraternity within Scarnsea, giving the King and Cromwell easy leverage and forcing the monks to suppress their homosexual inclinations and leading them to tortured negotiations with themselves to refrain from the 'sins' of both action and thought. You can see the hardline stance of the Catholic Church in the pronouncements of Brothers Mortimus and Edwig but I find it remarkable that prior to threats to close down the monasteries based on 'sins' of homosexuality, a blind eye was turned to such behaviour.
Resistance to reality, dawning disillusionment with the Reform project and realisation of Shardlake that Cromwell was capable of fabricating evidence of Anne Boleyn's adultery based on confessions gained under duress of torture and the torture used to force monks to foreswear monasticism is nicely drawn although Shardlake seems a bit naive to believe otherwise.
Although at times the book did drag just a little, I loved the level of historic detail. You see the dissolution from the point of view of the monks, the reformers and the court. I would have liked to have a little more of what the ordinary people of the land thought of it all - you do get a little of this through the characters of Alice (the only woman servant) and Mark but this is based on their personal reaction to what happens to them. However, as Samson says in his historical note after the story ends, it's difficult, if not impossible, to know what England thought as people would have kept quiet out of fear and knowledge of what happens to dissenters and free thinkers.
I enjoyed Dissolution and have a feeling that the following books in the Shardlake series will be better. I look forward to reading the rest!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)