Responses include:
1. Gin Phillips' The Well and the mine
2. Dan Simmons' Song of Kali
****************************************
Phillips, Gin. (2010/2008). Well and the mine, The: A novel. London: Virago (U.S.: Hawthorne Books & Literary Arts).
1. Gin Phillips' The Well and the mine
2. Dan Simmons' Song of Kali
****************************************
Phillips, Gin. (2010/2008). Well and the mine, The: A novel. London: Virago (U.S.: Hawthorne Books & Literary Arts).
So this isn't an easy book to respond to. First,
the POV shifts over one nuclear family: middle child Tess (Tess, pp. 1-5, 10-13, 13-15,
29-30, 55-62, 72-75, 82-83, 90-93, 107-108, 112-117, 127-130, 142-145, 154-166,
181-182, 197-205, 217-218, 228-231, 239-248, 259-265, 267-268, 271), father Albert (Albert, pp. 5-6, 25-29, 41-44,
49-55, 86-90, 96-98, 118-126, 145-151, 166-167, 185-187, 205-209, 212-213,
223-228, 253-256, 270-271), mother Leta (Leta,
pp. 7-8, 20-25, 68-72, 93-96, 108-109, 133-138, 167-173, 217, 231-235, 248-249,
265-267), oldest child Virgie (Virgie,
pp. 8-10, 13, 30-41, 44-45, 62-68, 75-82, 99-107, 117-118, 130-133, 139-142,
187-197, 209-212, 218-222, 235-239, 256-259, 268-270), and youngest child Jack (Jack,pp. 17-20, 47-49, 85-86,
111-112, 153-154, 183-185, 215-217, 251-253). However, voices disappear in
several chapters: Jack in “1:
Water Calling“ (pp. 1-15), Virgie in “6: Picking Cotton” (pp. 153-182),
and Leta in “7: Telling Stories” (pp. 183-213); and only Jack speaks from the
future.
More, the Moores (for overview on the name see Virgie, p. 64) aren’t poor[1] – this in response to the Observer and Marie Claire excerpts on the back of the book, and the synopsis: “a portrait … of a family…struggling to survive the darkest of times.” First, Albert, who grew up with significantly less (Albert, pp. 25-26), is a homeowner with his own land (Albert, pp. 26, 124; Jack, p. 85), and the landowner in a sharecropping agreement with the Talberts (Albert, p. 41; for an example of what can be earned daily see Tess, p. 163); who “got the first car in Carbon Hill” (Virgie, p. 68), and “was the first on our street to get electricity” (Tess, p. 91); and earns enough money (for an example of his latest wages see Albert, p. 212) that he can afford property for his mom (Virgie, p. 64), to regularly maintain his own home (see Virgie, pp. 78, 237), pay jail fines for Negro[2] miners (for an example of the costs see Albert, pp. 120-121), and let his kids buy candy (Virgie, p. 81). So I have difficulty accepting that the Moores reflect a typical family from “1931: in a small Alabama coal-mining town” (synopsis on back of book).
There’s also the question of names. For example, it’s Virgie Elaine (Virgie, p. 36). But is Virgie her nickname? I ask because Tess is sometimes referred to as Tessie (Tess, pp. 4, 231; Leta, pp. 7; Virgie, p. 8; for Albert’s internal references see pp. 6, 207; for Aunt Celia’s nickname of “Tessie Lou” see Virgie, pp. 33, 39), though not at all by Jack. Also, while Tess may have a “middle name,” Virgie doesn’t correct it (see Virgie, p. 33). Yet there’s only one deviation from Virgie – with the same teasing that Aunt Celia shows with Tess’s nickname (see Virgie, p. 36) – which suggests that her first name might be Virginia. This wouldn’t be at all relevant, though, if Phillips (2010/2008) didn’t explain why Albert calls Leta Reanne (Leta, p. 94) Leta-ree (Leta, pp. 24, 94, 233, 266; Albert, pp. 98; for explanation see Leta, p. 94).
In general, though, the main events in the story happen from around “that last week in August” (Tess, p. 4) to about “the first day in November” (Albert, p. 253). As for the year, Jack suggests it was “in 1934 [when] Uncle Bill ran for the state legislature and won” (p. 153; cf Albert, pp. 146-148); but it’s, in fact, 1933 because Hoover’s still president (Virgie, pp. 37-38)[3]. Jack’s lack of attention to detail – which doesn’t fit with him being an attorney (see Jack, p. 216; cf Albert, p. 42) – thus, is problematic to the story. In fact, my main problem with Phillips (2010/2008) is Jack.
For example, Jack shares that “when Mama was ninety, she had a stroke that left her in the hospital for two months” (Jack, p. 216); but she eventually recovers from it (Ibid). By this time, we can guess that Albert’s already dead; but we only know later that, when the kids “were teenagers,” “Papa[’s] breathing had gotten bad enough” (Jack, p. 251) – from what, though (emphysema, cancer, etc.)? And when does Albert die? Note, too, that in the last chapter, Jack shares that “Tess still lives in the family home … by herself now” (Jack, p. 252). So Leta must be dead now – but how and when?
More important, however, is Phillips (2010/2008)’s silencing of Jack’s voice in the future and past – assuming that’s what the main narrative represents, as the issue of time and voice are major problems in the novel – with regard to the well incident which opens The Well and the Mine (see Tess, pp. 1-5). After all, Jack has absolutely no voice of his own in the first chapter (pp. 1-15), a fact which gave me the initial impression he was a baby or toddler (for Tess’s internal references to him see Tess, pp. 10-12, 13), maybe a little older (see Tess, pp. 14-15). We can also guess – because Phillips (2010/2008) fails to tell us why Jack’s only speaking from the future – that Jack’s not hearing about the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) from his sisters (see Jack, pp. 252-253)[4].
Just think about it: Toward the end, when Tess doesn’t get the reaction she hopes for from Leta (pp. 267-268) about “Ellen and Eddie” (Tess, p. 199) Talbert (Tess, p. 163; cf Tess, p. 56)’s Aunt Lou (Tess, pp. 246, 259-265; for the first mention of her name see Tess, p. 204), she thinks: “And that’s the last thing I ever said about it to her. Or anyone” (p. 268). And Tess must’ve meant it because Jack never once, as an adult, mentions the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) or Aunt Lou (for the witnessing[5] of her action, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 1-5; for validation of her action, her identity unknown, see Albert, p. 6, Leta, p. 7, Virgie, pp. 8-9; for characterizations of her, her identity unknown, see Albert, pp. 10, 50-51, 55, 122, 125-126, 141, 185, Virgie, pp. 13, 35, 39, 79-80, 104-105, 127-129, Tess, pp. 59-61, 116-117, Virgie, pp. 80, cf Albert, pp. 167, 254-255; for references to Virgie and Tess’s list, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 55-62, 72, 104, 127; for specific women suspected of her action[6], names given, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 57, 60, 74-75, 79, 104-105; for gossip about her action, her identity unknown, see Virgie, pp. 33-36, 39-41, 64-65, 141-142, Leta, pp. 68-72, Albert, p. 185; Tess, pp. 73-74; for Tess’s references to her as “Well Woman,” her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 59, 130, 143, 161, 239, 244, 259, 268; for Leta’s silencing of others from talking about her action, her identity unknown, see Leta, pp. 93-94, 267-268; for Virgie and Tess’s visit to Lola Lowe, suspected as her, her identity unknown, see Virgie, pp. 99-107, cf Leta, pp. 136-137, Virgie, pp. 190-191; for the finding that she didn’t murder her baby, her identity unknown, see Albert, pp. 121-122, Tess, p. 127, Virgie, p. 191; for Tess’s second witnessing of her, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 143-145; for Tess’s confidences about her to Virgie, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 159-161; for characterization of her, her identity known but unconnected to her action, see Tess, pp. 204-205, 244-245; for Tess’s recognition of her, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, p. 246; for Tess’s confidences about her to Virgie, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, pp. 246-248, 265; for Albert’s silencing of others from talking about her action, her identity unknown, see Leta, p. 249; for Tess and Virgie’s meeting with her, her identity known, see pp. 259-265; for her recognition of Tess and the name of her baby, her identity known, see pp. 262-263; for her explanation of her action, her identity known, see pp. 263-264; for characterizations of her, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, p. 265) – and a revelation like Tess’s is something Jack would’ve or should’ve responded to, especially given how Virgie and Tess exclude him from that conversation when he’s a child (Tess, pp. 60-62, 159-161).[7]
So, again: Why is Jack’s voice excluded from the main narrative? What is his relationship to his family that he makes no mention of the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) which is important to the story?[8]
However, Jack also mentions several things that have no echo in the main narrative. The first is: “I remembered when Pop broke his jaw” (Jack, p. 19) which may have happened later; but, in the main narrative, we only hear about Albert’s accident “in No. 5” (Albert , pp. 88-90; Leta, p. 95). Then there’s the “cyclone … in 1917 [and] a few years later a bigger fire [that] took out most of the town” (Jack, pp. 48-49), the first of which would’ve occurred before Virgie’s born (see Leta, p. 72; see Tess, p. 3; Virgie, p. 38); but neither Leta nor Albert make any reference to them – so why are they relevant?
On the other hand, Jack talks about things that have an echo in the main narrative, but don’t directly tie in. For example, he says that “by the early ’30s, the mines had nearly halted altogether” (Jack, p. 48; cf Jack, p. 85)[9] but were saved by the New Deal” (Jack, p. 48) – except that Roosevelt’s program wasn’t introduced until 1935, which was also the first year for “Works Progress” (Jack, p. 48)[10]. As for the TVA (Ibid), “Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority … in 1933 to maintain the forty-one thousand-square mile area that constitutes the Tennessee River system [for] managing navigation, flood control, and national defense[, and] the production and distribution of hydroelectric power throughout the area”[11] – yet none of Jack’s examples reflect these goals (Jack, p. 48). And, again, we know that the events in the main narrative are happening in 1933 (see Virgie, pp. 37-38)[3]. More, where’s the personal relevance?
Another problem that arises with Jack, though, concerns Lola Lowe (for first mention see Tess, p. 57) whom he talks about (Jack, p. 86). Remember that Jack makes absolutely no mention of the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2), yet Mrs. Lowe is the first woman Virgie suspects for it (Tess, p. 57). The periphery connection between what Jack shares (Jack, p. 86) and the main narrative, however, concerns Mrs. Lowe’s inability to care for her children (see Virgie, p. 104, 106 (cf Tess, p. 165), 189-191; see Tess, p. 107; see Leta, pp. 133, 136-138). Except, in the main narrative, that secondary thread doesn’t exist without Virgie’s suspicion (Tess, pp. 60; Virgie, pp. 104-105; cf Virgie, pp. 13, 65, 79-80; cf Tess, p. 127) – and the first time that secondary thread emerges (see Virgie , pp. 104, 106) is during Virgie and Tess’s visit to Mrs. Lowe (Virgie, pp. 99-107). So, again, why Jack’s silence on the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2)?
Clearly, though, Phillips (2010/2008) intended Jack as a kind of fill-in for general (see Jack, pp. 18-19, 47-49, 85, 183-184) and personal histories (see Jack, pp. 17-20, 47-48, 85-86, 111-112, 153-154, 215-216, 251-253). Yet a question arises about age and schooling. Specifically, we know Virgie’s 14 (Tess, p. 3; Virgie, p. 38), Tess 9 (Tess, p. 3; cf Leta, p. 25), and Jack 7 (see Virgie, p. 105; cf Leta p. 25) in the main narrative. But did middle schools exist in the 1930s? Because Jack tells us that when “Tess was in high school, I had one more year of grammar school” (Jack, p. 47; cf Virgie, p. 103).
It’s a small detail, sure, but one that Phillips (2010/2008) fails to provide, along with the names of relatives mentioned (like, why reference them at all if they’re irrelevant to the narrative?)[12]: “Pop’s oldest brother in Tupelo” (Jack, p. 17); “Papa’s other sister, who lived in Memphis and visited by train every spring” (Virgie, p. 65); “Albert’s brothers who were bound to come by looking for whatever they could get “(Leta, p. 72; cf Jack, p. 85; cf Leta, p. 136); “Merilyn[’s] youngest … daughter’s granddaughter” who gives birth “in 2004” (Jack, p. 154)[13]; ““the boys”” or sons of Aunt Merilyn and Uncle Bill which would make them cousins (Virgie, p. 189). We don’t even get updates about relatives who are named (are they still alive, in contact, etc.?): Albert’s mom or Grandma Moore (Jack, p. 17; Virgie, p. 64; Tess, p. 204; for indirect reference see Albert, pp. 25-26), “Papa’s sister Celia” (Virgie, p. 33) or Celia (Leta, pp. 71-72, 232) or Aunt Celia (Tess, p. 30, 204, 228-230; Virgie, pp. 33-41, 64, 132; Jack, pp. 47, 215), “Mama’s sisters” (Virgie, p. 34) Merilyn (Albert, pp. 146-148; Leta, p. 169) or Aunt Merilyn (Virgie, pp. 32, 34, 187-197, 209, 256-259; Tess, pp. 142-145, 204; Jack, pp. 153-154) and Janie (Leta, pp. 169-170), Aunt Merilyn’s husband Bill Clark (Albert, pp. 145, 148, 206) or Bill (Albert, pp. 145-150, 206) or Uncle Bill (Tess, p. 142-143; Jack, pp. 153-154; Virgie, p. 195, 256), Merilyn’s older daughter or Cousin Naomi (Virgie, pp. 132, 191-197, 256-258), “Aunt Merilyn’s … youngest daughter” Emmaline (Jack, p. 154) or Cousin Emmaline (Tess, pp. 142-144). For whatever reason, though, we learn that “by the time I graduated, [Lola Lowe]’d lost her four youngest” (Jack, p. 86).
I mean, how are readers supposed to interpret Jack? That he hates his parents, isn’t important when he’s younger, etc.? What?
In general, though, if you’re going to be ambitious to set a story in the past, make sure you understand your research (see ‘Acknowledgments,’ p. 273) and know how the characters fit together. I mean, by excluding the voice of Jack as a child – the black sheep in the family? – Phillips (2010/2008) gives the suggestion that he’s unnecessary to the story, in which case: Why waste pages on him? Anyway, if you’re looking for a cohesive storyline, The Well and the Mine just isn’t it.
More, the Moores (for overview on the name see Virgie, p. 64) aren’t poor[1] – this in response to the Observer and Marie Claire excerpts on the back of the book, and the synopsis: “a portrait … of a family…struggling to survive the darkest of times.” First, Albert, who grew up with significantly less (Albert, pp. 25-26), is a homeowner with his own land (Albert, pp. 26, 124; Jack, p. 85), and the landowner in a sharecropping agreement with the Talberts (Albert, p. 41; for an example of what can be earned daily see Tess, p. 163); who “got the first car in Carbon Hill” (Virgie, p. 68), and “was the first on our street to get electricity” (Tess, p. 91); and earns enough money (for an example of his latest wages see Albert, p. 212) that he can afford property for his mom (Virgie, p. 64), to regularly maintain his own home (see Virgie, pp. 78, 237), pay jail fines for Negro[2] miners (for an example of the costs see Albert, pp. 120-121), and let his kids buy candy (Virgie, p. 81). So I have difficulty accepting that the Moores reflect a typical family from “1931: in a small Alabama coal-mining town” (synopsis on back of book).
There’s also the question of names. For example, it’s Virgie Elaine (Virgie, p. 36). But is Virgie her nickname? I ask because Tess is sometimes referred to as Tessie (Tess, pp. 4, 231; Leta, pp. 7; Virgie, p. 8; for Albert’s internal references see pp. 6, 207; for Aunt Celia’s nickname of “Tessie Lou” see Virgie, pp. 33, 39), though not at all by Jack. Also, while Tess may have a “middle name,” Virgie doesn’t correct it (see Virgie, p. 33). Yet there’s only one deviation from Virgie – with the same teasing that Aunt Celia shows with Tess’s nickname (see Virgie, p. 36) – which suggests that her first name might be Virginia. This wouldn’t be at all relevant, though, if Phillips (2010/2008) didn’t explain why Albert calls Leta Reanne (Leta, p. 94) Leta-ree (Leta, pp. 24, 94, 233, 266; Albert, pp. 98; for explanation see Leta, p. 94).
In general, though, the main events in the story happen from around “that last week in August” (Tess, p. 4) to about “the first day in November” (Albert, p. 253). As for the year, Jack suggests it was “in 1934 [when] Uncle Bill ran for the state legislature and won” (p. 153; cf Albert, pp. 146-148); but it’s, in fact, 1933 because Hoover’s still president (Virgie, pp. 37-38)[3]. Jack’s lack of attention to detail – which doesn’t fit with him being an attorney (see Jack, p. 216; cf Albert, p. 42) – thus, is problematic to the story. In fact, my main problem with Phillips (2010/2008) is Jack.
For example, Jack shares that “when Mama was ninety, she had a stroke that left her in the hospital for two months” (Jack, p. 216); but she eventually recovers from it (Ibid). By this time, we can guess that Albert’s already dead; but we only know later that, when the kids “were teenagers,” “Papa[’s] breathing had gotten bad enough” (Jack, p. 251) – from what, though (emphysema, cancer, etc.)? And when does Albert die? Note, too, that in the last chapter, Jack shares that “Tess still lives in the family home … by herself now” (Jack, p. 252). So Leta must be dead now – but how and when?
More important, however, is Phillips (2010/2008)’s silencing of Jack’s voice in the future and past – assuming that’s what the main narrative represents, as the issue of time and voice are major problems in the novel – with regard to the well incident which opens The Well and the Mine (see Tess, pp. 1-5). After all, Jack has absolutely no voice of his own in the first chapter (pp. 1-15), a fact which gave me the initial impression he was a baby or toddler (for Tess’s internal references to him see Tess, pp. 10-12, 13), maybe a little older (see Tess, pp. 14-15). We can also guess – because Phillips (2010/2008) fails to tell us why Jack’s only speaking from the future – that Jack’s not hearing about the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) from his sisters (see Jack, pp. 252-253)[4].
Just think about it: Toward the end, when Tess doesn’t get the reaction she hopes for from Leta (pp. 267-268) about “Ellen and Eddie” (Tess, p. 199) Talbert (Tess, p. 163; cf Tess, p. 56)’s Aunt Lou (Tess, pp. 246, 259-265; for the first mention of her name see Tess, p. 204), she thinks: “And that’s the last thing I ever said about it to her. Or anyone” (p. 268). And Tess must’ve meant it because Jack never once, as an adult, mentions the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) or Aunt Lou (for the witnessing[5] of her action, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 1-5; for validation of her action, her identity unknown, see Albert, p. 6, Leta, p. 7, Virgie, pp. 8-9; for characterizations of her, her identity unknown, see Albert, pp. 10, 50-51, 55, 122, 125-126, 141, 185, Virgie, pp. 13, 35, 39, 79-80, 104-105, 127-129, Tess, pp. 59-61, 116-117, Virgie, pp. 80, cf Albert, pp. 167, 254-255; for references to Virgie and Tess’s list, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 55-62, 72, 104, 127; for specific women suspected of her action[6], names given, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 57, 60, 74-75, 79, 104-105; for gossip about her action, her identity unknown, see Virgie, pp. 33-36, 39-41, 64-65, 141-142, Leta, pp. 68-72, Albert, p. 185; Tess, pp. 73-74; for Tess’s references to her as “Well Woman,” her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 59, 130, 143, 161, 239, 244, 259, 268; for Leta’s silencing of others from talking about her action, her identity unknown, see Leta, pp. 93-94, 267-268; for Virgie and Tess’s visit to Lola Lowe, suspected as her, her identity unknown, see Virgie, pp. 99-107, cf Leta, pp. 136-137, Virgie, pp. 190-191; for the finding that she didn’t murder her baby, her identity unknown, see Albert, pp. 121-122, Tess, p. 127, Virgie, p. 191; for Tess’s second witnessing of her, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 143-145; for Tess’s confidences about her to Virgie, her identity unknown, see Tess, pp. 159-161; for characterization of her, her identity known but unconnected to her action, see Tess, pp. 204-205, 244-245; for Tess’s recognition of her, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, p. 246; for Tess’s confidences about her to Virgie, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, pp. 246-248, 265; for Albert’s silencing of others from talking about her action, her identity unknown, see Leta, p. 249; for Tess and Virgie’s meeting with her, her identity known, see pp. 259-265; for her recognition of Tess and the name of her baby, her identity known, see pp. 262-263; for her explanation of her action, her identity known, see pp. 263-264; for characterizations of her, her identity known and connected to her action, see Tess, p. 265) – and a revelation like Tess’s is something Jack would’ve or should’ve responded to, especially given how Virgie and Tess exclude him from that conversation when he’s a child (Tess, pp. 60-62, 159-161).[7]
So, again: Why is Jack’s voice excluded from the main narrative? What is his relationship to his family that he makes no mention of the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2) which is important to the story?[8]
However, Jack also mentions several things that have no echo in the main narrative. The first is: “I remembered when Pop broke his jaw” (Jack, p. 19) which may have happened later; but, in the main narrative, we only hear about Albert’s accident “in No. 5” (Albert , pp. 88-90; Leta, p. 95). Then there’s the “cyclone … in 1917 [and] a few years later a bigger fire [that] took out most of the town” (Jack, pp. 48-49), the first of which would’ve occurred before Virgie’s born (see Leta, p. 72; see Tess, p. 3; Virgie, p. 38); but neither Leta nor Albert make any reference to them – so why are they relevant?
On the other hand, Jack talks about things that have an echo in the main narrative, but don’t directly tie in. For example, he says that “by the early ’30s, the mines had nearly halted altogether” (Jack, p. 48; cf Jack, p. 85)[9] but were saved by the New Deal” (Jack, p. 48) – except that Roosevelt’s program wasn’t introduced until 1935, which was also the first year for “Works Progress” (Jack, p. 48)[10]. As for the TVA (Ibid), “Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority … in 1933 to maintain the forty-one thousand-square mile area that constitutes the Tennessee River system [for] managing navigation, flood control, and national defense[, and] the production and distribution of hydroelectric power throughout the area”[11] – yet none of Jack’s examples reflect these goals (Jack, p. 48). And, again, we know that the events in the main narrative are happening in 1933 (see Virgie, pp. 37-38)[3]. More, where’s the personal relevance?
Another problem that arises with Jack, though, concerns Lola Lowe (for first mention see Tess, p. 57) whom he talks about (Jack, p. 86). Remember that Jack makes absolutely no mention of the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2), yet Mrs. Lowe is the first woman Virgie suspects for it (Tess, p. 57). The periphery connection between what Jack shares (Jack, p. 86) and the main narrative, however, concerns Mrs. Lowe’s inability to care for her children (see Virgie, p. 104, 106 (cf Tess, p. 165), 189-191; see Tess, p. 107; see Leta, pp. 133, 136-138). Except, in the main narrative, that secondary thread doesn’t exist without Virgie’s suspicion (Tess, pp. 60; Virgie, pp. 104-105; cf Virgie, pp. 13, 65, 79-80; cf Tess, p. 127) – and the first time that secondary thread emerges (see Virgie , pp. 104, 106) is during Virgie and Tess’s visit to Mrs. Lowe (Virgie, pp. 99-107). So, again, why Jack’s silence on the well incident (Tess, pp. 1-2)?
Clearly, though, Phillips (2010/2008) intended Jack as a kind of fill-in for general (see Jack, pp. 18-19, 47-49, 85, 183-184) and personal histories (see Jack, pp. 17-20, 47-48, 85-86, 111-112, 153-154, 215-216, 251-253). Yet a question arises about age and schooling. Specifically, we know Virgie’s 14 (Tess, p. 3; Virgie, p. 38), Tess 9 (Tess, p. 3; cf Leta, p. 25), and Jack 7 (see Virgie, p. 105; cf Leta p. 25) in the main narrative. But did middle schools exist in the 1930s? Because Jack tells us that when “Tess was in high school, I had one more year of grammar school” (Jack, p. 47; cf Virgie, p. 103).
It’s a small detail, sure, but one that Phillips (2010/2008) fails to provide, along with the names of relatives mentioned (like, why reference them at all if they’re irrelevant to the narrative?)[12]: “Pop’s oldest brother in Tupelo” (Jack, p. 17); “Papa’s other sister, who lived in Memphis and visited by train every spring” (Virgie, p. 65); “Albert’s brothers who were bound to come by looking for whatever they could get “(Leta, p. 72; cf Jack, p. 85; cf Leta, p. 136); “Merilyn[’s] youngest … daughter’s granddaughter” who gives birth “in 2004” (Jack, p. 154)[13]; ““the boys”” or sons of Aunt Merilyn and Uncle Bill which would make them cousins (Virgie, p. 189). We don’t even get updates about relatives who are named (are they still alive, in contact, etc.?): Albert’s mom or Grandma Moore (Jack, p. 17; Virgie, p. 64; Tess, p. 204; for indirect reference see Albert, pp. 25-26), “Papa’s sister Celia” (Virgie, p. 33) or Celia (Leta, pp. 71-72, 232) or Aunt Celia (Tess, p. 30, 204, 228-230; Virgie, pp. 33-41, 64, 132; Jack, pp. 47, 215), “Mama’s sisters” (Virgie, p. 34) Merilyn (Albert, pp. 146-148; Leta, p. 169) or Aunt Merilyn (Virgie, pp. 32, 34, 187-197, 209, 256-259; Tess, pp. 142-145, 204; Jack, pp. 153-154) and Janie (Leta, pp. 169-170), Aunt Merilyn’s husband Bill Clark (Albert, pp. 145, 148, 206) or Bill (Albert, pp. 145-150, 206) or Uncle Bill (Tess, p. 142-143; Jack, pp. 153-154; Virgie, p. 195, 256), Merilyn’s older daughter or Cousin Naomi (Virgie, pp. 132, 191-197, 256-258), “Aunt Merilyn’s … youngest daughter” Emmaline (Jack, p. 154) or Cousin Emmaline (Tess, pp. 142-144). For whatever reason, though, we learn that “by the time I graduated, [Lola Lowe]’d lost her four youngest” (Jack, p. 86).
I mean, how are readers supposed to interpret Jack? That he hates his parents, isn’t important when he’s younger, etc.? What?
In general, though, if you’re going to be ambitious to set a story in the past, make sure you understand your research (see ‘Acknowledgments,’ p. 273) and know how the characters fit together. I mean, by excluding the voice of Jack as a child – the black sheep in the family? – Phillips (2010/2008) gives the suggestion that he’s unnecessary to the story, in which case: Why waste pages on him? Anyway, if you’re looking for a cohesive storyline, The Well and the Mine just isn’t it.
[1] They’re also not
wealthy (see Albert, p. 146; see Tess, pp. 164-165, 229). However, Albert’s clearly not dependent on the mines for supporting his family
generally; the only time he raises an issue with money is when Jack’s in the
hospital (Albert, pp. 223-224; cf Leta, pp. 232-233). Of course, while
visiting with Bill (Albert, pp.
145-151), he does think about his financial state (Albert, pp. 146-147) – but only momentarily. However, he never
mentions the costs of electricity (see Tess,
p. 91) or gas (see Albert, pp. 25-28,
51, 118-119, 122-123, 253; Virgie, p. 68, 77) – and I’m talking
about in simplest terms (e.g. prices
going up) – whether or not he has a mortgage on his mom’s home (see Virgie, p. 64), etc. Yet, while in the
hospital, he contradicts himself when he thinks that “there just wasn’t nothing
extra” (Albert, p. 223; cf Alfred, p. 147) – but he has enough
money to bail Jonah Bennet (for first mentions of first and last name see Albert, pp. 26, 28) from jail (Alfred, pp. 120-121), and the confidence
to tell Virgie: ““I’ll find a way to make school happen for you”” (Virgie, p. 270)? Remember that the main
narrative is happening around the same time span, a period of about three
months (see Tess, p. 4; see Alfred, p. 253).
[2] This is Phillips
(2010/2008)’s term, which is consistent with the time period in the novel. The
more controversial word also appears, with the first mention inviting immediate
punishment for and apology from Jack (Tess,
pp. 113-114), the last two mentions reflecting his self-rationalization (Jack, pp. 111-112).
[3] This is corroborated
by the Library of Congress (2001)’s Special
presentation: Time line of presidents and first ladies: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/odmdhtml/pptime.html.
[4] See Tess, pp. 14, 60-62, 160.
[5] I mean this in both
senses: As an observer and testifier. Here, Tess sees the event (Tess, pp. 1-2), then shares it (Tess, pp. 2-5). What follows from her
first section (Tess, pp. 1-5), then,
are the immediate reactions to her witnessing once the baby’s discovered (Albert, p. 6; Leta, pp. 7-8); but only Albert (Albert, pp. 5-6, 10), Leta (Leta,
pp. 7-8), Virgie (Virgie, pp. 8-10,
13), and Tess (Tess, pp. 10-13,
13-15) participate in the guilt of initial non-acceptance (Albert, pp. 5-6; Leta, p.
7; Virgie, pp. 8-9). We don’t, however,
know what Jack thought, only that his continual silence (Tess, pp. 14, 60-62, 159-161) makes him voiceless about the
situation as an adult; this is a significant failure on the part of Phillips
(2010/2008) unless he meant to show
the effect of silencing. If the latter, though, why bring up the event at all
in the main narrative unless it really is a separate thread from Jack – in
which case, why does Jack not have a voice earlier on? These problems of voice
and time, thus, support a view that the novel reflects an unfinished narrative,
especially given Jack’s minor contribution as a whole.
[6] Albert speculates
that she could be one of his friends’ wives (see pp. 50, 55), but he checks
himself by recognizing that his only association with them is “what they put in
a lunch pail” (Albert, p. 55; cf p.
50).
[7] While Jack talks
about bonding with his sisters (Jack,
p. 252), these conversations appear to be happening after Albert and Leta are
dead (Jack, p. 252); but, from what
we know of Leta, it’s unlikely that she’d share any intimate details of her
personal life (see Leta, pp. 137-138).
So this raises another question about the validity of the main narrative, if,
for example, Leta and Albert aren’t actually talking which would make their
voices a product of Jack and his sisters (see Jack, pp. 252-253) – a fact suggested by his words that “we like to
unroll the past and touch up the details. And between us all, we can fill in
each other’s gaps” (Jack, p. 253).
[8] It’s obviously
important when, throughout the main narrative, it stops being referenced only
three pages before the end of the novel (for the last mention see Tess, p. 268).
[9] Also, why are we hearing about the issue
of unemployment in the mines from Jack (see Jack,
p. 48; cf Jack, p. 85) when Albert’s
a supervisor in the main narrative (Albert,
p. 174)? More, why is Virgie the one talking about Albert working less (Virgie, p. 34)? Her info., though, plugs
in holes that gives us useful clues in understanding his overwork when faced
with paying for Jack’s hospital bills (see Albert,
p. 224). From Albert, we know he’s “paid hourly” (Albert, p. 174; cf Albert,
p. 224), and that his most recent “pay day” – on the same day he learns about
Jack’s accident (Albert , p. 213) –
nets him “twelve dollars and forty cents [for] two weeks” (Albert, p. 212; cf Albert
p. 123). According to Virgie, though, he’s ““on at seven off at six”” (Virgie, p. 34; cf Leta, p. 20, 24 (cf Albert,
p. 121), 232-233; cf Albert p. 25-26,
28, 87, 173, 212, 224) which means that, if
he gets an hour for lunch, he’s working 10 hour days. However, while Virgie
says that he once had shifts scheduled “six days” a week, he’s currently down
to 3-4 days a week (see Ibid). The actual hours, though, are important because
Albert accepts “double shifts” so that “I worked every single day of the ten
days Jack was in the hospital, mostly double backing[, and then] nearly every
day the two weeks after the accident – I counted up two hundred and fifty hours
that month” (Albert, p. 224; cf Leta, p. 231-234). However, the math and
Albert’s narrative don’t match – because the easiest calculation is to subtract
120 (12*10) from 250 which leaves 130 remaining hours. Even though we know he’s
working at least one shift a day for “ten days” straight (Ibid), Albert claims
he’s “mostly double backing” (Ibid) which doesn’t hold up, as there are only
three days left where he might’ve added extra shifts. Of course, Phillips
(2010/2008) is at fault for these failures of voice and info.
[10] See Library of Congress (n.d.)’s Posters
from the WPA, ‘Works Progress Administration, para. 1: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/wpaposters/about.html.
[11] See Library of Congress (n.d.)’s The New Deal stage: Selections from the
Federal Theatre Project, 1935-1939, ‘U.S. History: 4) Tennessee Valley
Authority,’ para. 1): http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/new-deal-stage/file.html.
[12] Who
cares, right? Well, Phillips (2010/2008) gives us a lot more detail about
Leta’s family (Leta, pp. 22, 168-173)
than Albert’s (Jack, pp. 17-18; Albert, pp. 25-26; Virgie, p. 64).
[13] This puts Jack
somewhere in his 80s, but Phillips (2010/2008) doesn’t tell us if he gets
married, has kids, etc. As far as we know, of the young family members in the
main narrative, only Virgie and Emmaline become mothers (Jack, pp. 154, 252).
****************************************
Simmons, Dan. (2008). Song of Kali. London, England: Gollancz.
I bought this book because it recalled another novel I'd read years ago; co-authored, this other book - the title's a blank - focused on the thugee aspect of Kali worship (where mass numbers of people are strangled at one time as a sacrificial offering), and provided a good overview of Kali, etc. So I was interested to see how Simmons (2008) worked the Kali angle.
Well, Dan Simmons, you could've done with some more background! What I liked about the other book was that it presents two overlapping perspectives from both sides; Simmons (2008), however, keeps the frame on ""Bobby"" (p. 2) - or ""Robert Luczak"" (p. 18)[1] - who's kind of a jackass. But the title Song of Kali has nothing to do with Kali per se, but with Calcutta ""poet M. Das"" (p. 5)'s manuscript (pp. 151-157, 185).
And before you say anything, yes, Simmons (2008) gives some details about Kali and other times offers Kali as a god made flesh (pp. 49-50, 60-71, 91-99, 108, 157-160, 181, 183, 196, 201-204) - as opposed to being the object of worship whom her followers want to make flesh (as she is in the first book I read). How, though, is Kali made flesh? When is she made flesh? Because if she were made flesh sooner, would not M. Das have been reanimated earlier? And why M. Das and not one of her living followers or another dead body that could've been reanimated? This is what I mean by Simmons (2008) needing more background.
Don't start; ""M. T. Krishna"" (p. 19)/"Sanjay" (p. 212) proves to be unreliable (compare the descriptions of him, pp. 18-19, 255), which makes the testimony of the guy he brought to Bobby - ""Jayaprakesh Muktanandaji"" (p. 51) - also suspect (pp. 54-98), though his death seems to confirm it at the same time (p. 235). Also, since you find out later that Krishna is Sanjay (p. 212), why does he pretend to be Krishna when he's being talked about as Sanjay (see pp. 51-99)? And how does Bobby reach the conclusion that Krishna is Sanjay (p. 212)?
Sometimes, too, it's confusing to know if it's Bobby or Kali talking in italics (pp. 188-189, 204, 207, 246, 262-264, 276), which, if it's Bobby, suggests he's mentally unstable, thus making him a dubious witness to what's going on. As for other things, it would've been nice if Simmons (2008) had included translations of the Bengalese (pp. 63, 91, 141, 152, 154, 159-160, 171, 176, 191, 198, 207, 216, 221) or explained terms (p. 50, 60, 62, 155, 183); I did guess, though, that "jagrata" is idol and "dhotis" robes (p. 91) based on context and other parts of the book.
In the end, I just wasn't satisfied with this novel. It came down to the other book having set a standard that Simmons (2008) doesn't rise to. Some hints, therefore:
- If you're going to focus on something like Kali, give us more context than your own limited understanding, that is, do the research!
- If you're going to use words from another language when you're writing mostly in English, don't presume the reader knows what those words mean, as few of us have any real interest in looking up our own words in dictionaries, much less foreign ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment