I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading, but not as much writing about it. Recently, though, I finished a book that offered some food for thought, so I thought I’d repost my review of it from goodreads.com:
A story of classic gothic suspense, complete with creepy twins, a burnt house and incestuous love, à la Henry James, Daphne du Maurier and Charlotte Bronte. Not just a pastiche of gothic devices though, Diane Setterfield crafts an original story, one that’s compelling and enjoyable in its own right. I haven’t enjoyed another book so much in some time. (Though I would have wished for darker, rainier, chillier evenings to accompany it.) But I do find myself wondering whether it “meant” so…more A story of classic gothic suspense, complete with creepy twins, a burnt house and incestuous love, à la Henry James, Daphne du Maurier and Charlotte Bronte. Not just a pastiche of gothic devices though, Diane Setterfield crafts an original story, one that’s compelling and enjoyable in its own right. I haven’t enjoyed another book so much in some time. (Though I would have wished for darker, rainier, chillier evenings to accompany it.) But I do find myself wondering whether it “meant” something.
As I read, I was reminded of Richard Kearney’s On Stories, where he examines whether history is more ethical than story and to what extent truth and fiction can and should intersect. Similarly, at the beginning of the novel Vida Winter explains to her soon-to-be biographer, Margaret Lea, why she has never given anyone a true account of her biography:
My gripe is not with lovers of the truth, but with truth herself. What succor, what consolation is there in truth, compared to a story? When fear and cold make a statue of you in your bed . . . What you need are the plump comforts of a story. The soothing, rocking safety of a lie.
Given the absoluteness of this claim and Ms. Winter’s own life spent devoted to evading and obscuring her past, I expected the author to address this truth-fiction conundrum. But while the concepts of “storytelling and honesty” do figure prominently, the novel seems to champion two very distinct and ultimately incompatible notions, with the greater part of the story spent celebrating the anodynic comfort of fiction even as the entire plot moves towards the superiority of the “true story.”
Setterfield’s treatment of both Ms. Winter’s story as dictated to Margaret—the story within the story and the bulk of the novel’s length—is sumptuous, compelling and fascinating. Margaret’s own fascination with Ms. Winter’s story testifies to this, as Setterfield celebrates the act of storytelling and the story’s ability to consume the listener. And when it becomes apparent that Ms. Winter’s is not telling the whole truth, there is no repercussion or condemnation. Rather, this evasion sets up the story’s secondary arc of suspense as Margaret must herself unravel the “true story.”
In fact, Ms. Winter’s story is not the only history that needs to be retold as true. In the frame story, Margaret also learns her own history about her twin’s death and how it affected her parents, and Aurelius, friend to Margaret and whose own history is tied to Ms. Winter’s, is also on a quest to uncover his orphan past.
It seems then, that Setterfield has it both ways. By savoring and emphasizing Ms. Winter’s fascinating but ultimately false stories she praises the consoling refuge of story. But this is then undercut when each narrative thread ends in its respective “true story.” As if to reinforce the point, Margaret tells Aurelius at the novel’s end that her mother, who intentionally kept Margaret’s twin a secret, “thinks a weightless story is better than one that’s too heavy.” The implication, of course, is that she and Aurelius know better. So in the end, a conundrum: truth wins out, but the best parts of the novel are when the narrative lies.