Re-reading Middlemarch (again)

I was twenty the first time I read Middlemarch and I couldn’t bear to reach the end. I read 700 pages in a growing hurry, then slowed to a snail’s pace and eked out the last hundred over an improbably long time. The pleasures of anticipation accounted for a good part of my sudden slowness. In that first reading love ruled, and when I was confident that Dorothea and Will would finally get it together – I was happy to watch this happy ending veer tantalisingly in and out of reach.

Eliot’s first readers couldn’t choose their pace through the novel as a whole. Published in eight parts beginning in December 1871, it provided ‘months of pausing and recurring literary excitement.’ wrote Sidney Colvin in the Fortnightly Review. Such a long drawn out experience of reading or viewing is unimaginable today, when we glut on box sets, or download Hilary Mantel in audio and print format in seconds. R. H. Hutton in The Spectator conjured a readership of one mind:

[W]e all grumble at Middlemarch; we all say that the action is too slow … but we all read it, and all feel that there is nothing to compare with it appearing at the present moment in the way of English Literature …

This same readership calculates nervously ‘whether the August number will come before the Autumn holidays.’ Though Victorian readers were used to consuming novels in serial form, either in magazines or as cheap autonomous part-works in short, monthly instalments, the first edition of Middlemarch was something of a publishing experiment: eight paperback books of between 174 and 212 pages at 5 shillings each, published to look ‘attractive but not bookstallish’ (George Lewes in a letter to the publisher John Blackwood).

Publishing then and now

Middlemarch cover original

Middlemarch came to publication as the unlikely convergence of a publisher, John Blackwood, eager to tempt a successful author back; a writer, Eliot, who had been struggling with one novel, begun another and then sought to combine the two; and her companion and quasi-agent, George Lewes, who wanted to create a capacious and profitable setting for what promised to be a long and demanding novel. All of them would have been eager to deal a blow to Mudie’s, the commercial library chain whose aggressive discounting swallowed so much potential publishing profit. Book publishing in the 1870s looked rather like it does today: fiercely competitive, and international in ambition and practice. Serial publication of Middlemarch began in the US in Harper’s Weekly in December 1871 and in Australia in February 1872. This was typical for popular novelists, as was speedy translation into European languages. Marketing and promotion were central processes and distributors held disproportionate power. One of Lewes’s aims in having Middlemarch published bimonthly was ‘to furnish the town with talk for some time … [to] keep up and swell the general interest.’ Both Eliot and Lewes had an astute understanding of the Victorian marketplace, playing publishers off against each other and ensuring that Eliot earned nearly £9,000 (roughly £400,000 in today’s money) from Middlemarch alone, between 1872 and 1879, on a 40% royalty deal. Publishing, then as now, was strongly shaped by other media, most obviously, drama, various types of newspaper and magazine writing, and a plethora of visual forms.

One marked difference was that new books were given a far greater time to prove their worth; another was the relatively weak status of intellectual property. Dickens’s works spawned numerous pirated offspring in book and theatrical form. Though Eliot did not approve theatrical adaptation of her work, dramatic versions of Silas Marner and Adam Bede circulated in her lifetime. In 1878, less than two years after the publication of Daniel Deronda, the spurious Gwendolen; or Reclaimed: A Sequel to Daniel Deronda by George Eliot was published in America. In Anna Clay Beecher’s virulently anti-semitic novel, Daniel’s new Bildung is to discover the degeneracy of the Jews and when Mirah conveniently dies, he returns to England and marries the blonde, Christian Gwendolen. ‘Spin-offs’ were not confined to print or drama. Wilkie Collins’s The Woman in White generated perfume, a waltz, and various bonnets. In the decades after her death, Eliot’s name was used to sell products including bicycles (the advertising came complete with quotations), and the new type of rail-accessible literary tourism. You could also buy George Eliot Real Mushroom Ketchup with an image of Eliot on the bottle. Lewes and Eliot would have been appalled by the sauce, but the values on which such items traded – quality, authenticity, reliability – were central to their careful development and management of the Eliot name. As novel publishing proliferated in terms of genre and readership, writing and publishing became practices of increasingly careful differentiation. Lewes wanted the cover of Middlemarch to appeal to the eye in ways that turned novel readers into novel buyers, but to be free from the taint of cheap popular fiction, the ‘yellowbacks’. A shade of green proposed by Blackwoods was returned as ‘too yellow.’ The green eventually agreed on, Simon Frost suggests in The Business of the Novel may well have had a particular association with Dickens, and certainly Dickens’s recent death in 1870 left gaps in the market for several kinds of author.

By 1871, when Middlemarch was first published, ‘George Eliot’ was a highly successful brand on a slightly shaky track: the sales figures for her two most recent novels, Romola and Felix Holt, had been disappointing. Critical reaction had been mixed. A reviewer of Romola, set in the 15th century Florence of Savonarola, complained pettishly that ‘[i]t is not a bit like Adam Bede.’ For Eliot was above all the ‘author of Adam Bede’ and whilst many authors and artists have felt trapped to repetition or perversity by critical or popular success, Eliot and Lewes made ‘the author of Adam Bede’ – a continuing big seller in the Blackwood’s catalogue –  a key part of Middlemarch. Frost mentions the trees – ‘young, mature and felled’ – in the foreground of the cover vignette of Middlemarch. The overall effect of the cover, as he says, is English bucolic but it is worth recalling just how full of wood Adam Bede is. The trees and wood on the first edition of Middlemarch promise a distinctive ‘George Eliot experience’, one satisfied inside by Caleb Garth, a good man in the tradition of Adam Bede himself. Vulnerable at the novel’s start, by the end his values have been planted at Stone Court where his daughter and son-in-law now live. ‘The Bedesman’ is only one of the novels in Middlemarch, though, and not all of them have happy endings. Must Middlemarch ‘leave us sad and hungry?’ asked Colvin.

Eliot is ‘a painter of human character,’ Hutton insisted, praising the novel’s comic characters. ‘Something of the cruelty of vivisection is natural in Thackeray’s style, and very unnatural in George Eliot’s.’  Sharply gendered of course but ‘unnatural’ is also a ‘brand criticism’ and perhaps Hutton should have thought about the novel’s subtitle more carefully: ‘A Study of Provincial Life.’ The study, with its numerous human categories, is crucially critical and satirical. From the very beginning, ‘Middlemarch’ is also the zone of the limited, the imitative, the frustrated, where local pride conflicts with nose-hard-against-the-window envy of the metropolis. We can well guess what will happen to Lydgate’s ambition to be a great scientist and his wish to stand aloof from small-town tyrants. ‘People in the provinces . . . know no difference between “Newby” and “Blackwoods” and can’t see the moral impossibility of the sequel being mine,’ wrote Eliot when she heard about an advertisement for an opportunistic Adam Bede, Junior: A Sequel – the same Eliot who changed her name from the homely, diminutive Mary Ann to Marian when she left Nuneaton and Coventry for London.  Middlemarch incorporates many novels offering different, often discrepant, pleasures.

middlemarch classic

Its current status as classic, with connotations of something fixed or unmoving, make a look at its original publishing and reading context well worth the effort. The first edition of Middlemarch, with its superior green and George Eliot stamp, was also interleaved with adverts for chocolate, candles, perfumes, jewellery, medicines and single volume editions of Eliot’s works. A spin-off publication, Wise, Witty and Tender Sayings by George Eliot (1872), by a fan, Alexander Main, was produced with Eliot and Lewes’s encouragement, Main’s Sayings, offered a compact George Eliot experience – Lewes stressed the need for it to be pocket-size, a George Eliot you could take anywhere. Combining the homilistic, lapidary forms that Eliot specialised in, which could sound rather cryptic out of context (‘nettle seed needs no digging’), and memorable ‘scenes’ excerpted into dramatic form, Eliot was reportedly delighted with the result.

Novels within the novel

Perhaps because Middlemarch is such an undisputed ‘classic’, it is easy to forget how elastic novelistic narrative and style were during this period. The novel had a loose shape, the stories and tellings within it were usually lightly combined and could be unpicked and recombined with relative ease. Dickens is the master of this, but Middlemarch has its own less extreme version. Middlemarch began as two novels which were combined by Eliot to form one; but in the writing, it seems, the number of novels proliferates (F. R. Leavis’s plan to cut Gwendolen Harleth from Daniel Deronda seems quite unremarkable in this context). To read Middlemarch is to travel between stories. One of its pleasures lies in tracing the very fine, delicate links between them: Dorothea’s hand lies behind the rehabilitation of Caleb Garth, the Adam Bede ending is an effect of her diffused goodness. But, as various critics have pointed out, the novel is also out to disrupt our attention. Stories, like thoughts and feelings, move in and out of reach, leaving us in suspense. Near the end of Book One, Dorothea retires to dress and the reader follows as she starts to wonders about her coming marriage. But at the dinner that follows, Dorothea has become ‘Miss Brooke’, someone, or rather a woman, for the men present to assess and admire – literally a character in another story. ‘Dorothea’ remains tantalisingly inaccessible till we see her crying on her Roman honeymoon.

Just as today, the novel formed part of a multimedia culture, incorporating all manner of types of communication. When Adam Bede works on the coffin his father has abandoned, ‘his mind seemed as passive as a spectator at a diorama’ – not a simile Adam could have understood, given his rural, 18th century world.  New media technologies and communications proliferated through the nineteenth century – shorthand, stenograph, telegraph, a plethora of optical inventions. Lewes and Eliot themselves attended a demonstration of a proto-telephone.  These, and established media forms such as drama and journalism – are all metabolised by the 19th century novel. Many of the comic social scenes at which Eliot excels are cartoon-like in their sharp contrasts: the fading patriarch Featherstone on his deathbed in one room, still armed with a golden cane, whilst the parlour of Stone Court teems with would-be beneficiaries, speculating increasingly freely about outcomes; Mr Brooke’s visit to one of his dismal and unimproved farms, Freeman’s End, where he is berated by his tenant, Dagley and the two men’s dogs face each other off far more cautiously. Whilst Dickens became expert at verbally representing the photographic image, Eliot specialised in novelistic representations of the painterly. Take the family portrait of the Garths under an old apple tree: ‘[Fred] found the family group, dogs and cats included, under the great apple tree in the orchard.’ Jim is reading aloud from the ‘beloved’ Scott while his sister Letty watches him; another brother, Christie, lies by his mother’s feet with his hat over his eyes. Yet another brother plays at archery – the novel is Ivanhoe. The descriptive form is realist with its attention to the particular, the seemingly arbitrary detail – the ‘coral heap’ of cherries on the tea-table, the ‘grizzled’ Newfoundland dog – but in domestic genre painting, details become values: the healthy outside, the ease of family affections, the bounty of nature and labour – these are Garth values, above all father Caleb’s.

Middlemarch in a listening culture

In ‘Silly Novels by Lady Novelists’, Eliot mocked the various ‘species’ of women’s novel – ‘mind-and-millinery’, ‘white neck-cloth’ (evangelical), ‘modern-antique’ (historical-romantic) – each with its pattern-book plot and fixed-phrase diction. Being a Lady was something Eliot went to great lengths to avoid. Prescription writing inevitably attracts literary criticism, yet most genres are highly versatile – sets of possibilities, inflections – with little or nothing in common with recipe writing. Eliot’s fiction, like so many of her contemporaries, lives off numerous genres, literary and popular: Gothic , Bildungsroman, Sensation Fiction,  melodrama, tragedy, romance, folk and fairy tale. In Adam Bede, a dashing young gentleman seduces a beautiful milkmaid, Hetty. Hetty has a baby who dies and she is tried and sentenced for murder. The death penalty is breathlessly commuted only on the morning she is due to hang. This is the melodrama through which the real heroine, the preacher Dinah, and the steadfast hero-with-a-temper, Adam, must morally grow. In Silas Marner, the semi-outcast weaver’s gold is stolen and replaced by a golden-haired baby – one of many brushes with the folk or fairyish in Eliot’s novels. In Felix Holt, set during the election after the 1832 Reform Act, the political rivalry between the ‘working man’ Felix Holt and the aristocrat, Harold Transome, is shadowed by a creaking Gothic inheritance plot but one that is central to the novel’s revelations and resolution. Esther Lyon turns out to be the true heir of Transome Court and she rejects her inheritance, including Harold, for Felix.

In Middlemarch, much of the action is provided by the struggle between characters over what type of novel they’re living in. Dorothea believes she’s the heroine of a religious narrative; her husband tries to cast her in a novel of adultery. Newly arrived in Middlemarch, Lydgate thinks he’s the hero in a story of scientific discovery, but Rosamond is waiting, determined that he will be the suitable stranger in her romance – bad news for Lydgate. Characters are often wrong about themselves and others and this is often where Eliot’s realism emerges: a more dependable and truthful alternative when other forms of representation falter in their ability to make sense of the world. Popular genres aren’t shown the door however; often they’re recast for different ends. Eliot can conjure any number of forms of Gothic disturbance. When Lydgate tries to moderate his wife’s brittle solipsism, we, as readers, are privy to his increasingly unhappy thinking, but Rosamond remains obscure, a set of opaque gestures: turning to look at a vase, or patting her perfect hair, even her tears are an accessory. At such points, Rosamond’s actions seem strangely out of synch, uncanny: as with a doll that isn’t quite working properly.

‘I have been struck,’ wrote Antonia White, ‘by finding the same thought within a few days in two very different places – in George Eliot and in an American magazine. That is the idea of a person’s horror at a crime coming not from the crime but from the fact that they have committed it.’ Eliot is especially fascinated by those whose fingerprints are found on the gun, even if, especially if, they didn’t pull the trigger. In Middlemarch, Bulstrode’s not-quite murder of the blackmailer Raffles is sensation fiction territory, where the excitable audience’s speculations exceed the evil of the act itself.  Dorothea and Ladislaw are somehow tainted by Casaubon’s will with its intimations of their illicit desire. In Daniel Deronda, Gwendolen marries Grandcourt knowing he has thrown over his mistress and children for her – and thus becomes implicated in a moral bigamy. Fascination with this kind of taint plays out in Eliot’s relation to the circulation of her own fiction, her own highly ambivalent relationship to the novel as commodity form. On the one hand, the opportunity to influence readers was a real ‘good’. By August 1874, the novel had been published in parts, four volume sets and reprints, in a cheap six shilling one volume edition, even in three volume form. The cheap edition was the great success with 10,000 copies sold in 1874 alone. ‘The sale of Middlemarch is wonderful out of all whooping,’ she wrote to her publisher John Blackwood in August 1874. Clearly the original could vouch to some extent for the novel’s diffusion into less salubrious forms. Yet at the same time she worried about dirty fingerprints. There were disadvantages to being so easily accessible. She and Lewes were unhappy about Alexander Main’s second portable Eliot project, The George Eliot Birthday Book, which dispensed the same wisdom as the Sayings in a diary. Eliot didn’t like the form, birthday books were ‘puffing, gaudy, clap-trappy’; the extravagant binding was ‘adapted to the bookseller mind and the minds of those who buy birthday books,’ wrote Lewes. ‘We have to think of the colonial class,’ Blackwood replied briskly, and the book went ahead in its original vulgar form.

This deep ambivalence about commodity circulation take a distinctive form in Middlemarch, where the ideal form of communication is a Wordsworthian form of spontaneous speech, the exact opposite of mechanical, anonymous print. Will and Dorothea intermittently achieve a spontaneous authenticity derived from their mutual sympathy:

   ‘”I am indebted to the rain then. I am so glad to see you.” Dorothea uttered these common words with the simple sincerity of an unhappy child visited at school. “I really came for the chance of seeing you alone,” said Will, mysteriously forced to be just as simple as she was.’

These dialogues are a touchstone. Casaubon calls himself a ‘fastidious’ listener, but he can never hear Dorothea when she speaks because to his anxious, resentful ears, she is the clamour of criticism, a ‘spy’. Yet this is the voice Will compares to an Aeolian harp; the more neutral Caleb Garth tells his wife that Dorothea has ‘a voice like music…’ Dorothea’s voice is compared with the alluring musical performances of Rosamond. But Rosamond’s playing, like Madame Merle’s in The Portrait of a Lady, is not to be trusted. Sound matters, voice matters. Yet this in itself is not anti-novelistic. After all, reading aloud, learning by heart and recitation were key aspects of quotidian literate culture. Books were written and published to be read aloud, semi-performed, shared sociably, discussed in situ, as well as consumed privately.  Eliot’s lapidary tendencies and her extraordinary attention to the inflections of speech, like Dickens’s attention to idiolect, or the dramatic ‘scenes’ in so many novels of the period, are all aspects of a culture habituated to listening keenly to what was spoken and read: a novelistic culture.

This piece was originally written (but not published), as a review of The Business of the Novel: Economics, Aesthetics and the Case of Middlemarch by Simon R. Frost, Pickering and Chatto, 254pp., £60.00, January 2012, 978 1 84893 1947. Much of the detail about the original publication comes from this book.

I

Summer of Rockets

Summer of Rockets was written and directed by Stephen Poliakoff and screened in the UK on BBC2 in May and June 2019.

CONTAINS SPOILERS

hannah and samuel

Summer of Rockets, Stephen Poliakoff’s latest TV series, makes a question out of belonging.  What is it like to be English? How does ‘one’ become English and what are the costs – costs shown to be ethical and emotional, and damaging rather than advancing. Exploiting the formality and rigidity of its late 50s setting, Summer of Rockets starts off looking like a period drama until you realise that a good many of the institutions, occasions and character-types represented – private members’ clubs, country house parties, boarding schools, mad generals – are alive and far too well in contemporary Britain. In the opening scene, a family – mother, father, daughter and young son – arrive at a race meeting. Picked out by the camera individually, all but the father look somehow uncomfortable. Amongst the black and grey Bentleys and Roll Royces, their modest, bottle-green saloon stands out like a joke. A group of chauffeurs snigger, expensively dressed race-goers looked pained and disapproving. Who are these people? The family are the Petrukhins and we soon discover they are Jewish, but at this point the most visible sign of their otherness in this English upper-class microcosm is the blackness of their companion, Samuel’s friend and business partner, Courtney Johnson. Walking across the lush grass, the group is challenged at the entrance to the Royal enclosure, where all their names must be checked – as they are, Samuel explains, every year.

Yesterday and today

This boundary or border, where some are waved through because they are assumed to belong, and others, because of name, colour, religion or accent, are always asked for proof of identity, is one of many parallels between the late 50s and the late 2010s.  Others include anxieties about uncertain futures, the transformational possibilities of new communications technologies, the seductions of Britain’s imperial moment and, hostility to new and earlier immigrants. The drama begins in the summer of 1957 when Britain’s place in the world is beginning to look precarious – the US is the ascendant Western power, it is a year since Suez and Sputnik 1 will soon be launched. The young are stirring, not to speak of the colonies; post-war austerity may be coming to an end but planetary annihilation via nuclear war or accident feels very close indeed.  Samuel Petrukhin (Toby Stephens) is a middle-class inventor attracted to a particular form of upper-class English culture. When the series starts, his son, Sasha is about to be sent to boarding school and his daughter Hannah is set to embark on a London season. Neither of them is happy but as viewers, we don’t yet understand how thematically important this unwillingness is. Samuel’s story is partly based on Poliakoff’s own father. But it is also based on a very English, literary convention: the man who falls for an upper-class English family with a beautiful house and very dark secrets. The affair starts lightly enough. Richard Shaw is an MP and war hero, his wife Kathleen is beautiful and welcoming. They meet when Kathleen finds Sasha, who goes missing at the races. Samuel supplies Kathleen’s aunt with a small, modern hearing aid and the Petrukhins are invited to lunch. A kind of friendship is struck up and Samuel is enchanted. The Shaw’s house with its fishing lake and lush green views, summer house and pet donkeys is very different to the Petrukhins’ middle-class home – a comfortable house in a tree-lined suburban street, shot to appear dark and just a little cramped. Samuel has finally been welcomed to a world from which he’s always been either excluded or grudgingly tolerated.

The Shaws’ home appears bright and open to visitors, and Samuel is outraged when he is threatened by MI6 and tasked to spy on his new friends. He doesn’t want them to be anything other than the delightful, friendly people they seem to be. The charming Lord Wallington, (played by Timothy Spall with a dead voice that channels Voldemort) an almost permanent guest, and Richard’s closest friend, seems to like him too.  If anyone seems sinister it is the MI6 operative Field (Mark Bonnar), who has no first name and a dog who understands Russian. Nevertheless, it’s clear to Samuel, and both his children, that all is not right in the Shaws’ world. Invited to a fishing party, he takes photographs of military-looking men gathering in the woods to talk about more than fishing tactics. Kathleen (Keeley Hawes, brilliantly shifting between graceful hospitality, outbreaks of angry desperation and painful self-questioning) is literally physically stifled by the world she lives in. Her husband Richard has ‘funny’ turns – flashbacks to battle – and nearly abandons his speech to the local Conservative Association. Most seriously, their son, Anthony, vanished from their lives with no explanation at the age of twenty-one. Wanting to flee or flout this world of ease and power is at least as important as wanting to be a part of it and a recurring motif. In a less fatal parallel with Anthony, Sasha runs away from his exclusive school.  And although, Hannah is humiliated early on when she is barred from the stateroom and introduction to the Queen for being late, a couple of episodes later, she coolly sneaks her friend Esther into an exclusive party by lying about who she is.

A more modern world is working on everyone too. Hannah has an electrically glowing goldfish bowl in her bedroom, little Sasha listens to rock and roll radio on headphones while he writes letters home from his stultifying English prep school – until they’re confiscated. Most importantly, Samuel has invented a pager, he calls it a staff locator, with many potential uses. We see his first demonstration of it at a hospital where a group of nurses and doctors assemble to see if a doctor with a pager in his pocket can be summoned from a distance. He can. MI6 seem interested in adopting it but some of the important people Samuel meets at the Shaws’ parties don’t seem to understand its potential and dislike the idea of being summoned. Isn’t that something they do to servants?

Poliakoff as auteur

Summer of Rockets is pure Poliakoff in narrative and style.  There are lost boys; young women with secret powers; characters too preoccupied with their everyday routines or personal selfishness to stop and see, and listen. (Ideas of listening, listening better, or choosing not to listen play out in numerous ways throughout.)  As in Shooting the Past (1999) most memorably, photographs, and images more generally, are the key to mysteries, but only if characters learn to read them. And, these images are never singular in meaning.  The stylised settings and colour continuities – the rich blues and reds, mustardy yellows, tangerine, turquoise and lilac – are clear warnings not to take everything too literally. The lush green of the Shaw house grounds spills out into a rolling countryside where, between flowering hedgerows, Samuel and Courtney are pursued by MI6. Hannah is dazzled in St James’s Park by a huge tree in the same green. Her vision of nuclear annihilation shrivels it, along with the surrounding sky. A green that is not only England then, but the world, the planet. These images can be wonderfully rich and strange. The array of animals that recur throughout the series – the Shaws’ calming donkeys, the rabbit rotten with myxomatosis , the bronze sculptures of dogs and birds kept by one of Sasha’s teachers,  the raging pigs in Anthony’s drawings – set up a complex and powerful chain of associations and clues. Other images can seem heavy-handed, excessive, like the private tanks that parade in English fields.

The tanks are a carefully constructed spectacle, a performance – another Poliakoff speciality. Soldiers line up to watch a demonstration of the pager at a military base that looks as if it’s been decommissioned. Is this a ‘real’ demonstration, or simply an attempt to persuade Petrukhin that MI6 can offer him a substantial contract?  Hannah and her friend Nicholas volunteer to take part in an exercise to test responses to a nuclear attack in London. Everyone is categorised as dead or alive before it even begins, and Hannah is made up with hideous burn injuries. Another rehearsal and one that terrifies her as a premonition of the real thing. Many scenes look and feel like always-already memories, or dreams that keep repeating: Sasha’s vision of the enormous, unapproachable staircase at his school for instance; the anonymous corridors where the main characters encounter untrustworthy or ambiguous others; Samuel’s final view of Wallington through the rear window of his taxi as he is conveyed back to a more ordinary, safer life.

The costs of belonging

Summer of Rockets captured me because of the moment at which it’s set, not least because I know something about it as lived from my parents, who both arrived in London in the middle 1950s. My father’s situation was very different from Samuel’s (who arrived in England as a young child after the Russian Revolution). My father arrived in London in his middle twenties as a relatively privileged student from Pakistan. He was not especially enthralled by the English upper class but he was always a committed Anglophile. The bedsits he lived in in Hampstead and Kensington were full of English ex-colonials, back from India in diminished circumstances. Maybe my dad reminded them of better days.  Of course, these were the places he and latterly my mother (white) were able to rent.  Some of her friends found my dad ‘exotic’, others tried to break them up and fix her up with someone more suitable – someone ‘English’. Racism in all its forms was rife – jobs, housing, jokes, silences.  Yet my dad always insisted that he never experienced racism. This was clearly untrue – much later I witnessed it myself – but he was utterly determined that the country he had come to live in accepted and recognised him as one of their own.

This willingness of the outsider to collude with and ignore hostility is brilliantly at the fore in Summer of Rockets. Dropping his daughter off at etiquette school so she can learn to curtsey, he tells her: ‘I taught myself to speak with a perfect, English, upper-class accent. Nobody can tell the difference.’ His daughter smiles a little indulgently. She knows that her father is never going to pass, quite. Throughout the series, Samuel is addressed and referred to as Russian or/and Jewish – and always as an outsider who may have alternative and suspect loyalties. Making his way through a gentleman’s club to meet Winston Churchill and supply him with a new hearing aid, he is spotted by a man who turns to his companion. ‘They’re back,’ he grunts wearily, ‘the Darkie and the Jew.’  Samuel does not ignore the anti-Semitism that is all around him, indeed he challenges it. But he continues to want to be a part of one of the world that reproduces it.

Samuel gradually begins to realise that Shaw, Wallington and co., are up to something and it isn’t fishing or being snobbish about wine. They are ruthless reactionaries who wish to upend the social and political possibilities tentatively set in train by the Labour landslide of 1945. Contemptuous of democracy, they see a military coup as the only way to stop Britain sinking back into small island status. They also believe that the whole state has been penetrated by ‘the Reds’. Their plot is a little bonkers though less bonkers than some contemporary conspiracies.  The plotters are also bonkers (led by a popular Tory MP, they are peers, generals, businessmen) and well-organised and resourced – hence the tanks at the bottom of the garden. The plot and the dangers it represents are real and the forces of reaction are only thwarted at the last. But they are not foiled by Samuel with his notebook and recording technology, or by MI6, or by any other law and order agency (Who would that be? What would they represent?). Instead, they are defeated by the brilliance of the young.  A satirical sketch of their plan appears on a popular TV comedy programme and sends the plotters fleeing.  It is only at the very end of the drama that Samuel begins to understand his daughter’s part in their defeat and how it might be connected to her ‘difficult’ behaviour over the Summer.

The rout has a formal elegance and it is great to see the young win. All those who defeat the coup exist on the edges of official late 50s cultures but unlike Samuel, they don’t hanker after belonging. They have an alternative, more vivid, better way of seeing – in itself highly plausible. Nicholas Hadley, who has tried to teach Hannah suitable etiquette, is a failed novelist who gets lucky writing sketches for a popular TV programme. He is also gay. Esther, who works at Petrukhin’s factory and becomes Hannah’s friend and sanctuary, is central to the unravelling of the Shaws’ son Anthony’s disappearance, which is itself tied to the values that underpin the plotters. Esther can see what others can’t. In the narrative, this ability is tied in part to her being deaf. She lipreads what’s going on in the boss’s office for her co-workers in an early scene. She has learnt to see better because she cannot hear.

But I was also left ambivalent. There is something too convenient about the younger characters’ simple alignment.  Hannah chooses Esther as a friend, as she chooses Nicholas, because she is an outsider herself. But there is something expedient about her friendship with Esther, who at times can seem more like a convenient extension to Hannah than a character in her own right. Esther is the character or device that allows her to meet ‘ordinary’ black and working-class people and be touched by the Notting Hill Riots. Hannah and Joel, a black friend of Esther, are attacked for dancing together.

But can Hannah really represent everything that is good about the future? Via a pattern of friendships and associations, above all through a set of choices, she comes to stand for all the young outsiders. There are so many parallels between Sasha and Anthony in particular, echoes too between Anthony and Hannah. The metaphor of who listens or ‘reads’ well is so extensively deployed, as are the allegiances between those who listen and dance to rock and roll.  But I also wonder whether the narrative and visual richness that makes these connections (and the progressive alliance they stand for) are at times any more than a moment of conjuring, a feat of magic that cannot be sustained.

In the final scene, Hannah hosts her own eccentric debutante party: a street party where everyone is invited: quite literally, open to all.  It’s a beautiful scene and an inversion of the exclusive enclosure of the first scene: couples dance in the sunlight, on the street, on the grass, under the trees.  There is bunting and a buffet and paper clocks everywhere – all set to the reassuring time of 8.30pm – Hannah’s optimistic challenge to the Doomsday Clock. It’s a scene of almost utopian conviviality. We know that Wallington and the dangers he represents haven’t been permanently defeated but we/they can be happy with this for now at least. And yet this party pushes further. Who should arrive right at the end but the Shaws (invited by Samuel, just as he invited them to join his picnic at the races). With the corroding influence of Wallington removed they are trying to be an ‘ordinary’ family, led now, it is suggested, by Anthony’s pacifist values.  In the preceding scene, Samuel tells Field: ‘I no longer want to be the perfect English gentleman.’  He appears to have learnt his lesson.  The invitation to the Shaws could be seen as a turning of the tables: it is Samuel and the Petrukhins deciding who belongs now. But it also demonstrates how hard it is for him to give up his fascination. This is the character’s privilege of course and his ambivalence is persuasive. But the ‘cleansing’ of the Shaws is a narrative choice of a different order and for me it rankles. We’re back to the ‘few bad apples’ or ‘bad influence’ school of history so convincingly challenged by so much of what went before.

All in all, it’s a hugely thought-provoking drama. Catch it while you can or let me know what you thought about it below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review: Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile by Alice Jolly

Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile is published by Unbound . The description below is from the publisher.

Mary Ann Sate Imbecile cover image.jpgThe year is 1887. In a decaying country house Mary Ann Sate, an elderly maid servant, nurses Mr Cottrell, a man she knew well in her youth. Mr Cottrell does not have long to live and so asks Mary Ann to write down the story of his brother, Ned, who fought for The People’s Charter and for improved wages in the textile mills of the Stroud Valleys.

But as soon as Mary Ann begins to write, anger takes control of her pen. Which story should she write? Maybe it is time for the truth about the Cottrell brothers to be told. As Mary Ann unravels the knots of the past, she comes to see how her love for the brothers destroyed the life she might have had.

Should she now avenge the dead? Or can the mere power of her faltering pen enable her to reclaim her own truth?

Once the initial subscription has been raised then Alice’s share of the profits (50% of every book sold) will go to Emmaus – a charity who support homeless people in Gloucestershire and are part of a federation of 350 organisations in 37 countries around the world.

My review

Mary Ann Sate, Imbecile is a remarkable book: the fictional autobiography of a working-class woman who lives in the Five Valleys of Gloucestershire through much of the 19th century, a period of huge economic, political and social upheaval. Most of the story takes place in the turbulent first half century. Mary Ann is sceptical and wary of the strange new worlds she encounters whilst most of the other characters in the text are more decisive. Her friend Ambrose wants to embrace its possibilities, her first employer, Mrs Woebegone denounces anything new as evil. Others set fire to change, or try and flee.  Some of these stories may be familiar to readers: developments in medicine,  the Captain Swing rebellions, the 1832 Reform Act, Methodism, Chartism, machine breaking. But Mary Ann doesn’t have the luxury of hindsight to see them in what later became their familiar shapes. Through her eyes and in her words, events and processes are made strange as she grapples to find ways of representing what she sees and experiences. What comes at her is chaotic, partial, confusing and sometimes terrifying, and the book’s form is brilliantly shaped to capture this. The reader is drawn into a unique and compelling experience:

For all my fear, I feel my life beginning

The world generous eager stretchd out afore me

Like many yards of fine cloth

Ambrose and me dance long

Then walk on down the field and he tell me now

Look up and I tip back So many stars never seed

Stretch into blackness without end

It’s a form that allows patterns and repetitions – of the seasons, of labour – and continuities to be explored as richly as change. It’s open enough to encompass the stories of those Mary Ann has lived with and worked alongside: first the Woebegones and then, for many years, Harland Cottrell and his two sons, Blyth and Ned, where she goes unpaid except for food and lodging, and does most of the work of the resentful Nettie, as well as her own.

Mary Ann’s story has no full stops or commas and is textured by the idiosyncrasies of a particular life, a particular place. The only conventional markers of punctuation are capitals. The book is poem and novel and draws on the histories of both. Set out like a long narrative poem, it is rich with the poetry and hymns of the period, William Blake, William Wordsworth and John Clare amongst others. Gothic echoes play through the plot in the idea of the story rediscovered, crimes concealed and revealed.  Within this rich texture, I saw or/and imagined many traces: Pip turned upside down by Magwitch, Heathcliff’s early days at Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre’s stubbornness. And Mary Ann is a 19th century outsider to the nth degree: orphan, ‘deformed’, routinely taken for a fool, always seeing more than she is supposed to, but not always seeing enough. As I read it, I thought too of the way Elizabeth Gaskell’s Mary Barton originated as John Barton, a story about Mary’s father, a factory worker and political activist and how Gaskell cannot follow that initial project through.

Mary Ann Sate Imbecile tells the stories that Gaskell and many other 19th century middle-class writers couldn’t write. Mary Ann’s text begins in the command to write someone else’s story, a demand she subverts to write her own. She becomes the witness to her own life, a life that stands for numerous others, lost and forgotten.  Jolly’s representations of Mary Ann learning to read and write capture the power and exhilaration of both, of what they make possible:

So I come to pick up

The story of How Paradise Was Lost

By Mr John Milton

I have seed it afore

Yet the words all cling together

Lock me out in misunderstanding

Now I pick it up and read

Of mans first disobedience and the fruit

Of that forbidden tree who mortal taste

Brought death into the world

Sudden it all clear as drips of dancing water

The words flow away from me

I know them all

My eyes fly down the lines

Inside I am leaping

For I can read

 

Red Hands and Cheap Stays: Class in The Return of the Soldier

Rebecca West’s first novel The Return of the Soldier was first published in 1918 and has just been republished for the Virago 40 series. At the beginning of the novel, the soldier of the title is injured and sent back from France.  But Chris Baldry, though an important character, is secondary to the women who must care for him. The novel itself is primarily about the role and labour of women in wartime. Not the nurses, ambulance drivers or munitions workers but all the nurturing, disciplining and symbolic work done by sisters, wives, mothers and lovers, who try to maintain the home fire and the soldiers who defend it.

women-britain-say-go (1)
A propaganda poster taken from an article by Jo Fox about the role of women in World War One from the British Library website

West’s first novel is a variation on a story familiar from romance and melodrama: two women who have claims on one man. What does each woman promise? What values does each represent? And who will the man eventually choose? Wife Kitty and old sweetheart Margaret are the undeclared rivals for Chris. But this is the scaffold for a far more complex and demanding drama about class and gender pressed to extremes in wartime.

For a start, the narrator Jenny is Chris’s cousin, half in love with Chris herself and alternately jealous of the other two women. Chris is also a man of substance, the owner of Baldry Court with its stables, kennels and views of wet ‘emerald pastureland’ – a home made beautiful by Kitty and Jenny. The novel begins when Jenny and Kitty discover that Chris has been injured. They don’t receive this news through the usual channel though – the dreaded letter or telegram. A woman called Margaret Grey arrives with the message – a stranger to Jenny and Kitty – and this is the first sign that something is wrong.

Chris’s injury isn’t immediately clear: he’s been ‘hurt’, ‘wounded, but not dangerously’; Kitty is soon speculating that Chris may be ‘all broken and queer.’  For Chris has amnesia (a ‘shellburst’, ‘shellshock’ – there isn’t a settled word) and he has lost – or rejected – fifteen years of his life. He is unable to remember his wife, his marriage, his business, or the birth and death of his young son. He is locked in a time before the onset of responsibilities, when he was in love with Margaret, then unmarried. After a disastrous first evening at Baldry Court, Chris declares: ‘If I don’t see Margaret Allington I shall die.’  Kitty reluctantly accedes to his request.

The competition between Kitty and Margaret is unequal – in so many ways. To Kitty and Jenny, Margaret’s class represents a crisis and a terrible disruption to the life of Baldry Court. Jenny’s first description of Margaret fixates on her cheap clothes – the re-dyed feather on her hat, her ‘red, seamed hands’ – with a particularly feminine antagonism. She is described as something dirty, ‘repulsively soiled with poverty and neglect’, likened to a forgotten glove in a hotel room.

Worse is what Margaret says to Kitty by way of an introduction: ‘”My general is sister to your second housemaid”’. Margaret has a maid, Kitty has numerous – Margaret is not working-class but lower middle class. Like the clerk Leonard Bast in Howards End (1910), it is Margaret’s social proximity that renders her repellent and dangerous, not her distance. Initially Kitty refuses to believe that Margaret could even know Chris, accusing her of extortion. Jenny is kinder and unwillingly senses Margaret is telling the truth. Nevertheless, Jenny quickly rewrites honesty from the standpoint of pity, likening Margaret to a ‘clumsy animal’, ‘a draught ox or the big trusted dog.’ The differences between Jenny and Kitty’s understanding of Margaret are central and as the novel progresses the question of who Margaret really is comes to the fore.

Rebecca_West photo
Rebecca West, born Cicely Fairfield, 1892-1983

When Kitty and Jenny allow Margaret into their lives for the sake of Chris, her social danger multiplies. Jenny must visit Margaret’s house Mariposa in ‘a town of people who could not do as they like’, too close to the railway line and with a sofa upholstered in a ‘sickish green’ velveteen. Margaret greets her with ‘disordered hair’ and ‘floury hands’. The novel is obsessed with hands and Margaret’s red, seamed ones in particular. In contrast, Baldry Court, redesigned by Kitty at enormous expense, is full of shining, shallow luxury and nearly invisible labour.

But whilst one part of Jenny’s narration focuses on the all too palpable social world, a second strand, consciously, sometimes awkwardly, symbolic, introduces another world or dimension. Associated first with Jenny’s anxious dreams about Chris in No Man’s Land and her childhood memories, Jenny’s Chris was the imaginative boy who believed that ‘the birch tree would really stir and shrink and quicken into an enchanted princess.’ Much later, Jenny has a vision of the Front as a literal hell in which Chris must choose between two crystal balls he is offered by a malevolent shopkeeper: one contains Jenny and Kitty, the other Margaret. This hell dreamt by Jenny has an alternative though, which is different from both Baldry Court and Mariposa. This place is Monkey Island, where Chris and Margaret fell in love.

1940 edition of ROTS
1940 edition of The Return of the Soldier

Two long passages from Chris and Margaret’s points of view, look back to this past together (before they meet in the present). Monkey Island is a ‘real’ place, near Bray and the rural, water-bound inn, its garden fringed by chestnuts and walnuts, is where Margaret and her father live and work. Prosaically, Margaret is the innkeeper’s daughter but in Chris’s account she is the spirit of a secret pastoral.  While Margaret’s father chases after his beloved ducks and rabbits and Margaret prepares tea, a Romantic evening settles, transforming everything and everyone. Later in the moonlight, Margaret becomes a goddess when she is lifted by Chris into one of the niches of a Greek-style temple. ‘By its light he could not tell if her hair was white or silver or yellow or gold … His love was changeless.’ And nothing changes when he sees her again. In Chris’s eyes, Margaret isn’t a publican’s daughter or a married woman with cheap, clicking stays and red hands, she is the woman he loves and the ageless and classless essence of the nurturing feminine. Later on, Margaret seems to acquire the powers of a medium when she seems able to conjure the very character of Chris’s dead son by touching the little boy’s things. The novel’s story is as much about Jenny’s learning to see Margaret in these same hallowed terms as it is about the struggle over Chris.

In a letter to The Observer from June 1928, responding to a negative review of a stage adaptation of the novel, West wrote that the idea for the story came:

from two sources … It happened that in 1914 I heard of one of the first cases of amnesia the war produced; this reminded me of a paper I had read in a medical journal before the war in which a factory doctor had recorded without comment the case of an elderly factory hand who fell down a staircase on his head and came to himself under the delusion that he was a boy of twenty; and later gave great pain to his wife by repudiating and demanding a sweetheart from whom he had been separated for many years.

Later she found the character model for Margaret and ‘the whole story slipped into wartime.’ West translated the story she read about the old factory hand who fell down the stairs into an upper middle class setting (probably not surprising) but the war – rather than a fall down the stairs – and Chris’s relative youth steer West’s narrative carefully away from any comic possibility. The phrase ‘slipped into wartime’ suggests both inevitability and chance, and this seems congruent with the peculiar status the war has in the novel. On the one hand there is a familiar juxtaposition between England and the Front.

Knights, Winifred, 1899-1946; Cliffs at Beer, Devon
Winifred Knights, Cliffs at Beer, Devon (1922)

England is represented as the land itself and a feminine that must be protected at all costs. John Buchan’s South African hero James Hannay, finally ‘gets’ England in Mr Standfast (1919) when he spends a charmed afternoon in the Cotswolds having met the woman – working as a nurse – whom he will later marry. Baldry Hall with its horses and dogs seems to be an emblem of the England that makes the war worth fighting. It certainly is for Kitty and Jenny at the start of the novel. But not it seems for Chris. By refusing to remember, by aligning with the Margaret of Monkey Island, he is also refusing to fight. The wartime horizon also means that this isn’t just Chris’s story but the story of any man who returns from the horrors of the front and finds home means nothing to him. The surplus of women in the novel, the failure of a new generation (Kitty and Margaret have both had children who die very young), the uncanny alienation and disorientation experienced by Chris but also Kitty and Jenny when the soldier returns – these too are the effects of war. There are moments too when the war blasts through the apparent solidity of home, of England (compare Siegfried Sassoon’s ‘Repression of War Experience’ or Septimus Warren Smith’s visions of dead soldiers in Regents Park in Mrs Dalloway). Jenny sees Chris in No Man’s Land in her dream, but it is Margaret who finally brings the war home to roost when she goes out to meet Chris for the first time at Baldry Court:

How her near presence had been known by Chris I do not understand, but there he was, running across the lawn as night after night I had seen him in my dreams in No Man’s Land. I knew that so he would close his eyes as he ran; I knew that so he would pitch on his knees, when he reached safety. I assumed that at Margaret’s feet lay safety, even before I saw her arms brace him under the armpits with a gesture that was not passionate, but rather the movement of one carrying a wounded man from under fire.

Here Margaret becomes the comrade who rescues Chris’s battle-worn body. Her goodness and nurturing strength are what enable Jenny to understand that the world represented by Baldry Court is not worth fighting for. Positioning Margaret in an alternative realm allows the ‘horror’ that Jenny (and Kitty) feel at her class to be side-lined. By turning Margaret into an exceptional figure and giving Chris a kind of preternatural vision, she transcends the ugly stain of class. Goodness and love are not where you always expect to find them, the novel seems to say, but the ugly place from which Margaret comes remains ugly and dangerous.  Part of what makes the novel so compelling is that it can’t quite shut the box of frogs it opens with Margaret’s calling card.

At the end, Margaret is once again the agent of change; she who, with regret, agrees to return Chris to the present, sharing with the psychiatrist brought in to treat Chris, the understanding that normality and happiness rarely align. Neither Chris nor Kitty, can choose their futures. Only Margaret the outsider (old sweetheart, other woman, lower middle class) can make the choice that remakes normality, but this is only possible through a profound act of renunciation. She gives up her own happiness and also any hope that Chris will have a good life. She has knowingly returned the soldier. The novel is also Jenny’s grim Bildungsroman, the story of her education, grim because she must then continue to live amongst what she knows to be ruins. She must conspire in the terrible twist that the ending adds to the novel’s title: remaking Chris as the soldier. This moment too is multiplied by the wartime context and the novel leaves us asking how many other women contributed to making soldiers fit for sacrifice in this way?

Virago 40 Return of the Soldier
Virago 2018 edition

 

You can read more about the role of women in World War One propaganda at the British Library Website

For a very different account of the war, try Mary Borden’s Forbidden Zone, first published in 1929, which offers an extraordinary, nightmarish, and in places, surreal account of the front line and is based on her experience as a nurse. You can read it here:

 

 

 

Flash Fiction: Roots (published as part of the Reflex Fiction Spring 2018 competition)

Roots-Flash-Fiction-by-Rachel-Malik image

Roots

What she remembers:

  1. Waking as she is lifted in her bed, gently, off the floor.
  2. Counting the time in wallpaper repeats: “Robin, blackbird, wren; robin…
  3. Falling in her old cedar bed back on to the floor.
  4. Her eyes holding her breath: she won’t blink.

Hanging on.

“Robin…

The house is quiet but outside the tree is waving, tapping.

The tree is one of the reasons she bought the house. No other neighbours.

The tree is legend, stories attach to its branches. Its hollow was sanctuary; its bark made the barren bloom. A hanging tree, the surveyor said, sourly.

Through spring and summer, the canopy reaches right up to her porch, draws over her walls and greens her light. It is almost like living in a wood. Birds sing from the hollow.

Downstairs, she drinks tea and water. The kitchen tap is working today— it makes a change.

Leaking pipes, airlocks, plumbers’ dockets—she knows better. Like her, the tree is thirsty; long ago it sucked the front wall loose and toothy. Now it has reached the house: ground floors burst, tiles cracked, her own skin flaking.

“Blackbird

She grabs a torch, marches down the path.

The rounded hollow is shoulder high. A high stink, muffled. She has never ventured her head inside. The torch finds twists of wood and shit, petrified as if a fire had once been set. Too damp now. Woody stalactites they are—one has the profile of a bird. Extraordinary. Another resembles a flower or no a cake, rectangular, iced; or, a bed, her bed, even down to the scrolling, the pillow. Don’t blink.

“Wren.

 

Read more about  Reflex Fiction, a quarterly international flash fiction competition for stories between 180 and 360 words here: https://www.reflexfiction.com/flash-fiction/

 

Adapting Wilkie Collins

Some years ago I contributed a chapter to a book about Wilkie Collins. The piece was called ‘The Afterlife of Wilkie Collins’ and it was about the many types of adaptation of Collins’s novels: theatre, silent film, radio and television, even the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.  I’m posting it here because I still quite like it but also because of the new BBC TV adaptation of The Woman in White which is dividing viewers quite a lot at the moment.  The essay is from The Cambridge Companion to Wilkie Collins edited by Jenny Bourne Taylor.  It’s also got a short discussion about neo-Victorian fiction from the 1990s and 2000s.

The Afterlife of Wilkie Collins

Rachel Malik

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical spectacular The Woman in White opened in London in September, 2004. Posters featuring a back-lit, white clad woman had appeared on buses and tubes for months before, and the casting of Michael Crawford (the most famous Phantom of the Opera) as the first Count Fosco seemed to lodge Collins’s novel firmly into Lloyd Webber’s world. The official publicity paid its dues to Collins, but acknowledged the story had been appropriated to a familiar repertoire – ‘a love story to which a layer of unrequited love [Marian for Walter] has been added for the musical’ – and the evening clearly offers a branded ‘Lloyd Webber’ experience, complete with souvenir tapestry kits and pill-boxes. Nonetheless, the modern musical Woman in White was strongly shaped by the contexts and forms of Collins’s writing, sensation fiction and, more broadly, the mid-Victorian practices of writing and publishing popular fiction. Far from being a travesty of the ‘original’ novel or a post-modern re-rendering of Victorian gothic, this new musical version can be viewed as a natural offspring of Collins’s novel and its first set of contexts. My emphasis in this essay will be on the continuities between Collins’s novels in their first intertextual setting, and their many and varied versions in British film, radio, television and novels.  In addition to the publishing history of the texts themselves, the history of Wilkie Collins in the twentieth century encompasses some of the earliest silent films, the changing traditions and conventions of BBC radio and television drama, and the historical fiction of Sarah Waters, James Wilson and other ‘contemporary Victorian’ writers.  It forms a crucial part of the continuities and shifts in the significance of the ‘Victorian’ across the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.

Andrew Lloyd WEbber Woman in White

The ‘afterlife’ of Wilkie Collins suggests many histories and in an essay such as this it isn’t possible even to sketch them all. My aim is to consider the versions and revisions of Collins’s writing as a set of processes of production and reception which in turn reflect back on the publishing and reading cultures that shaped Collins’s own work and to which he was highly responsive.  This emphasis makes it possible to explore continuities as well as differences across media and time, opening up an idea of ‘adaptation’ that is neither transhistorical (accurately reproducing the original) nor narrowly bound within its own time. For example the BBC television family serial slot under which The Moonstone and The Woman in White were multiply serialised from the late 1950s to the 70s, predominantly imagines a mixed audience in a flow of other texts in ways directly comparable with Victorian periodical fiction.[1]  In contrast James Wilson’s sequel to The Woman in White, The Dark Clue (2001), offers a decisively modern experience of novel reading as retreat, quite alien from the reading contexts and practices of much Victorian fiction, despite its sometimes startling echo of Collins’s writing.

Adaptation almost always implies a media translation that succeeds the original and a focus on the differences between practices and institutions, especially where literary ‘classics’ are concerned. But as Graham Law and Jim Davis discuss in this Companion, unauthorised adaptations (both printed and performed) often preceded the completion of the original in the mid-nineteenth century, and there were important continuities across drama, painting and the novel.[2]  And while some of the specifics of contemporary publishing – such as the current force of copyright – would look very alien to Victorian eyes, many would not. The mid-Victorian and the contemporary moments of book publishing share many features: fiercely competitive, international in both ambition and practice, dependent on and significantly constituted by the possibilities and limitations of other media, with marketing and promotion as central processes.[3]  The Woman in White was a bestseller in America as well as Britain and was rapidly translated into most European languages. Collins’s writing cuts across a range of media and explicitly addresses different types of reader in ways that facilitate its subsequent translation into film, radio and television. The institutions and practices of these new media were in turn shaped by mid and late Victorian periodical publishing.

Collins’s novels are also intensely dramatic and highly visual.  Like many of his contemporaries, his work was written to be read aloud as well as to be adapted for the stage and the modes of both speech and drama are already inscribed within his writing.  Collins’s did not share Dickens’s talent for gripping public readings (his reading tour of America in 1873-4 was not entirely successful), and he does not adopt the kind of idiolectal and dialectical variation so characteristic of Dickens; but there are many compositional traits that anticipate a spoken and quasi-dramatic context of reading and performance. The use of multiple character narrators, some with highly distinctive speech and thought patterns is, in part, the effect of an imagined context of reading aloud:  Pesca’s benign hyperbole and out-of-context English colloquialisms in The Woman in White and the honest no-nonsense of Betteridge in The Moonstone, for example. And Collins’s writing acutely engages with the drama of speech: witness the deathbed confession that opens Armadale.

It is also saturated in the culture of the image. Collins’s own biography (discussed by Tim Dolin) and his keen interest in the illustration of his novels are only a particular twist on a general culture where the sheer quantity and range of new and/or improved technologies, forms and contexts of seeing – including illustration in books and periodicals, photography, prints for middle-class domestic spaces and the spectacle of the diorama – charged the relation between observing subject and observed object in distinctive ways. The professional artist as paternal figure in Hide and Seek, and hero in The Woman in White; Franklin Blake and Rachel Verinder’s decorative painting as flirtation in The Moonstone; the disturbing paintings and photographs that haunt Miserrimus Dexter’s walls in The Law and the Lady, and the Millais frontispiece to the 1864 Sampson and Law edition of No Name are vivid examples of this interrelation of image and text.[4]  And time and time again the viewer, observer or voyeur is a central figure, calling for modes of description which foreground the spatial placing of objects and persons. These dramatic and visual elements have been taken up in various ways in film, radio and television

 

Early cinema

Between 1909 and 1916, there were at least eleven Collins ‘adaptations’ produced: four based on The New Magdalen, one on The Dead Secret, one on Armadale, three on The Moonstone and two on The Woman in White.[5]   During roughly the same period, there were seven Braddon adaptations (four of Lady Audley’s Secret and three of Aurora Floyd), and while this cannot compete with Dickens – between 1898 and 1915, there were at least 60 films produced based on Dickens texts – Collins has proved a rich resource for early film, though little still exists to view or hear and records are patchy.   It is The Woman in White which emerges as the favourite for adaptation after 1915, with five productions, the best-known being the 1948 American version staring Sydney Greensheet as Count Fosco (the 1940 version, entitled Crimes at the Dark House is really a gory horror vehicle for Tod Slaughter, king-villain of British B-movies).[6]  The familiarity of melodrama, the versatility of Gothic across media, and a shared commitment to producing ‘bodily’ effects must in part explain the appeal of sensation fiction for early film. As Tom Gunning has argued, early cinema aimed, above all, to shock or thrill the viewer: ‘the impact derives from a moment of crisis, prepared for and delayed, then bursting on the audience’ – the train rushing towards the audience was the most vivid example.[7] Such tactics immediately recall sensation fiction (though without sensation fiction’s complex narrative), and Gunning also locates this strand of cinema in a line of continuity with magic shows and other spectacles which tested the credulity of sophisticated and sceptical fin de siècle audiences.  Like sensation fiction, early cinema provoked in the reader the question: but how can this be possible? And then went on to show us that it is – usually without any recourse to ‘real’ magic or matters supernatural.

 

Woman-in-White-1912-Gem-2-crop
The Gem Picture adaptation of The Woman in White (1912): the engagement of Laura Fairlie

Recent work on the early years of silent film has also emphasised the continuities between film and the cultural forms and institutions that preceded it. Music hall and variety have long been acknowledged as models, but the content and reception contexts of early cinema were significantly shaped by nineteenth-century periodical publishing, with its mix of popular fiction, essays and curiosities, and, of course, the important role accorded to illustration. Ian Christie views The Strand magazine (founded in 1891) as a central model, and it is notable that there were 26 adaptations of Conan Doyle stories (mainly Sherlock Holmes) between 1903 and 1915.[8]  But the idea of the literary periodical as a model for early cinema also has a more general force. In the earliest period, films were just a few minutes long, and comprised a character vignette (for example Mr Bumble the Beadle, 1898) or a single moment of dramatic confrontation or sheer spectacle. The film as character vignette, like the early readings of famous Dickens episodes on BBC radio in the 1920s (for example, Barkis is Willing in 1924), immediately recall the performances of Dickens. Many Victorian contexts of production (as today) presumed abridgement, extraction and authorial performance, and these possibilities were likewise textually inscribed.

In these early stages, too, films were packaged and consumed alongside each other: romance and revenge dramas viewed alongside ‘stand-up’ comedy, holiday travel narratives and self-styled anthropology.[9]  They were also viewed alongside a variety of other entertainments: live variety and music-hall acts for example. This frame of consumption supplied one local and immediate intertextual context for viewers. It also suggests an audience conversant with frequent and complex genre switching, and highly capable of varying their intensity and mode of attention. Such patterns of consumption in turn recall the periodical context of much nineteenth-century novelistic production, in which Collins’s writing was so strongly embedded – The Law and the Lady for example, can be read in part as a celebration of popular reading practices, where reading Trials (published reports of criminal proceedings) and solving popular periodical riddles are central to discovering the narrative’s enigmas. Just as the Victorian reading experience was frequently a cross-media one that incorporated spoken sound, image and other printed text, so the early filmic experience was richly intermedial. Early film made varied use of organ and piano music; story outlines and scripts were sometimes distributed to audiences, and  ‘lecturers’ were employed to narrate the story, improvise additional dialogue and, latterly, read the intertitles. And film studios were quick to exploit the serial potential of film. Pearl White, who played Mercy Merrick in the 1910 version of the same title, was dubbed the ‘Serial Queen’ for her roles in the adventure film serial, Perils of Pauline (1914) where she was routinely subject to great dangers from which she equally routinely escaped.[10]

Collins’s characters and narratives do not lend themselves as easily to extraction as those of Dickens. But increased running times (to between 15 and 30 minutes) during the first half of the 1910s opened up narrative possibilities which begin to sound more like conventional adaptations in the reviews which often now supply the only surviving evidence.[11] The Gem production of The Woman in White in 1913 cuts Marian and centres on Count Fosco, whose arrival in London seems to instigate the narrative. He and his wife take charge of Laura and employ Walter. Sir Percival is still the husband-to-be. Laura and Ann are swapped before Ann’s death; so Ann spends some time passing as Lady Glyde. The film ends with the murder of Fosco ‘by the knife of an assassin’. In the Thanhouser production of the previous year, a gory gothic script is supplied by Ann, who writes a message in blood in her dying moments. This directs Walter and Laura to the church where Sir Percival confesses the truth before going up in flames. As in other early versions, the story is radically simplified. Count and Lady Fosco are cut, as are Marian and Mr Fairlie, so constructing a gothic-tinged melodrama where Sir Percival is the evil obstacle to the true love of Walter and Laura (who escapes unaided from the asylum). As in the current Lloyd Webber musical, Ann seems more central, trying to warn Laura about her prospective husband, and present as a silent witness at the wedding.  It is she who directly confronts Sir Percival with the words: ‘I am not mad, and you are not Sir Percival’. Sir Percival shows no premeditation: there is no plot or conspiracy. He is simply struck by Ann’s resemblance to Laura when she confronts him, and when she conveniently faints, he drags her body into a room, quickly drugs Laura and dumps her body outside the asylum gates. In contrast the 1918 Thanhouser production is much more ambitious. All the key characters from the novel are in position (including Pesca), though it is left to Walter to rescue Laura from the asylum because Marian’s attempt fails. Fosco is the mastermind of the substitution plot, though it is Sir Percival who sends Walter to Africa (not Central America) to get him out of the way.

However the strong Gothic marked in these narratives was not the only way of adapting sensation fiction. The 1920 Ideal Films version of Lady Audley’s Secret may be the only extant viewable silent sensation movie, and from its first intertitle, its narrative dominant is the morality tale: ‘Blind yielding to callous selfishness and brooding discontent’ … from ‘first false deed’ to ‘new treacheries’ till… the ‘whole edifice of evil tumbles and crashes from its own rottenness’….’What a tangled web…’.[12]   The film centres on Lucy/Helen’s actions, beginning with her romance with George – unlike the novel, this is never about Robert Audley’s detective prowess. It ends with Lucy taking ‘a deadly sleeping draught’ at Audley Court, after her plan to kill Robert has failed.  Yet a variety of other genres are stitched in between the moralising melodrama. There is the conventional comedy of servants, and an apparently set-piece adventure scene of George sitting round the campfire in the Australian outback. The shock of Sir Michael’s proposal to Lucy (whom the audience knows is married), is comically offset – witnessed by Robert and Alicia who are playing with a pet dog at the time. Lucy pushes George down the well wearing a well-above-the-ankle pleated tartan skirt and a fur-trimmed rain jacket. She also smokes, at one point placing a cigarette in Sir Michael’s mouth. If this is an indictment of modern girls, the Thanhouser productions of The Woman in White play on the continuities with Victorian melodrama while giving Ann a more ‘modern’, active role.

 

Family audiences

However it is in radio and television that the temporal dimensions of serial narrative become most strongly visible as continuities with the reading, writing and publishing cultures that Collins participated in. For many years Collins occupied the BBC Sunday teatime slot (usually beginning between 5.20 and 5.40), first on radio (there were radio adaptations of Armadale and No Name in 1948 and 1952 for example) and then on television, alongside other favourites – Dickens, Dumas and Scott – and adaptations of children’s classics such as Moonfleet and Treasure Island.[13] A six-part version of The Woman in White (1966) and two adaptations of The Moonstone in 1959 and 1972 (of seven and five-parts respectively) occupied this slot. The 1982 production of The Woman in White shifted the mood – broadcast after nine on Wednesday evenings – a time-slot continued into the 90s. Victorian serials were, of course, far longer than their television counterparts, but the television serial also demands an investment from the viewer in exchange for a promised return of pleasure, a dynamic accentuated if the narrative is finite rather than on-going.

Embedded in the schedule, many of the TV serial’s immediate intertexts – as with Victorian periodical fiction – were local and immediate and given by the contexts of production: the previous serial, the adjacent programming of the day perhaps. And like Victorian family magazines, the BBC predominantly constructed a family audience, jointly and severally: the 1966 teatime serial slot is succeeded by Captain Pugwash, preceded by a post-lunch film ‘matinee’ that follows motor racing from Le Mans – a sequence that imagines a very particular kind of family day that is less marked now as television imagines and constitutes other types of individual and collective viewers. The teatime serial addressed a family collectivity, though its members did not all need to be sitting round the television. The slot was arguably as important a repository and prompt for memories as childhood reading (and latterly listening and viewing), and the history evoked by such programmes was, importantly, the viewer’s own. In this sense there is a sharp distinction between the exciting novelties of serial sensation fiction and the ‘classic’ teatime serial. This slot may also have done much to create a particular class of classics, to which Collins, like Dickens, belongs: the ‘much-loved’, the ‘favourite’ book, where an emotional relationship becomes the key index of the text’s value.

The 1996 Moonstone, broadcast in a two-part prime-time Christmas season slot, belongs to the same tradition, despite its post-9pm scheduling. Packed with well-known British actors, many associated with period drama, the adaptation does not shy away from the ‘dark side’ of the novel but insists most strongly on all-round entertainment.[14] An image of the Shivering Sands bookends the drama and Rosanna’s disturbing compulsions and suicide are richly played on. But these eerie pleasures are strongly constrained by romance, comedy (much is made of the attempted ministrations of Drusilla Clack) and the detective fever that drives the narrative. The role and effect of detective fiction is seemingly contradictory: making the adaptation simultaneously faithful and anachronistic. Fidelity is possible, even in this highly condensed form, because the audience is presumed to know the rules of the detective genre, from both classic fiction and television, and their expectations are richly confirmed. It takes only a short scene to establish the contrast between the ponderous local plod, Seegrave, and the eccentric, sharp-witted, metropolitan Cuff. Reconstructions, red-herrings, outcasts with pivotal knowledge, disguise and amateur detection abound. But it is fidelity to the conventions and audience expectations of classic period drama and classic detective fiction, particularly as stamped by BBC traditions, which shapes the adaptation, at least as much as the text itself. Yet at the same time, the adaptation necessarily misses the instability and ingenuity of the emerging genre in the novel, and its departures from what became familiar conventions.

 

In contrast, the 1997 two-part version of The Woman in White strongly diverges from the conventions of teatime family viewing, despite occupying the same big-budget, period-drama Christmas slot.[15]  Directed by Tim Fywell (director of TV adaptations of contemporary writers such as Minette Walters and Barbara Vine), it is both strongly modernising and reworks key sensation tropes in the light of current definitions and anxieties. Tara Fitzgerald’s Marian is an all-action feminist hero who must revive a jaded Walter to help her avenge her ‘sister’s’ murder; it is she, not Walter, who faces out Sir Percival in the church after Walter has been immobilised by a timely bump to the head. It is also very much Marian’s narrative (hers is the only voice-over): Walter functions mainly as love-interest and unwitting pawn of Sir Percival during the first half at least, and it is Marian’s voice that encompasses Walter’s first encounter with the woman in white. Yet this frequently transhistorical feminist reading is sometimes modulated by more specific understandings of Victorian gender relations, as later, Walter functions to mark the highly circumscribed space that women can move in. Marian seeks him out after her attempt to discover ‘Ann’s’ whereabouts by searching Fosco’s (Simon Callow) London hotel ends in humiliating failure. Titled male power, even if it is Italian, will always triumph over an anonymous unmarried woman. This intermittent historicism also seems part of a strategy to preserve a darker version of the novel as some kind of ‘family viewing’.  Child sexual abuse replaces illegitimacy as the crucial secret: Sir Percival, who repeated rapes and beats Laura, has also abused Ann as a child. In this sense the adaptation confirms expectations about the dark underside of a repressive society viewed through a late twentieth-century lens. Yet there is only one scene where violence is directed represented (and this is figured as a nightmare – though it turns out to be true); and there is no explicit sex. As a lady, Laura haltingly refers to ‘the act’; Ann’s letter tells of Sir Percival ‘behaving like a husband’ to her when she was a child of twelve. Such phrases meet the expectations of producers and viewers of certain kinds of Victorian speech – euphemistic and formal – but the adaptation also perfectly fits the 12 certificate on the ubiquitous video, at least in part imagined as a multi-generational, family viewing experience.

 

Contemporary Victorian fiction

Collins has also provided a crucial reference point in the emerging genre of ‘contemporary Victorian’ fiction, which started with Michael Sadleir’s Fanny by Gaslight in 1840 (???) and which has burgeoned since the late 1980s with (for example) A.S. Byatt’s Possession (1990) and Angels and Insects (1992), Margaret Atwood’s Alias Grace (1996) and Michael Faber’s The Crimson Petal and the White (2003). James Wilson’s The Dark Clue and Sarah Waters’s Fingersmith (2002) are most directly bound to Collins. In their preoccupation with the shaping drives of Victorian fiction, and the relations between narrators and knowledge they are typical of contemporary Victorian fiction, which, as Kate Flint has argued, engages modern theorising about Victorian fiction as it reworks nineteenth-century narrative.[16]  The Dark Clue is a direct sequel to The Woman in White, and begins with Laura once more out of the picture, and Walter and Marian on a quest for a secret that leads them through the double life of Turner, a life which indirectly echoes Collins’s own.  Walter is in search of a symbolic father and engaged in a quest for self; but the repressed motivations he discovers amount to a predictable set of masculine drives, as the gentle-man turns sexual predator, soliciting prostitutes, even raping Marian herself.

The Dark Clue

Wilson’s over-familiar tale of a repressed Victorian sexuality that returns in violence against women is a disappointing resolution of a previously nuanced narration.  In contrast Sarah Waters’s fiction is less concerned with reproducing a distinct authorial ‘voice’.  Fingersmith deploys the narrational strategies of sensation fiction to reveal and conceal, rewriting and meshing the tropes of the double and the orphan and turning Collins’s implicitly homoerotic traces into an explicit exploration of lesbian sexuality. Two women, whose lives are both further apart and closer together than seems initially possible, are embroiled in a complex substitution plot whose author appears to keep changing. Sue and Maud can be made to look like each other, as the maid becomes the lady and the lady becomes the maid, but each needs the other to be mis(taken) for the other. The compelling disturbance of narrative expectations is shaped by queer desires, as the novel effects a compelling twist on the double, moving from resemblance and identification to sexual passion. The manoeuvres in the plot are thus intimately bound to the unfolding of desire – until Maud and Sue acknowledge their love, they are doomed to be substitutes, alternatives, separate narratives that do not add up.

220px-Fingersmithcover

The texts and discourses that shape Waters’s work are richer in their range than Wilson’s and embedded in contemporary as well as historical traditions. Fingersmith draws strongly on Dickens too, but it is a Dickens who has already been re-inscribed for the twentieth century, most visibly by Angela Carter. The modes of masculine authority, from the most thuggish and crude to the most chillingly perverse – the obsessive collector and curator of pornography, Christopher Lilly, for example – strongly echo Carter’s ritualised and claustrophobic patriarchy. Carter’s vision inflects some key figures of the feminine too. Mrs Sucksby, is a case in point: a baby farmer who has killed as many children as she has saved, as ruthless as she is sentimental in the interests of her ‘own’, and finally, the mother who makes the ultimate sacrifice.

Wilson and Waters’s preoccupation with sexuality is shared with many other contemporary Victorian novels: Fowles’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1968), for example and Michael Faber’s recent The Crimson Petal and the White (2003), which tells the story of a prostitute, Sugar. Sexuality may be canonical and oppressive or dissonant and liberating, but in nearly every case it functions as explanation and resolution. Waters’s earlier Affinity (1999) centres on a female spiritualist and her relationship with a neurasthenic middle-class girl who visits her in prison; the whole interest in whether she is an authentic medium or a grand illusionist is negotiated through the emergence of a powerful and unexpected desire. Every other kind of knowledge seems exposed as a kind of blindness.  Waters’s narratives have the merit (amongst others) of turning conventional narratives of desire upside down, but in ‘modernising’ the no longer sensational secrets that underpin so much of Victorian fiction, sexuality is usually played out in a far more conventional key: the Lloyd Webber musical, like the BBC serial of The Woman in White, replaces the ‘secret’ of illegitimacy with the modern trauma of child abuse.

In Victorian Afterlives, John Kucich and Dianne Sadoff argue that much contemporary cultural production refashions the Victorian period as its privileged other ‘because the nineteenth century provides multiple eligible sites for theorising’ various forms of cultural emergence that appeal to post-modern enquiry.[17] This is persuasive, but we also need to consider the relations between texts and readers, as well as the institutions and practices that have constituted this rather intimate relationship between the Victorians and ‘us’. One of the reasons, surely, that the Victorians speak to ‘us’ is because of their place in childhood reading, listening and viewing (real or imaginary) as much as their formal place in school and university curricula as fiction and history. The cover of Peter Carey’s reworking of Great Expectations, Jack Maggs (1997) – a sepia photo of a ‘real’ Artful Dodger, staring, tersely at the camera – is a clear instance of this distinctive appeal. These texts are at once compelling page-turners and familiar and reassuring: a place of childhood nostalgia for readers, sharpened with contemporary ‘edge’. And in this sense they differ sharply from the experiences of shock and novelty recorded by Victorian readers.

Perhaps we must look to other media for renewed versions of these experiences of nervous shock and complexly constructed incredulity. As we’ve seen, early film played richly on the ‘magical’ properties of the medium. Nearly all of the silent versions of The Woman in White had the same actress play Ann and Laura. The 1913 adaptation of The Dead Secret, considered a proto-text for The Woman in White, also deployed the same actress, Marion Leonard, has earned its footnote in film history as an early instance of double-exposure – magically allowing the actress to be present in both roles in the same scene. This same play on the technical possibilities of illusion, combined with the play on (in)credulity and doubling so typical of Collins’s work is strongly present in Lloyd Webber’s musical. The stage is a circle bounded by a continuously curving screen, used to project the scenery and propel us – sometimes at disorienting speed – to the next scene. Indeed the whole musical is structured within a dioramic conceit: the audience is drawn into a spinning dioramic narrative, whose first image, an abandoned room of discarded toys, provides a clue, to the losses, literal and symbolic, that lie at the heart of the mystery. Beyond this, the musical as form exploits various established forms of repetition. Songs are often repeated to powerful effect: a euphoric country dance that Walter, Marian and Laura join becomes an ironic ‘celebration’ of Laura’s marriage to Sir Percival, and a bitter-sweet marking of Laura and Walter’s marriage at the end. Walter, Marian and Laura all sing the same love song, a melody much repeated, sometimes just as a brief echoic sequence. As a consequence, the past, recent as well as distant, exerts a strong if diffused force, tempering the forward drive of the plot. This gives a context to the ghostliness of Ann which is much played upon – flesh-and-blood or spectral presence? – together with the disconcerting likeness of Ann and Laura. This resemblance is finally turned against Sir Percival when Laura haunts him as Ann’s ghost and terrifies him into confession of his crimes. As in the novel, justice is not done by due process of law. But here, instead of dying in a burning church, Glyde is mown down by a train which comes out of a tunnel and rushes at the audience. Indeed Sir Percival’s death, which replays a mythic moment from film history, is perhaps most importantly and memorably the occasion for audience ‘sensation’.

[1] The Moonstone was serialised by the BBC in 1959, 1972 and 1996; The Woman in White made a brief appearance in the ITV Hour of Mystery series in 1957 and was serialised by the BBC in 1966, 1982 and 1997.  It was also produced on French television as La Femme en Blanc in 1970.  On film and television adaptations, see Andrew Gasson, Wilkie Collins: An Illustrated Guide (OUP, 1998), and Lyn Pykett, Wilkie Collins (Oxford University Press, 2005), p.244.

[2]See also Deborah Vlock Dickens, Novel-Reading and the Victorian Popular Theatre (Cambridge Universiry Press, 1998), pp. 3-4; Martin Meisel, Realisations:  Narrative,  Pictorial and Theatrical Arts in Nineteenth-Century England (Princeton University Press 1983).

[3]Linda K. Hughes and Michael Lund, The Victorian Serial (University of Virginia Press, 1991), N.N. Feltes Modes of Production in Victorian Novels (Chicago University Press, 1986).

[4] See Ira Nadell, ‘Wilkie Collins and his Illustrators’ in Nelson Smith and R.C. Terry (eds.) Wilkie Collins to the Forefront:  Some Reassessments (AMS Press,1995).

[5] The New Magdalen 1910, 1912, 1913, 1914; The Dead Secret (Monopol) 1913; Armadale 1916; The Moonstone (US, Selig Polyscope) 1909; (France, Pathé) 1911; (US, dir. Frank Hall Crane, 1915); The Woman in White (US, Thanhouser )1912; (US Gem) 1913.

[6] 1918 (USA, Thanhouser); 1920, Twin Pawns, based on The Woman in White, (US, Acme Pictures, dir. Léonce Perret; 1928 (USA, dir. Herbert Wilcox); 1948 (USA, dir. Peter Godfrey). Crimes at the Dark House 1940 (GB, dir. George King).

 [7] Tom Gunning, ‘An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (In)credulous Spectator’ in Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (eds.) Film Theory and Criticism (Oxford University Press, 2004), p.868.

[8] Ian Christie ‘Sources of Visible Delight: Towards a Typology of Early Film Adaptation’ in Scene Stealing: Sources for British Cinema Before 1930, edited by Alan Burton and Laraine Porter (Flicks Books, 2003).

[9] Reviews of Bloomer’s Mother-in-Law, Andegli (‘Insights into the Habits and Industries of the Natives of Somaliland) and Holiday Resorts of Italy in Supplement to The Bioscope, January 16, 1913, pp.xxxiii and xxxiv.

[10] Donald W. McCaffrey and Christopher P. Jacobs, Guide to the Silent Years of American Cinema (Wespoint: Greenwood Press, 1999), p.295.

[11] The discussion of various versions of The Woman in White is drawn from reviews from The Bioscope, one of the leading British trade papers of the period.

[12] Lady Audley’s Secret ,  Ideal Films, 1920, produced by Jack Denton. Archived on site and can be viewed at the BFI library, Stephen Street, London.

[13] On radio adaptations, see Gasson’s Illustrated Guide.

[14] Anthony Sher, Patricia Hodge, Greg Wise (soon to appear in Ang Lee’s film version of Sense and Sensibility (1997) and Keeley Hawes are some of the star names.

[15] Broadcast at 8.50pm on 28 December and 9.20 on 29 December.

[16] See Kate Flint, ‘Plotting the Victorians: Narrative, Post-modernism and Contemporary Fiction’ in Barrie Bullen (ed.) Writing and Victorianism edited by J. B. Bullen (Longman, 1997).

[17]Sadoff and Kucich, Victorian Afterlife,  p.xi.

Can’t you take a bit of a joke /sexual assault ?

Nothing But Feeling « LRB blog

This was first posted on the LRB blog on 30 October as Can’t you take a bit of sexual assault 

To mark the 60th anniversary of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Michael Gove and Neil Kinnock were interviewed by John Humphrys about the experience of being interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme. In the live broadcast from the Wigmore Hall on Saturday, they were happy to go along with the myth of the 8.10 interview and show their willingness to play the game of politics hard and with good humour. ‘Coming into the studio with you, John,’ Gove said, ‘is a bit like going into Harvey Weinstein’s bedroom.’ There was laughter from much of the studio audience and applause from some. Not to be outdone, Kinnock said: ‘John goes way past groping – way past groping.’ Cue more laughter. Beyond the Wigmore Hall, there was outrage at Gove’s treatment of sexual violence as an opportunity for a chummy witticism; he soon apologised‘unreservedly’ for his ‘clumsy attempt at humour’. In the furore, the BBC continued to report that Michael Gove had made a joke about Harvey Weinstein.

It’s worth looking more closely at Gove’s queasy analogy (the remark clearly wasn’t off the cuff). Going a few rounds with Humphrys on the Today programme is something that high-status politicians choose to do. They hope not to get caught out, not to come out of it looking like a fool. But above all, they know what they’re letting themselves in for. It should go without saying that their experience is nothing at all like that of young actors being subjected to sexual harassment and assault by a rich and powerful film producer. But Gove’s comparison also brings us back to the familiar territory of blaming the victim for harassment and assault: she should know what to expect, she shouldn’t take risks and, failing that, she shouldn’t take things too seriously. Kinnock’s quip about the interview being ‘more than groping’ suggests he understands harassment in the same way as Gove, and a good part of the audience did too – the complicity was stifling.

Patting, squeezing, pinching, what’s the harm, can’t you take a bit of sexual assault? Kinnock’s joke suggests that there is a hierarchy of actions – part of a familiar discourse rehearsed endlessly over recent weeks. There are actions that are just a bit of fun, just ‘groping’, but there are other actions that a majority thinks unacceptable, sanctionable and, on occasion, serious enough to require legal redress – it’s a matter of degree. Within this discourse moreover there’s always going to be a familiar, tricky grey area: my version of events is always going to be different from yours.

But there isn’t a hierarchy of this kind. Rather, there are two languages fighting for interpretative authority over the same set of actions, the same set of events. The first language (‘a bit of a grope’, ‘just a bit of fun’, ‘I thought she’d be flattered’, ‘she can’t take a joke’) is colloquial, light-hearted, familiar; it’s what you say down the pub, or in the ‘locker room’, or in the editorial offices of the Sun and Mail, or in too many parts of the House of Commons. Its apparent everydayness fuses seamlessly with ‘men will be men’ and a thousand riffs of the same kind. It’s a gendered discourse, sure, but one that both men and women can and do use, and it has authority – Gove and Kinnock competed to use it. But it isn’t ‘common sense’, and it’s no more natural than any other language.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are not different in kind from groping, squeezing and grabbing. Groping, squeezing and grabbing are harassment and assault. It should be simple but somehow it can’t be, and one of the reasons is that the two languages don’t have equal authority. The ‘trouble’ with words like assault or harassment is that they don’t seem to belong in everyday discourse, they sound technical, perhaps a little alien. And from here it’s a short step to seeing this type of language as unnatural: the unwelcome entry of officialdom into the private world – too much red tape and political correctness gone mad – because we all know what we mean, don’t we? Except, clearly, ‘we’ don’t. There is no ‘we’, and no end of ways not to believe women.

This facile ‘common sense’ needs to be countered with other ways of talking. One among others is to describe harassment and assault in chilling narrative detail, to defamiliarise it, sever it from the label of a ‘bit of fun’ or ‘things getting out of control’. Some of the most powerful witness from women has told in painful specificity exactly what happened. It makes for uncomfortable listening and reading, and rightly so. But patriarchy doesn’t suffer challenge, criticism or even discomfort lightly. All too soon, it’s time to move on. Gove’s ‘clumsy’ joke marks a moment at which Weinstein becomes a byword, starts to pass into folklore, and is neutralised. Jokes like this at moments like this are attempts at punctuation: full stop, end para, we’ve talked about this enough. Gove and Kinnock and all the others think it’s time to get back to ‘normal’. It isn’t. We won’t.

London Review of Books Blog On Grenfell Tower: Nothing But Feeling

Nothing But Feeling « LRB blog

19 June 2017

There was a moment in her interview with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight on Friday when Theresa May mentioned a woman who had escaped the Grenfell Tower fire in just a T-shirt and knickers. The woman stays with you. Very briefly, something broke through the repetitions and evasions of the official discourse being deployed by the government, Kensington and Chelsea council, and ‘interested’ corporate parties who insist that regulations were complied with and profess to welcome any investigation.

Downing Street had clearly decided that May’s performances on Thursday hadn’t worked. It was feeling that the prime minister was sent out to communicate the following day; her repeated use of the words ‘horrific’, ‘terrible’ and ‘horrendous’ was the obvious index of this. And her repeated reference to the £5 million emergency fund, with its connotations of practical immediacy, was intended to make up for the lofty distance suggested by the public inquiry she had announced the day before. By Saturday morning, direct speech had been abandoned altogether, with Damian Green, the first secretary of state, insisting that ‘she’s distraught by what happened as we all are.’

It’s easy to charge May with a lack of empathy, a personal psychological failing. But her evolving language after the Grenfell fire is part of a bigger official discourse, which is itself in crisis. It is an axiom of popular knowledge that politicians never answer the question that’s put to them; a cliché that most political representatives don’t listen. Conversely, political parties never seem to tire of telling their constituencies what they are thinking or what they ‘really’ meant when they voted for Brexit or Ukip or Labour or the Lib Dems. And when they don’t respond predictably or conveniently, when they respond with anger or contempt, or propose an alternative version of events or proposal for what should be done, it is conventional for politicians to represent this not as conflict or divergence but as a communication failure: we just didn’t get our message over clearly enough.

The work and pensions secretary, David Gauke, gave an interview to Channel 4 News on Friday evening. As he tried to step deftly between ‘regulations’ and ‘guidance’ while saying nothing that would implicate him or his government in anything at all, it was almost inevitable that Gauke would slip. The speed at which he self-corrected ‘simplify the regulations’ to ‘simplify the guidance’ was remarkable. There was a startling lack of concrete nouns in Gauke’s language, and had it not been for the interviewer, Cathy Newman, you would hardly have known what events Gauke was talking about. He used the word ‘fire’ only twice in the six-minute interview, and despite Newman’s repeatedly asking whether the residents of Britain’s 4000 tower blocks could feel safe, Gaufe avoided using the words ‘safe’ or ‘safety’. He wasn’t speaking to the moment but to a probable future; his words had been chosen to withstand the scrutinies of inquest, investigation and enquiry. He said nothing that attributed responsibility to anyone or anything. The Downing Street statement that support for victims in the immediate aftermath of the fire ‘was not good enough’ is comparable:

The response of the emergency services, NHS and the community has been heroic. But, frankly, the support on the ground for families who needed help or basic information in the initial hours after this appalling disaster was not good enough.

This crucially obscures the question of where the support might have – should have – come from.

Gaufe’s replies were part of a catch-all disaster script, stuck together with boilerplate phrases: ‘we must get to the bottom of … we must understand … we mustn’t jump to conclusions.’ The ‘we’ of government is a problem in this crisis, raising a raft of questions about responsibility. May, Gauke et al. can adopt a ‘we’ quite comfortably if it is the ‘we’ that makes money available or instructs other agencies (fire services, local councils etc.) to make checks, follow guidelines and, by inference, bear responsibility for the fire and what follows. This ‘we’ also does vaguer stuff such as offer condolences, ‘get to the bottom of’ things and ‘try to fully understand’ them. But it quickly finds itself in tricky territory. ‘We’ mustn’t rush to conclusions or pre-empt investigations, and it can soon look as if ‘we’ isn’t doing much at all except standing on the sidelines and exhorting.

Responsibility is a double bind. The government, Kensington and Chelsea council, and the companies they outsource to, must appear to be agents who are in control and capable of dealing with what May called ‘an absolutely horrendous tragedy’. But they also want to deflect from themselves any responsibility for causing it, with the effect that they sound distant, defensive, repetitive and on occasion paralysed. Discursively they cannot win, which is one reason the fetish for feeling is so critical.

In May’s Newsnight interview, the fire was a ‘tragedy’, an ‘event’, an ‘incident’, at one point, agonisingly, a ‘circumstance’, nouns nearly always preceded by such epithets as ‘horrendous’, ‘terrible’, ‘terrifying’, which were themselves sometimes preceded by ‘absolutely’. Painful as this discourse is, it is uncomplicatedly intransitive: it promises nothing but feeling, and sidesteps hard questions about responsibility and agency. So if there is psychological failing, there is also, more importantly, political strategy. Virtues and their opposites have historically specific forms and perhaps it isn’t surprising that empathy and understanding, the demonstration of feeling for others, have assumed such significance in such a fundamentally unequal society.

The Guardian: Other Lives – a piece I wrote about my father

 Originally published, 3 April 2013

Naeem Malik obituary

Naeem Malik as a student in the 1950s in London, whose cosmopolitanism he loved
 Naeem Malik as a student in the 1950s in London, whose cosmopolitanism he loved

The working life of my father, Naeem Malik, who has died aged 83, was characterised by restlessness. He worked as a tutor, a restaurant reviewer and as a broadcaster for the BBC’s Urdu language service, supplementing these jobs with import-export. He was asked to set up a margarine factory and a fish farm; there was also an ill-starred adventure with a rotating advertising sign.

He was born in Amritsar, north-west India. His father narrowly escaped the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar ordered by General Reginald Dyer in 1919. Amritsar was just 15 miles from what became, unexpectedly and violently, the line of partition between India and Pakistan in 1947. Naeem took to the streets that year armed with a molotov cocktail, which exploded before he could throw it. At the railway station, on a stretcher, his red-stained arms nearly provoked a riot – although it was “only” the red of the antiseptic mercurochrome.

 

When he and my English mother, Marion, got engaged in the early 1960s, her family thought he might be an Indian prince – a rumour he never quite denied. Officially a republican, he loved the spectacle of monarchy. A committed anti-racist, he was convinced (wrongly) that he had never suffered racism. He loved England, but his England, like everyone’s, was selective. He had his flashes of national feeling: watching the FA Cup final, hating Mrs Thatcher.

He fell in love with London: Italian coffee and European cinema, exclusive department stores, a then-shabby South Bank, Hampstead Heath, the theatre, concerts and opera. He also developed an encyclopedic knowledge of the city’s bus routes and tube lines.

For his nephews and nieces going west – mainly to the US – he became a model of a different life, secular and cosmopolitan, and he will be remembered by all as a great cook. In his later years, illnesses put paid to his vigour, but he loved being Grandpa with his grandson, Luca. His failing eyesight made him miserable, but he got great pleasure from his talking books, finally reading Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children and Shame, after years of procrastination.

He is survived by Marion, me and Luca.

LRB online: Universities under Attack or Why I left

Universities under Attack

Rachel Malik

For a long time I believed that being an academic wasn’t just the best career for me – which it clearly was, I loved it – but one of the best it was possible to have, especially within a university system committed to expansion. Yet recently I took voluntary redundancy after teaching in the humanities at Middlesex University for 18 years, and for the foreseeable future I have no desire to work in any university in this country – or, I imagine, elsewhere.

The attack on universities takes many forms. My focus here is on attacks from within: attacks on staff, academic and administrative, and attacks on knowledge that come from inside universities themselves. ‘Universities’ is not a simple plural. The ‘academy’ is a messy conjunction of increasingly conflicting elements and interests and these cut across the familiar oppositions between old and new, rich and poor, deserving and undeserving. Thus Middlesex is not just or most importantly a struggling post-1992 institution. Its management worked out a long time ago that survival and success did not lie with domestic students. The university has two overseas campuses – in Dubai and Mauritius – and is actively searching for a site and partners for a third, probably in India. Like many others, it has attempted to commodify as many of its assets as possible: courses and programmes in the form of franchises; research; and various types of higher educational and pedagogical expertise.

It wasn’t always like this. When I arrived in 1993 and for a good number of years after that, it was a wonderful place to work. Demand in the humanities was buoyant, and this was crucial to the opportunities we had to build teaching programmes from scratch and rebuild others, and to do our own research, encouraged both by the intellectual culture in which we worked, and by something else that has become increasingly rare: sabbatical leave.

Today the most reliable communiqué from the institution is the corporate newsletter. By ‘reliable’ I mean that it arrives regularly and contains no bad news. It is the familiar story of visions delivered, research impacting, champions championing. This corporate version of the institution is completely at variance with the lived reality of the staff and most of the students. These representations, like much else, exist for the benefit and reassurance of foreign partners, actual and potential. Meanwhile, on another part of the website, the voluntary redundancy scheme is now permanently open, punctuated by frequent compulsory redundancy operations. Both are designed to erode morale and force staff to accept increasingly degraded conditions of ‘service’.

Discrepancies of this kind are a part of everyone’s working life, but at Middlesex they were particularly jarring. In nearly all respects ours is an institution with no past. I do not mean by this that it does not have 500 years, or 150 or 50 years of history and tradition to look back on. I am talking instead about the managerial embrace of a particularly degraded form of the modern. The management speciality is ‘radical’ reorganisations: of teaching programmes, organisational structures and research priorities, all of which must be achieved at absurdly accelerated rates. Such revolutions are always justified as a necessary response to external conditions and to a future whose only certain quality is its uncertainty. Emergency is our everyday: it is always wartime.

When yet another one of these restructurings is declared, what we do – teaching, thinking, writing, marking, planning – is never taken into consideration. It counts neither as activity nor as value. Anyone who expresses reservations about the direction chosen for the future is, by definition, inflexible and disloyal. This is a particularly cynical version of modernity. No one wants to be on the wrong side of the future, and that future is achievable only through a complete cancellation of the past.

This revolutionary tempo sits uncomfortably with the rhythms of teaching and research. Last year Middlesex closed down its philosophy department, which has since moved to Kingston. It was an excellent department. It also had all the contemporary indicators of ‘research excellence’. When I asked my dean about the decision, it was obvious that excellence hadn’t been enough to save the department, so I asked him why the extensive funding the unit had earned from its RAE scores and various other funding sources had been no protection against immediate closure. He was (for once) perfectly clear: ‘But that’s over, that’s finished,’ he said, meaning that what was already earned simply did not count.

Within this ‘logic’, it is virtually impossible for an individual or group to accumulate intellectual value or capital, much less trade on it. This may sound – and it obviously is – cack-handed and incompetent, but something of the same logic is at work in the short-termism that is currently remaking the academic workforce.

Many university departments simply could not function without the energy, talent and goodwill of part-time lecturers, but the pattern of a skeleton permanent teaching staff supported by part-timers and those on teaching-only contracts has become a model for staffing in many institutions, and not just because it is cheaper. Those small numbers of permanent staff are increasingly going to be employed to develop, write and monitor courses that they will not teach and that exist primarily as units for sale or rent to a variety of markets, national and global. Little, if any, thought has been given to the impact of this on teaching and learning by the universities adopting this model. This commodifying of a course or a degree programme or a set of quality procedures is bad news. For one thing, the majority of academics and students are becoming ever more remote from the places where knowledge is produced. It is now seen as naive to insist on the natural connections between teaching and research.

Further, the global market, rightly or wrongly, is seen as a very conservative place: the role of self-censorship, the weeding out of anything that might prove controversial, is a necessary consequence of the edu-business model. The result is courses that become ever more anodyne as they compete to imagine the inoffensive. In various departments at Middlesex, course content is already indirectly determined by partner institutions, national and international: it can’t be taught here, unless it is taught there.

There has been a good deal of discussion about the direct pressures put on academics to produce work that sits comfortably within the research assessment criteria. However, I would suggest that as the financial situation worsens, institutions will need to apply less pressure on researchers to go where the money is. Academics will make their own adjustments, will internalise the priorities of the funding councils, and adopt them as their own. Soon they will become adept at second or even third-guessing them. Such pragmatism probably doesn’t make for very good research. But that pragmatism is likely to be strengthened as the nature of research itself is redefined.

In various forms of higher educational discourse, research is already starting to float free of ‘content’, that tricky, highly specialised, fancy knowledge that presents such a challenge to institutions such as Middlesex. Education is becoming a training in learning. Students learn a good deal about how to ‘do’ team-work and assess their peers, but rather less about the Victorian Novel or the Role of Literature in the Contemporary. Similarly, research has come to mean one of two things: the quantifiable thing that needs to score well in the Research Excellence Framework, or a set of transferable practices or methods.

These practices, increasingly generic and cross-disciplinary, are being taught to postgraduates, and increasingly to undergraduates, particularly those in what are now called ‘research-rich institutions’ looking for ways to justify their fees. Just as the good manager takes pride in being able to manage anything, so the good researcher will take pride in being able to research anything. Not knowing much about a subject area will present no difficulty, rather it might be considered an advantage, for the researcher will be untroubled by disciplinary loyalty – just like the manager who comes in from outside.

This may seem hyperbolic, but there are already strong precedents for this sort of approach in both management and teaching. And perhaps it isn’t so very far away from happening in academia. I recently chanced upon a website that provides students in humanities and social sciences at a UK university with information about the various types of research training available to them. Some of these were valuable – training about writing for publication, conferences, the profession and so on (we would be fools to reject professionalisation) but I was brought up short by a workshop on ‘the literature search’:

This second interactive workshop will provide an opportunity to find out how to identify the most important and influential literature from the literature search. Participants will use measures to identify journals with high impact factors, articles with large citation counts, and influential authors. Strategies for reading will also be discussed, as well as understanding how much to read, when to stop, and options for taking effective notes from reading materials.

This doesn’t call for elaborate interpretation. However, I find the unthinking correlation between ‘influential literature’ on the one hand and ‘high impact factors’, ‘large citation counts’ and so forth, rather worrying. Even before the first REF has run, its metrics have been adopted as the primary indicators of value and esteem. This research programme is offered, I might add, by a Russell Group university. Of greatest concern, perhaps, is that the training offered here is totally divorced from any particular body of material. Faced with such a free-floating model of what knowledge is, perhaps we should all think a little more carefully about the future of that proprietary ‘my’ in ‘my research’.