In praise of difficult - Nick Green
There’s a pivotal scene in Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall in
which Cromwell, faced with yet another of King Henry’s frankly ludicrous
demands, murmurs, ‘It will not be easy.’ To which the King replies, ‘Master
Cromwell, this is not Mission Difficult. This is not even Mission Impossible.
This is Mission Find Henry More Rumpy Pumpy and Fewer Interfering Popes and
Reboot Religion As We Noe It. Mission Difficult should be a walk in the park
for you.’
Actually I paraphrase (don’t have the book to hand) but it’s
words to that effect. In fact Henry says (because actually I have a good verbal
memory), ‘Do I retain you for what is easy? I retain you, Master Cromwell,
because you are as cunning as a bag of serpents.’ Which I think you’ll agree is
an even better line. Oddly the TV adaptation condensed ‘You are as cunning as a
bag of serpents’ into ‘You are a serpent,’ probably because ‘You are as cunning
as a bag of serpents’ sounds too much like something Blackadder would say
(‘Master Cromwell, you are as cunning as a fox who has just been appointed
Professor of Cunning at Oxford University’). Come to that, the similarities
between Mantel’s Cromwell and Blackadder are hard to miss.
But back to Mission Difficult. Apparently Wolf Hall is high
on the list of books that people start and never finish. It’s also been
criticised for being ‘difficult’, specifically, its ‘difficult’ point of view in
which Cromwell is persistently referred to as ‘he’ even in scenes with lots of
‘hes’ competing for attention, so from time to time it’s possible to get mixed
up if you’re trying to read while watching The Great British Bake-Off. I find
both claims odd (it’s really not that hard to tell who ‘he’ is each time, and
certainly easier than the language in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ for instance, where
every other word is made up). But why, people cry, is Mantel so irritating with
her readers? Why does she deliberately make it hard to read, when she could
just write ‘Cromwell’ and be done with it? Does she want to make it difficult?
You know, I think maybe she does. I think there’s something
about a ‘difficult’ read that benefits the reading process. The modern reader
tends to race through books, skimming, tearing through the pages (we say a book
is a ‘page turner’ as a high form of praise, rather than – as Peter Cook might
say – ‘the minimum requirement’). To read a book fast is to say that it’s
brilliant. Pah, I say to that. If I go to a restaurant and have a really
amazing meal, I eat as slowly as I possibly can. I want the meal to last. Sure,
I WANT to wolf it hall down in one gulp (bad pun alert), but I’d rather enjoy it for as long as
the waiters will let me.
That’s why it can be good if a book contains some quirk,
some ‘automatic braking system’, to prevent the reader from dashing through it
too fast and missing what’s best about it. My favourite example of this is
Ulverton by Adam Thorpe. A difficult book in many places (large parts of it are
in archaic English), it becomes nigh-impossible in one notorious chapter, a
punctuation-free stream of consciousness in the thick country dialect of a
senile ploughman. What makes it all the more frustrating is that this chapter
is unskippable – it’s the key to several unresolved plot arcs that run both before it
and afterwards. I plodded through it like the ploughman himself, decoding it a
phrase at a time. And it was an amazing experience – like learning to read for
the first time, feeling the lights go on in the brain, the brand new neural
pathways lighting up. I can’t describe it any better than that – it’s a pure
celebration of the reading process. None of that would happen if we just had
the ploughman’s thoughts in plain English.
I guess it boils down to trusting the writer. There’s the kind
of book that is difficult because the writer is a bad one, and can’t express
themselves effectively (I think of the tomes on literary criticism I tried to
wade through at university). And there’s the kind of book that’s deliberately
difficult, not to obstruct or frustrate but to challenge, to push the reader
above their comfort zone and give them a genuinely new experience.
If that’s not as cunning as a bag of serpents, I don’t
know what is. Baldrick?
Comments
Why do I feel this near exclusive use of the third person doesn't work? Ostensibly, and according to Mantel herself, it's meant to create a greater sense of intimacy with Cromwell. Here's the New Yorker interview in which she states this:
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-exchange-hilary-mantel
The effect, however, is far more one of alienation than intimacy.
It's been variously suggested that asking readers to pay attention is much like what Cromwell himself does to survive and prosper. Perhaps, but if you seek a greater intimacy with your characters, you don't achieve it by creating confusion, by making readers constantly stop and ask, 'Eh, who is this?', by in effect reminding them constantly of your artifice.
'Gregory is coming up thirteen. He’s at Cambridge, with his tutor. He’s sent his nephews, his sister Bet’s sons, to school with him; it’s something he is glad to do for the family.'
In this much-quoted early passage, the momentary confusion (he/him) is just that -- confusion, not greater identification or insight.
Adding difficulty without meaning is meaningless. Mantel is a marvelous writer, and she establishes it in many ways, but not by this particular device. There's more than enough other reasons to read her work slowly.
I will persist with any book I've paid for - and sometimes struggled to the end of something and wished I'd used my time differently (Voss springs to mind). And with others there is a 'lightbulb moment' and I know why I hung on through challenged early pages till I couldn't put it down (A Suitable Boy).
But reflecting on why a book worked - for me - is the learning bit. How did this writer engage me in the story, however difficult it might be. That's the bit I try to take back into my own writing.
I tried this method once on War and Peace in Russian (a language I don't know at all). That was forty years ago. I'm still on chapter one. Well, word
one, tbh.
I can't say that referring to Cromwell as 'he' bothered me any more than slightly confusing sentences in other books - almost every book has the occasional one you have to read twice.
Even if you consider Mantel's use of the pronoun a mistake - and I don't - I think it's hardly worth mentioning when set against the immensity of what she achieved in these books.
None of which means that I don't appreciate her work. I've read just about everything she's written, a good deal of it twice or more.
Nick, there are not just two sorts of difficult books i.e. those written by a bad writer and those by a good writer which are meant to challenge us. Every stylistic choice is ultimately a compromise -- a trade-off, as Mantel herself says -- and must be judged accordingly.
That said, Valerie, I agree with Susan that it's a marvellous, page-turning read, not at all heavy-going and (gah!) worthy. If you read the first section, you'll probably be caught up in its pleasures.
Fine post, though. I enjoyed it. Forgive my natural flippancy. I blame the parents.
I AM NOT A ROBOT.