“Fiction and nonfiction are not so easily divided. Fiction
may not be real, but it's true; it goes beyond the garland of facts to get to
emotional and psychological truths. As for nonfiction, for history, it may be
real, but its truth is slippery, hard to access, with no fixed meaning bolted
to it. If history doesn't become story, it dies to everyone except the
historian.”
I take no joy in saying this, but Beatrice and Virgil, Yann
Martel’s follow-up to his international bestseller The Life of Pi, is a really
bad book. It’s not bad in the way that, say, the latest ghostwritten Clancy
novel is, or a cheap science fiction paperback. It’s bad in the way that Rand’s
Anthem is, bad in a way that patronizes and insults the reader. It’s pretensions without being able to follow through on its pretensions. The pacing
feels like an author that didn’t want to kill his beauties, and finally had the
power to save them.
But lest this sound like a stream of misplaced invective,
let’s examine the book itself. It opens on what is essentially the first of
two(!) framing stories, following its protagonist, Henry, as he attempts to
finish a follow-up to a massively successful first novel, one that used animals
to tell a story that was not about animals—sound familiar? Henry’s second
novel, as it is described, sounds insufferable. It is envisioned, Henry tells
us, as a flip-book, where one side is a novel about the Holocaust and the other
is a non-fiction essay about the same. His editors understandably reject this
conceit, and, after railing against them for several pages, Henry decides to
take his wife and journey to France, where he settles. This is, notably, about
the first 3rd of an already short book, and boy, is it a ham-fisted
slog. It’s entirely unnecessary, for one thing, and it serves only to emphasize
how one note Martel’s themes are. Like the message about stories reflecting
truth in Pi? You’ll love hearing it spelled out here (and throughout the book)
over and over and over.
Well, Henry moves to France and, long-seeming story short,
meets a taxidermist, also named Henry, after receiving several pages of a play he’s
written. The pages concern a monkey, named Virgil, and a donkey, named
Beatrice, discussing a pear. The excerpt is interesting—and the writing in the
play is consistently better than the writing in the rest of the novel—but it
also introduces the book’s first big snag; namely, that the taxidermist is an
entirely unpleasant person who causes stress in Henry’s marriage and upsets the
fine life he’s made for himself, and we, as readers, are intended to understand
that Henry pursues this relationship so he can read the rest of a play that,
frankly, is structured so much like Waiting for Godot that I half-expected
Beatrice to enter scene eating a boot. Most people aren’t going to upset their
life for second-rate Beckett. After an interminable period of Henry coaxing the
play out of the taxidermist one scene at a time, we’re treated to the big
reveal, which must be SPOILED BELOW so I can discuss what really bugged me
about the book.
It turns out that the taxidermist was a Nazi sympathizer,
and Beatrice and Virgil is his attempt at absolving himself of the guilt he
feels for doing nothing to stop (or, possibly, actively aiding) the Nazis. So,
surprise, Henry’s real life turns out to be the perfect story to tell the
Holocaust story he wanted to tell with his crazy flip-book idea, and it turns
out that’s the book you’ve been reading. Also, the taxidermist goes crazy
really abruptly and stabs Henry and drama, but whatever. Putting aside the
banality of the “this is the book” ending (the movie Hugo uses the exact same
conceit to greater effect, and that’s for kids), the whole thing is insulting.
It’s insulting to me as a reader, because the twist ending is telegraphed about
once every 10 pages. It’s insulting a larger scale because this is a book about
the Holocaust, as seen by a world-famous author who thinks a masturbatory
talking-animal meta-textual novella that barely makes sense communicates the
truth of the Holocaust in a more meaningful way than actual history, or the
fictional works that attempt to share the horror in a realistic fictional
framework. It’s extremely hard to read Beatrice and Virgil and not come away with
the idea that Martel is using the Holocaust to add emotional weight to his
story about writer’s block, and that’s just wrong. It’s also consistent with
the rest of the book’s MO, which uses the pretty disturbing deaths of two
animals near the midpoint to score cheap emotional points, even though those
deaths don’t add anything to the story aside from that melodramatic
button-pushing.
This is a bad book. There’s really nothing to redeem it,
aside from a few passages that read nicely and a section involving Beatrice
being tortured that, in spite of being just as manipulative as everything else,
at least works. I don’t recommend reading it, and it’s probably turned me off
Martel for good.
Everyone has read Life of Pi: Brent Carlton Christopher Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment