Alan Hollinghurst: The Stranger's Child.

The Stranger’s Child: Hollinghurst, 25^th October 2012; Flower & Firkin.

Apols: Rob

Present: Chris B, Chris W, Mark T, Mark Th, Neil, Ras,  Richard, Steve,

An excellent evening, and (or because of?) a real marmite book.  We had 2 people who absolutely loved the book (Mark Th, Steve); 3 people who absolutely hated it (Ras, Rob, Mark T); and a few who liked /disliked it at various levels. Richard and Chris had not yet finished the book (both had completed 3 out of the 5 sections) but both were enjoying the book and were committed to finishing it, for that reason.

There was £23 left in the kitty; in the absence of Rob (whose book we are discussing in November) Richard agreed to look after it and bring it to the next meeting.

The ‘positive group’ had many insights into the book, and many examples of how sublime it was (see below), seeing it as a rather brilliant examination, or reputation, celebrity, biographical reconstruction, and a fascinating exposition of cultural mores, sexual secrets, interesting characters, and detailed analyses of conversations.

The ‘negative group’ found it very difficult to get into and to sustain interest. 

Scores were:

Mark Th: 8.4

Steve: 8.0

Chris B: (undecided, as not yet complete – between 6.9 and 7.2)

Neil: 6.8

Chris W: 3.5

Mark T: 2.7

Rob: 2.5

Ras: 2.0

Richard will score when he has completed the book.

Mark Th really enjoyed the book.  He felt that there was no major plot; instead, a detailed examination of five slices of life at 20 year intervals was presented. The characters differ in depth and interest (as people do in real life), and those that re-appear differ over time, again as in real life; some become successful, some do not, some do and then lose their allure, etc.  Mark felt that a key theme of the book was how history gets distorted by people looking back and trying to understand, using only what is available to them – their subject’s diaries, photos, letters – even the buildings that they lived in; historians and biographers examine the past using only these clues about that past that are available to them (because that is all that is left) – as opposed to us, in this book, where we are actually seeing what happened at key moments). Hence we know more about the reality of these people’s lives than do the characters in the book – we know what ACTUALLY happened, versus what is reconstructed from these letters, interviews, diaries, etc.  Mark Th’s summary was that he really enjoyed it, finding it a very evocative and moving book; even better than Line of Beauty.

Steve said “I LOVED it: an appealing book, inviting to read” Agreeing with lots of what Mark Th had already said, Steve though it a well-woven story moving throughout the 20^th century, focusing on reputation, and on how we build reputations – and how they can collapse and change; and how books can change people’s reputations, even when the ‘evidence’ that they use to do this is simply build on hearsay. Steve delighted in how, time and again, little references and reflections showed how propel are in conversation, dialogue, gesture – his attention to detail and ability to demonstrate it was all fantastic.  Steve felt that the only negative for him was that there was no plot, and that the book slightly ran out of steam. But he revelled in the style of it, the skill, even the ability to write plausible 2^nd rate poetry.  He felt involved in the emotional ups and downs, and understood George’s teenage ambiguity and later denial of Cecil [NB – a Christ and his disciple-like interaction?]

At the other end of the spectrum, Rob said (by e-mail) that “I found it somewhat difficult to get into in the early stages. Despite the sleeve notes waxing lyrical on Hollinghurst's writing style, I found it somewhat stodgy - slow moving and failing to contain content that grabbed me in any significant way. My hopes for the book began to increase as I got towards the end of what I then found was part one of a multi-part book. I was beginning to get into the characters, I thought some of them were starting to show signs of interesting depth (e.g. Cecil and the young Daphne), and saw the beginnings of an interesting plot. Then Hollingsworth decided to scrap that slightly promising start and begin again with what was effectively a new set of characters. Those who were the same in name appeared to have changed significantly in personality (OK, they were several years older, but you'd expect some continuity. Daphne's mother for example had completely lost the spark that made her slightly interesting in the first part), and there were so many new ones (several superfluous to requirements as far as I could work out) that I had difficulty in following what was going on and each person's purpose in the (alleged) storyline. More detrimental than this was that the writing style became even worse. Laboured and pedestrian are two words that spring to mind. Far too much of "he said ........... she said ........", with tedious conversation. I suppose it could be argued that he was trying to use writing style to convey the stilted, formal atmosphere of the gathering. Well he certainly succeeded there. If I'd have been present I'd have wanted to flee the house party at the first available opportunity in order to find something interesting to do with my life. I'm now just towards the end of this second phase of the book and on being faced with the possibility of picking it up again last night found myself giving up the will to live - so didn't. I have better things to do with my life than read this turgid dross. It will not be finished. Trying to find things in its favour - well it did create a reasonably good picture of the surroundings and the period - but that was probably because he used so many repetitive descriptions of the same things. No, that's it - can't think of anything else positive. A 2.3 from me - which looking at my scores puts it almost on a par with "Lights Out'. Yes, it was that bad.”

Ras felt that he “agreed with Rob, word for word, except for his score, which was too generous.  It was boring and didn’t grab me. The only interesting thing was the mention of the Cambridge versus Oxford versions of gay sex, and I thought that something interesting might come out here – but he didn’t even do the gay sex justice.”  

[Neil then looked up these arcane sexual behaviours on the www, and found that there were indeed Oxford and Cambridge methods (which differed in whether or not penetration actually occurs – Oxford being thrusting in between one’s lover’s thighs without actual penetration, whereas Cambridge ‘went all the way’) and also that the shape of punts in Oxford and Cambridge bear some relation to the male and female sexual positions – hence “punting from the Cambridge end”!]

Mark T was also one of the ‘haters’ – stating that “I hated it – I only got through the 1^st section; I couldn’t get on with it – I didn’t like the people, I didn’t like the style – I didn’t like any of it!”

Chris W was an ‘in-betweener’. He said that he had managed to get through about 1/5 of the book, but suggested that one needed to read this book at a rate of at least 50 pages a time to get into it, and as he only had 10 minutes per night, it became too difficult – he had difficulties in recalling individuals’ names. Chis said: “I enjoyed (kind of) the first section: it was characteristic of life at that time; the language was great. But when I got to the second section, I didn’t want to find out all about a completely new set of characters – I found that I wasn’t enjoying it (although if I had had larger chunks of time ….). But I didn’t really get into it, didn’t really like it; if I had been gripped, I would have forced myself to read on; but I prefer events and plot, and there were few events and almost no plot in this book.”

Neil said that, overall, he quite enjoyed it, and certainly preferred it to the Line of Beauty, finding it more accessible. He also saw many similarities, seeing that Hollinghurst enjoys writing big ‘set pieces’ – in LoB, the big party in the south of France and the other one in the London home with Maggie Th attending; and here the 70 the birthday party.  Neil said that “at risk of sounding homophobic” he found “ the preoccupation with gay sex and being gay” a bit much.  On the other hand, he felt that there were many layers of interest –

·         at one level, it was a sociological study of attitudes towards homosexuality over the century, from Cecil and George in 1913, through the 1920s, through the 60s and the time of legalisation, up to the present day.

·         at another level, it was about the ebb and flow of people’s stars over time – not that THEY changed that much, but the times changed, and hence the person is seen differently.

·         The book contained vivid studies of people and situations, such as the old lady in the bungalow, all messy and cluttered; and the biographer wanting to ask detailed questions over very delicate subject matters.  

·         The book was not simply about how people change, but how iconic buildings change as well – Cecil’s house was also a character in the book. [This led to an interesting discussion on St Pancras and the debate in the 1960s about destroying it; and to how modernisation in the 1920s was about covering up these interesting features; and also how this reminded people of the Evelyn Waugh book where that house, too, was being modernised in a similar way.]

 Neil though that it was slow – but “I got to the stage where, after the first 2 sections, I was looking forward to sections 3-4-5, to figuring out who and how (ie who these people were – ‘Oh, that is who Mrs Jacobs is …’ and how people and events would fit together.”  Overall, Neil thought that it contained very interesting bits, without it being a ‘cracking yarn’. – “I liked it, but it was not a gripping book”.

Chris B said that he was getting towards the end of section 3, and that it had “really warmed up for me – the first section was hard to get going, but I am really enjoying it now”. He found the setting on gay relationships in different eras was especially interesting – “I liked that – it is so rare, and to see how difficult it was.” On the other hand, the book was rather one-dimensional about social status, and it was irritating how, every time someone speaks, Hollinghurst feels the need to comment –t here was a commentary on every bit of dialogue, which then became overdone and formulaic. However Chris said that was very much enjoying it, and a lot of it (the Oxbridge stuff, and ?dealing with celebrity? resonated with his own experience. However, on one dimension Chris rated the book down (and hence his possible 6.9 vs 7.2) – which was that he felt that the book was not telling us very much – what was its ‘take-away message’? Chris felt that the book was not telling us anything of social or philosophical importance.

Mark Th suggested 4 possible books for December:

·         Hare with the Amber Eyes

·         All Quiet on the Western Front

·         Woman in White

·         Will Self – Walking to Hollywood.

People gave their views whilst (of course!) impressing on Mark that the choice was completely his!

Richard Velleman

October 2012